Using Adoption and Diffusion to Overcome Barriers to

Technology Integration in a K-8 Private School

Mary E. McPherson
Director of Academic Technology
St. Martins Episcopal School
United States
mmcpherson@stmartinschool.org

Abstract: This paper was written for a graduate level course in adoption and
diffusion of innovations. All information contained in this paper was gathered by
the author while working to establish a more integrated system for using
technology in the classroom by faculty members. Many of the ideas and
conclusions found in this paper were implemented and have worked successfully in
the K-8 private school in Atlanta, Georgia where I currently teach both students
and teachers. Administrators and even teacher educators need to be aware of the
barriers to technology integration and how the use of adoption and diffusion
models can help in this endeavor.

Introduction

The greatest push in the K-12 environment has been the integration of technology. No longer should
students be dropped in a computer lab for the computer teacher to teach them skills based lessons so that they know
how to run programs and use specific software. Teachers are now required to be able to use technology effectively
in their classrooms and to show students how to complete their assignments using the technology available to them.
The students must be taught how to use technology to further their life-long learning skills. This poses a problem
for the schools as well as the teachers.
Computers have played a significant role in education for many years. In fact, when the first personal
computer was introduced in the 1970s, it was hailed as one of the greatest educational innovations. Keep in mind
that television and radios were also supposed to revolutionize education (Mayer, 1995). As can be seen, the latter of
the two innovations have had little impact on educational instruction, but computers are still causing quite a stir.
So, why after twenty years of existence in the educational environment are they still not a part of instructional
design in the classroom?
Much of the research on this issue deals directly with teacher adoption of the use of technology. In a study
conducted by Hancock in 1993, few of the 2.8 million teachers in America use technology (Hope, 1997). According
to Ertmer and others, teachers recognize the importance of integrating the use of technology into their day-to-day
instruction, but there are first and second-order barriers that keep them from achieving this. First-order barriers are a
lack of equipment, insufficient time for planning instruction, and not enough technical support. Second-order
barriers are the teachers own beliefs about the significance of technology to the learning and teaching process.
Though both of these are significant barriers, the second-order barriers are much harder to deal with because they
are intangible and take much longer to dissuade (1999). Teachers also tend to refuse to support the use of
technology in the classroom because they are afraid of the values that this form of instruction embodies. This in turn
limits the experiences that students have with technology. In a 1997 report by NCES, fewer than half of American
high school students used a computer once a week. When they did use the computer, it was to play games or to
practice computer literacy skills such as keyboarding (Fuller, 2000). It is imperative that teachers begin to use
technology in the classroom so that students can begin to see its importance to their life -long learning goals and not
just see it as a tool to play games. This paper will detail how integration of technology into the curriculum is being
adopted at St. Martins Episcopal School and what steps are being taken to help teachers overcome their second-
order barriers.

History of the Current Technology Integration Process

Four years ago, integration was at a standstill at St. Martins. The school had outgrown its current space
and the construction of new school building was scheduled to begin that summer. The current computer lab was
housed in a small office in the corner of the Media Center and consisted of twelve computers running off hubs. The
connection to the network was poor and many times the students were cut off from the Internet. Ninety-five percent
of teachers had a computer in their classroom, but few had Internet connections and some were still running off of
486s. There was no formal training for teachers on how to use the technology that was available to them and were
out of the whole technology equation except for completing reports cards in an Access database set up by the
Director of Technology at the time. Students were sent to the computer lab in shifts and the teachers had to stay in
the classroom to continue instruction to the students who were not in the lab. This rotation of shift was problematic
because many times the students were not getting equal instruction time due to assemblies and other external
interruptions. It was also hard on the computer teacher to teach the same lesson repeatedly and to see constant shifts
of students without a break. The teachers had little input into what was taught in the computer lab. Much of the
instruction in the computer lab was project-based and took months to complete because of the little exposure time
the students had to the lab. Many only saw instruction for twenty minutes a week because all grades one through
eight used the lab. The Director of Technology maintained the network, taught classes, and had to troubleshoot for
computer problems around the school. There was an additional computer teacher, but she had no formal training
with computers and was of little assistance in the teaching of technological skills. The writing of a formal
technology curriculum was in the process of being finished, but many teachers and students had no idea what skills
were to be mastered at what age. Keyboarding was taught at every grade level, but there were no formal
Keyboarding classes for Middle School children and there was no accountability for their performance in the lab.
Elementary students were graded each quarter on their skill, participation, and behavior. The problem here is that
there were no clear-cut guidelines as to the skills that should be present in grades one through five.

System Components

The system devised to change the focus of the school in terms of instructional technology has many
components. Each relies heavily on the other for cooperation and feedback. For the purposes of this paper, I will
detail each component in a list format and will detail it further in diagram 1-1.
.
The Board of Trustees It has ultimate power over the direction of the school. It either agrees or disagrees with
the focus of the program and has the job of approving budgets for each school year.
Headmaster He is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the schools academic plan and makes
executive decisions about the day-to-day operations. He also has the power to veto a change in instruction.
Elementary and Middle School Principals They oversee the classroom instruction and set the guidelines that
teachers and students are to follow. They perform evaluations of teaching and handle any concerns brought by
teachers. They oversee the Instructional Technologist and report directly to the Headmaster.
Director of Technology He proposes the technology budget for each year. He selects and orders all
technological equipment for the school, and is responsible for maintaining all technological equipment and
troubleshooting for computer problems. He also must maintain the network. He works directly with the
Instructional Technologist to provide the best educational atmosphere for the students and teachers. He reports
to the Headmaster.
Instructional Technologist She is the lead teacher in the computer lab. Her responsibilities include the
following: helping teachers develop the skills necessary to integrate technology, teaching students how to use
the technology, buying software for the computer lab, advising the Director of Technology on budgetary needs,
revising the technology curriculum, seeking out new ways to integrate technology, creating the technology
Acceptable Use Policy, outlining new classes to be introduced to the Middle School curriculum. She works
directly with the Director of Technology and the Faculty Technology Trainer and reports to the Elementary and
Middle School Principals.
Faculty Technology Trainer He is responsible for training teachers to use the available technology. He also
works directly with the Director of Technology and the Instructional Technologist and reports directly to the
Headmaster.
Lead Teacher He/she is responsible for integrating technology into his/her curriculum. In the computer lab,
he/she is to lead the lessons on subject matter while the Instructional Technologist takes the lead in teaching the
technology used in the lesson. He/she works directly with the Instructional Technologist and reports directly to
the Elementary or Middle School Principal.
Assistant Teacher He/she is responsible for helping the Lead Teacher in the classroom. It is not necessary that
he/she attend classes in the computer lab with the students, but it is recommended. He/she assumes the lead on
 teaching subject matter in the lab when the Lead Teacher is absent. They work directly with the Lead Teacher
and report directly to the Elementary School Principal.
Students They are responsible for learning the material and technological skills presented in the computer lab.
They are graded on their skills knowledge, participation, and behavior in the computer lab. They work directly
with and report to the Lead Teacher, Instructional Technologist, and, depending on the grade level, the Assistant
Teacher.
Parents They provide support to their children to enhance the learning experience in the computer lab. They
have a direct line of communication to the Board of Trustees, Headmaster, Principals, Lead Teachers, Assistant
Teachers, and the Instructional Technologist.
All of these components are integral for the innovation-decision process to progress through its cycle. If one of the
components breaks down, then the process is halted until the issue can be resolved. It is important that all
components of the system are open to this innovation even if they do not completely agree with its application. If
one of the system components is laggardly, then it can put undue pressure on the other parts and cause tension.

Figure 1-1

K-8 System Model

Board of Trustees

Headmaster

Middle School Principal Elementary School Principal

Lead Teacher Instructional Technologist Lead Teacher Instructional Technologist

Assistant Teacher Assistant Teacher

Students Students

Students Students

Director of Technology Faculty Technology Trainer

Implementation of the Innovation

The implementation of the innovation can be analyzed through the role that each component of the system
is responsible for completing. The Headmaster must back the integration of technology and the curriculum or the
whole process is a moot point. The Elementary and Middle School Principals must also back the integration process
and be able to evaluate the performance of the teachers under them in terms of technology integration. They must
support the innovation to both parents and the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has to see the importance
of purchasing equipment and software that will enhance the innovation process rather than hinder it. The Director of
Technology has to understand the importance of the role of technology in the educational process and back the
decisions made by the Instructional Technologist. He has to be able to determine what equipment requirements are
needed to fulfill the innovation process and create a technology budget that will fund the progression of the
integration. He must also be able to support the changes made in the infrastructure of the technology program and
take a lead role in assessing further needs and troubleshoot any problems that may arise from this advancement. The
Instructional Technologist must be current on technological innovations and the usefulness of technology in the
classroom. She has to be able to work effectively with all of the components in the system to diffuse the innovation
to others that can then promote its value to the schools academic environment. She has to be able to teach the
technology that is present in the school effectively and readily choose when to adopt new trends in technology.
The Lead Teacher has to obtain the technological skills to integrate technology into the curriculum. They
have to be able to teach the subject matter in a lab setting while having the Instructional Technologist teach the
technology portion of the lesson. Leader Teachers also have to recognize which technologies are appropriate for the
lessons and be able to use those technologies. Lead teachers are a crucial part to the integration of technology. If
they do not adopt the innovation, it will lead to a dead-end. Lead teachers may be resistant to the innovation
because it requires that learn and utilize new skills. The innovation also requires that they co-teach in the computer
lab and be present to teach the subject matter, losing what could be a free period. They must also plan an additional
lesson for the computer lab in conjunction with the lessons that have been planned for their regular classrooms.
Hence, they must attend technology courses offered by the Faculty Technology Trainer so that they will know how
to use the available technology and create effective lesson plans for the computer lab. An additional evaluation will
be made by the principals to see if the lead teacher is actually integrating technology or if she/he is still relying on
the Instructional Technologist to plan and teach the lessons. The overwhelming barrier to the adoption of
integration of technology by Lead Teachers is getting them over their fear of technology. Many think they cannot
possibly learn these new skills and that they will break something. This is where the Faculty Technology Trainer
becomes crucial in the equation. He must teach these skills to teachers at varying skills and attitude levels. He will
deal with teachers who are early adopters and others who are laggards. The Instructional Technologist and Faculty
Technology Trainer need to communicate so that they both know what is expected of the Lead Teacher when
teaching in the computer lab.
The Assistant Teacher must also take the courses offered by the Faculty Technology Trainer because she
must be able to take over in the computer lab if the lead teacher is absent. Students are a pivotal component because
the innovation is geared toward helping them acquire life -long learning skills by applying technology to their real-
life situations in school rather than just learning how to use the software without any application to their everyday
life. Parents have a direct link to this diffusion process because they have to accept the importance of technology
integration and indirectly fund this change. Their value of this innovation directly impacts the value their students
place on it (Bigelow and Ruin, 2001).
All of these components must work hand in hand to show the overall advantages of adopting this
innovation. The teachers must see the value in integrating technology and have some incentive for learning new
skills and adding more work to their already over loaded schedules. Teachers must have a trial period to get
comfortable with using technology in their instruction and this period also allows time to deal with any difficulties
in the system. All of these will affect the rate of adoption by the teachers and the students.

Role of the Change Agent

In the integration of technology into the curriculum, the change agent is the Instructional Technologist. She
must be able to sway people to adopt this innovation and combat the potential problems that arise from its adoption.
To be able to communicate effectively with opinion leaders and other adopters, the change agent must be aware of
his/her personality strengths and weaknesses. According to Rogers, a change agent seeks to secure the adoption of
new ideas, but he or she may also attempt to slow the diffusion process and prevent the adoption of certain
innovations with undesirable effects. (335) Basically, the change agent acts as a watch dog over the diffusion
process and is the communication channel through which adopters communicate with the change agency (Rogers,
1995).
The Instructional Technologist should follow the steps written by Rogers: develop a need for change,
establish an information-exchange relationship, diagnose problems, create intent to action, stabilize the adoption and
prevent discontinuance, and achieve a terminal relationship (1995). The need for change was already evident in the
school when the Instructional Technologist was hired. Her goal was to push the process forward and update the key
components that were outdated or not beneficial for the students or teachers. The exchange of information was an
easy accomplishment because the Instructional Technologist and the Lead Teacher were constantly communicating
about the use of technology in the classroom and the eventual role of the Lead Teacher in the computer lab. The
Lead Teachers were supplied with information about the benefits of technology integration. All potential problems
to the adoption of the innovation were considered and many were remedied by hiring a Faculty Technology Trainer
to assist in teaching the teachers how to use the technology. Working closely together, the Director of Technology
and the Instructional Technologist provided the infrastructure needed to implement the integration of technology.
The motivation for the teachers to integrate was considered and it was decided that the use of this innovation would
be a part of their yearly evaluation. They would be given four years to integrate the technology and lead their
lessons without the constant support of the Instructional Technologist. The action of implementing the process took
place as the Instructional Technologists also took on the role as an opinion leader. Teachers began to write their own
lessons and co-taught classes in the computer lab with the ability to seek input from the Instructional Technologist.
The Instructional Technologist identified other teachers who can act as opinion leaders for others faculty members
who are more laggard in their approach to technology integration. Here the Instructional Technologist must be
careful because she needs to select opinion leaders who will accomplish the diffusion without seeming too
innovative. The Instructional Technologist provided constant feedback to the teachers to promote the continued
implementation and further expansion of the innovation. The final step was to make the teachers so comfortable and
capable in the computer lab, that the Instructional Technologist was no longer needed and could move out of the
realm of lab instruction. This would cause a new innovation process to begin where the Instructional Technologist
helps teachers to integrate technology into their regular classroom using wireless networking and laptops. In this
innovation-diffusion process, the change agent must be an innovator, facilitator, and teacher.

Role of the Social Network

The social system in this innovation is the school itself and how the different components relate to each
other. The change agent (Instructional Technologist) is directly affected by the interrelations of this system. It can
either help the diffusion process or hinder it.
One of the considerations of the social network is how each component relates to another. They are
homophilous or heterophilous. Homophilian systems are one in which the components are relatively the same.
They share the same educational level, socioeconomic status, and background. In Heterophilian systems the
components are distinctly different. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages when diffusing an innovation.
The components of the technology integration system are very homophilous (Rogers, 1995). The teachers,
principals, headmaster, parents, and board of trustees all have similar educational backgrounds. Their differences
tend to lie in socioeconomic status. This similarity in educational backgrounds can help diffusion because each
component is more willing to adopt innovations when someone of similar characteristics views them as valuable.
The disadvantage is that the diffusion may not trickle down to others who do not share the same characteristics
because interaction is limited.
The system in which the diffusion was taking place is considered a centralized system. The overall control
of the decision came from the Headmaster and Principals. The direction of the diffusion came from the Instructional
Technologist who was considered the expert on the innovation and was relayed to the teachers who were to be the
users of the innovation. The decision about what innovations would be used comes from the Instructional
Technologist who had conferred with the Headmaster and Principals about what was the expected result. The
opinion leaders then took this information and further diffused the innovation among early and late majority
adopters and eventually laggards (Rogers, 1995).

The Innovation-Decision Process for Technology Integration

A systemic process is more effective than piece-meal because everyone is a part of the change
simultaneously instead of different parts being brought in at different stages. For this model to succeed, it is
imperative that all components of the school feel that this change is valuable and necessary to further the education
of the students. By components, I am including the following: administrators, teachers, students and parents . The
innovation-decision model also takes into account the issue of infrastructure and changes that must be made in the
teachers classrooms and the computer lab as well as the necessary training for teachers to learn the technology and
the most appropriate way to use it in their instruction. The success of the adoption of the innovation-decision model
lies in the relations present in the social network and the effectiveness of the change agent in communicating the
need for adoption.
The adoption of the integration of technology into the curriculum is currently in the later stages of the
implementation. All information about the innovation has been acquired and is continually being updated with the
latest information available. The innovation is used regularly throughout the school year and almost all teachers
have accepted its presence in their instructional planning. The teachers realize that this is a permanent part of their
educational environment and realize that it will continually evolve and grow into new directions. They are now
starting to realize many of the benefits of integrating technology into the curriculum, but many still have not seen
the results in their students. This may take some time for the teachers who are only looking for negatives to come
from this innovation. By the beginning of the next year, the confirmation stage should become more prevalent.

Considerations for the Adoption-Diffusion Process

As was stated in the introduction to this paper, many of the barriers that must be overcome by this adoption
and diffusion model are intrinsic values embodied in the beliefs of the teachers. Ways to combat these barriers will
be discussed in this section.
First is the issue of first-order barriers (lack of equipment, planning time and technical support). The initial
budget for the first year of the diffusion process was created to purchase computers to replace those that were a 486
or below and also to upgrade all the computers used in the computer lab. Money was also budgeted to have a
school-wide internal network. All computers in the school would have access to the network, network printers,
network copiers, networkable software packages and the Internet. The past three years were spent further upgrading
teachers computers and slowly adding to the number of computers in each classroom. The fourth year was devoted
to purchasing wireless laptops that would be used b y the Instructional Technologist to integrate technology in the
classroom rather than just in the computer lab.
Second-order barriers are much harder to overcome and in terms of the diffusion process much more time
consuming. The only way to combat this issue is through teacher training. In the adoption and diffusion plan for St.
Martins Episcopal School, the establishment of a faculty technology trainer and the close working relationship
between the teachers and the Instructional Technologist helped reconstruct the beliefs of many of the teachers.
Fuller suggests the following reasons for why teachers are hesitant about integrating technology into the
curriculum. First, they are worried about its reliability (2000). Many are afraid that they will create lessons
incorporating technology and during implementation, the technology will fail and they are stuck with a class and no
lesson. We offset this problem by having the Instructional Technologist and the Director of Technology available
for assistance in the computer lab. Second, teachers have concerns as to how the computer- based activities will
address educational objectives (2000). By working closely with the Instructional Technologist when planning
lessons, the teacher learned how to use technology to enhance the educational experience of the students while
meeting their educational objectives. Third, the administration continually worries that by the time the teachers
learn the technology, their knowledge will be outdated (2000). The Faculty Technology Trainer must continually
train the teachers on the latest technologies.
Fuller suggest in her article, that the best method of integrated technology instruction is to have a co-
teaching environment where the Instructional Technologist is present as well as the Lead Teacher. This allows the
Lead Teacher to feel more confident in using the technology and the students get the benefit of the knowledge of
two qualified educators (2000). We intend to keep this co-teaching environment present in our lab, but also branch
out to co-teaching in the classroom. Then a new diffusion model will be created to help teachers understand how to
effectively use the technology in the classroom setting in addition to the computer lab. The diffusion process never
ceases. It will continually evolve as new faculty is introduced to the innovation and the innovation itself will evolve
as more research is conducted on the use of technology in the classroom.

References
Bigelow, Brian J. and Run Min Zhou. (2001) Relational scaffolding of school motivation: developmental
continuities in students and parents ratings of the importance of school goals. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
162(1), 75-93.

Ertmer, Peggy A., Addison,P., Lane, M., Ross, E., Woods, D. (1999) Examining teacher beliefs about the role of
technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-73.

Fuller, Hester J. (2000) First teach their teachers: technology support and computer use in academic subjects.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 511-537.

Hope, Warren C. (1997) Teachers, computer technology, and the change process. Clearing House, 70(4), 191-193.
Lan, Jiang. (2001) Web-based instruction for education faculty: a needs assessment. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education. 33(4), 385-400.

Mayer, Richard E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, Everett M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Thoughts about the
systems approach to instructional design (2002) Retrieved on June 24, 2002 from
http://infoweb.magi.com/~broadb/sat.html