An Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model Lorraine Sherry RMC Research Corporation Draft Copy, August 30, 1997 Presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), St. Louis, MO, 18-21 February 1998, as part of a panel chaired by Dan Surry. To appear in International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. Copyright 1998 AACE. All Rights Reserved. Abstract During the evaluation of the Boulder Valley Internet Project, members of RMC Research Corporation developed a structural model of technology adoption and diffusion that comprised technological, individual, organizational, and teaching and learning factors. Though this static model was useful for identifying key explanatory factors and organizing them into a coherent framework, it did not describe the dynamics of the diffusion process, nor did it fit RogersÕ Diffusion of Innovations model. Revisiting the data, we developed a new model that integrated the adoption process with the learning process. As teachers learn about new technologies, specifically e-mail and the World Wide Web via a trainer of trainers program, and as they begin to use these new resources in the classroom, they move through four stages of changeÑlearning from their peers, experimenting and adopting, co-learning and co-exploring with their students, and finally, reflecting and either rejecting the adoption decision or reconfirming it and continuing the cycle to become the next round of peer trainers. The success of this process is supported by communicating a shared vision among all members of the educational system, including teachers, administrators, parents, the community, and the policy making bodies. ______________________________________________________________________ An Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model During the past three years, members of RMC Research Corporation have been evaluating the Annenberg/CPB Creating Connections Project (Lawyer-Brook & Sherry, 1996) and the Boulder Valley Internet Project commonly referred to as the BVIP (Sherry & Lawyer-Brook, 1997; Sherry, 1997), using converging lines of quantitative and qualitative inquiry. In this paper we will concentrate on the BVIP case study, focusing on the relationship between adoption/diffusion of technology and the instructional processes that were involved in the project. Both Creating Connections and the BVIP were based on the premise that the Internet can provide a rich variety of tools and resources that may be used to enhance instruction and communication by students, teachers, and administrators. By ÒInternetÓ we refer to the mix of e-mail, the World Wide Web, and the other telecommunications tools that were used by both trainers and participating teachers in these projects. Creating Connections was a national initiative that provided Internet training workshops for rural teachers. Its goals were to establish telecommunications links between isolated, rural teachers and to give them greater access to research, instructional strategies, and materials that could be used to enhance their teaching of math and science. The BVIP, in contrast, focused on the integration of telecommunications throughout the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado. It was a five year collaborative venture between the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), funded by the National Science Foundation with additional support from the Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Project. The project leader, the administrative assistant, and the core group of peer trainers were common to both projects. In fact, collaboration between the two grants greatly strengthened both projects. The evaluation teamÕs research centered around assessing the success of the training workshops and the resulting changes in participantsÕ use of technology and Internet resources, the effectiveness of the Internet as a platform for curricular innovation, and the possible uses of the models derived from these projects in other settings. The quantitative and qualitative data collected from the BVIP evaluation yielded an enormous amount of information and revealed the complexity of the issues we were investigating. It became necessary to create a model that could identify key explanatory factors and organize them into a coherent framework. The data both supported and greatly expanded previous adoption models that dealt with the technological barriers, user characteristics and perceptions, and organizational issues that either facilitated or impeded the diffusion of innovations throughout an educational community. (See Sherry & Lawyer-Brook, 1997). The Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model that resulted from the BVIP has four strands with multiple sets of variables: technological, individual, organizational, and instructional factors, as shown in Table 1. (see http://www.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/aera97.html for Table 1.) Background of key ideas leading to the development of the model To build a sound theoretical base for the case study, the evaluation team reviewed current literature, working from three different perspectives. The first perspective looked at the technology, including access, cost, type and age of available computers and hardware, the physical aspects of the school network, reliability, and user interface. The second focused on the viewpoint of the user, encompassing both user characteristics and usersÕ perceptions of the technology. The third dealt with the complex needs of the educational institution itselfÑa school or district situated within an educational community, which, in turn, is situated within the district and local culture as a whole. Though we started with Everett RogersÕ (1995) Diffusion of Innovations model, it soon became apparent that we were dealing with a dynamic, evolving program housed within a decentralized educational organization. Over the five year span of the BVIP, both the project and the evaluation design evolved significantly as connectivity increased, Internet tools became more user-friendly, teachers and students acquired Internet knowledge and skills, and telecommunications began to garner popular support. Moreover, successful diffusion, according to RogersÕ model, depends heavily on client/change agent empathy. We found that, though the Trainer of Trainers model used for both the initial core group of peer trainers and the later generations of trainees was successful in diffusing the use of the Internet horizontally among those classroom teachers who participated in the training workshops, it was hampered by the increasing conservatism among the new superintendent and school board members who replaced the policy makers who initially bought into and supported the project. As the evaluation progressed, we soon realized that there was yet a fourth set of issuesÑteaching and learning factorsÑincluding those surrounding the peer training process itself and the ways in which the Internet could support various instructional goals, pedagogical strategies, and learning theories that were espoused by the teachers within the district. In retrospect, it became evident that the instructional factors were, in fact, driving the diffusion process at the same time as the organizational factors were impeding it, in a complex feedback loop. The mentoring of teachers by their colleagues in the training workshops led to the adoption of the Internet by those teachers who attained a relatively high sense of self-efficacy and comfort level with telecommunications as their schools gradually came on-line. The ensuing use of Internet-based activities resulted in the use of more engaged learning by students in classrooms, laboratories, and media centers within those schools. The successes and challenges faced by teachers in the altered instructional setting resulted in a mix of confirmation and rejection of Internet-based instruction, depending on the individual characteristics and perceptions that the teachers brought to the learning setting. Those who tried using the Internet and wound up facing barriers that they perceived as insurmountable dropped out of the project. In contrast, some of the other teachers began to use their students as their support group. They also began to take on new duties and responsibilities such as troubleshooting the system, serving on technology teams, and mentoring their colleagues as a result of their newly developed expertise. The Starting Point: The Trainer of Trainers Model Beginning in 1992, a Trainer of Trainers model similar to that used by Main (1996) in British Columbia was used by the BVIP to create a core group of 26 teachers. The objectives of the initial intensive training for the core group of peer trainers, and for later generations of participating teachers, were * to become proficient in the use of electronic mail (e-mail); * to become comfortable investigating Internet resources; and * to become experienced at exploring ways to integrate the use of the Internet into their curricula. Once they finished their training, the new cadre of teacher-trainees returned to their respective schools to become instructors and resource personnel for their colleagues. To support these three objectives, the project directors developed a set of ancillary materials, a series of structured classes, and a set of open, unstructured laboratory workshops, all given at the convenience of participating teachers. Later, they created a district wide web page to support the training program, to render assistance to new users, and to disseminate information about the project throughout the district. This served as an addition to, not a replacement for, newsletters distributed to BVSD teachers and posters prominently displayed in the teachersÕ lounges. The BVIPÕs Trainer of Trainers model was an effective strategy in disseminating Internet training throughout the district. Starting with the core team of peer teachers, the project significantly expanded the level of telecommunications expertise and usage. As of January 1996 there were 435 teachers on the BVSD network who logged in regularly: an increase of seventeen fold over the initial cohort of teacher-trainees. This was no small feat, considering that district wide connectivity would not be available until January 1997. What factors contributed to its success? Client/change agent empathy Rogers notes that change agents seek to influence their clientsÕ behavior in accordance with recommendations based on the clientsÕ actual needs (1995: 337). At this stage, in which a change agent seeks to translate the clientÕs intent to change into an action plan for change, Rogers also notes that interpersonal influences from near-peers are very important. The BVIP training program was designed with this principle in mind. The project director and her administrative assistant, whose offices were housed in the district office, used BVSD teachers as change agents rather than relying on the outside experts that could have been made available from the University of Colorado, from outside vendors, or from a district level trainer. This client/change agent empathy was an important success factor. According to Martin and Zlotolow (1997), change agents must help stakeholders decide where they want to go and how to get there, and at the same time, help individuals and groups make substantive changes in both their behavior and attitudes. What change agents need is a big-picture perspective of systemic change...and a means to help individual people make specific plans for changes that are desired/required. (Martin & Zlotolow, 1997: 2) Though the BVSD peer trainers were the actual change agents for their colleagues, the overall scope of the change effortÑthe goals of the project, the readiness of the school district to begin a change effort, and the districtÕs ability to make the desired breadth of changeÑwere all envisioned by the project director and the principal investigator. Inaugurating change on so grand a scale was extremely difficult in the beginning, because when the project directors first created their expansive vision for the BVIP, little was known about effective integration of the Internet into a school district. Nor could they foresee the conservative trend that would take place several years later, near the end of the implementation phase. Participatory Design With buy-in and administrative support from the superintendent and the policy makers at the time the grant was approved, the bulk of the training program concentrated on the needs of typical classroom teachers. Training was responsive to ongoing changes in the Internet and the evolving needs and expertise of the new teacher-trainees. The project director elicited feedback from participants to continually update and redesign the training program. This emphasis on participatory design is very much in consonance with Gould and LewisÕ (1985) three principles for user-centered design of instructional systems: an early focus on typical users and actual tasks; the use of empirical methods to assess the ability of the intended users to perform real tasks in the target context; and a focus on iterative, participatory design, incorporating the results of pilot testing and feedback from typical users. Though participatory design has its roots in Human Performance Technology (HPT), the evaluation of the BVIP showed that it is eminently suited to instructional design as well. Grudin (1991), another advocate of participatory design, suggests that typical end users should be in direct contact with the developers of an instructional system during the development process. Some of his suggestions for narrowing the gap between designers and end users include: * including stakeholders and end users in design/development teams; * getting designers to participate in the local culture of the end users; * integrating pilot testing, prototyping, and formative evaluation into design; and * encouraging users to take more responsibility for their own environments. In the Diffusion of Innovations model, Rogers directs our attention to two factors that contribute to the successful diffusion of an innovation via horizontal networks in a decentralized diffusion systemÑclient participation in program implementation and client re-invention of specific features of the innovation (Rogers, 1995: 367). In our previous research (Sherry & Myers, 1997), we found that close collaboration between our design team and typical end users led to a high degree of local adaptation and re-invention of on-line supports for new users of the Internet in a university setting. We also observed this process in a BVSD elementary school where younger students in a multi-age science class worked closely with teachers and older students. Together, teachers and students built a web page that captured their shared knowledge and experiences as they co-explored the field of oceanography. Contextual learning Since the BVIP teachers-in-training were adult learners participating in a self-initiated professional development program, the workshop trainers emphasized personal change and growth as in Carl RogersÕ (1969) model of experiential learning. In keeping with the experiential learning approach, the content covered in the workshop was chosen to be relevant to the personal interests of the participants, and trainees were able to exercise some control over the nature and direction of the training sessions. Workshops and classes were given in BVSD classrooms, using the very platforms that the teachers would use once their labs or classrooms were connected. This represented a non threatening learning environment, another of Carl RogersÕ key principles. Seels (1995) points out that the context in which instruction occurs is an important instructional design consideration in four different ways: the pre- and post-instructional environments should be considered as well as the instructional environment; learning contexts should be designed to optimize learning; workplace performance contexts should be evaluated to determine whether the instruction was successful; and the instructional design model should be adapted to the project context (Seels, 1995: 238-9). The use of an authentic context is an important aspect of situated cognition. The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed...is not separable or ancillary to learning and cognition. Nor is it neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of what is learned. Situations might be said to co-produce knowledge through activity. Learning and cognition, it is now possible to argue, are fundamentally situated. (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989: 32). Not only does situated learning support the use of a cognitive apprenticeship model that enables learners to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activities, it also emphasizes active perception and participation in dealing with concepts and representation. As Lave would argue, knowledge is never fully internalized as schemata or externalized as knowledge artifacts or activity structures; it is always based on situated negotiation and renegotiation of meaning in the world (Lave & Wenger, 1996: 51). The context of the open laboratory workshops provided by the BVIP afforded the peer trainers the opportunity to use the core approaches of cognitive apprenticeship. Through modeling, coaching, and scaffolding, experienced BVSD teachers assisted the new teacher-trainees in developing their cognitive and metacognitive skills via observation and guided, supported practice in the very environment where they would eventually carry out these activities on their own (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989: 481-482). Authentic context is also an important feature of StichtÕs (1988) functional context approach. Though the functional context approach was initially developed for adult technical and literacy training in military programs, its emphasis on making learning relevant to the experience of learners and their authentic work context is very similar to the BVIPÕs use of authentic contexts for their training sessions. Moreover, by using ancillary materials that the trainees would be able to take home with them after the conclusion of the training workshops, it was hoped that transfer of learning from the workshop environment to the actual laboratory or classroom would be enhancedÑan idea very much in consonance with SeelsÕ emphasis on analysis of the post-instructional environment. Transformational learning The use of a non threatening learning environment and empathetic peer trainers facilitated the process of transforming both personal meaning schemes and meaning perspectives of the new users, especially the shift in role from Òthe sage on the sage to the guide on the sideÓ associated with the use of technology-supported open-ended learning environments (OELEs). These processes are critical features of MezirowÕs (1991) transformative dimensions of adult learning. They became especially important in the context of the BVSD, where teachers were faced with conflicting ways in which they could align their teaching with the districtÕs evolving standards. Teacher-trainees had to make their own personal judgments regarding two very different options: whether to use engaged learning strategies and Internet-based activities that supported student-centered learning, or whether to go along with the Òback to the basicsÓ movement that was gaining popularity throughout the district as a whole. The interaction between the peer trainers and the collective groups of teacher-trainees, in the context of their goal-related activities, was an important aspect of the training program that requires a bit more explanation. The whole notion of teaching with telecommunications requires a Òletting goÓ of the traditional control over the teaching and learning process by teachers, as well as a good deal of reflection about the way in which they teach. A focus group participant commented on some of the issues involved in changing perspectives: We are very used to our four walls, our kingdom, the control thing; and this is an area where there is no control, no predictability...[We have to] refine the management techniques so they are real successful, but also that teaching style of letting go and reinforcing the skills that you need to have in life. How do we analyze it? How do we incorporate it into what we need? ItÕs hard to bridge those fundamental teaching styles, the philosophies, the way we do things, the attitudes. (A BVSD teacher) It is this very type of reflection that is the key to Roy PeaÕs notion of transformative communication. Pea speaks of two types of communication that may take place in a learning situation: the information transmission view, in which content knowledge is imparted to the learner by an expert; and the ritual view of communication, with its sense of participation and belonging, and its highlighting of social roles. Transformative communication melds the two. Learning is not only a conserving enterprise, which seeks ritual belonging in order to perpetuate sameness and tradition. It is a quest to expand the ways of knowing. It seeks to expand the problem niches to which past concepts and strategies and beliefs are applied. It must establish in its communicative activities the grounds for its own evolution. (Pea, 1996: 174). By engaging teacher-trainees in a process of reflection and dialogue with their colleagues, the peer trainers facilitated a transformative process, opening up new ways of thinking in which each participant potentially provides creative resources for transforming existing practice, in going beyond the common body of knowledge of the field in their inquiries, and the conceptual tools developed to sustain these practices. (Pea, 1996: 175). In such a dialogue, teachers had to re-think their vision of learning. This meant reflecting on their role in the classroom, the relationship of the classroom curriculum to state and district standards, whether the existing curriculum was to be enriched, enhanced, or replaced, and the precise role of Internet-based activities in the classroom. This goes beyond MezirowÕs concept of transformation of meaning schemes, where old assumptions and old interpretations of experience are transformedÑit involves a total perspective transformation or paradigm shift. Needless to say, different teachers faced this paradigm shift in a variety of ways. Some became enthusiastic users of the new technologies, while others carefully weighed their options and suspended their judgment until they were able to see some relative advantage and observable benefits that might accrue from the large investment of time and energy that the training program involved. This is very much in keeping with Lave and WengerÕs (1996) viewpoint of legitimate peripheral participation: learning, transformation, and change are inextricably related once a newcomer begins to participate actively in a community of learning. A BVSD teacher who was one of the early participants in the program remarked: With the exception of things like Netscape, I pretty much understood the impact it would have on kids. But this whole concept of the World Wide Web with graphics now, the move beyond Lynx and gopherÑthat has been the really, really big change. It is very possible to have full motion video, conferences...to confer with other classrooms anywhere in the world. This is going to be the tough partÑhow to get teachers ready for major, major change? ÒMajor, major changeÓ presents a dilemma for most teachers who are comfortable with those strategies that have proven successful in the past. For a training program to be successful when it involves new technologies, new strategies, and an open learning environment, it is not enough to simply transmit information or have participants construct knowledge. Both Pea and Mezirow would concur that trainers and participantsÑtogetherÑhave to construct a more inclusive, integrated way of interpreting reality. This means transforming both meaning schemes and meaning perspectives for all participants. It starts with facing the dilemma head on, mustering the will to act and change, weighing the various options for action, and relating new meanings to oneÕs own vision of learning. The self-reflection and participatory design process, in which trainers and teacher-trainees explored the affordances of the Internet together, learned together, dealt with conflicts together, solved problems together, and continually redesigned the training program together, contributed to the success of the training program. In retrospect, if the project directors had had a Òcrystal ballÓ and been able to predict the dramatic changes in the Internet and the World Wide Web six years ago, their initial plan may have been far more structured, and such dynamic and continuous changes in the training program may not have taken place. Adoption In the previous section, we dealt solely with teaching and learning factorsÑone of the four modules in the Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model. Having learned a great deal of new material, teacher-trainees often left the BVIP workshops and returned to their respective schools with a host of questions such as ÒCan I get it to work?Ó, ÒHow does it affect me?Ó, ÒHow much time will it take?Ó, and ÒWhat do I do when it breaks?Ó In Gene HallÕs (1987) stages of concern model, individuals go through stages when adopting changes or innovations. Each stage is characterized by specific questions, concerns, or anxieties about the innovation and the changes to their practice that occur once they adopt it and begin to use it. The first stage is the information stage, in which a non-user has some general awareness of the innovation and expresses an interest in learning more about it, such as a teacher-trainee attending a class or open lab workshop. It is at HallÕs second stage, known as the personal concern stage, that uncertainty enters the picture as the new user focuses on his/her adequacy to meet changing demands within the existing environment. At the third stage, the userÕs attention focuses on managing the tasks and processes related to the use of the innovation. Hall notes that users tend to fall into three categories: mechanical users who are poorly coordinated, have difficulty planning how to use the innovation, make mistakes, and ask for help; routine users who have established a pattern of use; and changing users who are comfortable enough with the innovation to customize it (Hall, 1997). Later, the userÕs focus shifts to concerns about how the innovation impacts others in the organization. Hall remarks that, once teachers start using innovations, people tend to imitate them. This is how their near-peers learn; it represents the observable benefit that is so critical to the Rogers model. It is at HallÕs second stage that the technological, individual, and organizational factors of the Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model enter the picture. Technological factors Recent, large empirical studies tend to focus on technological factors, confirming the increasing prevalence of the Internet and other on-line services in schools. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI, 1995) reported that 35% of public schools have access to the Internet, and an additional 14% more have access to other wide area networks. Honey and Henriquez (1993), the OERI (1995), and Levin (1995) described a number of technological barriers to the use of telecommunications in the classroomÑlimited funding for advanced telecommunications hookups, lack of equipment or poor equipment, and too few access points in the school building. Similarly, Wolf and Black (1993) identified access and volume of content as two technological barriers encountered by new users. In The Role of On-line Communications in Schools: A National Study, the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) demonstrated that students in experimental groups with on-line access showed significantly higher scores on measurements of information management, communication, and presentation of ideas than students in control groups with no on-line access. The researchers note, however, that This endeavor requires an enormous investment. It is not just a matter of hardware and wires, it requires a new way of teaching and learning. It requires the support of the whole educational community, from the government to superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents. (CAST, 1997:1) Individual factors Individual factors deal with both user characteristics such as motivation, need for control, sense of self-efficacy and attitudes, and user perceptions of the innovation. Both Rogers (1995) and Farquhar and Surry (1994) consider observable benefit, relative advantage, complexity, compatibility with needs and wants, and trialability to be user perceptionsÑattributes of the innovation as perceived by end usersÑrather than attributes of the innovation that have some sort of objective reality. The more positively new users perceive an innovation with regard to these five characteristics, the greater the likelihood that the innovation will be adopted. This is a critical distinction backed up by HallÕs (1997) research: non-users have the most concern about information (ÒI need to know more about itÓ) and personal impact (Òwhat does it mean for me?), whereas new users are more worried about management concerns. Non-users also tend to have a higher level of anxiety than new or experienced users because of the uncertainty and unfamiliarity that the new innovation entails. Experienced users are higher on the impact level and are more concerned about what effects the innovation has on others, especially their peers and students. In RogersÕ (1995) model, individuals who are going through the innovation-decision process pass through five stages: seeking information about the innovationÕs existence and some understanding of how it functions; forming a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward it; engaging in activities that lead to a choice to either adopt or reject the innovation; putting the innovation to use; and seeking reinforcement of an innovation-decision that has already been made (Rogers, 1995:20). There is a strong parallel between RogersÕ five stages and HallÕs model in which new users pass through an information stage, a personal concern stage, a management stage, consequence and collaboration stages, and a refocusing stage. In both models there is a mix of cognitive and affective variables that impact the adoption decision process. Pelton and PeltonÕs (1996) study of the attitudes and concerns of preservice teachers toward technology isolated three main factors that comprise the multi-faceted ÒattitudeÓ variable, namely, confidence, usefulness both in education and personally, and impact on students and/or teachers. Our own empirical research (Sherry, manuscript in preparation) on the barriers to the use of e-mail by graduate students and faculty in a department within a graduate school of education, identified three factors, two of which were associated with technology and were similar to Pelton and PeltonÕs two main factorsÑusefulness/value, and confidenceÑand a third, unexpected factorÑthe ability to express oneÕs thoughts in writing, which will deserve further exploration. In both of these studies, there is clearly a mix of cognitive and affective variables, with individual concern playing a major part in patterns of use, reasons for use, and barriers to use of technology. According to Farquhar and Surry (1994), user characteristics affecting adoption are motivation, anxiety, knowledge base, prior experience, and skill levelÑagain, a mix of cognitive and affective variables. These characteristics, among others, were evident in both the initial survey and the interview responses from the BVIP evaluation. Though the BVIP research model drew heavily from the Rogers model, the data that were collected revealed that one cannot simply characterize early adopters as ÒtechiesÓ and late adopters as ÒtechnophobicÓ. Such simplistic labeling of the adopting teachers cannot fully describe the complex relationship between the technology and the human element. Identified user characteristics such as motivation, need for control, and comfort level, coupled with expertise, reasons for and patterns of use, gender, and special needs, influenced both the content and the process of acquiring expertise in telecommunications. Knowledge, comfort level, and usage levels were closely related, as teachers with greater experience took on leadership roles. Both Rogers and Hall recognize that uncertainty, and the new userÕs desire to reduce uncertainty by seeking information, are critical features of the adoption process. This is one reason why the BVIP project director took such great pains to advertise the training program both on-line and via newsletters and posters, and to present a varied array of courses so that each new user could avail him/herself of a workshop that was commensurate with his/her own knowledge, skills, and comfort level. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, of structure, of information. In fact, information is a means of reducing uncertainty. (Rogers, 1995: 6) Uncertainty creates a curiosity/anxiety conflict in new users that is described by Spielberger and Starr (1994) in their model of epistemic curiosity. Individuals possess normal, random variations in both of these characteristics, not only as a personality trait, but also in relation to their state of relaxation or agitation at any given time, which, in turn, depends on the context and situation in which they find themselves. The lower the comfort level of the new users of an innovation, the less willing they are to experiment with it. In another recent study targeting usersÕ perceptions, we (Wilson, Ryder, McCahan, & Sherry, 1996) reported that some individuals who resisted using a new schoolwide Internet system felt intimidated by the experts within the school whom they labeled as Òtechno gurusÓ. Rather than considering these perceived experts as models of behavior that was worth emulating, the challenged students felt that the experts were speaking a new, different, technological language, filled with mystical expertise, jargon, and commands that were simply not worth learning. These challenged individuals exemplified HallÕs personal stage of concern, i.e., they were uncertain about the demands of the innovation, their adequacy to meet those demands, and their role with regard to the innovation. Pelton and Pelton (1996) concurÑthough preservice teachers generally have positive attitudes toward technology and perceive it as important, their lack of knowledge and experience leads to a lack of confidence when introducing new technologies into instruction. The empirical results of their study indicated that preservice teachers rated their confidence in their own technology skills as less than the perceived importance of mastering the skills necessary to use technology effectively in the classroom. This lack of confidence then leads to anxiety and reluctance to use technology. Rossett (1991) suggests that when dealing with what she terms Ònew stuffÓ, especially new technologies, the feelings of the users become a critical issue. Given a performance problem, human performance technologists usually conduct a performance analysis to identify the gap between actual and optimal performance. In contrast, Rossett explains, when trainees are learning new knowledge and skills rather than trying to increase their level of performance, a performance analysis is not appropriateÑone is now dealing with a gap between optimals and feelings. Driscoll agreesÑwhen dealing with a performance goal orientation, learners question whether or not their abilities are adequate for the task. Failing is taken to mean that the answer is ÒnoÓ. Ò[I]f learners harbor serious doubts as to whether they can perform those required activities, they will not put forth the effortÓ (Driscoll, 1994: 301). In contrast, those who have high confidence in their abilities and who place value on the outcomes of their actions will tend to seek out challenges and persist until they have mastered the required tasks. We (Wilson, Ryder, McCahan, & Sherry, 1996) have found that new users with a low sense of self-efficacy tend to respond well to one-on-one mentoring by their peers; this may be an effective way to address this problem. Organizational factors Having dealt with personal concerns and task concerns, we now shift our view to the consequences of adoption and its effect on others in the organization. This involves changing our focus from the individual to the adopting organization as a whole. Organizational factors deal with the overlap between what the district brings to the diffusion process and the impact of the innovation. In Farquhar and SurryÕs (1994) model, organizational factors comprise both the physical environment at the point of use and the support environment. Hoffman (1996) identified eight success factors for teachers who are trying to adopt technology in their classrooms and to build the necessary support environmentÑadministrative support, staff development and technical support, availability of technology, a technology use plan, a district computer or technology coordinator, facilities and maintenance personnel who are included in planning for technology integration, assessment and evaluation methods that reflect new educational approaches, and broad participation by individual teachers, groups and committees of teachers, the school-site computer coordinator, the principal and other administrators, and district-level coordinators or administrators, superintendents, and school boards. In contrast to Farquhar and SurryÕs (1994) physical/support environment factors and HoffmanÕs eight success factors, Gross, Giacquinta, and Bernstein (1970) focused on organizational factors from a management point of view. Their factors included a clear vision of the innovation provided by administrators to all teachers, stakeholders and users, the staffÕs skills and capacity to implement the innovation, the availability of required tools and resources, the compatibility of the schoolÕs organizational arrangements with the innovation (including grading and scheduling), taking account the difficulties to which teachers may be exposed as they begin to implement the innovation, providing mechanisms to identify and cope with unanticipated problems that may emerge during the period of implementation, and the wholehearted support of the administration for the innovation and the adopting teachers. Recent researchers have begun to integrate the technological, individual, and organizational factors in a more systemic fashion. Stockdill and Morehouse (1992) identified five critical factors that affect the successful adoption of new technology: educational need, user characteristics, content characteristics, technology considerations, and organizational capacity. Farquhar and Surry (1994) also built on Stockdill and MorehouseÕs model in developing their Adoption Analysis Tool. Successful implementation requires not only that adopters buy in to the use and application of the innovation, but also that the adopting organization provide a worthy environment in which to use the new technology and all of the resources and services needed to install and maintain it. Wolf and Black (1993) identified three organizational factors that affected the BVSDÕs use of the InternetÑtime, training, and resources. Throughout our evaluation, however, it became evident that these three factors were multi-faceted, and that several related issues were being confounded in these simplistic concepts. Key aspects of the physical environment were classroom connectivity, network capacity, scheduling of laboratories and computers, and availability of equipment and supplies. Specific support environment factors that emerged throughout our own evaluation were administrative vision and support; district policies such as site-based decision making, planning time and grading policies; acceptable use policies and handling of student accounts; availability of communication channels; mechanisms for identifying and solving problems; availability and timeliness of training workshops; availability of resource and technical support personnel; availability of documentation, troubleshooting lists, and job aids; availability of on-line support; maintenance of the network and associated equipment; lack of release time to pursue training; lack of incentives for teachers who take on new duties as a result of their Internet expertise; lack of a shared knowledge base of curriculum implementation resources; non-district and global support via the Internet; and cooperation with other grants. Beyond providing support through making the physical technology available, a district as an organization needs to be sure that the new effort is aligned with the district wide visions and policies, as well as integrated into the established communication channels. Learning in the Classroom Organizational learning Moving from adoption of technology to the use of that technology for teaching and learning, we begin with Lewis and RomiszowskiÕs (1996) concept of a learning organization that continually updates the skills of its members and, in the process, is itself transformed. An educational system must be studied as a learning organization in which all members are actively involved in both planning and participating in learning programs adapted to the specific requirements of the changing work or social environments in which members of that system find themselves. This holistic approach is the hallmark of the Engaged Learning model of Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, and Rasmussen (1995), which forms the basis for the fourth module of the Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion ModelÑinstructional factors. Engaged learning deals with teachers as well as students, all participating in a sociocultural learning community. To Lave, this also means that: Rather than a teacher/learner dyad, this points to a richly diverse field of essential actors and, with it, other forms of relationships of participation (Lave & Wenger, 1996:56). Engaged learning is a constructivist model that comprises the various learning styles and roles of teachers and students in the classroom, authentic and relevant tasks, multidisciplinary curriculum, interactive and generative activities, and a learning context that emphasizes collaborative knowledge-building. Jones and his colleagues identified eight variables that are related to a set of indicators of engaged learning: the teacherÕs vision of learning; relevant, challenging tasks; ongoing, authentic, performance-based assessment; a constructivist instructional model responsive to student needs; the concept of students as part of a learning community incorporating multiple perspectives; collaborative learning; the role of the teacher as a facilitator, guide, and co-learner/co-investigator; and the roles of students as cognitive apprentices, peer mentors, and producers of products that are of real use to themselves and others. In the BVSD, the teacherÕs vision of learning is beginning to be impacted by the new imperative to align classroom curriculum with state and district standards. With the growing use of technology in the classroom, the teacherÕs role is also beginning to change. Some of the more innovative BVSD teachers are now using students as assistants; collaborating in sharing ideas, resources and lessons with colleagues; sifting through and organizing relevant classroom activities from the massive volume of information available on the Internet; generating meaningful lesson plans, ideas, and activities for classroom use; and tailoring existing Internet resources to meet the needs of the classroom. Though the initial plan of the BVIP included both the development and delivery of comprehensive district wide Internet training for all interested teachers and the establishment of a sharable resource of curriculum-related resources and activities, only the former has been fully implemented to date. The first steps toward establishing a sharable database of on-line resources organized by subject area were undertaken by the BVIP, in cooperation with the Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Project, Creating Connections , when the project leaders created SAMI (the URL for SAMI is http://www.learner.org/content/k12/Sami). SAMI is an acronym for the Science And Math Initiative (SAMI) database that contains curriculum resources for science and math, information about grants, sources from which to download software, and helpful information for new Internet users. The BVIP project leaders also assisted district teachers who built several school home pages that were linked both to student activities and to resources that could be shared by teachers. As part of our evaluation activities, we assisted a work group of BVSD teachers who created a classification scheme for Internet-related resources. This product, nicknamed CLUE, will be used to filter and organize district wide curriculum-related ideas, activities, lesson plans, and resources that can be accessed via the Internet. Student-centered learning In the Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model, teaching and learning issues were divided into curriculum and engaged learning factors. Curriculum factors comprised changes and enhancement in content; the volume of content to be explored; planning and preparation; the relationship of lessons and standards; the use and sharing of lesson plans; and the evaluation and categorization of Internet-based activities. The engaged learning factors were those of Jones and his colleagues, as mentioned above. Both the multi-age class that participated in the Jason project and a typical fifth grade class where students used the World Wide Web to support their research for science papers were good examples of engaged learning. In these classes, students worked in small groups to build knowledge collectively, centered around areas of common interest. In the CAST national study, the authors noted that: Using the Internet can help students become independent, critical thinkers, able to find information, organize and evaluate it, and then effectively express their new knowledge and ideas in compelling ways. (CAST, 1997:1) The use of new technologies, especially telecommunications, enables teachers and students alike to focus on developing skills that can be transferred to real-world situations, rather than simply concentrating on developing specific areas of content knowledge or subskills. The integration of technology and telecommunications into the classroom leads to a host of electronically-supported instructional methods and open-ended learning environments (OELEs) that can be supported by computer-mediated communication (CMC) such as e-mail, and tried out in the classroom. OELEs are characterized by experiential learning, student self-direction, exploration and model-building in applied contexts, and an internal locus of control (Surry, 1997). They build on such august strategies as BransfordÕs (CTGV, 1990) Anchored Instruction, in which teaching and learning activities are designed around an ÒanchorÓ that is some sort of case-study or problem situation; Savery and DuffyÕs (1995) Problem-Based Learning, which relies on collaborative investigation of authentic cases and problems; and Scardamalia and BereiterÕs (1996) computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) that facilitate the creation of knowledge as a social product. Using CMC, students could participate in a type of dialogue that Bereiter defines as progressive discourse. Progressive discourse requires a cultural framework that supports the advancement of knowledge among a group of learners. Through asynchronous dialogue supported by CMC, people with opposing views can engage in discourse that is not limited by time and place, and that leads to a new understanding that everyone involved agrees is superior to their own previous understanding (Bereiter, 1994: 6). Those who participate in progressive discourse make four commitments: to work toward common understandings that are satisfactory to all participants; to frame questions and propositions in ways that allow evidence to be brought to bear on them; to expand the body of knowledge; and to allow any belief to be subjected to criticism if it will advance the discourse (Bereiter, 1994: 7). There is nothing about these commitments that limits them to scienceÑthey define a type of discourse that supports progress toward deeper understanding and leads to the continuous social creation of new knowledge. Charles Crook, a contemporary British advocate of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), discusses two types of continuity that are supported by computer-mediated environments: lateral continuity, in which students generalize their understandings in important ways to new understandings; and longitudinal continuity, a type of narrative state that furnishes a shared, recognized platform for studentsÕ next set of explorations. Longitudinal continuity can be described as the creation of an integrating Òcommon knowledgeÓÑa set of shared experiences and mutual understandingsÑamong members of a learning community. It arises in talk which is used to knit together the sequences of disparate actions and observations that constitute some learning exercise. (Crook, 1994: 107). Since CMC supports this type of dialogue asynchronously, irrespective of distance, it is an effective resource for the support of teacher-pupil interaction. It lends itself to student dialogue at all levels of education, from CSILE conferences at the elementary school level (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996) to graduate students who participate in on-line conferences such as those supported by Colorado Education On-line (CEO, a First-Class BBS system) at the University of Colorado. Through the use of e-mail and on-line conferencing, students now work together asynchronously to share common understandings of learning experiences, to reflect on their shared experiences and understandings, to expand the common body of knowledge, to weigh alternative solutions to problems and explanations of effects, and to engage in dialogue with other learners, including other students and experts throughout the world. Constructivism The use of telecommunications to support engaged learning goes hand in hand with the philosophy of constructivism. Brooks and Brooks (1993) present five principles of constructivism: problems must be relevant to students; curriculum should be structured around primary concepts; teachers should seek to understand and value studentsÕ point of view; teachers should adapt curriculum to address studentsÕ suppositions; and authentic assessment should be used as a tool to serve the learner rather than strictly as an accountability device. Strategies for teachers who wish to become constructivist educators include allowing student responses to drive lessons; using authentic, primary sources of raw data; and making tacit understandings of concepts explicit before sharing their own understandings of those concepts. An instructional strategy that supports the constructivist approach is Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Spiro et al, 1994). Ideally suited to the hypertext learning environment of the World Wide Web, and relying on multiple representations of content and diverse case studies, the theory emphasizes the importance of giving learners the opportunity to construct their own representations of information so that they can transfer their knowledge and skills beyond their initial learning situation. Web-based instruction is another approach that can engage a global audience using the World Wide Web as a medium. It involves creating a learning environment where resources are available and collaboration is supported, where web-based activities are incorporated into an overall learning framework, and where novices and experts alike are supported. Web-based learning environments span a spectrum from unstructured to highly structured, each with its advantages and disadvantages, each appropriate for a particular situation. In unstructured activities such as building student home pages or participating in on-line conferences, expertise is irregularly distributed as individual students decide on the sophistication of a project or their level of participation. In loosely structured activities such as building a class or school home page, expertise is still irregularly distributed, but the learning group begins to self-organize as members contribute their unique expertise and, in turn, learn new skills and extend the groupÕs common knowledge base. In mostly structured activities such as case-based instruction, each student researches an aspect of the problem and contributes individual sections to the final, collaboratively produced case study. Finally, highly structured activities such as creating a class annotated bibliography tend to have a standard format and a fixed learning goal in mind (Sherry & Wilson, 1997: 70-71). The shift from instructor-dominated instruction to student-centered learning and transformative instructional design has important implications for the instructorÕs teaching style, epistemology, and vision of the students as learners. First, the instructorÕs role becomes that of a facilitator rather than a repository of answers. Moreover, students begin to realize that there are no simple answers to ill-structured problems. At the same time as this realization begins to stimulate deeper understandings within the student, it can be very threatening to an instructor who desires to exert total control over the learning process. Lastly, students no longer draw on resources that are contained within the walls of the classroom or the school libraryÑthey are able to access an unlimited number of people, activities, and knowledge bases distributed throughout the world, which they will then need to carefully filter and verify. As a result, they are able to present and disseminate polished products that they have created themselves (Sherry & Wilson, 1997: 68). Another new instructional method that is just beginning to be tried out in the classroom is a variation of the Socratic Method, described by Wason (1996). Instead of lecture-based instruction followed by testing, students can learn by a system of carefully developed questions that guide them through the learning process, rather than using questions as vehicles to test the learning product. WasonÕs model combines three elements: * an effective system of resource access with content-relevant navigation and landmarks; * sequences of questions used as the underlying instructional tool that enable students to discover knowledge relationships and acquire learning skills; and * a technology-integrated model of teaching whereby teachers select questions matched to the needs of the specific students, who then work asynchronously, either alone or in self-selected groups. As a result, the educational process becomes learner-centered and the learning process takes precedence over the learning product. Learner-centered education significantly changes the philosophy of how one teaches, the relationship between teacher and student, the way in which a classroom is structured and managed, and the nature of the curriculum itself. At the heart is the idea that people learn best when engrossed in the topic, motivated to seek out new knowledge and skills because they need them in order to solve the problem at hand. The goal is active exploration, construction, and learning rather than the passivity of lecture attendance and textbook reading. The major theme is one of focusing education around a set of realistic, intrinsically motivating problems (Norman & Spohrer, 1996:26). Norman and Spohrer (1996) describe three dimensions of learner centered education: engagement, effectiveness, and viability. As in the Jones et al. model, engagement is the primary advantage of problem driven, learner-centered education because an engaged learner is a motivated learner. Effectiveness deals with how much students learn. The major concern of traditional teaching methods is effectiveness: how much do students learn? After all, if there is no learning of the topics of concern, then no matter how engaged, no matter how viable, the method is of little value. (Norman & Spohrer, 1996: 26) Since much of student-initiated learning is authentic and relevant to the needs of the individual student, authentic assessment becomes a crucial part of authentic learning. Viability deals with many of the concerns expressed by new teacher-trainees, as described previously in HallÕs stages of concern, such as ÒIs the problem aligned with real curriculum needs?Ó ÒCan the technology support the new instructional practice?Ó, and ÒIs the cost or time involved prohibitive?Ó Such cutting-edge models as WasonÕs Socratic Method and NormanÕs learner-centered education are fraught with difficulties, especially in a district like the BVSD where the current emphasis is now shifting toward instruction based on model content standards and where the type of assessment used by the district is for the most part still norm-referenced. Though innovative, constructivist strategies have been used with great success in some BVSD classrooms, they are not necessarily applicable for typical classes that were observed in the BVIP case study. Reaffirmation or Rejection Though the training program was eminently successful, and though there were examples of highly innovative, creative projects such as the Jason oceanography home page and the Vocal Point electronic newspaper by students throughout the district, there was evidence of a negative feedback loop. During the initial stages of the BVIP, there was enthusiastic buy-in by the administration. However, near the end of the implementation period, the superintendent resigned and the original school board was replaced by more conservative members who reflected the new wave of back to the basics that was becoming popular throughout the community at large. Bond money to purchase computers and connections was held up for over a year. The volume of content had increased dramatically, yet there was still no common, district wide base of curriculum-related resources for teachers to tap. To add to the turmoil, many of the in-building technology specialists were being reassigned to the classroom due in part to continuing cuts in funding and planning time within the district and in part to the belief of the school board that technology integration should occur in each classroom, not within labs that are supervised by technology specialists. Classroom teachers were now faced with a critical decisionÑwhether to confirm their innovation-decision process or to reject it. Although both the liberal and the conservative sides of the political constituency currently express support for technology, each sees the role of technology in a different light. Issues that are important to the district such as curriculum, standards, site-based management, the role of phonics, and high school requirements, are now being debated. The role of the Internet will be affected by these decisions in many ways including usage, financing, staff development, and availability of equipment. With the cuts in funding that have been implemented by the new school board, less money and time for exploration and practice will be available for supporting the staff development that is so essential in introducing new Internet tools and resources and in maintaining the current level of expertise during the rapid evolution of the technology. The funding cuts will affect both staff development and curriculum development. An example of the new conservatism involves reimbursing teachers 100% for content-related professional development, but only 50% for pedagogy-related professional development. The primary emphasis of the BVIP was the training of new users, which is considered pedagogy-based professional development. Teachers remarked: The School Board has to learn how important ongoing staff development is in all areas of instruction and learning. (A BVSD teacher) Well, the teachers feel pressure from the community...why arenÕt you following this? Are you doing the standards? I mean, how is that going to change? (Another BVSD teacher) Often, teachers questioned whether or not their training was really worth all the effort, especially if they took on new duties and responsibilities as a result of their newfound expertise, without concomitant incentives such as release time, a lightened work load, or extra pay. Their dilemma was compounded by an unrelated planning problemÑthe training sessions were Òahead of their timeÓ because most schools were still not connected at the time the bulk of the BVIP training sessions took place. To add yet another barrier, the BVSD began to phase out in-building technology resource personnel just about the time that all of the schools were about to be connected. Studies of failed innovation such as those of Gross et al. (1970) and Teasley (1996) often provide insights into the organizational factors that affect the diffusion process. These researchers reported that, though the initial attitude of the school administrators and teachers was positive and that they were willing to expend the time and effort to implement the new technology, they ran into difficulties along the way. Teachers began to express frustration with the project, and administrators failed to give it their full support. Moreover, the administrators had no mechanisms in place for dealing with unforeseen problems that might arise during the implementation process. Communications broke down and teachers continued to run into problems with which they simply could not cope. Besides administrative support issues, there are also cultural issues to be dealt with. Rogers is very clear on this pointÑthe social system has a direct effect on diffusion through its norms and other system-level qualities, as well as an indirect influence through its individual members (Rogers, 1995: 23). Similarly, Peled, Peled, and Alexander (1994) and Egan (1985) view a school district not simply as an educational organization, but as an ecological environment with a common cultural blueprint that sets the pattern for the structures and processes that occur within and across the systems (i.e., the classroom, the school and its administrators, the community, and the regional policy making institutions). Likewise, Morison suggests that opposition to innovations is cultural in nature and stems from the normal instinct to protect oneÕs self and oneÕs way of life. People will withhold judgment or even express disbelief about the dramatic claims of a new innovation. They will try to protect the existing system with which they identify themselves as well as the existing society of which they consider themselves a part. Lewis and Romiszowski (1996) found that there is a considerable organizational learning curve to be traversed before organizations not only assimilate a new technology into their culture but also accommodate their culture to be able to profit from the technology to the extent that may be possible. They suggest that familiarity with the new technology and the ability to apply it in one context do not necessarily guarantee either the ability or the motivation to use it successfully in novel contexts or to integrate it in a major way into a new instructional program. When networking begins to be used seriously, the nature of the teaching and learning environment is inevitably changed. Though a complex system tends to maintain a stable state, it may begin to change itselfÑprovided it begins by defining for itself its Ògrand objectÓ and seeing to it that the grand object is communicated to every member of the group (Morison, 1984: 142). Peters remarks: What matters is that everyone who works for and with you observe you embracing the topic with both arms and your calendar. What they need to observe is your obvious, visible and dramatic, determination to batter down all barriers to understanding and implementation. (Peters, 1988: 501). In summary, the adoption and diffusion process can be viewed in three ways: as a social process (Rogers; Farquhar & Surry), as a cultural process (Peled et al.; Egan), and as a systems process (Morison). These overlap, since systems are cultures, and cultures have social processes. Within the system there are barriers to diffusion. Some are sociocultural, such as the individual characteristics of the end users; others are involved with maintaining the stability of the system as it presently exists. Moreover, the system itself imposes constraints on the adoption and diffusion process. To be successful, a new technological innovation requires a worthy environment that can support it; resources to install, implement, and maintain it; readily available, two-way communications channels; and an overall administrative vision that is clearly communicated to all members of the system. What are the possible future uses of these models? In this paper we have dealt with three models: the BVIP implementation model per se; the learning/adoption trajectory of learner-trainee, adopter, co-learner, and confirmer/disconfirmer; and the four-module Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model. WeÕll now view each of these retrospectively. The BVIP implementation model The BVIP itself proved to be a dynamic, evolving program. There were four key aspects that made it very different from the traditional Rogers modelÑdecentralized decision making, collaboration with other funding sources, an evolving technological innovation (in contrast to a stable innovation), and a training program that was based on participatory design. In a decentralized system that uses site-based management, innovations tend to be more attuned to the individual usersÕ needs and problems. As a result, the BVIP had substantial grassroots support and buy-in by local teachers who were the primary participants in the training program. This greatly assisted the horizontal diffusion of Internet use within individual schools at the grassroots level. However, as the BVIP evolved, and as the policy makers became more conservative, the gap began to widen between the teachers and the other three levels of the total ecological environment, namely, the school administration, the community as a whole, and the districtÕs policy making bodies such as the BVSD School Board. Part of the success of the BVIP was its collaboration with other funding sources such as the National Science Foundation, the Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Project, district wide bond funding, and funding sources within the individual schools. This cooperation resulted in wide dissemination of BVIP resources beyond the schools and the district as a wholeÑespecially the nationwide training of rural teachers in the Creating Connections project that was carried out by the BVIP initial cohort of peer trainers. In the traditional diffusion model, an innovation is a stable entity. In contrast, the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the district network all evolved significantly during the implementation phase of the BVIP. Hence, they all became less complex and more usable, and their obvious benefits became more visible. As a result, usersÕ perceptions evolved over time, and they began to perceive the use of telecommunications as less intimidating and more user-friendly. Toward the end of his book, Rogers points out the difference between diffusion of technology and the classical diffusion model: Technology has often been assumed to be an objective and external force that affects organizational structure. A more recent and realistic view of technology in an organization is to see it as the product of human interaction, as its meaning is gradually worked out through discussion...the viewpoint is that of the social construction of technology. (Rogers, 1995: 396) With the evolution of the Internet, and with the close attention that was paid to feedback from new trainees, the BVIP trainers successfully instituted and maintained a flexible training program that utilized iterative, participatory design. In the Human Performance Technology (HPT) literature, training programs based on participatory design have usually met with a greater degree of success than ordinary training programs since they are more sensitive to the needs of typical new users. The learning/adoption trajectory As the system evolved, teacher-trainees tended to follow a four-part learning/adoption trajectory beginning with the training workshops; continuing through the adoption-decision process; to experimenting with the Internet to support student learning and becoming co-learners with their students; and finally to the confirmation/disconfirmation decision. Through interviews and observations we found that those teachers for whom telecommunication tools became such a distraction that they lost sight of what they were trying to do, quit. Those who valued their newfound skills, who did not let their frustrations get in their way, and who always kept their desired outcomes in sight, succeeded in creating a learning environment in which their students could polish their meta-skills and produce exemplary, creative products and performances. Thus, the more innovative teachers began to move in a spiral trajectory rather than a simple loop as they assisted their colleagues with troubleshooting the equipment, gave inservice sessions at their schools, and became the second round of peer trainers for their fellow teachers throughout the district. Between these extremes lay the majority of teachers who were in the process of moving through the different stages in the learning/adoption trajectory, various stages of concern, and various levels of use throughout the district. The Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model The four modules of this static modelÑtechnological, individual, organizational, and instructional factorsÑproved invaluable as a research model for gathering, analyzing, and reporting the immense amount of data that were collected from the BVIP case study. Together, they encompass all the major variables that have been identified by other researchers who are evaluating large scale telecommunications projects. This model works well for collecting and presenting data, but it does not lend itself to creating technology implementation plans. That is why, in retrospect, it was essential to reflect on both the adoption process and the learning process that took place throughout the training program, and to develop a dynamic model that melds the two. Conclusions Throughout this evaluation, we have learned much from the vast array of barriers and breakthroughs that characterized the BVIP. Though the Rogers model may apply well to corporate settings, it fails to capture the intricacies of the learning and adoption process that take place when an evolving technological innovation is introduced into a district characterized by site-based management. As Martin and Zlotolow (1997) point out, in order to implement systemic rather than piecemeal change, it is important to address the decision makers who are responsible for, and able to, bring the system capacity up to the level that whole-system change can be made, as well as addressing the implementers who carry out the change and the influencers who act as opinion leaders for the adopting populationÑhere, the peer trainers and the adopting classroom teachers. This involves communicating a shared vision among all stakeholders and Òadvertising successesÓ, taking advantage of multiple channels of diffusion. The diffusion of technology throughout an educational institution cannot be seen as separate from the learning process that all members of the organization go through as they learn about their new roles in relation to the technology, as they struggle to transform their perspectives toward technology in general, and as they begin to appreciate the value that it can add to the teaching/learning process. Though teacher-trainees found themselves at various points along the learning/adoption trajectory throughout the five-year implementation phase of the project, school administrators and key policy makers were apparently immune to this process. The very client/change agent empathy that contributed to the success of the training program tended to hamper both the vertical diffusion of the project to those key individuals who had the power to make decisions and allocate resources throughout the district as a whole, and the horizontal diffusion between school sites that had customized the innovation to suit their own unique needs. Had the current administrators participated in the training program, perhaps this gap may have been narrowed. If there is a single lesson to be learned from the BVIP experiment, it is the same as that learned by Peled, Peled, and AndersonÑinformation technology interventions cannot be separated from their ecological contexts, or from the educational activities that they enhance (Peled et al., 1994: 49). Moreover, technology-based projects that aim to bring about major change in all of the interconnected ecological systems, including classroom accommodations, school modifications, centralized policies, visions of learning, and beliefs and attitude-based behaviors, must aim not at individual participants, but must continue to address the entire ecological environment, including classroom teachers, school administrators, parents and the community, and the policy making bodies. References Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Center for Applied Special Technology. (1997, February 3). The Role of On-line Communications in Schools: A National Study. [On-line.] Available: http://www.cast.org.stsstudy.html/ Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Routledge. Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Egan, G. (1985). Change agent skills in helping and human service settings. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Farquhar, J.D., & Surry, D.W. (1994). Adoption Analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31 (1), 19-25. Gould, J.D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 300-311. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J.B., & Bernstein, M. (1970). Failure to implement a major organizational innovation. In M.W. Miles, & W.W. Charters, Jr. (Eds.), Learning in Social Settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Grudin, J. (1991). Obstacles to user involvement in software product development, with implications for CSCW. International journal of man-machine studies, 34, 435-452. Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. NY: State University of New York Press. Hall, G.E. (1997). Stages of Concern. Albuquerque: Paper presented at the AECT In-CITEÕ97 Conference. Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and K-12 educators: Findings from a national survey. NY: Center for Technology in Education. Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995, April). Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology. IL: North Central Educational Laboratory. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1996). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawyer-Brook, D. & Sherry, L. (1996, March). Creating Rural Connections: An Internet training program for rural K-12 teachers. Paper presented at the Seventh National Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL. Levin, S. (1995). Teachers using technology: Barriers and breakthroughs. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (1), 53-70. Lewis, J.H., & Romiszowski, A. (1996, November). Networking and the learning organization: Networking issues and scenarios for the 21st Century. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 1(4). [On-line.] Available: http://www.usq.au/electpub/e-jist/vol1no4/abstrac4.htm#abstractlewis Main, T. (1996). Teaching Teachers to Use Telecommunications: The British Columbia Experience. [On-line.] Full path: http://www.webcom.com/journal/t_main.html Martin, B., & Zlotolow, S. (1997, February). The Role of the Change Agent in Systemic Change. Albuquerque: Paper presented at the AECT In-CITEÕ97 Conference Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Morison, E. (1984). Gunfire at sea: Conflict over a new technology. In R. Westrum, & K. Samaha (Eds.), Complex Organizations: Growth, Struggle, and Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Norman, D.A., & Spohrer, J.C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39 (4), 24-27. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. (1995, January). Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12. (Available from Judi Carpenter, 202-219-1333) Pea, R.D. (1996). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peled, Z., Peled, E., & Alexander, G. (1994). An ecological approach for information technology intervention, evaluation, and software adoption policies. In E.L. Baker, & H.F. OÕNeil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology Assessment in Education and Training. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pelton, L, & Pelton, T.W. (1996). Building Attitudes: How a Technology Course Affects Preservice TeachersÕ Attitudes about Technology. [On-line.] Available: http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/html1996/04math.htm#pelton Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on Chaos. NY: Harper & Row. Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition. NY: The Free Press. Rossett, A. (1991). Needs Assessment. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 156-169). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35 (5), 31-38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Student communities for the advancement of knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 36-37. Seels, B.B. (1995). Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Reconsideration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Sherry, L., & Myers, K.M. (1997, in press). The Dynamics of Collaborative Design. To appear in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to web innovations. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 67-73). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Sherry, L. (1997, in press). The Boulder Valley Internet Project: Lessons Learned. To appear in Technical Horizons in Education Journal. Sherry, L, & Lawyer-Brook, D. (1997, in press). Evaluation of the Boulder Valley Internet Project: A Theory-Based Approach. To appear in the Journal of Interactive Learning Research. Spielberger, C., & Starr, L.M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H.F. OÕNeil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sticht, T. (1988). Adult literacy education. Review of Research in Education, 15. Washington, DC: AERA. Surry, D. (1997, February). Open Ended Learning Environments. Albuquerque: Paper presented at the AECT In-CITEÕ97 Conference. Wason, T. (1996). A Gutenberg Juncture: Changing the model of instruction in a new technological environment. CSS Journal. [On-line]. Available: http://www.webcom.com/journal/wason.html Wilson, B.G., Ryder, M., McCahan, J., & Sherry, L. (1996). Cultural Assimilation of the Internet: A Case Study. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Also available [On-line] at: http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson. Wolf, K., & Black, L. (1993). The Boulder Valley Internet Project First Annual Progress Report: 1992-1993. (Available from L. Black, BVSD, Box 9011, Boulder, CO 80301)