Diffusion of Innovations: Can Faculty Champions Become a Virtual Lab?

1. Diffusion of Innovations:Can Faculty Champions Become a Virtual Lab? FDLA Fall Conference Orlando, Florida September 13, 2012 Presented by Ms. Lili Steiner, Virtual Lab Coordinator/Developer Ms. Judith Slapak-Barski, Instructional Designer II

2. Overview • Our Institution • Our Grant • Theoretical Framework • Our Project • Next Steps • Questions & Comments

3. About Nova Southeastern University • Abraham S. Fischler School of Education

4. NSU 2020 Vision and Mission and Title V-B Grant

5. NSU 2020 Vision and Missionand Title V-B Title V-B’s Goal 3: • Increase Retention and Success through Faculty mentoring and Development • Create a “Faculty Support Center” • to empower faculty to • increase course innovation • increase student engagement • enhance the Nova course experience

6. Show us what you carry in your pocket, purse, or similar • One flash drive or more • A cell phone • A Laptop • An I-pad • A video camera • A typewriter

7. Adopter Categorization (Patrick, 2012)

8. Timeline

9. Adopter Categorization (Patrick, 2012)

10. Institutional Change

11. Goal 3: Increase Retention and Success through Faculty Mentoring and Development We have to do WHAT? • 200 Courses

12. Approach

13. Scope • Time Analysis • Resources • Virtual Lab?

14. Diffusion of Innovations • Change Agent • + • Opinion Leader • Tipping point idea • Critical Mass

15. Design • Faculty Initial Selection Process • Opinion Leaders profile and identification • Champions • Pioneers

16. What are Faculty Champions?

17. Design • Other side of the coin • Intake projects form and protocol • Alliances with other departments to guarantee sustainability to provide needed services to achieve our goals • Support from Administration

18. DesignLoan System & Technology Policies

19. Design Cascade Change • Group Sessions • Working Together Workshop • Brown Bag Meetings • Faculty Retreat • One-on-one • Follow up on activities • Tutorials • Continuous support • Faculty Support Portal

20. Faculty Champion Testimonial Dr. Lewis Testimonial

21. Implementation Applied strategies: One-on-one & Groups • One on one • Tutorials • Reporting efforts and follow up on activities

22. Implementation Applied strategies: One-on-one & Groups • Group • Working Together Workshop Kick Off event • Faculty Retreat Workshops (April 2012, October 2012) • BYO Lunch (monthly meeting) • Continuous Communication and Support • Repository of Instructional Products: Faculty Toolbox

24. ImplementationImpact of Title V-B Instructional Designers Advisory Committee (3) Administration Served (11) Instructional Design Team (3) Staff (3) Pioneers (6) Other Faculty (4) Champions (11)

25. Implementation Cascade Change • Champions • Pioneers • Other Faculty • Students

27. Faculty Support Portal

28. Bottom Line… “Quasi Viral” Growth

29. Evaluation • Faculty Survey • Testimonials: Testimonials from Faculty Served • Faculty reported efforts and impact • Sharing experiences – Blog • Report forms and impact recording • Next wave of implementation • 2nd faculty retreat • Software distribution • Faculty Success Center Inauguration • Ongoing formative and summative evaluation

30. Evaluation Impact of Title V-B Instructional Designers Advisory Committee (3) Administration Served (11) Instructional Design Team (3) Staff (3) Pioneers (6) Other Faculty (4) Champions (11) Number of COURSES IMPACTED = 69* ; CRN = 116* Students Impacted= 2332

31. Number of Courses Enriched N= 69

32. Faculty Course Enrichment: Year 2 & Year 3 of Title V-B Grant

33. SociogramImpact of Champions + Title V-B Instructional Design Team Advisory Committee (3) Administration Served (11) Instructional Design Team (3) Staff (3) Pioneers (9) Other Faculty (8) Champions (10)

34. Maloney’s 16% Rule Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers) Current Champions =?? Tipping Point= 21 Faculty (16% of 79 = 13) Actual Faculty Champions = 10

35. Champions and the Next Wave

36. Where we are headed? Student Community Engagement

37. Next steps • In order to reach our goal, we count on: • Further collaboration through the Champions’ program • Estimated growth moderate ( approx. 18% - 23%) • Resource sharing through Faculty Toolbox • Estimated growth = exponential • Create a community of practice, continue to stay in touch

38. Tips – Which ones are relevant to your particular institution? • Pull, don’t push • Lower faculty’s level of concern so they increase level of use • Get support from administration • Learn who is who in your faculty • Learn who is who in your staff (take advantage of individual strengths)

39. Tips

40. Contact Information • LiliSteiner: lsteiner@nova.edu • Judith Slapak-Barski: js3060@nova.edu

41. References • Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. • Innovate or Die (2011). The 16% Rule: The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation (Presentation Slides). Retrieved March 20, 2012 from Web site: http://chrismaloney.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/16_percent_rule.jpg?w=520&h=300&crop=1 • Maloney, C (2011), The 16% Rule: The Secret to Accelerating Diffusion of Innovation. Retrieved May 1, 2012 from: http://innovateordie.com.au/2011/11/01/the-16-rule-the-secret-to-accelerating-diffusion-of-innovation-presentation-slides/ • Nova Southeastern University. (2003, May 16). About NSU. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from Nova Southeastern University Web site: http://www.nova.edu/cwis/ about-nsu/ • Patrick, C. (2012), Based on Rogers Theory: When to adopt social media. Retrieved May 1, 2012 from: http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/when-to-adopt-a-social-media-trend/2012/03/15/ • Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 455-472. • Sony Timeline (2012), retrieved from: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=innovations+timeline&hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1533&bih=883&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=-7CKPOhFTfLVOM:&imgrefurl=http://nbry.wordpress.com/user-guide/&docid=dO9discZXsOxvM&imgurl=http://nbry.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sony-timeline-hd.jpg&w=2500&h=1061&ei=VbiVT5aoEMezgwfb0pz3BA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=642&sig=116950305442740946023&page=1&tbnh=96&tbnw=227&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:75&tx=109&ty=57

42. Possible Questions from the Audience From Dr. Driscoll: • How hard was it to get people on board with this project? • What challenges did you encounter? From Dr. Simunek & Farihah: • How long did it take you to get people interested? • Was it difficult to get faculty to want to work with you? • What do you consider your greatest challenge for the next wave of faculty? • What would you recommend for an institution that wants to do something similar but doesn’t have grant funding? From Gary: • You mentioned workshops, but it seems you didn’t have many of them: can you explain why you didn’t have more workshops? • Has your team reached critical mass? • What efforts have you made in order to institutionalize the grant? • How are you accountable to the Federal Government?

43. Design

44. Design

45. Comment: After Q & A, here is the place to go more in depth into these definitions – This section to be completed • Diffusion of Innovations Theory • Roger Everett • Burkman’s protocol for enhancing instructional development (1987): • analysis of the potential adopters and their perceptions • development of a user-friendly product • Information to users about the product’s benefits and the implementation of postadoptive support • Reiser & Dempsey’s adoption and diffusion process (2002) five steps: • knowledge • persuasion • decision • implementation • confirmation • During each of these steps, the end users will carefully balance the pros and cons of the innovation and make decisions about whether to adopt or reject the innovation. Educational technologists need to be aware how the potential adopters perceive their innovations across those five dimensions and not focus exclusively on technical superiority. Educational technologists need to develop approaches that are user-friendly and ensure that the instructional innovation is attractive both in the short and long term • Definitions • Change agents • Opinion leaders • Change models • Educational change • Resistance to change in an organization • Adoption of innovations

46. Definitions • Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Roger Everett, 1995) • Given that decisions are not authoritative or collective, each member of the social system faces his/her own innovation-decision that follows a 5-step process: 1) Knowledge – person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions 2) Persuasion – person forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation 3) Decision – person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation 4) Implementation – person puts an innovation into use 5) Confirmation – person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made • Profound effect of the “tipping point” -the point at which a trend catches fire – spreading exponentially through the population

47. Diffusion of Innovation Theory 2a citation of dissertation “Effects of an Interactive Social Process on Teachers’ Instructional Technology Adoption Rates” • Utilizing constructs from Rogers’ (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, this study identified how the social interactions among the faculty, opinion leaders, change agent, and institutional context influence IT integration. Rogers defined opinion leadersas • . . . members of the social system in which they exert their influence. In some instances, individuals with influence in the social system are professionals who represent change agencies external to the system. . . . [Rogers defined a change agent as an individual who] influences clients’ innovation--decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency. The change agent usually seeks to obtain the adoption of new ideas, but may also attempt to slow down diffusion and prevent the adoption of undesirable innovations. (pp. 27-28)

48. Gary Comment • ( Great for the article…) Diffusion of Innovation Theory 2 - The change agent is responsible for developing the critical mass necessary to adopt the innovation and position it for implementation. This goal should rank among the highest for a change agent. Evans (1996) reported, “The ultimate goal may be a true school-wide consensus for change, but the first and most crucial target is a critical mass of committed supporters” (p. 69). That critical mass will include a majority of stakeholders or a small number of respected, influential people that serve as change advocates increasing momentum and moving the innovation into the mainstream of practice and perception. I would adapt this info into our storytelling of how our set of strategies are targeted to generate a critical mass of committed supporters, we have to focus on our experience and if necessary use references

49. Gary Comment opinion leaders defined • Diffusion of Innovation Theory 3a – • Visionary leadership is vital to school success as the expectation for performance expands relentlessly but is met with real-life complexities, such as bureaucratic, interpersonal, and legal issues. Authentic leadership is based upon the foundation of cultural understanding and promotes collaboration and participation. The creation of cultural norms and culture management are the essence of leadership. Visionary educational leaders understand their school culture and move it in a goal-oriented direction. They utilize opinion leaders to disseminate information and promote the diffusion of innovations.

50. Gary Commentopinion leaders defined-- • Diffusion of Innovation Theory 3b – • Rogers (1995) described the characteristics of opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are accessible, have greater social participation, have higher socioeconomic status, and are more innovative than their followers. Rogers wrote, “If an opinion leader becomes too innovative or adopts a new idea too quickly, followers may begin to doubt the opinion leaders’ judgment” (p. 295). Opinion leaders must maintain a delicate balance with their followers in order to maintain their respect.