Gilbuena, D., & Smith, C., & Brooks, B. J., & Finkelstein, T. S., & Koretsky, M. (2013, June), Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--19575

\bibitem{asee_peer_19575}
  Gilbuena, D., \& Smith, C., \& Brooks, B. J., \& Finkelstein, T. S., \& Koretsky, M. (2013, June), \emph{Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse}
  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia.
  10.18260/1-2--19575

Debra Gilbuena, Christina Smith, Bill Jay Brooks, Talia Sidne Finkelstein, and Milo Koretsky.  "Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse".  2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2013.  https://peer.asee.org/19575 Internet.  13 Dec, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_19575}
  Debra Gilbuena, Christina Smith, Bill Jay Brooks, Talia Sidne Finkelstein, and Milo Koretsky.
  "Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse".
  \emph{2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2013.
  https://peer.asee.org/19575 Internet.  13 Dec, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_19575
author = "Debra Gilbuena, Christina Smith, Bill Jay Brooks, Talia Sidne Finkelstein, and Milo Koretsky"
title = "Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse"
booktitle = "2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2013"
month = "June"
address = "Atlanta, Georgia"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/19575}
number = {10.18260/1-2--19575}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -         Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study                       of the AIChE Concept WarehouseTransportability is a widespread goal of education research. If an educational innovation iseffective in one environment, developers may want to share it with other instructors andinstitutions to have a larger impact and improve education more broadly. Additionally, fundingagencies like the National Science Foundation require a “broader impact” component in all grantproposals. One aspect commonly missing when an innovation is shared is a reflective, evidence-based description of the process as the educational innovation moves from the home institutionto other institutions with different faculty, different students and a different culture. In analogy tomolecular diffusion, E.M. Rogers put forth a theory, Diffusion of Innovations, that offers oneframework with which to examine this process. In this context, Rogers describes diffusion as“the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time amongthe members of a social system.”We focus on one aspect of diffusion, the innovation-decision process which describes five stagesthe potential user goes through as they decide whether to adopt a new innovation: knowledge,persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. We report on the first year investigationof the innovation decision-process of faculty who have considered adopting the AIChE ConceptWarehouse, a cyber-enabled site for facilitating conceptual learning in Chemical Engineeringwith large sets of concept-based clicker questions (or ConcepTests) and Concept Inventories forcore chemical engineering classes. Some faculty have become early adopters, while others haveprogressed through the first stage of the innovation-decision process, and decided at a later stagenot to adopt the innovation or to discontinue use. We ask the following research questions: Howdo early adopters use the AIChE Concept Warehouse? Why do they choose to implement it andcontinue use? At what stages do we lose faculty in the innovation-decision process and whatfactors influence their choices? How can we minimize negative factors?Participants in this preliminary investigation include 12 faculty members from a wide range ofages, teaching experience, institutions. These faculty fit in three adoption categories: four wereearly adopters that have continued use, four implemented the AIChE Concept Warehouse at leastonce but discontinued use, and four had knowledge of the tool but chose not to adopt it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and grouped according to the adoptioncategories. We asked faculty about their perceptions and use of the AIChE Concept Warehouse.Emergent coding was performed to identify themes in the interviews. In addition, we usedparticipants’ initial applications for the AIChE Concept Warehouse to provide a richerdescription of the participants and surveys completed after attendance of an introductoryworkshop for additional information about their innovation-decision path.This preliminary investigation has illustrated that faculty who never implement this tool perceivethat it takes more time than they can allot. For users that choose to try it, but discontinue use,there may be a need to collect more specific information in order to guide them through theinitial use. For example, potential adopters that are less proficient with technology may need amore scaffolded introduction and guidance through their first use than faculty who are moretechnologically proficient. In addition, aspects of the AIChE Concept Warehouse can bemodified to be more familiar to potential users, thereby mitigating potential issues.
AU  - Debra Gilbuena
AU  - Christina Smith
AU  - Bill Jay Brooks
AU  - Talia Sidne Finkelstein
AU  - Milo Koretsky
CY  - Atlanta, Georgia
DA  - 2013/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Examining the Innovation-Decision Process: A Preliminary Study of the AIChE Concept Warehouse
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/19575
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--19575
ER  -