criticismsdurffl
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: CriticismsDurffL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022082909/577d28ec1a28ab4e1ea58e0b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
8/6/2019 CriticismsDurffL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criticismsdurffl 1/5
Running head: CRITICISMS OF DIFFUSION RESEARCH 1
Criticisms of Diffusion Research
Lisa Durff
Walden University
![Page 2: CriticismsDurffL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022082909/577d28ec1a28ab4e1ea58e0b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
8/6/2019 CriticismsDurffL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criticismsdurffl 2/5
CRITICISMS OF DIFFUSION RESEARCHCriticisms of Diffusion Research
Rogers (2003) listed four criticisms of diffusion research studies namely pro-innovation
bias, individual blame bias, recall problems, and issues of equality. My mindmap included five
research studies shared by my classmates in EDUC-8841-3/EDUC-7101-3 Diffusion and
Integration of Technology in Education which I categorized by different criticisms of diffusion
research.
The study by Glover, Miller, Averis, and Door (2007) concerning interactive whiteboard
use in secondary schools was not connected with one of the four criticisms identified by Rogers
(2003). Rather, this study included a sampling bias by including participants overwhelmingly
from secondary math classrooms. The results of this study were therefore skewed towards that
population. Because this criticism of diffusion research was not identified by Rogers (2003), I
have categorized this study has “no criticism”. This criticism might be reduced by including a
wider selection of content teachers in subsequent research.
Ertmer et al. (2011) studied global collaborations using digital technologies. This study
was criticized by recall problems of participants during the post treatment survey. Surveys request
participants to remember back to when diffusion of the innovation, in this case the global
collaborations, took place. Anyone who has surveyed eyewitnesses to an accident, even moments
after the accident took place, understands the lack of reliability in survey research. This criticism,
caused by collecting self-reported data from participants, might be avoided by administering a test
of cultural competency. A quick scan of the internet reveals there are over 80 such instruments
already developed and available.
The study by Vatanparast and Qadim (2009) on mobile phones was criticized by issues of
equality. Those unable to acquire cell phones are often prevented by socio-economic
2
![Page 3: CriticismsDurffL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022082909/577d28ec1a28ab4e1ea58e0b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
8/6/2019 CriticismsDurffL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criticismsdurffl 3/5
CRITICISMS OF DIFFUSION RESEARCHcircumstances. Instead of bridging socio-economic gaps, innovative technologies often have
made gaps wider. The authors state a limitation of their research is that it involved those mobile
phone owners who also already had stationary internet connections (i.e. computers). A stated
focus of the research is to determine how mobile service providers should focus their services.
The study appeared in a journal produced by the Mobile Marketing Association and may have
been funded by them. To avoid criticisms based on inequalities, the study might look at how the
innovation or delivery of the innovation could change in different cultural contexts.
Dale and Pymm (2009) studied ipods and this research was subject to pro-innovation bias.
This criticism implied that the innovative technology should be accepted. To avoid this criticism
future studies might look at the format instead of a brand name. The implication of this research
is that educators must change in order to engage students in learning content, placing the
responsibility on educators to engage students, not on students to engage with the content. This
study involved tertiary education (not mandatory primary or secondary education), so it would
seem to me that students are to be held responsible for their own learning.
3
![Page 4: CriticismsDurffL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022082909/577d28ec1a28ab4e1ea58e0b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
8/6/2019 CriticismsDurffL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criticismsdurffl 4/5
CRITICISMS OF DIFFUSION RESEARCHReferences
Dale, C., & Pymm, M. J. (2009). Podagogy: The ipod as a learning technology. Active Learning
in Higher Education, 10, 84-96.
Ertmer, P.A., Newby, T.J., Yu, J.H., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Lee, Y.M.,…Sendurur, P. (2011).
Facilitating students’ global perspectives: Collaborating with international partners using
web 2.0 technologies. The Internet and Higher Education. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.005
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for
teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An
empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(1), 5-20.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online
learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17-35.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Vatanparast, R., & Qadim, H. Z. (2009). A cross-cultural study on mobile internet usage.
International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 4(2), 14-27.
4
![Page 5: CriticismsDurffL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022082909/577d28ec1a28ab4e1ea58e0b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
8/6/2019 CriticismsDurffL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criticismsdurffl 5/5
CRITICISMS OF DIFFUSION RESEARCH
5