Posts
(Image Source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/robot%20birth/mdudczak/470_robot20.jpg)
Dr. David Thornburg frames two definitions of “emerging technology” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). According to his own definition, emerging technology is that which is new to almost everyone, not yet widely adopted by any significantly large group in any context. He uses the Linux operating system, which is the standard in Brazil, as an example. According to Thornburg’s definition, this technology has matured by virtue of its adoption by a large demographic. But Thornburg also mentions Everett Rogers’ definition, proposed in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations, which allows an innovation to be called emergent in any community into which it is first being introduced (1995).
Rogers defines an innovation as “’an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption,’” a definition that recognizes the local and personal character of novelty (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). In his book, Rogers uses the example of a failed attempt by the public health service in Peru to introduce the technology of boiling water to prevent disease to the village of Los Molinas (Rogers, 1995). Although this was common practice throughout much of the world at the time of its introduction to the villagers, this technology was, to them, emergent, new, just as the Linux operating system is currently new to most communities in the United States, where Windows is the standard. While these examples fit Rogers’ definition of an emergent technology, they fail to meet the higher (and, I think, less practically relevant) standard of universal novelty preferred by Thornburg.
Dr. Elliot Soloway’s three criteria for determining when a technology has moved from emergent to emerged—cost, reviews, and essential personal use—could be applied to either a universal or a more parochial context (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). He considers a technology to be mature when the cost has dropped, when reviewers (both professional and amateur) have given their approval, and when it has become widely accepted as required. He sees this as occurring in four phases, separated by chasms that must be vaulted. First, early adopters (insiders and enthusiasts who might make up ten percent of a given population) embrace a new technology. Their reports of positive experiences might inspire an “early majority” to adopt the technology and they, in turn, catalyze adoption by a “late majority.” If the technology becomes ubiquitous, it is likely that some of the last, reluctant ten percent may even feel compelled to accept this new tool. This, according to Sahin (2006), is a variation on the bell curve proposed by Rogers, in which adventurous innovators represent 2.5%, early adopters are 13.5%, an early majority and late majority are 34%, and laggards make up 16% of those who will eventually adopt a fully emerged innovation.
Rogers defines adoption of a technology or innovation as “a decision of ‘full use of an innovation as the best course of action possible’” (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). What compels me and my peers to make this decision? The best reason would be that we see that the innate advantages of the innovation make it the best available choice. Another compelling motive for adoption is that the technology has become the standard. In this case, whether a technology has become a universal standard or merely the local standard in my community of practice, adoption would seem a logical course unless I have compelling personal reasons against it. Similarly, if I have adopted an emerging technology and believe that it should reach maturity as the standard, either locally or universally, my best arguments are based on the merits of the technology itself. For me, then, any innovation that is new to most members of the community of practice in which it is being introduced, and has merits which warrant and make likely its widespread adoption, is emerging. Any such technology that has become the standard in this community of practice can be said to have emerged or matured. Although Thornburg (2009) feels the characterization is unfair to the innovators who first develop and embrace new technologies, I must agree that “’Emergence’” is “in the eye of the beholder” (p. 4).
One technology that is just beginning to emerge in my community of practice is Promethean World’s ActivInspire presentation software (http://support.prometheanplanet.com/server.php?show=nav.19251&changeCountry=United+States). So far as I know, only one other teacher in my school (an innovator or early adopter, depending on whether we use Rogers’ or Soloway’s classification system) is using this tool in daily instruction. Although this software was released in 2009, it will be new to me and most of my colleagues, so I aim for early adopter status. In keeping with the pattern Soloway proposed, a peer’s positive review and demonstration convinced me to try a tool that may one day become the standard for classroom presentation (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). Watching my colleague use this tool with Wacom’s Bamboo tablet and a digital whiteboard, I was able to experience the software’s advantages over what I now see as last-generation presentation software like PowerPoint (http://www.wacom.com/index2.php).
It would benefit my colleagues and me to see this emerging technology advance to maturity in my school and school system. If teachers in my school wish to use this tool now, they must get access to one of three digital whiteboards available in the building or purchase a tablet input device and they must petition our system’s technology department for permission and access codes to install the program on classroom computers. If the system accepts this software as the standard, it, like PowerPoint, will be automatically installed on all school computers and requisite hardware will be provided.
In order to make this happen, however, early adopters must, as my colleague has, promote this software amongst peers with a sort of missionary zeal. Sadly, the administration of our school system could fairly be characterized as technological laggards, so it is unlikely that the early majority, or even a significant portion of the late majority, will have the support they need to make this transition easily, despite the obvious advantages and intuitive nature of the software itself. I was using PowerPoint with an LCD projector (my own) for eight years before the school made enough projectors available, as it currently does, for only half of our teachers, a fact which has discouraged many in our potential late majority from using digital presentation at all.
I believe that a technology is emergent so long as it is on the rise, but not yet the standard, in a local community of practice. In my school, PowerPoint can still be said to be emerging, despite the introduction, among local innovators, of a likely successor application. Understanding the local nature of emergence is necessary to craft an effective strategy for fostering its adoption in a community. Part of this strategy can be a bandwagon appeal. If all other school systems, or the most successful schools, in Maryland are using an innovation, our system’s administration might be more likely to adopt it. However, one should not assume that just because this innovation has fully emerged elsewhere that local authorities will embrace it. The more geographically or sociologically remote the community in which the technology is standard is, the less likely it is that this peer influence will be effective. David Thornburg may assert that Linux is the standard in Brazil, but this fact is unlikely to carry much weight in Baltimore, where this information only adds to the exotic and somewhat frightening prospect of change (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).
In this case, the virtues of the technology itself are more likely to be persuasive. Recognizing that, despite its establishment elsewhere, Linux is alien to the local powers-that-be, we must consider the intrinsic advantages of local adoption. Our promotion should consider the values and priorities of the target community. Most American school systems today are plagued by crippling budgetary constraints. This seems more compelling than mere pedagogical concerns in determining system policies. Here, the advantages of free, open-source software are evident. How much could we save by eliminating software costs on Microsoft’s Windows and Office software alone, simply by using free, open-source alternatives? Of course, this rapier cuts both ways. If the system has already invested in a mature technology, it becomes more difficult to sell an innovation that would render the former investment obsolete, especially if we must convince those who recommended and authorized the previous investment.
The fact that Promethean World offers its ActivInspire presentation software free of charge is a selling point. On the other hand, support hardware, such as digital whiteboards and tablet input devices, are costly. Perhaps selling the schools on the free software first would get a camel’s nose under the proverbial tent. Once they had installed the software on our computers, it would be easy to argue that we were losing value by not having the hardware necessary to fully exploit it. Then, those who supported installation of the software would have a political stake in promoting purchase of the hardware. This, along with the vaunted intrinsic advantages of digital whiteboards and the bandwagon appeal of their growing adoption by county systems and innovative city schools, might be enough to make standard the tools my colleague has struggled to assemble in his classroom.
References
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). New and Emerging Technologies. Baltimore: Author.
Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14–23.
Thornburg, D. D. (2009). When is a technology emergent? Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.
