After reading Sherry & Gibson’s article on the LAT method of change I think it is a clear improvement on the CBAM as it seems to be more simplified in a practical sense regarding the stages learners go through in adopting a new technology. I like the detailed strategies outlined in Table 1 as a springboard for further thinking and initiatives.
In terms of my own research project, I think (at this stage!) that the CBAM Innovation Configuration section will be relevant – I’m looking at a version of ePortfolios as an assessment tool and so for me, monitoring teacher use of this within the classroom would be an essential part of the moderation process.
I could see the LAT method being useful for me particularly in terms of initial trialling of the innovation, as there could then potentially be ‘Teacher Leaders’ already in schools when any widespread innovation was introduced. I like how this particular article stresses the need for adequate training and support as I do think that is an area that is not necessarily overlooked, but perhaps not given enough consideration (for a multitude of reasons). Looking through the 2011 Ministry document on ePortfolios (available here) it is clear that there are a lot of schools already doing some very creative and innovative things with ePortfolios so already there are ‘experts’ who will likely start at a higher step on the adoption ladder, so to speak.
TAM – this is perhaps not such a useful overall change model for my context as I intend to explore an innovation that would not be voluntary in uptake. Shroff, Deneen & Ng cite Pearlson & Saunders (2006), saying that the use of TAM “is predicated on individuals having control over whether or not they use the system”. However, in saying that I think that Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use are relevant and important nonetheless and should be considered when doing initial planning in order to help ensure a smoother, more effective diffusion and to help counter attitudinal negativity amongst teachers. Or, looking from another perspective, perhaps a better way to roll out an innovation like that which I’m considering would be to have school’s voluntarily opt-in initially. There are pluses and minuses to both, like with anything, and these are something that I will consider along the way…..watch this space! In that case, TAM may very well be a useful method. Another thought which has just crossed my mind as I think about the eco-system as a whole – perhaps targeting students as the initial ‘learners’ would be an interesting avenue to explore……after all, the ePortfolios would be reflections of their learning and so perhaps Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness would be better looked at from the student perspective.
I can see how this is getting muddled, messy and going around in circles but that’s definitely part of the process in the way I come at things! In fact, what has actually been really good for me is to be able to freely and happily use this blog as a place to get lost in my own mind without worrying that there is someone over my shoulder assessing the ‘quality’ of my thoughts.
Evans, L. and Chauvin, S. 1993. Faculty Developers as Change Facilitators: The Concerns-Based Adoption Model. To Improve the Academy. Paper 278.
Munro, I. (2011). Digital Portfolios: Guidelines for Beginners. Ministry of Education: Wellington, New Zealand.
Ronnie H. Shroff, R.H., Deneen, C.C. and Ng, E.M.W. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2011, 27(4), 600-618.
Sherry, L., & Gibson, D. (2002). The path to teacher leadership in educational technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education