Early adopters versus the majority: Characteristics and implications for academic development and institutional change

Main Article Content

Vicki Harcus Morgan Dale, Dr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6623-7412 Michael McEwan, Dr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-9963 Jason Bohan, Dr


The diffusion of innovation curve has become common parlance when considering the adoption of technology-enhanced learning in higher education. Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards indicate the different rates of technology adoption. This study explored the views and experiences of staff at one research-led institution within one of four colleges, to determine whether there were differences between the characteristics and digital academic practices of teachers, based on their self-identification as one of the five types in a questionnaire. Subsequently, two focus groups allowed comparisons between early adopters and early majority.

The questionnaire found differences in terms of using a VLE to foster deep thinking through discussion, teachers’ digital practices and attributes, previous engagement with developmental TEL opportunities, perceived level of support from management, and perceived usefulness of CPD events. Focus groups revealed qualitative differences in terms of the amount of time participants invested in learning new technologies, sources of TEL support, preference for different types of academic development, and how they engaged with exemplars in their own or other disciplines.

In addition to recommendations for different types of academic development for different groups, the study highlighted the importance of early adopters in leading digital practice. Institutions need to recognise and support the unique contribution made by early adopters. They contribute to the resilience, agility and digital capabilities of an institution in responding to rapid changes, such as the Covid19 pandemic, in terms of supporting and leading other staff, and prompting the institution to expand its digital education infrastructure.


Article Details

Original Research
Author Biographies

Vicki Harcus Morgan Dale, Dr, University of Glasgow

Dr Vicki Dale (BSc, MSc, MEd, PhD, CMALT, SFHEA) is a Senior Academic and Digital Development Adviser who champions academic development for active blended learning. Her current areas of educational enquiry and practice are focused on active and blended learning design, and her role as an academic developer focuses on the effective use of technology-enhanced learning and teaching. Vicki sits on the organising committee for the Association for Learning Technology Scotland group.

Michael McEwan, Dr, University of Glasgow

Dr Michael McEwan (BSc, MEd, PhD, SFHEA) is Head of Subject for Academic and Digital Development at the University of Glasgow. His background is originally in applied mathematics and theoretical physics but he now leads the PGCert Academic Practice and associated MEd AP at the University of Glasgow where he supports the professional development of new teachers in higher education. 


Jason Bohan, Dr, University of Aberdeen

Dr Jason Bohan (SFHEA, CPsychol, AFBPsS) has been the Director of Teaching and Learning in the School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, since August 2018, where he is responsible for the education of over 1,000 psychology students. Previously he was employed as a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Glasgow, where amongst his many roles, he was responsible for the provision of the personal tutoring system for students in the College of Science and Engineering. 


higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1-16. doi:https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1973
Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Computers & Education, 53(3), 575-590. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.015
Armstrong, E. J. (2019). Maximising motivators for technology-enhanced learning for further education teachers: moving beyond the early adopters in a time of austerity. Research in Learning Technology, 27(0). doi:10.25304/rlt.v27.2032
Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22(1), 21453. Retrieved from https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/download/1450/pdf_1
Bobic, M., Davis, E., & Cunningham, R. (1999). The Kirton adaptation-innovation inventory: validity issues, practical questions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(2), 18-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9901900204
Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors' adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001
Bryant, P. (2015). There There - Risk aversion, ambient conservatism and the institutional equilibrium of pedagogical change [blog post]. Retrieved from http://peterbryant.smegradio.com/?p=530
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Forum for the Future of Higher Education, 47-53. Retrieved from http://www.ncmeresource.org/lcbp/pdf/webinar1/The%20Innovative%20University-Changing%20the%20DNA%20of%20Higher%20Education.pdf
Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. British journal of nursing, 16(11), 658-663. doi:https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681
Cousin, G. (2009). Chapter 1. Framing higher education research. In Researching learning in higher education. An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. (pp. 1-15). New York & Abingdon: Routledge.
Ee, J., Seng, T., & Kwang, N. (2007). Styles of creativity: Adaptors and innovators in a Singapore context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(3), 364-373. doi:10.1007/BF03026466
Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E‐learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 303-318. doi:10.1080/07294360902839909
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational and psychological measurement, 51(3), 755-765. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491513027
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Fresen, J. W. (2011). Factors influencing lecturer uptake of e-learning. Teaching English with Technology, 11(1), 81-97.
González, C. (2012). The relationship between approaches to teaching, approaches to e-teaching and perceptions of the teaching situation in relation to e-learning among higher education teachers. Instructional Science, 40(6), 975-998. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9198-x
Haigh, N. (2005). Everyday conversation as a context for professional learning and development. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/13601440500099969
Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 102-107. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.005
Hood Cattaneo, K. (2017). Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: from theory to practice. 2017, 6(2), 9. doi:10.7821/naer.2017.7.237
Hsu, P.-S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: a case study. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 60(1), 30-40. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0014-3
Jacobsen, M. (2000). Excellent teaching and early adopters of instructional technology. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2000 12th World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, June 26-July 1, 2000, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Choices and consequences of mixing methods in qualitative research. In Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (pp. 135-151). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (2017). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: The importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-14. doi:10.1080/00313831.2017.1306803
Lunde, J. P., & Wilhite, M. S. (1996). Innovative teaching and teaching improvement. In L. Richlin (Ed.), To Improve the Academy (pp. 155-167). Stillwater, OK.
McGeown, V. (1980). Dimensions of Teacher Innovativeness. British Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147-163. doi:10.1080/0141192800060204
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-342. doi:10.1080/14759390000200096
Novotn, P. (2002). Teachers and innovation; Opening stage of an exploration of today's practice. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002337.htm
Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1-15. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2016.1258369
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed. ed.). New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British journal of nursing, 16(12), 738-745.
Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., & Freitas, S. d. (2010). Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are Shaping their Own Experiences. New York: Routledge.
Smith, J., & Oliver, M. (2000). Academic development: A framework for embedding learning technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 129-137. doi:10.1080/13601440050200734
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748
Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior:A Literature Review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471. doi:10.3102/0034654314557949
van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Self-Regulation in Higher Education Teacher Learning. Higher education, 50(3), 447-471. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068106
Vogel, M. (2010). Engaging academics in professional development for technology-enhanced learning. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/engaging-academics-professional-development-technology-enhanced-learning
Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1366
Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers' innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9-27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.753984