I believe that the adoption and diffusion of educational technologies has been slow to occur in part because empowering users through the use of these tools challenges the dominant instructionist paradigm.

Jaffe's (1998) research indicated that faculty were far less opposed to "televideo transmission of classroom lectures" than the use of asynchronous learning networks even though this could pose a larger threat to job security. He suggests that how receptive faculty are to new modes of teaching is related to the extent to which these technologies reinforce central elements of the institutionalized norm.

I would go farther than this and suggest that when the adoption of an innovative technology brings into question the fundamental pedagogical beliefs, the technology is marginalized or rejected until it can either be incorporated into the educator's existant pedagogical model, or until the model itself evolves.

I propose that for a large percentage of current teachers, the adoption of many educational technologies is a two part process involving 1) the reexamining of fundamental educational philosophy and pedagogy on the one hand, and 2) learning how to thoughtfully employ student-empowering applications of technology on the other.

A number of researchers such as. Geoghan (in Jaffe, 1998) and Moore (in Carr, 2002) are reported to have proposed that when it comes to the diffusion of technology throughout a group of faculty adopters: the most critical transition is that from "early adopter" to "early majority".

"Passage from the visionary group (the early adopters) to the mainstream is where the most significant potential for failure lies...This gap is so significant in the case of instructional technology that it has so far stymied almost all efforts to bridge it..." (Jaffe, 1998). The reasons for this can be seen in the contrast between the two groups as laid out in the table below (Carr, adapted from Geoghegan, 1994).

Could it be that the early adopters have already comfortably integrated the technology with their pedagogical orientation?
There may be a fundamental difference between the early adopters and the early majority in philosophical orientation and pedagogical beliefs. I believe that this is a question that warrants exploration.

Another perspective to look at this question of adoption resistance and its relation to pedagogical orientation is cross culturally.

America has long been a bastion of controlling educational approaches (Skinner, 1968, Bereiter & Scardmalaia, 1996). While Constructivist models of education have been proposed and propagated in the U. S. (eg. Bruner, 1960; Dewey, 1916), educational institutions in this country have been resistant to the significant change that they advocate. On the other hand, researchers in New Zealand have pioneered research examining cognitive processes and teaching practice (Nutall and Alton-Lee 1990, 1992, 1993). Furthermore New Zealand is a country where debate over educational philosophy has long been nurtured and a more constructivist approach has flowered.

Public schools in both the United States and New Zealand have placed great importance on the integration of educational technologies. For example, by 1991 most New Zealand Public schools could boast that they had computers (Little & Brown, 1994). What continues to be a struggle in both cultures is the best manner in which to integrate these new tools into their Public Schools. Not only do educational philosophy and cultural values continue to be at the heart of these changes (Irwin, 1997), but so do the institutional adaptations these changes will impel.

As part of my Berglund Fellowship I will be traveling to New Zealand as well as to Vietnam to observe the adoption of technological innovations and their diffusion throughout the educational system from elementary schools to Universities. The questions I will be examining will address philosophy of ed, level of technological adoption, and manner of utilizing technology to support classroom teaching and/or student learning.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carr, V. H. (accessed 6/18/02). http://tlc.nlm.nih.gov/resources/publications/sourcebook/adoptiondiffusion.html

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education (p. 76). New York, N.Y.: MacMillian Company.

Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 1-26.

Geoghegan, William H. (1994). "What Ever Happened to Instructional Technology?" Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association.Baltimore, MD.

Irwin, M. (1997). Follies and Fashions in New Zealand Education. New Zealand Business Roundtable, August. Online] Available: http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-97/follliesandfashions.doc.htm

Jaffe, D. (1998). Institutionalized Resistance To Asynchronous Learning Networks. JALN Volume 2, Issue 2 .

Little, L. & Brown, M. (1994). After the Cakestalls: Perceptions Of Computer Use In Three New Zealand Primary Schools. Computers in New Zealand Schools. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 15 - 20.

Moore, G.A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business.

Nutall, G. & Alton-Lee, A. (1993). Predicting learning from student experience of teaching: A theory of student knowledge in classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 30, 799-840.

Nutall, G. & Alton-Lee, A. (1992). Understanding how students learn in classrooms. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 57-87). San Diego: Academic Press

Nutall, G. & Alton-Lee, A. (1990). Research on Teaching and learning: Thirty years of change. Elementary School Journal, 90, 546-570

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York:Free Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.