Table of Contents
Prior conditions
Previous practice: The previous practice at U-M involved traditional classroom teaching. Most of the learning plans and the entire pedagogy were based on the conventional teaching focused much on physical teaching. Online or e-learning was also adopted as the institution had an integrated program for students to communicate.
Felt-needs/problems: There was the need to have an integrated learning that created more room for students and staff to engage. On the other hand, there was the need for students to have autonomy over their learning by setting personal or individualized goals.
Innovativeness
Norms of the social system: The social system (University of Michigan) encourages an integrated learning system or approach. It is also part of the institution to embody a learning environment that provides students with opportunities for engaging in challenging tasks and collaborative learning between students, staff, and the entire school community.
Knowledge
Type of knowledge: The knowledge that existed with this innovation was awareness-knowledge as the students had information about the existence of technologies for learning. In their case, it was about what how they are already acquainted with the existence of e-learning models.
Socioeconomic characteristics: The innovation decision process also comes at the expense of knowing the economic and social characteristics of the audience. The innovation was made with the consideration that the students come from well-off backgrounds and would be able to make the monthly and yearly subscriptions. The social status of the current generation was also considered, especially the overdependence on technology in communication
Personality variables: The personality variables entailed looking the entirety of the student’s learning styles, communication, and their levels of engagement with one another. Overall, the U-M students are more inclined to embracing group and teamwork and this led to the inclusion of an option for students to share their learning progress and how they were developing or fairing on with all courses.
Communication behavior: The communication behavior entails the approach and preferred style of communicating among students. In this regard, the communication behavior of the students entirely involved how they are more inclined to embracing technology. Technology has changed the manner and approaches of communicating among the younger generation and this was a consideration when developing the innovation
Persuasion
Discuss the perceived characteristics of the innovation (R.A., Complexity, Compatibility, Observability, & Trialability): In terms of complexity, the all students found the technology much easy to use and implement. It was also compatible with the norms of U-M of providing an engaging learning environment. Besides, it was introduced out of the successes of other e-learning tools or models while with the ability to implement or ensure trials for the technology, many students perceived the technology as feasible.
Decision
Did they adopt or reject the innovation?: A larger percentage of the student population and the staff adopted the technology. Around 2000 students are currently using the innovation and from this, Rogers (2003) would have defined the situation as full adoption or the extent to which an innovation is taken up and people fully use the new idea or product.
If some rejected the innovation, what type of rejection?: However, for those who have not used the technology, it could be described as an active rejection or a situation whereby individuals consider the technology as useful but not adopting the idea. Still, there are students considering its use and with time, more people will move active rejection to adoption.
Implementation
Did reinvention occur? How much? Why? The technology did not go under any re-invention because every aspect of the product was customized for student’s use.
Confirmation
What level of dissonance was present? The level of dissonance was defined by what the students have known about e-learning and other models of collaborative education. Hence, they changed their attitude based on what the already know and what they are currently doing, especially with the presence of an integrated communication in the institution.
Did discontinuance occur? Why? All that have adopted the technology have not discontinued its use. More students continue sign up on the website and as such, an indication that there is no discontinuity of the technology.
What communication channels were utilized throughout each step in the process?: The entire innovation was technology-based and ill all the steps, social networking sites and emails were highly relied on in disseminating the information about the innovation.
How long did this process take?: The system was introduced in 2012 at the University of Michigan but it was not until 2015 when it became widely known and adopted by the students.
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
- Fishman, B. & Holman, C. (2017). GradeCraft. Retrieved from http://ai.umich.edu/portfolio/gradecraft/