Technology‟s Achilles Heel:

Achieving High-Quality

ImplementationGene E Hall (2010)Presented by Juli Bryan

Leading change in the digital age

Focus Question

What tools are available to

support school leaders to

evaluate the extent of

implementation and facilitate

high-quality use of ICT?

“The hardest thing about

technology is not selling them on it.

It is getting them to use it!”

Phil H, district tech coordinator, as

cited in Hall, p.231

“developing a new form or process

does not guarantee that it will be

widely used. The continuing

challenge with technology

innovations is to move beyond their

early adoption by technology

enthusiasts and scale up to

widespread use.” (p.231)

“An exciting array of technology resources is

available to today‟s teachers and classrooms”

p.231

“However, how each is used and the extent of

use by teachers and students varies

dramatically.”

p.231

“There is also a gap between students‟ use of

technology outside the classroom…and what

they do in the classroom.” p.232

“…the Achilles heel is a lack of understanding

about what is involved in helping teachers to

fully implement and integrate their uses.”

p.232

“Teachers will vary in their interest in adopting

a new approach and in their competence to

use it…The extent and quality of use of new

approaches can be greatly enhanced when

there is understanding of how people change.”

p.232

“This paper begins with the assumption that

various technology innovations have been

developed and that there is interest in

achieving widespread and appropriate use.”

p.232

Evaluating an innovation‟s impact on outcomes

is complex.

“An important beginning point is accepting as

fact that different implementers are not likely to

use the technology exactly as the developer

envisioned.” p.232

The Diffusion of Innovation model (Rogers

2003) is one way of understanding change. This

model accepts that not everyone will adopt the

innovation at the same time, some people will

wait and see the results first. p.232

The Gold Standard model is another. This model

relies on making comparisons between two

groups – users and non-users. p.233

These are not useful models to use in schools

for various reasons:

• Who makes the decision to adopt the

innovation (teachers or administrators?) has

an impact on the rate and quality of the

adoption

• Becoming skilled in a new technology takes

time and usually training

• New infrastructure may be required

• Adoption of the new technology “is a

process, not an event”. Teachers are not non-

users one day and experts the next p.233

• Comparison and control groups are rarely

pure

“There is often insufficient appreciation

of how complex the implementation

process can be. This is the metaphorical

equivalent of asking implementers to

back up, take a running start, and

attempt to leap across the chasm from

past practice to full use of a new way”

p.234.

“The challenge of accomplishing

sustained and widespread integrated

uses of technology is the

metaphorical equivalent of providing

a bridge to facilitate teachers and

schools progressing across a

bridge.”

“Outcomes can be expected to vary

with how far across the bridge each

implementer has progressed. In

theory, those that are farther across

the bridge should have higher

outcomes.” p.235

The Concerns Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2011) is useful

and realistic, recognising that change is

a process and that “becoming a

competent and confident innovation user

is a developmental phenomenon that

takes time” p. 234.

Level of UseThis is used to “describe the current state of each implementer” p.236

The LoU of each implementer should be measured, then related to

student outcomes. p.238

Innovation ConfigurationsHow closely do the practices of each

implementer match the intended use?

“what they are doing and which components of

the innovation are being used can range from

exact replications of what the developer had in

mind to a practice that is unimaginable to the

developer” p. 239.

To avoid this:

• The developers must identify and provide

information about what a high-fidelity

implementation looks like

• Implementers must strive to put in place

these high-fidelity configurations

Innovation Configurations

In order to measure the extent to which

an innovation is being used as the

developer intended an Innovation

Configuration Map can be constructed.

This is a map that describes all the

possible variations of use “from ideal

configurations to efforts that the

developer judges to not be representative

of the innovation” p.240.

Innovation Configurations“The variations of a component are displayed

as a rubric, but with several important

differences.”

• The ideal variation is labelled “a” and placed

on the left hand side, with variations to the

right representing decreasing fidelity

• The variations to the right don‟t just describe

less of “a”. They describe what has been

implemented. p.241 They represent

traditional practice. p.251

The IC Map becomes a summary document

based on classroom observations and

interviews.p.241

This data also needs to be related to student

Innovation Configurations

IC Maps should be made available to

implementers and leaders – they give

clear descriptions of what high-fidelity

implementation should look like. p.242

Stages of Concern“The emotional part of change often is neglected, with

resulting arousal of unnecessary resistance to innovation”

p.243

Stages of concernFour areas:

• Impact

• affect on students

• concern with achieving outcomes

• Task

• Time

• Logistics

• Self

• Uncertainty about success

• Support

• Unconcerned

• Other things are of more concern

Stages of concernStudies show that “if there is appropriate

change support and time (three to five

years), there will be progression across

the different SoC”

“However, there is no guarantee that this

will happen” p.244

Three ways to assess concerns:

• Informal conversation

• Open-ended concerns statement –

respondents write concerns in own

words

• Questionnaire

Responding to stages of concern

Be aware of how implementers are

feeling and respond appropriately.

If self concern is high, offer support and

provide information to reduce uncertainty.

Offer how-to-do-it tips when

implementers are on the bridge and task

concerns are high. p.244

Leadership makes a difference

Teachers do not work in isolation, they

are part of a bigger organisation.

“Factors within the school can

significantly affect implementation

success” p.245.

“Perhaps the most significant school-

level factor affecting teacher

implementation success is the

leadership role the principal plays”

p.245.

Change facilitator styleThree common styles:

• Initiators – strong set of ideas about what their

school should be like – a vision – and will support

innovations that they strongly believe in. Provide

information about outcomes to win them over.

• Managers – follow rules and control resources and

organise schedules to support. Provide clear budget

proposals and detailed timelines when approaching.

• Responders – listen to the concerns of their staff.

They want everyone to be happy and get along, will

try new things, but provide little support

p.246,247,250

“The general pattern to the findings is that teachers in

schools led by Initiators and Managers have the most

implementation success” p246. The highest success is

in schools with Initiator principals.

Implications“As we know well, achieving change

success is always a challenge, and even

more so with technology” p. 247.

“Along with the usual issues and dynamics

of change processes, technology

innovations themselves keep evolving”

p.247.

“An additional use of the metaphor (of the

Implementation Bridge) is in thinking

about implementation bridges having

different lengths. Some implementation

methods are short, whereas others take

years” p.248.

Implications“The implementation game plan should be

in place for sufficient time so that most

implementers can attain at least level LoU

IVA: Routine Use. Otherwise,

sustainability is not likely to be achieved”

p.249.

“In many instances, adaption and

innovative uses are encouraged.

However, having more variation in

configuration becomes a problem when

there is a need to document results”

p.249.

Implications“Simply saying, „You should use this

because it is good for students,‟ will not

win over those teachers with Self or Task

concerns”p.250.

“Reduction of high personal concerns

requires being empathetic and providing

information.

However, a change process will go much

more easily if personal concerns do not

get high in the first place” p.250.

Leaders need to anticipate this and

intervene early to support.

Implications“Implementers with Responder CFS

leaders have less change success. In

most studies, implementers in schools led

by Initiators have the most success”

p.250.

Comparing higher to lower levels of

implementation makes sense, rather than

use compared to non-use. How far across

the bridge has each implementer moved?

If dichotomy is required, compare LoU IVA

and above with LoU <II. P.251

Implications

“The main causes of failure have not been

the technology innovations, but rather that

the failures have had more to do with

underappreciating the challenges of

implementation. The needs are so high for

schools to improve student outcomes and

the promises so powerful with integrated

uses of technology that the challenges of

implementation must be overcome.” p.252

Discussion QuestionsChoose 1 or 2 questions to address and

discuss these in groups of 2 or 3.

1. Is the collection of the recommended

data achievable at the site you have in

mind for assignment 3? What are the

things that might make this difficult?

2. How might you gather some of this data

in the short term? Would you prioritise

or modify?

3. Consider the CFS of the leader at the

site you have in mind. What are the

implications of this in terms of

assignment 3?

Conclusion• Measuring the degree of

implementation is more reasonable

than other methods of measuring

change.

• The Implementation Bridge, especially

if you imagine different lengths, offers 3

useful diagnostic dimensions – LoU,

IC, SoC

• Change facilitator style is vitally

important.

• Never underestimate the challenges of

implementation and be prepared to