1

Disseminating Disseminating Innovations: Innovations: Lessons from the iCampus Lessons from the iCampus Study Study and other researchand other research

Stephen C. Ehrmann, Stephen C. Ehrmann, Ph.D.Ph.D.

Director, The Flashlight Director, The Flashlight Program, Program,

Vice President, The TLT GroupVice President, The TLT GroupCite as: Ehrmann, S., (2010). Disseminating Innovations: Lessons from the iCampus Study and Other Research. Presented at the Workshop on Disseminating CCLI Innovations: Arlington, VA, February 18-19, 2010.Unless otherwise specified this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/)

2

Thanks!Thanks! 110+ institutional

subscribers to TLT Group services

Washington State Univ. (Flashlight Online), Bucks County CC (hybrid workshops), Butler University (low threshold activities) Central Michigan U (5 minute workshops) Drexel University (faculty assessment

toolkit) IUPUI (e-portfolios); George Washington U (faculty

development strategies) Gannon U (seven principles) Hamline U, NC State (TLTRs) IUPUI (cost modeling, TLTRs, ePortfolios) Johnson C. Smith (ARQ) Mesa CC (Diversity) MIT (adoption of innovation) National Council on Science and

Environment (respond to climate change) U of Nebraska (LTAs, classroom

technology), Oregon State (evaluation of CMS) U of Nevada, Reno (ARQ) U Queensland (ePortfolios, learning

spaces) Virginia Tech (ePortfolios)

3

OutlineOutline

I. Setting the stage: what do you already

believe about good practice in dissemination?

II. Lessons from FIPSE experiences, study

(1978-85)

III. Lessons from the Valuable Viable Software

study(1994)

IV. Lessons from iCampus study (2006)

V. Final suggestions (2010)

4

Setting the Stage

Imagine you’re an NSF program officer who’s making funding choices this year. If something you fund this year doesn’t get into use by 50% of all potentially interested faculty in 10 years, you’ll be subjected to horrendous embarrassment.

What kind of projects would you fund this year? In the coming years? Why?

5

II. FIPSE

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (HEW/ED)

1:30 ideas funded Potential for dissemination (far-reaching

impact) one of only three criteria for funding

1978: Grant competition for best dissemination strategy

1980-82: External evaluation

6

1. Beware of proposals that claim to be the first of their kind – no one else needs this? No collaborators? Nothing to build on?

2. Seek a family of projects that could start an avalanche of adaptation

Not every good idea is a potential avalanche

3. Replication rare, adaptation more common, influence most common

FIPSE Lessons

7

FIPSE (2)

Almost everything we know about (adult) learning can be applied to dissemination, e.g., The experience and needs of the potential

adopter influence how they understand the innovation

So study that experience and use it to craft your dissemination strategy for that group.

8

FIPSE (3)

One size doesn’t fit all. Innovations that require systematic

intervention for adoption also require a prolonged and expensive dissemination/support.

Other innovations can be passed along virtually by word of mouth (virally).

Moral: don’t try to impose the same dissemination strategy on all innovations.

9

III. Valuable, Viable Software

What kinds of software had had the greatest beneficial influence on education?1. “Worldware” – technology created for use in the

world, and then also used in education (e.g., research tools)

2. Student editions of worldware – simpler versions of worldware adapted for instructional purposes

3. Nicheware – inexpensive, specialized apps that can be learned easily, spread easily

- Morris, Ehrmann, Kumar, … Valuable, Viable Software in Education: Case Studies and Analysis

(McGraw-Hill, 1994)

10

Why Worldware #1?

Multiple uses: cumulative influence, low cost/use.

Marketplace powers the dissemination. People either could use the software before the course or are motivated to learn it.

Market for worldware already large, larger than for courseware, so: Scale of use lower prices, better support Curriculum at less risk of disruption when

operating systems change, a grad student developer leaves, etc.

IV. iCampus Study (2006)

7 year project - MIT and Microsoft $25,000,000 plus collaborative effort 1999-2006

70 faculty projects (mode: ~ $500K; iLabs over $7M);

30 student projects (mode: ~$55,000/grant) Software open source, free

10% for outreach TLT/Flashlight commissioned to study

factors affecting wider adoption in the final year

-11-

iCampus Study (2005-2006)

Five iCampus projects were studied iLabs (remote laboratories, infrastructure for

sharing) iMOAT (writing assessment) TEAL (studio physics) XMAS (annotation of video) xTutor (enhanced study in computer science)

150+ interviews and study of project documents

http://www.tltgroup.org/iCampus

-12-

Examples of Findings

PIs faced many barriers to telling faculty about their projects

Were not part of the kinds of invisible colleges (in contrast to their lives as researchers)

Felt that talking about their projects would seen as implying they were better than their colleagues

13

Suggestive Incidents

NSF ‘encouraged’ John Belcher to connect to an invisible college, making him treat his teaching more like his research

Pete Donaldson’s XMAS spread easily because he was already a widely-known, trusted leader in this arena

Leslie Perelman created a community around his project by asking lots of potential adopters to help create project specs on day 1, pilot testing later.

14

Recommendations

I. Improve education widely so that it becomes more authentic, active, collaborative, and feedback-rich.

II. Create demand for adoption of new ideas by rewarding faculty members for continually and cumulatively improving teaching in their programs.

III. Nurture coalitions for instructional improvement, within and across institutions, in order to create better channels for sharing and improving innovations.

IV. Create more higher education-corporate alliances in order to support the development and dissemination of new educational technology materials and practices.

V. Supply faculty innovators with central services in educational design, software development, assessment methods, formative evaluation, and/or in sharing ideas with others who teach comparable courses.

-15-

16

V. Final Suggestions (2010)

Teaching/learning activities determine outcomes. Software: one ingredient enabling change in activity. Opportunity: time-saving, transformative change in

fundamental activity in the discipline Disseminate the improved activity, not software.

Changing the activity: longer than lifespan of software Plan for a 5-15 year campaign of time-saving

increments- “Improving Higher Learning by Taking the Long View:

Ten Recommendations about Time, Money and Technology,” Ehrmann

17

Cite as: Ehrmann, S., (2010). Disseminating Innovations: Lessons from the iCampus Study and Other Research. Presented at the Workshop on Disseminating CCLI Innovations: Arlington, VA, February 18-19, 2010.

Unless otherwise specified this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/)