Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Propagation from the start: the spread of a concept-based instructional tool

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We describe the propagation of a technology-based educational innovation through its first 3 years of public use. The innovation studied is the Concept Warehouse (CW), a database-driven website developed to support the use of concept-based pedagogies. This tool was initially developed for instructors in undergraduate chemical engineering courses, but has spread to other disciplines as well. In this time, it has grown to over 650 registered instructors representing over 170 institutions. While this study is specific to a particular case, the intent of this article is to provide an exemplar of real-time propagation that informs other researchers and developers. We frame our analysis with Diffusion of Innovation Theory and use a design research methodology that focuses on communication channels, types of knowledge, and stages of the innovation-decision process. Data sources include usage records and survey responses which are analyzed with network diagrams and non-parametric statistics. We find that in comparison to mass media, interpersonal communications tended to result in higher proportions of how-to knowledge and implementation. Three types of opinion leaders were identified through user data and network diagrams. All played critical roles in the tool’s propagation, especially the project collaborators—opinion leaders who actively promoted the CW, in part, because it also propagates their own innovations. Finally, users with self-identified prior principles knowledge showed statistically significantly greater progress in gaining how-to knowledge, but no significant difference in progressing to the implementation stage of the innovation-decision process when compared to users without.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, S., & Harris, J. (1997). Factors associated with amount of use and benefits obtained by users of a statewide educational telecomputing network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 19–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, A. L., Henderson, C., & Finkelstein, N. (2012). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Froyd, J., Prince, M., & Henderson, C. (2011). Faculty use of research based instructional strategies. In Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference 2011, Fremantle, Western Australia (pp. 448–453). http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=257478639050818;res=IELENG.

  • Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradforth, S. E., Miller, E. R., Dichtel, W. R., Leibovich, A. K., Feig, A. L., Martin, J. D., et al. (2015). University learning: Improve undergraduate science education. Nature, 523, 282–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, B. J., Gilbuena, D., Falconer, J. L., Silverstein, D. L., Miller, R. L., & Koretsky, M. D. (2012). Preliminary development of the AIChE concept warehouse. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/21811.

  • Carter, F. J, Jr., Jambulingam, T., Gupta, V. K., & Melone, N. (2001). Technological innovations: a framework for communicating diffusion effects. Information & Management, 38(5), 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 40–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010110. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110.

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K. E. (1999). Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: An integrative review of educational innovation studies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrington, V. A., Repman, J., & Valente, T. W. (2000). Using social network analysis to examine the time of adoption of computer-related services among university faculty. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froyd, J., Penberthy, D., & Watson, K. (2000). Good educational experiments are not necessarily good change processes. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2000. FIE 2000. 30th Annual (Vol. 1, pp. F1G-1). IEEE.

  • Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2008). Peer-led team learning: Evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative (Vol. 16). Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Gagnon, D. A. (2012). Teacher adoption of moodle LMS: A K-12 diffusion study. Online Submission. Report—Evaluative, Kennesaw State University, ERIC. (ED541375) Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED541375.

  • Gilbuena, D., Smith, C., Brooks, B. J., Finkelstein, T. S., & Koretsky, M. D. (2013a). Examining the innovation-decision process: A preliminary study of the AIChE concept warehouse. Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/19575.

  • Gilbuena, D., Smith, C., Brooks, B. J., Miletic, M., & Koretsky, M. (2013b). A preliminary study of how communication channels affect awareness and adoption of the AIChE concept warehouse. Paper presented at Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

  • Gilbuena, D. M., Smith, C., & Koretsky, M. D. (2014). Development and propagation: A case study of the AIChE concept warehouse. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (pp. 1–6). Madrid, Spain: IEEE.

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for Business, 78(6), 301–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Stanford, C. (2015). Designing educational innovations for sustained adoption: A how-to guide for education developers who want to increase the impact of their work. Kalamazoo: Increase the Impact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. In invited paper for the National Academy of Engineering, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education Forum, Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations, http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx.

  • Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020104.

  • Hinton, T., Gannaway, D., Berry, B., & Moore, K. (2011). The D-cubed guide: Planning for effective dissemination. Sydney: Australian Teaching and Learning Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdren, J. P., & Lander, E. (2012). Report to the President—engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

  • Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption patterns and characteristics of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1–227). Canada: University of Calgary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. M., & Dirksen, D. J. (1997). Facilitating change: A process for adoption of web-based instruction. Web-based instruction (pp. 111–116). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

  • Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2011). What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved practices in higher education? Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65(6), 761–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., & Froyd, J. (2014). Over one hundred million simulations delivered: A case study of the PhET interactive simulations. In Engelhardt, Churukian, & Jones (Eds.), 2013 PERC Proceedings (pp. 205–208). Portland: American Association of Physics Teachers.

  • Koretsky, M. D., Falconer, J. L., Brooks, B. J., Gilbuena, D. M., Silverstein, D. L., Smith, C., et al. (2014). The AiChE concept warehouse: A web-based tool to promote concept-based instruction. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1), 1.

  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change (pp. 106–117). Boston: Harvard Business Review.

  • LeMahieu, P. (2011). What We need in education is more integrity (and less fidelity) of implementation [web log]. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/what-we-need-in-education-is-more-integrity-and-less-fidelity-of-implementation/.

  • Lesh, R., Kelly, A., & Yoon, C. (2008). Multi-tier design experiments in mathematics. Science, and technology education. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Design Research in Mathematics, Science & Technology1 Education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, 1997(74), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(01), 126–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montfort, D., Brown, S., & Pegg, J. (2012). The adoption of a capstone assessment instrument. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 657–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nistor, N., Göğüş, A., & Lerche, T. (2013). Educational technology acceptance across national and professional cultures: a European study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 733–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 11–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 989–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C. (1998). The impact of educational development workshops on teachers’ practice. The International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, D., Gannaway, D., Orrell, J., Chalmers, D., & Abraham, C. (2005). Strategies for effective dissemination of project outcomes. In Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The University of Queensland and Flinders University

  • Stes, A., Clement, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2007). The effectiveness of a faculty training programme: Long-term and institutional impact. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279–294. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00979.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1), 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. J. (2006). Reflective practice: A guide for nurses and midwives (2nd ed.). England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tront, J., McMartin, F., & Muramatsu, B. (2011). Improving the dissemination of CCLI (TUES) Educational Innovations. In Proceedings from the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October (pp. 12–15).

  • Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations (Vol. 2, No. 2). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

  • Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337(6090), 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. W., & Pumpuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education & Behavior.

  • Vallett, D., Annetta, L., Lamb, R., & Bowling, B. (2014). Diffusing innovations: Adoption of serious educational games by K-12 science teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant Number 1023099).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Debra M. Friedrichsen, Christina Smith & Milo D. Koretsky

Authors
  1. Debra M. Friedrichsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milo D. Koretsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milo D. Koretsky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedrichsen, D.M., Smith, C. & Koretsky, M.D. Propagation from the start: the spread of a concept-based instructional tool. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 177–202 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9473-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9473-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation