This post is the profile of an “early majority user” (Rogers, 2003). This was a school leader whose work aligned with the characteristics of one at that stage.
Our project started with me talking with another curriculum coordinator at one of our regional
meetings. He was talking about how they were supporting teachers. Teachers were sharing web sites and
resources, laboratory activities, discussion ideas, and things like that in an online classroom. I didn’t
really get what he meant, so he invited me to spend an hour in his office and he showed me exactly what
his teachers were doing. Once I actually saw it, I decided to follow his lead. Of course, his district is
larger than mine, so he had a full-time technology coordinator, more servers, professional development
funds, other resources that I do not, but he was a great resource in helping me get a similar system up and
running.
Just as important as the system they had built was the strategy they were using to make decisions.
I was impressed with the steps they were taking. Rather than trying to build everything at once, they were
using their online classrooms for one thing, then they added another. I decided to try the same thing.
Because our schools are so much smaller, we just don’t have the resources. At first we followed what he
was doing pretty closely. My mentor helped me stop and understand some limitations that we had but that
we didn’t realize. Once we had those fixed, we could move forward. That was probably the biggest
advantage for me, the fact that I was able to look at what we needed and to be able to describe it.
I think the biggest advantage for my teachers was that they could make small steps and feel like
they were getting somewhere and the changes were helpful. At least as far as technology is concerned, we
sometimes start with an idea, then start using it without a clear plan. Some call this the “ready-fire-aim”
approach and they use it in a derogatory way. Teachers told me they liked this approach to planning as it
was more organized, but still allowed them the options to adjust as they went along. It was organized, but
less limiting than other models we had used for planning.
Because we have teachers who are leaders of projects like this, they have their regular jobs, so
they have little time for these projects, and usually we don’t have time to try out everything we want to
do. For example, we were trying to figure out how to get teachers to organize the web sites and other
resource they were sharing on the classroom we were using for professional development. Previously, I
would have just done whatever someone else had done. My mentor in this new planning method
encouraged me to demonstrate three methods for teachers and have them decide which method they
wanted us to roll out and support. Teachers told me they liked having the choice and they actually did use
the tags to organize the site more than I was thinking they would.
I also noticed that we were taking steps with this planning just like my mentor was doing. We
would find something that worked, like tagging to organize the resources. Teachers would use that
strategy, and then we would start thinking about what else we might want to do. Sometimes we had an
idea and I would reach out to my mentor to see if they had done something like what we wanted to do. If
he could tell me a way to solve the problem, then we would talk about it to see if we thought it would
work for us. Of course, my teacher-leaders were also involved in selecting next steps. We talk about the
stages of software development, and I started using the same terms with my faculty. It was strange to talk
about proof-of-concept, alpha and beta testing, and production; but it really helped us organize what we
did, and it helped us stay true to the iterative process.
As we were taking steps, we tended to return to the formal steps were started. For example, we
wanted to start using electronic portfolios, but we had no idea how to proceed. So, we went back to the
planning documents we originally used. We looked at the three phases, and used those to help us figure
out how to start and what questions to answer. It was helpful to remind ourselves that this type of
planning is supposed to be about the intervention and improving it. Our superintendent at the time was
having us set goals following a different framework, and how we were planning was really different so
we had to remind ourselves of how to do it. It became clear how limiting goals can be. I liked the fact that
our planning allowed us to change our plans if we found out our original idea wasn’t so good.
It has taken some time, to really learn how to use this educational design research thinking in our
work. I am aware of it, have pretty good experience in using it so I know how to do it, but I have
sometimes had trouble making the case for doing it to those who are unfamiliar. I usually end up sending
them to see my mentor, because I wanted them to have the good experience I did. It was funny that he has
started sending people to us, so they can see how educational design research can be used.
It seems I tend to think about educational design research planning when I am making technology
decisions but not necessarily when dealing with other problems. I am not sure if I just think about it only
as a technology planning tools because that’s where I first used it, or if it I am less confident with
technology than with other parts of school. When I got to meetings led by my mentor from whom I first
learned about this type of planning, I see he uses it in how he organizes his meetings and in some of the
other successes he has shared, but I tend to use it only for technology decisions. It does work for me,
however, so that is what I do.
These have been pretty successful for me as well. In education, we seem to jump around a lot,
and when we stop the intense focus on a new tool or system or strategy, we revert back to what we were
doing before we started. I like to call this horizontal reform as we just move from beginning one thing to
beginning another. What we have done with educational design research planning has been sustained for
far longer. I like to say this has allowed us to get vertical and actually change what we do. Especially with
technology, we like to let things fall into disrepair then drop it for something new. We are now thinking
of upgrading the system we use to support teachers’ sharing right now, but our faculty are resistant as
they want to make very sure none of their work is going to be lost and they are insistent that they not
loose features they really like or that they have to spend lots of time learning a new system. They are
telling us to be sure to use the methods we have been trying to get them to use.
Reference
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). Free Press.