This document summarizes a presentation on adopting MOOCs using the diffusion of innovations theory. It discusses key aspects of innovations like relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability that influence their adoption. Faculty input is important to consider compatibility with needs, values, and expertise. A survey of faculty could gather information on perceptions of MOOCs and interest in participation to inform a potential pilot test adoption. Overall, the diffusion framework provides guidance for institutions considering implementing MOOCs.

1. TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING
OF MOOCS:
AN EXPLORATION OF MASSIVE OPEN
ONLINE COURSE ADOPTION USING
THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS THEORY
Mitzi Lewis, Ph.D.
Pam Morgan, Ph.D.
Midwestern State University
35 t h Annual Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference
Pedagogy & Popular Culture 4: New Technologies IV – Digital Footprints
February 20, 2014

2. LINK TO PRESENTATION
http://bit.ly/swpaca14-mooc

3. TO MOOC
OR
NOT TO MOOC

4. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/hatm/5704123809

5. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aliciagriffin/2904408803

6. Sources: www.commdev.ohio.edu/News_events/conferencesplash
books.simonandschuster.com/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition

7. DIFFUSION
“the process by which
(1) an innovation
(2) is communicated through certain channels
(3) over time
(4) among the members of a social system”
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

8. WHAT DOES THE
LITERATURE TELL US?
A literature review of the diffusion of
innovative teaching and learning
practices in higher education revealed
that the change model that “dominated”
the papers reviewed was the diffusion of
innovations theory (Smith 178)
Smith, Karen. "Lessons Learnt from Literature on the Diffusion of Innovative Learning and Teaching Practices in
Higher Education." Innovations In Education & Teaching International 49.2 (2012): 173-182.

9. LESSONS LEARNED
(SEE HANDOUT)
•
Senior staff need to support an innovation for it to spread
effectively
•
Innovation is time consuming and takes time to embed
•
Staff and students must be adequately skilled to engage
with the innovative practice
•
Innovations that sit well within a specific context spread
better
•
Supportive networks can facilitate the diffusion of
innovative practices
•
Institutional infrastructure needs to be in place to support
the innovation (Smith 174-178)
Smith, Karen. "Lessons Learnt from Literature on the Diffusion of Innovative Learning and Teaching Practices in
Higher Education." Innovations In Education & Teaching International 49.2 (2012): 173-182.

10. TOP 10 DISSEMINATION
MISTAKES (SEE HANDOUT)
• We assume that evidence matters in the decision making of potential adopters. Innovations of
unknown effectiveness and of known ineffectiveness often spread while effective innovations do not.
Evidence is most important to only a subset of early adopters and is most often used by them to
reject innovations. Solution: Emphasize other variables in the communication of innovations such as
compatibility, cost, and simplicity.
• We substitute our perceptions for those of potential adopters. Inadequate and poorly performed
formative evaluation is common as experts in the innovation topical domain engage in dissemination.
Solution: Seek out and listen to representative potential adopters to learn wants, information sources,
advice-seeking behaviors, and reactions to prototype innovations.
• We use innovation creators as innovation communicators. While the creators of innovations are
sometimes effective communicators, the opposite condition is much more common. Solution: Enable
access to the experts, but rely on others whom we know will elicit attention and information-seeking
by potential adopters.
• We introduce innovations before they are ready. innovations are often shown as they are created and
tested. Viewers often perceive uncertainty and complexity as a result. Solution: Publicize innovations
only after clear results and the preparation of messages that elicit positive reactions from potential
adopters.
• We assume that information will influence decision making. Information is necessary and can be
sufficient for adoption decisions about inconsequential innovations, but for consequential
innovations that imply changes in organizational routines or individual behaviors, influence is
typically required. Solution: Pair information resources with social influence in an overall
dissemination strategy. (slightly adapted from 509)
Dearing, James W. “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.” Research on Social Work
Practice 19.5 (2009): 503-518. 22 Jan. 2014

11. TOP 10 DISSEMINATION
MISTAKES (SEE HANDOUT)
• We confuse authority with influence. Persons high in positional or formal authority may also be
regarded as influential by others, but often this is not the case. Solution: Gather data about who
among potential adopters is sought out for advice and intervene with them to propel dissemination.
• We allow the first to adopt (innovators) to self-select into our dissemination efforts. The first to adopt
often do so for counter-normative reasons and their low social status can become associated with an
innovation. Solution: Learn the relational structure that ties together potential adopters so that
influential members can be identified and recruited.
• We fail to distinguish among change agents, authority figures, opinion leaders, and innovation
champions. It is unusual for the same persons to effectively play multiple roles in dissemination into
and within communities and complex organizations. Solution: Use formative evaluation to determine
the functions that different persons are able to fulfill.
• We select demonstration sites on criteria of motivation and capacity. Criteria of interest and ability
make sense when effective implementation is the only objective. But spread relies on the perceptions
by others of initial adopters. Solution: Consider which sites will positively influence other sites when
selecting demonstration sites.
• We advocate single innovations as the solution to a problem. Potential adopters differ by clientele,
setting, resources, etc., so one innovation is unlikely to fit all. Solution: Communicate a cluster of
evidence-based practices so that potential adopters can get closer to a best fit of innovation to
organization prior to adaptation. (slightly adapted from 509)
Dearing, James W. “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.” Research on Social Work
Practice 19.5 (2009): 503-518. 22 Jan. 2014

12. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/hatm/5704123809

13. TO MOOC OR NOT TO MOOC
“Given the ever-changing world of technology, how
might the Innovation-Decision Process be streamlined
for universities and individual faculty members in order
to avoid overload?” (Kardasz 63)
“What guidance can be provided to individual faculty or
higher education administrators about how to think
about whether and how to implement MOOCs in their
organizations?” (Jona and Naidu, “Call for Papers:
Special Issue”)
Kardasz, Sara M. "What Are The Best Approaches For Encouraging the Diffusion of a New Instructional Technology
Among Faculty Members in Higher Education? A Look at Eportfolio Use at Stony Brook University." Journal of
Educational Technology Systems 42.1 (2013): 43-68.
Jona, Kemi, and Som Naidu. “Call for Papers: Special Issue on Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs).” Distance
Education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

14. Focus of decision-making criteria
Slightly adapted from Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

15. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/49889874@N05/5907238032

16. MOOC
ATTRIBUTES
Relative advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Trialability
Observability
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

17. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE
• Definition: the degree to which the new
idea is perceived to be an improvement
over the idea it supersedes
• What would a MOOC be superceding at
your institution?
• Typical dimensions:
• economic profitability
• social prestige
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

18. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE:
ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY
• What resources would be needed to support
MOOC adoption (including implementation
and maintenance; think about partnering,
design, selection, transferability, assessment,
and accreditation) at our institution?
• What resources could be made available to
support MOOC adoption?
• What additional resources could be sought to
support MOOC adoption?

19. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE:
ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY
• What would be the return on investment of
these resources?
• What is the level of risk for this investment?
• Would there be a economic cost related to not
participating in a MOOC (e.g., lost
opportunity; lost potential enrollment, SCH;
etc.)?
• Would the required resources change if
MOOC participation was delayed?

20. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE:
SOCIAL PRESTIGE
• What effect would MOOC participation have
on the image of our institution as perceived
by faculty? Staff? Students? Parents? Board
members? Donors? Legislators?
• Would there be a social prestige cost related
to not participating in a MOOC (e.g.,
perception of not keeping up)?

21. RELATIVE ADVANTAGE AND
OVERADOPTION
• Occurs when an innovation is adopted even
when experts would recommend not adopting.
• Why?
•
Allowing attractiveness of one perceived attribute
to overrule all other perceived attributes (e.g.,
allowing social prestige considerations to
overshadow other considerations)
•
Not enough knowledge about innovation
•
Not able to predict consequences of adoption
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

22. COMPATIBILITY
• Definition: the degree to which the new
idea is perceived to be consistent with
potential adopters’ needs, past
experiences, and existing values
compatibility
perceived uncertainty
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

23. COMPATIBILITY:
VALUES AND BELIEFS
• What are stakeholders’ values and beliefs
regarding the format of class instruction? Is
online instruction viewed as inferior, equal, or
superior to in-person instruction?
• What are the values and beliefs about
professor and learner roles in the education
process?
• To what degree would MOOC adoption be
supported by or conflict with these values?

24. COMPATIBILITY:
PAST EXPERIENCES
• What past experiences of the institution are
related to MOOCs? (e.g., distance education,
LMS, etc.)
• How are they similar?
• How are they different?

25. COMPATIBILITY:
NEEDS
• Are there perceived needs regarding the
format of instruction and learning?
• Does the format of instruction and learning
need to change?
• What partnerships would be needed to
successfully implement a MOOC at our
institution?

26. COMPLEXITY
• Definition: the degree to which the new
idea is perceived as relatively difficult
to use and understand
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

27. COMPLEXITY:
TECHNICAL
• What level of technical expertise is needed to
successfully adopt a MOOC (e.g., learning
how to use a new delivery system)?
• What level of technical expertise currently
exists?
• If there is a gap, what would be needed to
bridge the gap?

28. COMPLEXITY:
PEDAGOGICAL
• What level of pedagogical expertise is
needed to successfully adopt a MOOC (e.g.,
learning how to plan learning activities for
the new delivery system)?
• What level of pedagogical expertise currently
exists?
• If there is a gap, what would be needed to
bridge it?

29. TRIALABILITY
• Definition: the degree to which the new
idea can be experimented with on a
restricted basis
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

30. TRIALABILITY
• Is it possible to try out a MOOC on a
limited basis? In other words, could a
pilot test be run? If yes, who would run
the pilot test?
• Is there flexibility in the implementation
of the MOOC? In other words, can
MOOC adoption be customized to
better fit the institution’s needs?

31. TRIALABILITY AND CHANGE
• Innovations are almost never a perfect
match to an organization
• Successful innovations are often
redefined, restructured, or reinvented
to become a better fit (may or may not
be possible or desirable at this stage)
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

32. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/mathplourde/8620174342

33. OBSERVABILITY
• Definition: the degree to which the
results of the new idea are visible by
others
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

34. OBSERVABILITY
• What can we learn from other
institutions’ use of MOOCs, especially
institutions similar to ours?
• Consider both successful and
unsuccessful adoptions
• May be easier to find success stories
than failed stories
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.

35. FACULTY INPUT IS CRITICAL
• Cannot be an afterthought—needs
to be forefront in the conversation
• How to best seek this input?
• Depends on your institution’s culture
• Committee?
• Survey?

36. POSSIBLE SURVEY ITEMS
AND RESPONSE CHOICES
Learners participating in MOOCs can achieve the
same learning outcomes as learners participating
in face-to-face classes.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
need more information before I can decide (please indicate
what information is needed in “Comments/remarks” section)
Comments/remarks

37. POSSIBLE SURVEY ITEMS
AND RESPONSE CHOICES
[My institution] should pilot a MOOC.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
need more information before I can decide (please indicate
what information is needed in “Comments/remarks” section)
Comments/remarks

38. POSSIBLE SURVEY ITEMS
AND RESPONSE CHOICES
If MOOC development was an option, I would
consider participating.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
need more information before I can decide (please indicate
what information is needed in “Comments/remarks” section)
Comments/remarks

39. POSSIBLE SURVEY ITEMS
AND RESPONSE CHOICES
The following attributes would affect my choice of
whether to participate (please check all that apply):
a) monetary compensation
b) counting as research/creative activity toward tenure and
promotion
c) course release
d) time involved
e) level of training and support
Comments/remarks

40. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/hatm/5704123809

41. Source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/aliciagriffin/2904408803

42. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
SUGGESTIONS?
Contact info:
Email: mitzi.lewis@mwsu.edu or pamela.morgan@mwsu.edu
Twitter: @mitzilewis