Multiple models exist for understanding and predicting the adoption of technological innovations including SAMR, TPACK, and ADDIE. The authors have found these models are generally static, thus discounting the inherently iterative nature of adopting technological innovations. To address this gap, the authors have proposed a new model called Fusion+SNA which combines the dynamic nature of activity theory and diffusion of innovation research with an in-depth understanding of social networks. The authors employ the Fusion+SNA model in a case study that reported on a real attempt at an adoption of technological innovation in a K-12 context with a cohort of fifth-grade students and their teachers.
TopIntroduction
K-12 schools and school districts are places where change is always happening. Current students graduate and new students enter grade cohorts, buildings, and school districts. Learning standards change and those changes come from a variety of sources at the local, state, and national levels. Administrators and teachers retire and new personnel are hired to replace them. And schools are places where new technologies that promise to support student learning and self expression hope to take root.
Since the onset of COVID-19 in 2020, schools and school districts in the United States have worked hard to incorporate technologies that support remote learning due to the fact that COVID-19 has given educators the opportunity to rethink education and to address paradigms of education (Orakcı, & Gelişli, 2021). K12 institutions can no longer rely on only physical, or face-to-face, communication in order to teach students. Instruction has since evolved from a triangle of school-teacher-student to multifaceted, multi-channel alternatives with the help of technologies in the education system (Durnalı, Orakcı, & Aktan, 2019; Durnalı, Orakcı, & Özkan, 2018; Orakcı, 2020; Susam, Durnalı, & Orakcı, 2020). As a result, video meeting tools such as Zoom and Google Meet were introduced or enhanced. Learning platforms such as Google Classroom, Moodle, and Schoology were deployed widely, and, where necessary, personal computing devices, such as laptops and tablets were distributed to students at their homes.
The authors saw report after report of schools and school districts who handled these technological shifts with ease and those that did not (Francom, Lee, & Pinkney, 2021; Shamir-Inbal & Blau, 2021). Schools and districts which engaged in wide and open communication about their plans for being able to have instructors provide content remotely and students learn remotely to the network for stakeholders (faculty, students, administrators, parents, and community members) had the highest levels of success. Conversely, plans that incorporated little communication or feedback from key stakeholders (teachers, parents, and students for in particular) were riddled with challenges throughout the process Christensen & Alexander, 2020; Manca & Delfino, 2021). Disorganization of this nature precipitated tremendous frustration at a time when stakeholders were relying on the educational system for reassurance and security for their students.
In our collective experiences as teachers, technology directors, and teacher educators, the authors have found common weaknesses in the plans that either failed or were ill-prepared for the monumental tasks at hand.. Many districts approached this new dilemma from a purely technological standpoint. For example, these plans addressed technological or logistical issues, such as how many laptops or tablets are needed by how many students and which platforms and/or tools teachers should use to stream class sessions. District representatives did not account for the impact of having multiple household members clamoring for limited bandwidth to complete school and work tasks. Implementation plans for an emergency technology roll out were poorly developed and what plans that did exist, were ineffectively communicated to stakeholders. District leaders assumed that remote teaching could simply be replaced by “doing what we normally do” just deliver content via Zoom, Google Meet or Microsoft Teams, without taking into account the pedagogical implications of not physically being present with one another. In each case, the authors observed complex phenomena that were taking place at a technological, pedagogical, and social level simultaneously.
The authors have found that, unlike other common models that seek to depict or predict successful implementations of technology innovations in learning settings, it is this success or failure to leverage and expand existing communications channels that is a better indicator of success. This insight becomes important as educators look to incorporate emergent technologies and technological innovations.