University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2010 Emerging And Disruptive Technologies For Education: An Analysis Of Planning, Implementation, And Diffusion In Florida's Eleven State University System Institutions Deborah Bradford University of Central Florida Part of the Educational Leadership Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact STARS@ucf. STARS Citation Bradford, Deborah, "Emerging And Disruptive Technologies For Education: An Analysis Of Planning, Implementation, And Diffusion In Florida's Eleven State University System Institutions" (2010).
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019.edu/etd/4192 EMERGING AND DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND DIFFUSION IN FLORIDA‘S ELEVEN STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM INSTITUTIONS by DEBORAH J. The University of Oklahoma, 1992 M. The University of Oklahoma, 1996 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Educational Research, Technology and Leadership in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2010 Major Professor: Rosa Cintron ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to understand and appreciate the methodologies and procedures used in determining the extent to which an information technology (IT) organization within the eleven member State University Systems (SUS) of Florida planned, implemented, and diffused emerging educational technologies. Key findings found how critical it was that flexibility be given during the planning stages and not rely on standardized models which may or may not be of use any longer.
Research also found that the SUS institutions have to be prepared to organize and preserve the deluge of digital data if they intended to remain relevant as a ―tower‖ of knowledge transmissions. The literature found that institutions of higher education needed to keep abreast of the new technologies, new pedagogies, and never before open-access concepts because authors found these ideas were converging and producing an unprecedented period of innovation in learning. Furthermore, the implications of perpetual connectivity to information, peers, and teachers garnered a great deal of attention among educational technologists. However, those implications had not been gauged, especially in Florida‘s SUS institutions.
A survey of those institutions regarding how technologies were planned for, implemented logically, and thoroughly diffused, along with lessons learned could potentially save resources and ensure Florida‘s institutions continue to be on higher learning‘s forefront. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES. ix LIST OF TABLES. xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .6 Statement of the Problem .11 Definition of Terms .12 Significance of the Study .21 Limitations of the Study .23 Organization of the Study .24 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .25 The Past as Prologue .39 Present Implementation of Emerging Technologies .41 Internet as Disruptor .44 iii The Emergence of Mobile Ubiquitous Computing .47 The Emergence of Mobile Technology .61 The Future: Which Emerging Technology Next? .77 Evolution Future or Future Revolution .80 Future Learning Innovations On and Beyond the Horizon.98 Cloud Computing Horizon .103 Emerging Educational Technologies .113 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .116 Population and Setting .116 iv The SUS Institutions of Higher Learning .118 Sample and Sample Limitations .124 Design of the Study.126 Questionnaires as Instruments or Tools for Research .128 Threats to Validity of Survey Research .130 Research Questions and Their Relationship to Survey Questions .135 Data Collection Plan .137 Confidentiality and Anonymity .139 Statistical Procedures and Data Analysis .139 Data Analysis for the Educational Technology Implementation Survey .141 Authorization to Conduct the Study .146 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .147 Analysis of Demographics .147 v Analysis of Research Questions.
167 Planning Statements Summaries. 196 Implementation Statement Summaries. 224 Diffusion Statement Summaries .237 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION .244 Conceptual Framework Revisited .245 Significant Findings of the Study .248 Implications for Practice and Policy .249 Recommendations for Future Research .251 Researcher Reflection and Conclusion .253 vii APPENDIX A: PRE-NOTICE LETTER FOR SURVEY. 255 APPENDIX B: COVER LETTER EMAIL AND LINK TO SURVEY.
260 APPENDIX C: THANK YOU/REMINDER EMAIL (THIRD CONTACT). 262 APPENDIX D: ENCOURAGEMENT TO PARTICIPATE/LINK TO SURVEY (FOURTH CONTACT). 264 APPENDIX E: FINAL LETTER AND PAPER COPY OF SURVEY (FIFTH CONTACT). 268 APPENDIX G: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL.
272 APPENDIX H: PERMISSION TO USE SURVEY. 278 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Planning Statement 1.1—Gathering Technology Needs. 150 Figure 2: Planning Statement 1.1—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 151 Figure 3: Planning Statement 1.2—Considering Relevant Technologies.
152 Figure 4: Planning Statement 1.2—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 152 Figure 5: Planning Statement 1.2—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 153 Figure 6: Planning Statement 1.3—Quick Solutions to Complex Problems. 154 Figure 7: Planning Statement 1.3—Carnegie Research Institution Responses.
154 Figure 8: Planning Statement 1.4—Standardizing Planning Models. 155 Figure 9: Planning Statement 1.4—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 156 Figure 10: Planning Statement 1.4—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 156 Figure 11: Planning Statement 1.5—Defining and Measuring Benefits for Budget.
157 Figure 12: Planning Statement 1.5—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 158 Figure 13: Planning Statement 1.5—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 158 Figure 14: Planning Statement 1.6—Political, Internal/External Concerns. 159 Figure 15: Planning Statement 1.6—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses.
160 Figure 16: Planning Statement 1.6—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 160 Figure 17: Planning Statement 1.7—Coordinating Timeframes & Scheduling. 161 Figure 18: Planning Statement 1.7—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 162 Figure 19: Planning Statement 1.7—Carnegie Research Institution Responses.
162 Figure 20: Planning Statement 1.8—Guidelines for Usage. 163 Figure 21: Planning Statement 1.8—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 164 Figure 22: Planning Statement 1.8—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 164 Figure 23: Planning Statement 1.9—Defining the Organizational Culture.
165 Figure 24: Planning Statement 1.9—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 166 Figure 25: Planning Statement 1.9—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 166 Figure 26: Planning Responses—Summary. 168 Figure 27: Planning Responses—Mean.
169 Figure 28: Planning Responses—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions. 170 Figure 29: Planning Responses Mean—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions. 171 Figure 30: Planning Responses—Carnegie Research Institutions. 172 Figure 31: Planning Responses Mean—Carnegie Research Institutions.
173 Figure 32: Planning Responses Mean Comparison—Carnegie Master‘s and Research Institutions. 174 Figure 33: Planning Comparison—Largest Institution (by enrollment)/Smallest Institution (by enrollment). 175 Figure 34: Implementation Statement 2.1—Managing Systems/Changing Technology. 176 Figure 35: Implementation Statement 2.1—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 177 ix Figure 36: Implementation Statement 2.2—Individual Competence and New Technology.
178 Figure 37: Implementation Statement 2.2—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 179 Figure 38: Implementation Statement 2.3—Adequate Training for Students and Faculty. 180 Figure 39: Implementation Statement--Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 180 Figure 40: Implementation Statement 2.4—Resistance to Change. 181 Figure 41: Implementation Statement 2.4—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses 182 Figure 42: Implementation Statement 2.4—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 182 Figure 43: Implementation Statement 2.5—Focused Institutional Resources.
183 Figure 44: Implementation Statement 2.5—Carnegie Master‘s Institution Responses 184 Figure 45: Implementation Statement 2.5—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 184 Figure 46: Implementation Statement 2.6—Compatibility of Systems and Software. 185 Figure 47: Implementation Statement 2.6—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses 186 Figure 48: Implementation Statement 2.6—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 186 Figure 49: Implementation Statement 2.7—Adequate Qualified Support Staff. 187 Figure 50: Implementation Statement 2.7—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses 188 Figure 51: Implementation Statement 2.7—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 188 Figure 52: Implementation Statement—Coordinating Across Departments. 189 Figure 53: Implementation Statement 2.8—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 190 Figure 54: Implementation Statement 2.9—Developing General Procedures.
191 Figure 55: Implementation Statement 2.9—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses 191 Figure 56: Implementation Statement 2.9—Carnegie Research Institution Responses 192 Figure 57: Implementation Statement 2.10—Developing Timeframes and Schedules 193 Figure 58: Implementation Statement 2.10—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 193 Figure 59: Implementation Statement 2.10—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 194 Figure 60: Implementation Statement 2.11—Setting Consistency/Efficiency Standards. 195 Figure 61: Implementation Statement 2.11—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses.
195 Figure 62: Implementation Statement 2.11—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 196 Figure 63: Implementation Responses—Summary. 198 Figure 64: Implementation Responses—Mean. 199 Figure 65: Implementation Responses—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions.
200 Figure 66: Implementation Responses Mean—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions. 201 Figure 67: Implementation Responses—Carnegie Research Institutions. 202 Figure 68: Implementation Responses Mean—Carnegie Research Institutions. 203 Figure 69: Implementation Responses Mean Comparison—Carnegie Master‘s and Research Institutions.
204 x Figure 70: Implementation Comparison—Largest Institution (by enrollment)/Smallest Institution (by enrollment). 205 Figure 71: Diffusion Statement 3. 206 Figure 72: Diffusion Statement 3.1—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 207 Figure 73: Diffusion Statement 3.2—Interactions with Other Processes.
208 Figure 74: Diffusion Statement 3.2—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 209 Figure 75: Diffusion Statement 3.2—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 209 Figure 76: Diffusion Statement 3.3—Time Necessary to Adopt a Technology. 210 Figure 77: Diffusion Statement 3.3—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses.
211 Figure 78: Diffusion Statement 3.3—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 211 Figure 79: Diffusion Statement 3. 212 Figure 80: Diffusion Statement 3.4—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 213 Figure 81: Diffusion Statement 3.
213 Figure 82: Diffusion Statement 3.5—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 214 Figure 83: Diffusion Statement 3.6—Attitude of End Users. 215 Figure 84: Diffusion Statement 3.6—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 216 Figure 85: Diffusion Statement 3.6—Carnegie Research Institution Responses.
216 Figure 86: Diffusion Statement 3.7—Mastery of Tasks by Users. 217 Figure 87: Diffusion Statement 3.7—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 218 Figure 88: Diffusion Statement 3.7—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 218 Figure 89: Diffusion Statement 3.8—Diffusion of Previous Technology.
219 Figure 90: Diffusion Statement 3.8—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 220 Figure 91: Diffusion Statement 3.9—Willingness to Accept Risk. 221 Figure 92: Diffusion Statement 3.9—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 221 Figure 93: Diffusion Statement 3.9—Carnegie Research Institution Responses.
222 Figure 94: Diffusion Statement 3.10—Faculty Knowledge of Requirements/Obstacles. 223 Figure 95: Diffusion Statement 3.10—Carnegie Master's Institution Responses. 223 Figure 96: Diffusion Statement 3.10—Carnegie Research Institution Responses. 224 Figure 97: Diffusion Responses—Summary.
226 Figure 98: Diffusion Responses—Mean. 227 Figure 99: Diffusion Responses—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions. 228 Figure 100: Diffusion Responses Mean—Carnegie Master‘s Institutions. 229 Figure 101: Diffusion Responses—Carnegie Research Institutions.
230 Figure 102: Diffusion Responses Mean—Carnegie Research Institutions. 231 Figure 103: Diffusion Responses Mean Comparison—Carnegie Master‘s and Research Institutions. 232 Figure 104: Diffusion Comparison—Largest Institution (by enrollment)/Smallest Institution (by enrollment). 233 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 State University System (SUS) of Florida.
22 Table 2 Innovative Technologies Timeline. 28 Table 3 Horizon Report Emerging Technologies Timeline. 102 Table 4 Key Trends in the History of Western Higher Education. 104 Table 5 Relationship of Research to Survey Questions.
133 Table 6 Research Question 4: Most\Least Problematic Factors. 237 xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The ancient university had no campus; it owned no buildings; it was a loose community of professors and students with the professors often teaching from their apartments … this was the University of Bologna, a virtual learning community long before it was formally recognized as an educational institution. 2) The founding of the University of Bologna in 1088, almost a thousand years ago, and the concepts of learning it began, has now come full circle. It took almost a millennium for institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Phoenix and Jones International University with their loose community of professors often teaching from their own homes and students learning from the confines of their apartments, for some parts of learning to evolve back into the conceptual learning community founded in Italy.
It is not only possible, in large part to computers which are now able to be moved with such ease they are referred to as mobile devices, but more than likely it is the future of learning at and for every level of education. With computing technologies becoming mobile and embedded in every usable object, there is certain nearness in its application, an application that has the potential to disrupt how learning is interpreted, how it is physically situated, and how its delivery will be arranged.