adoption process within educational organisations.
While researching theories and model that investigate and explain individuals‘ adoption behaviour within universities or similar educational organisations,
unfortunately, the researcher quickly became aware of the little attention given to this topic.
In this section, the author will briefly discuss two instructional technology adoption models.
2.2.1 Concerns-based Adoption model (CBAM)
The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a model that describes the process individuals progress through as they learn about a certain innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). CBAM is a high level conceptual framework providing a set of tools and techniques that help facilitate reform in an educational environment. It is primarily concerned with top-down change, as it looks at it from a process perspective consisting of a number of steps.
CBAM assumes that an innovation will be adopted (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973), and therefore it does not explain the reasons behind innovation
adoption, rather, how the assumed adoption can be facilitated once concerns are understood (Straub, 2009). Hall et al. (1973) note the difference in the use of the term ‗adoption‘ in their model to that used by Rogers to indicate the process of deciding to adopt and use a certain innovation. In their case, the term ‗adoption‘ is used to indicate the broad effort of integrating an innovation into an organisation‘s functional structure.
CBAM introduced seven stages of concerns reflecting people‘s reactions, feelings, or attitudes towards a new innovation or practice. They start with the individual knowing nothing about the innovation and end with the individual‘s intent to explore a new or better method than that which they adopted.
Figure 2.2 CBAM Stages of Concerns
Contrary to the goal of this research, which is to understand what drive the adoption of learning innovations, one key shortcoming in CBAM is its assumption that an innovation will be adopted. As a result it mainly focuses on how to facilitate the diffusion of an innovation that will certainly be adopted. This is not the case with all innovations and the vast majority of research into innovation and technology adoption proves that adoption is never a given. Another assumption in CBAM is that organisations are fully aware of their current resources, what their needs are, and what specific innovations they will adopt to resolve any problems or remedy these needs (Hall et al., 1973). While this can certainly be the case in some organisations, the fact that the UK higher education system and the instruction methods has mostly stayed the same for too long says otherwise. The discussion of issues facing UK universities earlier in this research, and the fact that many of these issues
Refocusing
How to make the innovation better
Collaboration
Interest in how others are using the innovation
Consequence
Concerned about the impact of the innovation on students
Management
How will the processes, tasks, and resources be managed
Personal
How will the use of the innovation affect the user
Information
Seeking more information about the innovation
Awareness
remain current, impacting staff for too long, demonstrates that organisations are not necessarily always aware of their resources, problems, or needs and how to remedy them.
In the same vein, Straub (2009) discussed the limitations of CBAM. One notable shortcoming noted is a focus on the top-down approach and the reform or change being generally mandatory. A second notable limitation is the disregard of teachers‘ positive or favourable perceptions of the innovation. Teachers are thus portrayed as always being resistant to change. A third notable shortcoming is the focus on the change agent who is facilitating the reform or change, rather than the teacher who will be the individual adopting and using the innovation.
The aim of this research is to study individuals‘ adoption of innovation within universities. Adoption of innovations within universities is not always
mandated or certain. The study also focuses on the adoption of learning innovations and possible reasons behind it, and not with the process of change or how the innovation can be diffused within an organisation. Meaning, the aim is to understand the adoption behaviour itself rather than how if such behaviour was assumed to diffuse it further. Therefore, CBAM is not considered as a suitable base for the theoretical model that will be developed in this research.
2.2.2 The Learning/Adoption Trajectory Model
One of the models found in the literature is the Integrated Technology
Adoption and Diffusion Model. The model describes a learning and adoption cycle that was developed based on Rogers‘s diffusion of innovation theory and CBAM (Sherry, Billig, Tavalin, & Gibson, 2000). Similar to Roger‘s innovation-decision process, the model is concerned with the adopter‘s (in this case the teacher‘s) progress and development through the innovation- decision cycle as they gain more knowledge about the innovation. The
authors offer great recommendations for possible strategies that can be used at different stages to help develop teachers and help them move on to the next stage.
Sahin (2005), in his case study, used the model to understand a faculty member‘s technology adoption. He provides and discusses several
recommendations that can be taken into consideration to progress and reach a later stage of the cycle suggested by the model.
Despite its usefulness in explaining the different stages the teacher or adopter goes through in the innovation-decision process, the model was not
developed within the higher education context, although it has been applied to help in the analysis of instructional technology adoption in higher
education, and was able to explain approximately 75% of the variance in technology adoption (Sahin & Thompson, 2007). However, as is the case with the previous model, the literature lacks further research validating and