Section 2: Theories, enablers, barriers and models

General theories and models of innovation diffusion

The work of Nutley et al. (2002) from the Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews in the UK, provides a comprehensive conceptual synthesis of the key ideas, models and implementation implications drawn from the adoption and diffusion of innovations literature. The paper provides a thorough overview of major theorists and provides an analytical review of innovation research contained within a four-part framework:

1. types of knowledge
2. types of utilisation
3. models of process
4. ways of seeing.

It also summarises the factors drawn from the literature review which affect the likelihood that a particular innovation will be adopted. These factors are innovation attributes, adopter characteristics, environmental/context characteristics, the characteristics of those promoting the innovation and communication channels.

Rogers in a nutshell

Diffusion of Innovations, the seminal work of Everett Rogers first published in1960 and now in its 5th edition, is consistently referred to in the literature on the diffusion of e-learning innovations as a key model for understanding and planning for innovation diffusion and implementation (Grunwald 2002; Seufert and Euler 2003; Mahoney and Wozniak 2005; Elgort 2005; Jasinski 2003; Robertson 2006).

While details of this model are widely available, its essence is outlined below:

The model has four key components

1. Innovations decision process. An individual's process of adopting an innovation progresses over time through five stages - knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation.
2. Individual innovativeness. This refers to the sequential uptake of innovation over time by different adopter categories - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.
3. Rate of adoption. Initially, the innovation goes through a slow, gradual growth period, followed by dramatic and rapid growth, and then a gradual stabilisation and finally a decline as a saturation point is reached.
4. Perceived attributes of an innovation. An innovation is a cluster of attributes with the following five attributes having the most impact on an individual's decision to adopt an innovation - compatibility, trialability, complexity, relative advantage and observability.
5. Stages in the adoption process. These include awareness, interest, evaluation, decision and adoption.

The general adoption and diffusion research, especially the work of Rogers, has informed educational technology diffusion research in many different countries and across different educational sectors. This generic model is widely transferable to different discipline settings including diffusion of e-learning innovations.

Rogers' innovation attributes are still the most commonly used metric for examining factors that affect innovation diffusion and adoption. Furthermore, the majority of the literature that examines factors affecting the adoption of instructional technology in higher education identified Rogers' innovation attributes. Of these attributes the literature suggests that relative advantage and compatibility may be the most important factors affecting faculty adoption of instructional technology (Grunwald 2002, p. 36).

An Australian example of using Roger's model as an 'explicit theoretical framework' to examine e-learning implementation is a case study on diffusion of innovation and professional development at the University of Sydney (Mahony and Wozniak, 2005). The authors conclude that:

"Rogers theory of the diffusion of innovation provides a useful framework for examining the introduction of e-learning strategies to university populations." (p. 7).

Closer to home, Jasinski (2004) used Rogers perceived attributes as the framework for evaluating the New Practices in Flexible Learning - Interactive Ochre project and found it to be a practical and useful tool.

Rogers diffusion of innovations model assumes a pro-innovation bias, or the assumption that adopting the innovation will be of benefit to potential adopters (Grunwald 2002). It also assumes a linear progression from one stage to the next.

While Rogers is a high profile model of diffusion of innovations, it is not the only one. There has been significant research from a range of countries and sectors specifically focusing on diffusion of innovative educational technology that makes a useful contribution to informing this research. This is the focus of the next section.

Barriers and enablers to e-learning sustainability

Grunwald (2002) noted there has been a shift in the literature from a focus on the benefits of e-learning to issues of sustained use as 'it is assumed that faculty adoption and sustained use of instructional technology is the desired outcome for colleges and universities' (p. 3).

"The immediate challenge for higher education institutions is to understand the factors that influence faculty adoption and sustained use of instructional technology. This understanding will better equip institutions to establish support structure enabling faculty to adopt and use technology." (p. 3)

Grunwald analysed the findings of 26 studies which identified variables that affect adoption of instructional technology. These variables were synthesised into six categories:

• Potential adopter traits - risk aversion, gender, potential adopter usage style, personal conviction, motivation, experience, self-efficacy, academic disciple and age.
• Potential adopters' beliefs and attitudes - perceived goals, positive attitudes towards technology, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
• Innovation characteristics - relative advantage over traditional teaching, compatibility with teaching materials, perceived value, ease of use, time needed to learn, innovation amenability and adaptability, trialability and visibility.
• Organisational and cultural context - faculty support, resources, equipment, availability, staff development opportunities, prompt technical support, incentives, instructional design support, strong culture which provides leadership and support for the new technology and encourages risk taking, mission statements, supportive institutional culture, cultural context.
• Performance impact of instructional technology - improved student learning, result demonstrability.
• Communication with other adopters - this category overlays all other categories.

Grunwald also cited a meta-analysis of over 75 studies by Tornatzky and Klein (1982) which revealed that 'compatibility and relative advantage were the two most positively related factors to adoption. Furthermore, they found that complexity had a consistently significant negative affect on adoption' (p. 65). Compatibility, relative advantage and complexity are three attributes identified by Rogers as influencing the decision by an individual to adoption an innovation.

Apart from these attributes, Grunwald also identified the following enablers and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology:

Enablers

Staff development opportunities, time, prompt technical support, incentives and positive attitudes towards technology, incentives/rewards to use it, encouraging risk taking, proof of improved student learning, advantage over traditional teaching, equipment availability, ease of use, time needed to learn, training, administrative support, personal comfort and colleague use, perceived value, resources and communication with other adopters, mission statements and institutional culture, faculty development programs, personal conviction, motivation, and experience, academic discipline and age, gender and potential adopter traits.

Barriers

Barriers to adoption of instructional technology identified in the literature included: lack of time, inability to receive credit towards tenure and promotion, insufficient or obsolete hardware and software, inadequate facilities and support services, lack of information about good practice, underestimation of the difficulties, inadequate training and professional development, and the time trade-off not being worth it (p. 36).

In 2003 the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA), commissioned two literature reviews to identify factors 'which hinder or promote the effective use of ICT by teachers.'

Barriers

• Major factors - confidence, time and access to quality resources.
• Recurring technical faults, and the expectation of faults occurring during teaching sessions, are likely to reduce teacher confidence and cause teachers to avoid using the technology in future lessons.
• Resistance to change, especially from teachers who do not realise the advantages of using technology in their teaching.
• There are relationships between many of the identified barriers and any one factor is likely to have an influence on the other.

Enablers

• leadership and planning
• sharing of resources
• reliable technical support
• schools working with each other and with the local community
• differentiated training and continuous professional development for teachers
• participation in national ICT initiatives and projects.

Surry and Ensminger (2005) highlight several barriers identified from a range of sources to the implementation of web-based learning (WBL) to a university context in the USA including:

• the amount of time it takes to develop WBL
• no perceived, personal or career benefit from participating in WBL
• administrator's commitment to WBL
• intellectual property
• academic freedom
• job security
• the changing nature of tenure
• the existing infrastructure of the university.

These barriers were reduced into three factors: 'personal variables,' 'attitudinal barriers,' and 'organisational barriers.' While Surry and Ensminger acknowledge that 'developing an implementation plan that accounts for the many barriers to WBL seems like an extremely difficult task', they were informed and guided by 'the literature, both outside of our field and within, which provides a number of useful theories and strategies related to the change process.' (p. 2)

Turning to a VET context, Phase 1 of the research project captured the views of New Practices in Flexible Learning project managers, who identified a number of factors that made it more likely that outcomes would be embedded. These included:

• the innovation responds to the market and to proven unmet need
• the innovation had clear, demonstrable benefits
• the innovation fits with organisational priorities and has management support
• the innovation has a leader or champion
• the potential users are engaged in the development of the process as a means of fostering greater eventual uptake of innovative practices
• the innovator has strong professional networks.

Barriers included:

• personnel or organisational changes
• lack of time and opportunities for dissemination
• lack of support for practitioners in adopting innovations
• clashes with organisational cultures and systems
• practitioners attitudes
• short time frames
• the process of embedding innovation.

These lists of enablers and barriers provide a comprehensive overview of the types of issues to be considered in an embedding endeavour. They can be consolidated into three key themes:

1. The innovation: types, attributes and pedagogical impact.
2. The innovators and adopters: the human factors including beliefs, attitudes, readiness and personal impact.
3. The organisation: the culture and systems including vision, leadership, infrastructure, commitment and provision of support.

These themes appear in different configurations and degrees of emphasis in a range of models that have been developed to inform and guide decision makers in how to best support the longer term utilisation of innovative e-learning initiatives.

From adoption to implementation - conditions, dimensions and models

Recently there has been a shift in focus away from adoption and towards implementation (Surry and Ely 2001).

Implementation is the process of fostering the use of an innovation within an organisation after the initial adoption decision. (p. 184).

Implementing moves beyond the decision to adopt (take it on) to focus on active and sustained utilisation of the innovative practice (see it through). A significant amount of research has been undertaken to identify conditions, characteristics, enablers, barriers and models that influence the implementation of e-learning innovations. A snapshot of this research reveals a variety of approaches from higher education and schools and vocational and education training sectors around the world.

Ely's eight conditions for implementation

A well known researcher on conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations is Donald P Ely. Ely (1999) identifies eight conditions that facilitate the implementation of an innovation within an organisation (see Table 1). In theory, an organisation can foster the efficient implementation of an innovation by accounting for each of Ely's eight conditions in ways that are meaningful and relevant to their unique implementation situation.

Table 1: Ely's (1999) eight conditions to facilitate implementation of educational technology

Seufert and Euler's five dimensions

Seufert and Euler (2003) from the Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning, University of St.Gallen, articulated why there was a growing research interest in e learning sustainability.

The exaggerated expectations attributed to e-learning in the recent past have subsided somewhat and capital providers, mainly state sponsors returned to reality and withdrew their support successively - analogous to the dot.com crises and the developments in the e-business field. This disillusion and consolidation phase provides the opportunity to continue the development of e-learning on a high quality level and to evaluate what survives sustainability. (p. 3).

They conducted expert interviews with a range of stakeholders responsible for the 'sustainability of e-learning' once 'financing subsides.'

Hence sustainability becomes a fundamental issue; how do e learning projects manage the transition into a capable, self-financed and expanded model?. (p. 3)

How does e-learning move beyond the innovative and motivated early adopters and be .integrated into central processes of an educational institution so that ordinary teaching staff will use it on a regular basis?' (p. 4). Seufert and Euler equate e learning to a foreign body.

Either it adapts and not be regarded as alien or it will continuously be identified as a foreign body and be eventually rejected from the system. (p. 4).

The word 'sustainability' itself can be problematic as 'everyone has different ideas of what the term means'. Seufert and Euler relate sustainability to the concepts of 'stability' or 'permanence'.

Transferring these terms to e-learning means developing stable structures, which are integrated institutionally and result in fundamental changes in teaching. (p. 5).

They concluded that sustainable implementation of e-learning innovations requires a systemic and 'interdisciplinary approach' and identified five dimensions that promote sustainability:

They emphasise the inter-relatedness of these dimensions 'which derive from different disciplines and stand in mutual stressful interaction' (p. 6), and caution against over-emphasis of one over the other. The dimensions are relevant to different stakeholder groups - key decision makers, e-learning coordinators and project teams.

Seufert and Euler's research also identified three significant principles that are crucial for the sustainable implementation of e-learning innovations:

1. Taking a long-term perspective - it takes time to fix something permanently in human minds and implies a rethinking from short-term project orientation to long-lasting implementation.
2. Applying a systemic approach - sustainability needs to be achieved at an institutional as well as a project level and both need to be evaluated in respect to their efficiency and sustainability. However, the former is more important for sustainability.
3. A multidimensional vision - all five dimensions have to be evaluated in respect to their efficiency and have to be considered in the right balance (p. 10).

Collis and Moonen's '18 lessons'

Collis and Moonen (2001) from the University of Twente in the Netherlands, distilled over 20 years experience with ICT and learning in higher education into '18 lessons', which in essence, is a systemic model for embedding e-learning. Lessons include having clear goals, accepting e-learning as an integral component of a teaching repertoire, acknowledging change is iterative and unpredictable, recognising that environmental context and personal engagement are important, key people are critical, focusing on just-in-time support, keeping implementation a central focus of all development work, complementing core technologies, offering something for everyone, changing progressively and starting where people are at, involving learners actively, being cautious about old measures, understanding it’s not about saving money and simplifying return on investment criteria.

Of particular interest is 'Lesson 5: Watch for the 4-Es'. The '4-Es' predicts an individual's likelihood of voluntarily using a technology tool or resource for supporting learning. They are:

1. Environment - the context in which an individual is a part
2. Educational effectiveness - perceived or expected benefit to a user's own problem
3. Ease of use - the easier the better
4. Engagement with technology - a personal response to technology and to change.

Collis and Moonen believe the environmental context and the level of personal engagement are most important. They offer a conceptual model for technology integration called 'The Learning Workbench':

For us, technology is not for 'delivering' learning or for taking the humans out of learning, but is rather a set of tools, a locally tailorable workbench, which offers affordances to empower people to share, build, support, and manage their learning together, in their common context. (p. 6).

Three important elements must be considered together in setting up The Learning Workbench:

• Context - learning takes place within a complicated mix of personal social, organisational and cultural factors and there are no simple answers.
• Processes - that put the user in control and contributing so there is optimal fit of learning to the personal context.
• Technology as a tool - rather than a solution, technology is a workbench which supplies users with tools to address their own problems and interests.

Most of this research has occurred in the higher education sector. In the schools sector, models frequently cited include the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall and Hord 1987) and the Integrated Model (Sherry and Gibson 2002). Both focus on supporting practitioners.

Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

Hall and Hord's (1987) Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) approaches the adoption of an innovation through the point of view of the individual teacher. The two key focus areas are 'stages of concern' and 'levels of use'. Teachers will have different concerns about a technology depending on the stage they are in, and go through eight levels of use ranging from 'non-use' to 'renewal'. It is the most commonly cited diffusion model in education (Grunwald 2002). The model has been used extensively to inform research and program development in adoption of innovations in school education.

Sherry and Gibson's integrated model

Sherry (1997, 1998) and Sherry et al. (2000) refer to the adoption of educational technology as a 'slow revolution' which is influenced by a combination of technological, individual, organisational and instructional factors. Sherry and Gibson (2002) point to the value of broadening the theoretical perspective beyond an adoption and diffusion framework to offer 'some refreshing alternative viewpoints'. They mention Senge's (1990) Systems Theory, Engestrom's (1996) Activity Theory and Nardi and O'Day's (1999) Information Ecologies.

Sherry and Gibson (2002) recommend that any model:

"..must deal with the complex interrelationships among the many key actors and parts of the system. It must provide a framework and language for describing many simultaneous interactions. It must represent the flow of resources in a system over time. And finally, the model must make visible both the patterns and the extent of involvement of the various players and parts of the system" (p. 2).

They developed an integrated model of professional growth where teachers progress through five distinct evolutionary stages as they develop expertise in using educational technology. These stages are:

1. Teacher as learner - information gathering and learning new skills and knowledge for utilising the technology.
2. Teacher as adopter - experimenting, trying out and sharing experiences with peers.
3. Teacher as co-learner/co-explorer - developing a relationship between the technology and the curriculum rather than technology tasks.
4. Teacher as decision maker - reaffirming/rejecting the technology as they develop a greater awareness of outcomes and begin to assess the impact of the innovation of student learning and performance.
5. Teacher as leader - expand their role to become active researchers who share experiences and suggest improvements. Their skills become portable.

They caution that the portability of skills of a 'teacher-as-leader' could become a destabilising factor. Sherry and Gibson refer to the work of Miles (1983) whose studies of institutionalisation of educational practices highlighted a potential conflict between the need for the teacher-leaders to continue to take on new challenges, and the need to institutionalise the innovation at the local site. This required clear communication and cooperation and support between teacher-leaders and managers so that '. the pressure and stresses of incorporating something new could be managed together.' (Miles, p. 19, in Sherry and Gibson, 2000). If these teacher-leaders were supported they were able to grow in their role. If they weren't supported the portability of their skills often meant they moved on resulting in the decomposition of the institutionalising effort. Support included administrative support, incentives, peer coaching, outside consulting, structured time for sharing new ideas and promising practices with colleagues, and support from enthusiastic students.

Gibson (2000) identified three critical processes that must be in place for systemic change to occur:

1. Convergence of resources which provides a starting point for change. The premise is that the influence of a practice stays at the level at which it is supported, ie individual, peer, work group, program, organisation. If resources are not concentrated enough to spark something, there will only be a mild impact.
2. Mutual benefit to those who are affected by the change taking place. Every circle of influence has a boundary, so there must be benefit for people on both sides of a boundary.
3. Extensive free flow of resources and expertise throughout the system to fuel its sustainability. For any transformation, the innovation must spread beyond the localised setting. Otherwise there could be local sustainability, but no systemic impact.

If these three factors are in place, the momentum for systemic sustainability is created. That is, for a majority of teachers educational technology is 'seamlessly integrated' with other methodologies as a core component of everyday teaching practice.

Summary

The common and consistent message these theories, barriers, enablers and models present is that an embedding process must be based on a clear vision, driven by champions, explored from multiple perspectives, with a range of stakeholders over a period of time, and there is no one way to do it. Three key components must be considered in an implementation endeavours:

1. The innovation - the types, attributes, market need, benefits and pedagogical impact.
2. The innovators and adopters - the human factor including beliefs and attitudes, readiness, collaboration, personal impact and relationships.
3. The organisation - the culture and systems including infrastructure, leadership, commitment and provision of professional development.

As these three components are essential factors to consider in an implementation strategy for e-learning innovations they will structure the next three sections of this literature review.

Section 3: The innovation

Some ideas require the focused energy of the bulk of an organisation for their emergence and success. Other ideas can emerge in local situations and remain local or propagate across the organisation in a more organic fashion. Many ideas lie in between and require the focus of the organisation at times or rely upon a distributed system of support at other times (Coffman 2006, p. 5).

There is huge variation in the nature of innovative practices in e-learning. This was identified in Phase 1 of the project when the range of the New Practices in Flexible Learning projects was analysed. These projects tended to have one of four focuses:

1. developing a product or technology
2. using existing products or technology to improve teaching, learning or assessment
3. dealing with issues around a new technology itself
4. developing a new approach to teaching, not necessarily based around technology.

Within these focus areas, the scope and complexity of individual projects varied considerably. Examples of each of these New Practices in Flexible Learning are listed in Table 3.

Innovation types and attributes

The decision to adopt some innovations however, may not be an individual's decision and requires more stakeholder involvement and participation. What would enable these potential adopters to make informed decisions about investing in a innovation? This section focuses on models that identify innovation types and innovation attributes and how these can be mapped to support the process of diffusion and implementation.

More than ever, there is a rich offering of different types of innovative e-learning. Innovation type has an impact on adoption and diffusion decisions and the most well known and utilised model in the education sector is Rogers' five factors (Grunwald 2002). Compatibility, observability, relative advantage and trialability have been positively associated with a decision to adopt, whereas complexity has a negative relationship.

Adams (2003) and Adams, Tranfield and Denyer (2006) however, suggest that a gap exists in Rogers' work because Rogers only focused on one class of innovation - 'readily-adopted' innovation. As a result of their extensive research on innovation in the UK National Health system, they suggest there are in fact three categories of innovation: readily adopted innovation, challenging innovation and under cover innovation. Each has different cluster characteristics that distinguish them from each other.

1. Readily adopted innovations align well with Rogers' model. These innovations have high ratings for adaptability, observability and actual operation and low ratings for disruption and risk. While they also had a high ratings for departure (extent of change from existing routines) this was not perceived as problematic because of the adaptability factor.
2. Challenging innovations are characterised by high ratings for risk, disruption, scope and complexity. These innovations require change and accommodations to be made outside the adopting group, were complex and disruptive, and consequently, not readily adopted.
3. Undercover innovations are notable for an absence of management commitment outside the innovating group and had low ratings for profile, scope, actual operation, observability, relative advantage. While understood within the innovating group, they had little profile beyond that group or institution. There was also some indication that the activity occurred in isolation and had little management support or endorsement - consequently the name.(Adams, Tranfield and Denyer 2006, pp 27-28).

While this three type classification is still 'tentative' and in early stages of research, nevertheless 'two-thirds of the innovations investigated in this study were not "readily adopted", implying that barriers exist that impede the process of change' (p. 31). This has implications for policy makers and managers promoting and facilitating change.

Adams (2003) proposed a comprehensive and holistic framework for innovation classification which 'acts as a powerful integrating device' (Varga and Allen 2006, p. 49), and offers a 'heuristic' to better understand the nature of innovations within an organisation.

This framework has promise as a useful decision-making tool for assisting decision makers to examine the profile of an e-learning innovation. It provides criteria for making an assessment of an innovation's attributes. This is turn may help to ascertain the viability of an innovation's 'embed-ability' into a team or organisational context.

Summary

The type and attributes of an innovative e-learning practice can vary considerably and can have different implementation demands. This variation can be a barrier to implementation if there are no clear guidelines to enable potential adopters to make informed decisions about implementation viability. The nature of an innovation is an important consideration as there is evidence that 'readily adopted' innovations that require incremental changes and complement existing practices are more likely to be adopted. Tools that help to classify and profile an innovation can assist decision makers to make informed decisions about the viability of adopting an innovative practice and therefore increase the chances of its 'embed-ability'. The innovators and adopters are critical in this process and they will be the focus of the next section.

Section 4: The innovators and adopters

Most of us who work in organisations are well versed in our jobs - what we do every day. We're less comfortable with the process of convincing others to adopt what we have been doing. Some feel that it’s intrusive or pushy. Some don't like the idea of selling. The rest of us simply have never had the opportunity to hone the skills. . it’s important to teach people to share and to promote their own ideas. After all, the long term health of the organisation depends on good ideas finding broader acceptance (Coffman 2006, p. 13).

There are natural social speeds for adopting an innovation. Rogers (1995), is well known for his work on adopter characteristics and the different rate of uptake of an innovation over time by innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. According to Rogers innovators and early adopters make up only a small proportion of any population - 2.5% are innovators and early adopters about 13%.There are just not enough of them to have an impact at the coalface.

The mainstream adopters (early and late majority) who make up the bulk of any population are the ones who can make the difference to whether an innovative practice is utilised. However, mainstream adopters have different motives for making a decision to adopt than their first wave colleagues.

The early majority are more practical: they do think through the pros and cons of a new idea before they adopt, so they help to make it more tangible and acceptable. But if the support systems and infrastructure aren't there, they'll hold back on a commitment. The late majority, on the other hand, are creatures of habit and predictability. They want to know the rules, they love systems. The beautiful thing about the late majority is that when they don't find rules or systems, they'll start figuring them out (Lambe 2003, p. 2).

While the obvious targets for diffusing innovation are the innovators and early adopters, they may not be the best choice. In fact, they may be detrimental to the diffusion and embedding process. Lambe (2003) highlights why:

Early adopters like to play. They like to try out new things. And they like to get people excited. But they are not good at building systems, and they get bored by thinking through complex infrastructures (p. 2).

This is reinforced by Nutley et al. (2002) who observed that innovators:

. are usually dissimilar to the broad mass of potential adopters and therefore have communication and credibility problems (p. 11).

The work of Moore (1999) a marketer of high technology products, reinforces the insight that different adopter groups adopt for different reasons and have different expectations. While innovators want radical shifts, are risk takers and more willing to experiment, mainstream adopters want productivity improvement. From each perspective, both are good reasons to make a decision to adopt an innovative practice, but the basis on which that decision is made is different. As a result, a chasm exists between the enthusiastic and visionary innovators and early adopters, and the more pragmatic later adopters. The result is that the innovation can have a long period of stagnation and the momentum can be lost or fail completely if an infrastructure to jump the chasm is not developed (Forsyth 2004).

Focusing back on an educational context, the concept of a dividing chasm is supported by the work of Geoghegan (1995). While risk-taking early adopters are more willing to experiment, generally self-sufficient, and interested in the technology itself, the early majority educators are more concerned about the teaching or learning problem being addressed than the technology used to address it. Ease of use is critical to them as well as proven applications with low risk of failure. While Geoghegan recognises the chasm between early and mainstream adopters, he also believes there is a second chasm that needs to be recognised, namely that the support structures favour early adopters. The underpinning assumption is that all adopters require the same kind of support structures, but this is not the case. In other words, mainstream adopters need something qualitatively different from early adopters in terms of support. He also supported the notion raised by Nutley (2002) and Lambe (2003) that because of this chasm, early adopters can be poor role models for mainstream adopters.

The result is that early adopters can reach a saturation point, while the mainstream adopters rarely adopt and if they do, it is not sustained because they have the wrong support structures and the wrong role models based on wrong assumptions about their needs - even though these assumptions may be well intentioned (Grunwald, 2002).

White (2006) translated Geoghegan's ideas for catering for different adopter groups to a university setting in the UK. The focus was embedding e-learning initiatives after initial external funding had ceased. She found the following issues:

• Radical/gradual change: Seeded projects tended to reinforce horizontal change, but vertical change is required if an innovative practice is to be adopted. She also made the point that the nature of project funding in academia was necessarily visionary (kudos seeking) so will encompass activities that attract early adopters.
• Visionary/pragmatic: If innovative projects are part of an academic career and an individual opportunity, they can reinforce horizontal diffusion as they are mostly presented at conferences and through publications. The primary interest therefore is not institutional progress and change, even though this might be the intent of the original funding.
• Project/ process: While 'projects' are a device to make change happen, projects are often separate from everyday business and could have little impact if they did not have internal sponsors.
• Risk taker/risk averse: Investing time in technology for teaching was considered a risky personal decision when the benefits were unclear - especially for an individual's career.
• Experimenters/want proven use: Dissemination of proven use was not effective if there was no perceived application and benefit in a local context.
• Self sufficient/need support: A number of support factors were identified including training, technical support, information/knowledge, time, resources, colleague support, encouragement/rewards and funds.
• Relate horizontal/vertical: External funding tended to build horizontal rather than vertical allegiances, whereas what is needed for embedding, is vertical integration.

White concluded that a number of local factors can undermine progress beyond a project. Short-term financial autonomy may result in 'pockets of excellence rather than broad advances' (p. 14). She suggests small but systemic advances in structure, policies, procedures and tactics targeted to meet the needs of the early majority.

A compounding argument is put forward by Elgort (2005) who challenges us to think about a third chasm - the chasm between innovative technology and innovative teaching practice. As part of her Flexible Learning Leaders in New Zealand research, Elgort proposes an 'e-learning paradox' in relation to practitioners' decisions to implement e-learning. She suggests approaching e-learning innovation as a multidimensional process that is located on two planes: the plane of technology and the plane of pedagogy. She suggests the real chasm is not between early and mainstream adopters, but rather between 'the two interrelated but distinct components of e-learning: adoption of the e-learning technology innovation and adoption of the e-learning pedagogy innovation' (p. 184). Her observation is that in an adoption cycle, e-learning technologies are adopted at a faster rate and are more advanced than e-learning pedagogies. The approach to teaching in whatever context is influenced by the way teachers are taught.

"Thus if a lecturer believes in the information transmission approach, this lecturer will use e-learning to facilitate this mode of learning, and any tools that do not align with this approach will be either ignored or 'misused". (p. 184).

This highlights the importance of initial teacher training, the exposure to e-learning pedagogies, and the importance of modelling good practice in a teacher training context.

Elgort suggests that e-learning is not about technology innovation, but rather educational innovation that 'requires reconceptualisation of traditional teaching and learning paradigms, especially in relation to the roles of teacher and learner' (p. 184). She proposes that professional development is a key to transforming beliefs about teaching practice.

This raises the issue of what 'new practice' we are aiming to embed - new technologies, new learning environments or new pedagogies. This is an issue worthy of discussion as they may not be one and the same. Cuban et al. (2001) in reference to a study of adoption of educational technology in California's Silicon Valley stated that:

"We found that access to equipment and software seldom led to widespread teacher and student use. Most teachers were occasional or nonusers. When they used computers for classroom work, more often than not their use sustained rather than altered existing patterns of teaching practice". (p. 813).

In other words, the 'e' may be distracting attention from the 'learning'. Geoghegan (1994) believes this is the heart of the matter.

Technology in the service of ineffective teaching will do nothing to improve the quality of instruction; it will simply perpetuate and even amplify poor teaching. Likewise, good teaching can often be enhanced by even simple technology, wisely and sensitively applied. In either event, the process begins with teaching; technology comes second (p. 15).

This technology/learning issue is emerging in the conversations within the broader Framework community as the following anecdote from the field illustrates.

We really shouldn't be focusing on the technologies! We should be focusing on the learning and the learning/teaching issues that we are facing and then looking at what might be out there that could help. Part of the solution may be technologies - and in some cases these will be new technologies, mobile technologies, and in some cases they may be applying older technologies in new ways.

E-learning manager

It may be timely and strategic to re-introduce more rigorous attention on the benefits of both 'e' and 'learning' to the core business of the VET industry - teaching and learning.

Summary

The details may vary and the models may be configured differently, but the overarching message from the literature is consistent. Embedding e-learning innovation is a personal, social, pedagogical, technological and organisational process involving a commitment to sustainable practice, and systemic but not necessarily systematic change. Embedding requires acceptance by a critical mass, it happens over time, with other people, in different ways, for different reasons, at a different pace and with different approaches.

What sort of organisation enables this complex process of embedding new practices to be realised? This is the focus of the next section.

Section 5: The organisation

Most of an organisation's energy is spent on maintaining itself and replacing lost capabilities. Any remaining energy should be devoted to innovation in both grass roots and top down approaches. If operations consume all of an organisations' energy, it stops growing. When it stops growing it becomes less resilient and begins to atrophy (Coffman 2006, p. 11).

Section 6: RIPPLES - a model for implementing innovative practice in e-learning

This section is co-authored with Dr Daniel Surry whose generosity, sensitivity and insight is acknowledged.

RIPPLES is a generic macro model for implementing e-learning innovations. It was developed by Dr Daniel Surry, Associate Professor in Instructional Design and Development at the University of South Alabama and David C Ensminger, a Clinical Assistant Professor in the School Technology program at Loyola University, Chicago. Informed by the authors' own research on implementation of technology innovations, their experience as e-learning change agents within university settings, and extensive literature reviews on the adoption and implementation of educational technology innovations, RIPPLES is well aligned with the intent of this research. It was developed to help guide senior decision makers in the implementation of web-based learning in higher education.

RIPPLES is the acronym for the seven components of the model: resources, infrastructure, people, policies, learning, evaluation, and support. It was specifically developed to assist universities implement innovative e-learning practices.

Implementation is the process of fostering the use of an innovation within an organisation after the initial adoption decision (Surry and Ensminger 2005, p. 5).

An overview of the RIPPLES implementation model

The RIPPLES model was developed to address the needs of the university sector in the USA. This research project was an opportunity to test the model in an Australian VET context and to leverage the significant foundation work on which the model is based. The RIPPLES model is informed by adoption, diffusion and implementation models including the work of Everett Rogers (1995). Also, work specifically related to the education and training sector including Hall and Hord's (1987) Concerns-Based Adoption Model; the work of Michael Fullan (2001), especially his underlying foci on the development of shared vision and capacity building for change; Ely's (1999) eight conditions that facilitate implementation; The Critical Factors in Adoption Checklist developed by Stockdill and Morehouse (1992); Burkman's (1987) User Oriented Instructional Development model; and the concept of adoption analysis developed by Farquhar and Surry (1994). Other authors whose work is relevant to this area include Havelock and Zlotolow (1995) and Reigeluth and Garfinkle (1994).

An implementation model for decision makers

In order to successfully implement any innovation, change agents must address both the human needs and organisational issues that affect implementation. RIPPLES integrates the two and addresses wider issues such as infrastructure, resources, technical support and provides a model to guide the development of an e-learning implementation plan.

The model has also been used to study the adoption of technology in academic and public libraries (Murray and Moen, 2003). While not the original intent of the model, it is possible to apply the macro level framework to the narrower task of facilitating the use of e-learning by other stakeholder groups.

RIPPLES - the seven components in more detail

In this section, each of the seven components of the RIPPLES model is described in more detail. A range of variables within individual contexts will influence the weightings of each of the components.

Resources

The financial resources needed to develop and use innovative practices in e-learning.

Resources refer to the monetary resources required to progress an innovative practice to implementation and embedded use. Resources include the source of funding and the costs associated with implementing a new practice.

Source of funding

Soft money - the temporary resources accessed from external sources.

Hard money - recurrent resources committed by the organisation to sustaining an innovative practice in its journey from innovation to a routine practice that is embedded as a core business offering.

Costs

A number of costs are associated with any innovation. These costs can be categorised as direct and indirect costs and initial and continuing costs.

Direct costs - These include:

• hardware and software purchases
• license fees, server space
• teacher and support services salaries.

Indirect costs - These can be surprises and are quite substantial.

• upgrading of computers
• increased demand for support services
• updated and expanded use of wireless networks
• the purchase of specialised software and peripherals
• salaries for teaching overload
• advertising and marketing costs.

Initial costs - are those one-time costs that occur when an innovation is first adopted.

• hardware and software needed to develop and deliver courses
• facilities.

On-going costs - are those costs that need to be accounted for in each budget cycle throughout the life of the innovation.

• annual fees for commercial management and delivery systems
• internet service providers
• training, and periodic equipment
• software upgrades.

When developing an implementation plan to embed an innovation, all four costs may need to be accounted for. Surry suggests that:

Perhaps the most important things an organisation can do to facilitate the implementation of an innovative practice is to 'have a realistic understanding of all the costs involved and to develop a detailed, practical plan for addressing those costs.

Infrastructure

The technological capabilities of an organisation. This includes communication systems, networks, hardware, software, and administrative facilities.

Infrastructure refers to all of the technologies associated with an innovation. No innovation exists in a vacuum. Every innovation is dependant upon a variety of associated technologies for its success. In order to successfully facilitate the use of an innovative practice, an organisation's technology infrastructure should include five components:

• Teaching resources - the technology required to deliver the new practice. This could include campus-based or remote servers, server software, specialised hardware and software.
• Production resources - the hardware and software needed to develop the audio, video, and other resources that will be used in the new practice.
• Communication resources - the tools needed for teachers and students to interact in an online environment.
• Student resources - the technology used by students to access and participate in a new practice.
• Administrative resources - the technology needed to manage traditional educational functions such as registration, textbook orders and grading in an online environment.

People

The social and human elements of an organisation. This includes the goals, skills, talents, backgrounds, beliefs, opinions and feelings of the people who make up an organisation as well as those of customers and clients.

The people within an organisation play an essential role in the change process. Any organisational change, including embedding innovative e-learning practice, is an inherently human process. Everyone within an organisation has an important role to play in the successful implementation of an innovation. The two essential considerations are shared decision-making and communication between all stakeholders (Ely 1999).

• Shared decision-making - seeking input from stakeholders who are directly or indirectly responsible for making decisions that influence the implementation of the new practice. These include managers, corporate and support staff, teachers, learners and where appropriate, their sponsors.
• Communication - involving all stakeholders throughout the innovation process so potential barriers can be addressed as the innovation moves more fully towards implementation.

Policies

By this, we mean the written and unwritten rules, practices, traditions, and regulations that govern your organisation's day to day operations.

Every organisation that adopts an innovation is forced to make changes to the way it does business. The introduction of even the smallest new technology forces at least subtle changes to the normal routine. The size and scope of a new practice will influence the degree of change required for successful implementation. Some change will be small and local, others will significantly impact on established processes.

These could include policies on:

• e-learning
• intellectual property
• flexible work practices
• award and incentive schemes
• innovation
• evaluation
• assessment
• talent management.

Organisations may also have to adapt existing policies related to student fees, prerequisite courses, performance management and assessment.

Learning

The instructional outcomes of a training or educational program. This also refers to a focus on the learner's overall experience within a training or educational program.

When implementing a new practice, consideration needs to be given to the learning outcomes as much as technological or financial outcomes. In general, there are two ways that any technology can enhance the learning outcomes of an organisation.

• Pedagogical benefits. A new practice can allow teachers and students to learn and interact in dynamic new ways, resulting in increased cognitive or motivational outcomes.
• Access benefits. A new practice can allow an organisation to reach new learner populations or to serve current learners in new ways.

The challenge is to define the pedagogical and access benefits to be achieved through the new practice, and to communicate those goals to relevant stakeholder groups.

Evaluation

An assessment of learner goals, technology, technology plans, innovative practices, and the costs and benefits associated with a new practice.

Evaluation should be a major component of any implementation plan. There are four areas of evaluation to consider.

1. Evaluation of technology in relation to learning goals. The main evaluation question would be 'Is this new practice allowing teachers to do a better job teaching their students or to reach new populations?'
2. Evaluation of the new practice itself. This evaluation would include an ongoing assessment of management and delivery alternatives. The goal of this evaluation is to improve the learning experience for both teachers and students.
3. Evaluation of the effectiveness in working with staff both individually and collectively. Surry suggests that Ely's eight conditions provide the foundation for formulating these evaluation questions. This evaluation would determine the factors that have either enabled or created barriers to the embedding of the new practice at various points throughout the process. It is especially important to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy for various sub-groups, (eg staff in different departments) and adopter categories, (eg innovators, laggards).
4. A benefit/cost evaluation should be used to determine the return on investment for the new practice. The cost/benefit evaluation should be on a unit-by-unit and organisation-wide basis.

Support

The technical, training, pedagogical and administrative support for teachers, learners and those supporting the process.

Support has four components:

• Training - all the formal and informal instruction required to implement an innovative e-learning practice.
• Technical support - the ongoing support teachers (and learners) have when hardware, software, or network problems arise.
• Pedagogical support - the assistance teachers receive related to applying innovative teaching approaches to an online environment.
• Administrative leadership - the commitment of managers/supervisors have to helping practitioners do an effective job.

Summary

RIPPLES is a comprehensive and well researched model specifically designed to assist decision makers implement innovative e-learning practices in a higher education setting. RIPPLES is the acronym for the seven components of the model: resources, infrastructure, people, policies, learning, evaluation, and support.

As it is well aligned with the intent of this research project, it was used as the framework for surveying the VET sector to identify barriers, enablers and other factors that impacted in the embedding of innovative practice in e-learning in a VET context. Details of the survey design, dissemination, results and discussion are documented in the next session.