'.I ' o'I- IIII'I IWIIII f‘IIIOIIIIII IIIIIIIII I’IIIII‘ " 'III I III III, . IWIIIIIII [II' I . IIII II II IIIIII‘III I I" IIIIIIIII III II III II IIIIIII III II III II II I I..;IIIIIIIIIIII II ..‘ III II. IIIIII I I'.. IIII , III. IIIIII I III 'I IIIIII I III IIIIII 'II' IIIIII III 'II ,IIIIIIII” III I..,II III IIIIIII IIUI IIII I'II , I IIIII'II IIIIIIII'II I IIIIII. - II'III"'I'II’I III- "I‘III IIIII'IIII II III}! ”III : IIIIIII I"'l'III INHILII I I . II '13 I?” . I. . III,.I.,II;,I 9.: III; I . 3% ”I IgI'IJI‘ "III! gr III ‘I g It ‘Iég “’15 LEI“; ’8‘}; I I... 'IIII‘ I}? I: If}: ‘13 I». . - y . I_.:'III::‘I '5; 2» . III _. .If‘ I Ii. IIIIIIIII IIII'II'IIII IIIIIII'II‘ ‘ III ..I. III" ”II "I” III I IIIIII II'IIII IIIIII‘II III _ .. IIII'I' II"‘IIII'I ‘.I I.. II. II III... , _ III I II III“ I III‘ I III-I IIIEII’I" III I . . ‘ I III IIIIIIII I'III I IIII'IIIII’IIII III“‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'II’ . ‘-‘I- . Rf; 'III‘: III IIII IIIIII IIIIII II‘... IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIII “I“ I df: }%§IIII IF}? I I I. '.II I .' IIEI.,""V. 'I I'IIIII'II I‘I-IIII IIIIIII; .I‘ .II' "I I III I' I II‘I'III; I'IIIIIIIIIIIII‘I'I“II'IIIII'I'IIII"I'II'IIIIIIIII’IIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIII'II‘I II. ._. I.II'III.,.' . I. III ‘I;.II IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIII I.. . IIII‘II‘I II IIIKII?” ,fI-I‘III-I . II'IIII'I'II'IIIIII II‘I'I-I'II'ILI . III I . ’I'. I: . «I. ',II IIIIIIIII I III. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII II I' 1'3 'IFII'IIII I IIHIff’I Ig‘EIIIIQ‘Ig‘ . II II 'I"III'IIIIIIIIII'IIII'I..IIIIIII "’II"I., ”III II . II gIIII I "I III] . II" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II ILI III: I.,.. n‘ . . . . “I ». ." 'II II'I'-,_.,.‘.I," IIII~I IIII'M} II’I II I III. II II III: III. . III III, III .II . I . I , 1... I’IIII‘I‘I7'JIIIIIIII-II'IIIII'IIII-.I.;"IIIIITIIIIIII III L. ‘. t . -. I" I ‘.'III'IIII.:II”IIIIIII'I.':II;.'I;,II'I"'IIII'I‘IIIIIIIII:.'II.'II,."..III‘III' I I' .. " '- I’IIIIi-I .' I ‘T 'I .. ;_IIIII' III??? "II’I‘IJSFIITI‘I‘”'IHI"' I‘. I I " 5"" I .I I .. I ’ III? I: XIII} 'II‘ III I I':""IIIIIIII'. III'.”I .III I. II II II .I'III’II ' .I.. .. .._ _ ' "' I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII II ' ‘HI’ . II . III .III I IIIIIIII II I III IIIII‘III I "s. 'I I A: '_II :III‘ " ' .l 'I I" II I III I ”II ' II ‘IIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIII ' II . .' III III W "'"I f. : "IIIII IIII 'IIIIIIIIIIIII' II" . I'IIIIII. I I (III I .II I I'III IIIIIIH IIIIIIIIII IIIIII II‘III II'III III IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII III 3.: II I 'I ’ ‘ .I III I 'IIIII I I'III . . II‘HII‘IIIIU I ' Iv.III'~ I‘I II'II I I I' I III III :IIII III IIIIII IIIIII'I IIII I'I‘I ItIII I a IIIIIIIII’ . I..... III." I III . I. .... ‘&I III" I f'IIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I IIIIIIII III» III '.I. IIII I III III IIIIII'II III. IIII‘IITIIII’NI III IJuIfiI‘Ir '(I IIIIII RI? IIIIII‘II' II IIIIII'II IIIIIII M} I IIIIII"|IH I.I.I. '.. II. II III I.I1'II.I..I‘II ...IIIs... .III'. .hnI. ..IIII I‘IRIIM MINIAMMW ' I” I IkI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 293 10414 4336 ' um”? Michigan Stab: - {Jami . ‘3 . ar' ‘3: n . _ ' ..1. " RETURNING MATERIALS: MSU fine i n book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from All-lyllln. your record. FINES wil] be charged if Book is returned after the date stjmped below. THE DIFFUSION'OF A SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHING METHOD THROUGH NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS DISTRICT II HIGH SCHOOLS BY LeRoy Dale Stegink A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Curriculum and Instruction 1979 ABSTRACT THE DIFFUSION OF A SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHING METHOD THROUGH NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS DISTRICT II HIGH SCHOOLS By LeRoy Dale Stegink To what extent have elements of the "New Social Studies" appeared in classrooms, and is there a theory which explains the presence of these elements? An attempt was made in this study to arrive at a partial answer by examining the diffusion of the use of simulation games as a teaching technique through a population which consisted of the eight Christian High Schools in the National Union of Christian Schools District II. The Social Interactiontheory of innovation diffusion, as described and developed by Rogers and Shoemaker in The Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach, was used in an attempt to explain this diffusion. The use of simulation games as a teaching technique was selected as the innovation to be studied, and fifty hypotheses were selected for testing from the ones listed in The Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. A questionnaire was constructed to test these hypotheses and was administered to the population of 240 teachers in May, 1978. Completed questionnaires were received from 196, or 821 of the teachers surveyed. There were 35 social studies teachers in the population and questionnaires were received from 30, or 86%. Since the hypotheses called for the establishment of simple LeRoy Dale Stegink correlations in a predicted direction between two or more variables, the Pearson, Spearman, Chi-Square, Kendal Coefficient of Concordance and Student-t formulas were used in analyzing the data. The significance level in all cases was set at .05. A composite table was prepared indicating which hypotheses were accepted and which were rejected. I An analysis of the data produced the following results: 1. There is a‘significant negative relationship between size of the school student population and the time of adoption of a simulation game as a teaching technique. 2. There is a significant positive relationship between the aspirations of social studies teachers and the time of adoption of simulation,games. 3. There is a significant positive relationship between the source of new ideas and insights regarding education (generally outside the school system) and the time of adaption of simulation games. 4. There is a significant positive relationship between the time of adoption of simulation games and a positive attitude toward education on the part of the social studies teachers. 5. There is a significant positive relationship between time of adoption and non-professional magazine and newspaper reading habits of the social studies teachers. 6. There is a significant positive relationship between knowledge of certain innovations, such as ethnic group studies and the Feminist movement, and the time of adoption of simulation games. LeRoy Dale Stegink In addition, suggestions are offered for researchers who might replicate the study, using the Social Interaction model of innovation diffusion. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I 0 THE PROBLm O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Need . . . . . ... . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . "The innovation . . " . . "which is communicated through " certain channels . . "over time . . " . . . . . "among members of a social system . . " . . weniew O 3 O O O O O O O O C II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . The Communication of Innovations A Cross-Cultural Approach . Review of Research in Social Studies Education: 1970-1975 . Review of Research Since 1975 . Conclusion and Summary . . . . III. DESIGN OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Rogers and Shoemaker Hypotheses Selection of Hypotheses . Hypotheses . . . . . . . The Choice of Simulation Games as the Innovation . . . . The Instrument . . . . . . . . National Union of Christian Schools District II . . . Data Collection Procedures . . Treatment of Data . . . . . . . Page 111 OO‘O‘U‘H 12 16 20 21 21 21 23 31 33 36 36 36 36 38 42 43 44 46 47 Chapter IV. ANALYSES OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . Early-Later Adopter Categories . Statistical Tests . . . . . . . Results and Discussion of Data . "The innovation . . " . . Discussion of Results . . "type of communication channel . . Discussion of Results . . "over time . . " . . . . . Discussion of Results . . "among members of a social Discussion of Results . . Simulation Games . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . smary O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . Discussion 0 o o o o ' o o o o o 0 Implications for Future Study . QPWDICES O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 11 system Page 50 so so 51 52 52 54 55 58 so 87, 90 100 103 105 105 107 109 114 118 130 Table 1.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 LIST OF TABLES "Over time" Hypotheses . . . . . . Size and Location of Schools Surveyed . . . . . .-. . . Summary of Questionnaire Returns . Summary of Relationships Between Time of Adoption and Innovation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . Summary of Predicted and Actual Relationships Between Mass Media- Cosmopolite, Interpersonal- Localite Channels and Time of Adoption-Decision to Adopt . . . Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses With Yates' Correction Applied, of the Data for Hypotheses #34 . . . Summary of Pearson Analyses of the Data for Hypothesis #35 . . . Summary of Ranks, Arranged by Variable and School . . . . . . Summary of Ranks, Arranged by Variable and School . . . . . . . Summary of Independent\Variab1es, Predictions, and Results for TIME. Hypotheses O O O O O I O O O O I 0 Summary of Choices of Opinion Leaders and Innovative Teachers Made By All Faculty Members of the Eight Schools . iii Page 15 45 47 55 59 75 77 84 86 89 92 Table 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 5.1 LIST OF TABLES, CONT'D Summary of Sources That Convinced Teachers to Try Simulation Games . Summary of Totals of Choices of Opinion Leaders, Innovative Teachers and Names in Both Categories . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings for SOCIAL SYSTEM Hypotheses . . . . . . Simulation Games Used By Teachers . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Significant Findings iv Page 95 99 102 103 108 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM £3331 Teaching in the United States in the 1960's was an exciting occu- pation. The decade began with John Kennedy's call to awaken America's spirit and to follow him onward to bigger and better dreams. The country re-discovered its long-neglected minority groups and em- barked on a crusade to end poverty while at the same time fighting "Communist aggression" in Southeast Asia. The air was electric with calls for reform and justice, which could be attained now if the citizens simply united to work for these goals and were serious in their purpose. True, the decade turned increasingly sour as it was discovered that a paradise could not be created new or in the future, but it was exciting while it lasted. The education establishment was also affected by this change. Schools were the targets of boycotts by minority groups hoping to improve their share in the Great American Dream, while the increas- ing role of the United States in South Vietnam did a good job of stirring up all sorts of feelings on the part of students. Demands were made on the schools in the 1960's from all directions. Schools were to combat the evils of prejudice and segregation, stop the war, end poverty, keep the United States ahead of the race with the Russians, all while preparing students to participate in whatever it was that the future had in store for them. The ideas of the great educational thinkers of the 1960's fell 1 2 on a receptive audience. Reform was in the air, and the impact of peeple like Piaget, Brunet, and Skinner had a great effect on the programs developed for schools during the 1960's. Study groups in- quired into the structure of the academic disciplines and into the nature of learning and attempted to develop curriculum packages and teaching techniques reflecting this wisdom. Much money and time were devoted to the training of teachers in these new programs, and textbook companies launched slick campaigns to seduce school systems into purchasing these new wares, designed to improve just about everything that others had found wrong with schools. To the readers of educational literature of the 1960's, it'seemed that education had finally found thg_answer, and it would just be a matter of time before schools would be ideal places for learning to occur. But, alas, this was not to be. The 1970's could be labeled the decade of reaction. Inflation, the endless war in Vietnam, student militancy, all seemed to pose a threat to traditional American values. The public, disillusioned by the failure to deliver on the promises of the 1960's, worried by what they saw ainncreasing turbulence in the nation, was not in the mood for new crusades and had lost interest in the old ones. On the education front, it seemed that all that had been accomplished by the reforms of the 1960's were increasingly illiterate and militant students turned out by an educational establishment that demanded more money each year. The new "in" fads now were a return to academic standards and discipline which became known as the "back-to-basic's" movement. Society seemed to have come full circle. This wave of reform and reaction was also paralleled in the 3 social studies field. Haas describes the many attempts to reform social studies education in the 1960's and the eventual reduced momentum of these efforts in the 1970's. Starting with the pioneering work of Senesh and Fenton, continuing and gaining speed with the onset of several curriculum projects, many funded by Federal money, the "New Social Studies" was in full swing by the mid-60's.1 'The "New Social Studies" represented an attempt to reform social studies education in the nation's schools through a variety of ways, such as improving methodology, content, and teacher training. Many new curriculum materials and teaching methods, such 38.!EEF.é Course gfmggggx, the High School Geography Project, a stress on the use of inquiry and simulation gaming and many others came out of this move- ment and attempts were made to spread this material to the schools. As the movement to reform social studies education lost momentum in the 1970's as a result of the same forces which slowed the reform movement in other areas of education, such as decreases in government funding and support, an important question remaining has become how much of an impact did all of this invested time and money have on the social studies programs of the nation's many school districts? Haas offers one view: "It appears, though the evidence is scant, that widespread implementation (adoption or adaptation) of New Social Studies curricula, courses or units did not occur, that perhaps five percent of social studies classrooms in the United States were affected by the New Social Studies and that the greatest impact was on 1John Haas, The Era of the New Social Studies (Boulder:Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1976) PP. 20-22. selected suburban schools."2 Haas, even though he hedges his statement with the disclaimer of "scant evidence" and thus is open to criticism, raises an inter- esting question. If a goal of the advocates of the "New Social Studies" was a change in the teaching of social studies in American schools, how effective were they? How many of the new materials and instructional methods were actually used by the classroom teachers, once they left the hands of the developers? Given the amount of time, money and effort invested in the development of new social studies materials and teaching techniques during the past two decades, and the questionable rate of adoption, any study on this rate of adoption is important. It is hoped that future innovators will be aided by present studies into the innovation process. Researches on innovation diffusion have been conducted in various school systems throughout the United States. However, none of them has involved the unique population represented by the eight Christian High Schools located in the state of Michigan7 These schools, supported and operated by parents of Calvinistic persuasion, are affiliated with the National Union of Christian Schools. This organ- ization operates a curriculum department, and attempts to convince the member schools to use their curriculum materials. Most of the research on innovation diffusion which uses the Social Interaction model as developed by Rogers and Shoemaker uses only part of that model, concentrating primarily on the characteristics of the individual adopter. This study attempts to use the whole model, as 2Haas,_p_. cit., p. 79. 5 described in the following statement: "The innovation, which is communicated through certain channels, over time, among members of a social system."3 By using the whole Social Interaction model, it is hoped that this study will contribute to the further development of that model. Pugpose The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the teaching technique of simulation gaming, one emphasized by the "New Social StudiesU movement, has been diffused through certain social systems in accordance with the Social Interaction model as described by Rogers and Shoemaker. The social systems are the eight National Union of Christian Schools affiliated Christian High Schools in the state of Michigan. These schools and their locations are: 1. Grand Rapids Christian High - Grand Rapids 2. Calvin Christian High - Grandville 3. South Christian High - Cutlerville 4. Unity Christian High - Hudsonville 5. Holland Christian High - Holland 6. western Michigan Christian High - Muskegon 7. Northern Michigan Christian High - MtBain 8. Kalamazoo Christian High - Kalamazoo 3Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. (New York: The Free Press, 1971). p.18. 6 Hypothesis Since the Social Interaction model as described by Rogers and Shoemaker is very extensive, the following statement relating to that model is offered as a working hypothesis: The diffusion of simulation gaming among the social studies teachers of the eight Christian High Schools will conform to the Social Interaction model of diffusion as described by Rogers and Shoemaker. This model will be described in greater detail below, and various sub- hypotheses will be stated in testable form in Chapter Three. Theory Jwaideh and Marker describe four models commonly used to explain how a new idea or object spreads through society.4 Each model has its limitations, but some are more useful than others in any attempt to analyze the change process. A brief description of three of the models is provided below. A more detailed description of the fourth model will conclude this section.5 The Research, Development, Diffusion and Adoption model (RDDA) is an attempt to understand change from the logical mind of an engineer. The model assumes that change takes place in a rational sequence of steps, starting with basic research, where the purpose 4Alice Jwaideh and Gerald Marker, Bringing About Change in Social Studies Education. (Boulder:Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1973), pp. 53-65. 5Jwaideh and Marker use the term "model" extensively in Bringing About Change in Social Studies Education. The term is used to mean "theory", in that it is " a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict and otherwise explain a specified set of phenomena." (American Heritage Dictionary) In keeping with Jwaideh and Marker's usage, the term model here will be used interchangeably with theory. 7 is to produce knowledge. The knowledge base is not geared to solving specific problems, but is a basis for the production of an innovation. The basic research is used in the development stage to produce a solution to a problem, which is known as an innovation. In addition to the invention of an innovation, the development stage also includes the production of the innovation for use by society. After the innovation has been developed, the next step in the ‘ change process is the diffusion stage. In this stage, information is_ disseminated to potential adopters to inform them that the innovation exists. In addition to being provided with information, potential adopters are also given the opportunity to observe the innovation in operation. The adoption phase of the RDDA model contains three sub-phases. After the potential adopter has been informed of the innovation, and has seen it in operation, the model assumes a trial adoption. If the trial is successful, the innovation is installed, or adopted by the whole institution. The final sub-phase is institutionalization where the innovation becomes a regular part of the institution, thus ceasing to be an innovation. A major criticism of this attempt to explain the change process is that the model does not fully deal with the role of the potential adopter. It assumes that information about and observation of the innovation will win over the potential adopter, thus ignoring possible social and personal effects on the adopter, should he adopt the innovation. This means that the potential adopter might decide not to adopt, even after he has followed the route described by the model, because he is concerned with what his colleagues might think of him. A second model described by Jwaideh and Marker is the Probleme Solver model. According to this model, change occurs only when individuals, groups or organizations determine that they have a problem and begin to search for a solution to that problem. After a need has been determined, the next step in this model is one of problem diagnosis, where an attempt is made to analyze and study the need. This stage is often accomplished with the help of an outside expert; The next stages, after the problem has been analyzed, consist of searching for solutions to the problem, selecting the proper solution, and finally applying that solution. If the solution does not meet the need, the process begins anew. This model differs from the RDDA model in that it emphasizes the need of the potential adopter, rather than the need of a developer. It focuses its attention on the customer, rather than on the producer. It maintains that a desire for change arises out of a need, a problem, rather than a lack of information. This model also does not take into account possible social or personal effects on the adopter. The third model is the Linkage model. This model is an attempt to combine the basic research element of the RDDA model with the needs- of-the-adopter focus of the ProblemPSolver model. It maintains that ' change comes about when a bridge or link is created between those doing the researching and developing, and those who have the problem. This bridge is usually a person familiar with both the research and development being done in an area, and with the needs of the client. The job of this change agent consists of knowing who is doing research 9 and development in that area, and then bringing the two together, or creating a link between the client and the research and development. The adopter sees what the researchers have done, puts into practice what they recommend, and solves his problem. This model, despite its attempt to combine the best of the two previous models, is also subject to criticism because it, too, does not account for social and personal factors which might make the adopter who has a need reject what might seem to be a rational, well- developed solution to his problem. The fourth model, the Social Interaction model, attempts to correct this deficiency. It assumes that the research and development have already been done, and concentrates instead on hpg the innovation spreads through or between groups, rather than how it should, as is done by other models. The basic premise of the Social Interaction model is that an innovation, after coming to someone's attention, spreads through the social network, which is defined as that chain of relation- ships between individuals and groups. One's group membership, identi- fication, and standing in the group are the important variables govern- ing the diffusion of an innovation. The major advocates of this model, Rogers and Shoemaker, maintain that "the main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are: The innovation . . . which is communicated through certain channels . . . over time . . . 10 among members of a social system."6 Each of these four variables in the Rogers and Shoemaker model will be described below. "The innovation . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker define an innovation as "an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual."7 A crucial aspect of this definition is the word "perceived" because this means that some- thing need not be "objectively" new to be called an innovation. If a person has never seen or heard of an automobile, then to him the automobile is an innovation, despite its being around for several 'decades The various characteristics of the innovation itself contribute or detract from its rate of adoption. Rogers and Shoemaker maintain - that the following characteristics of an innovation help explain its rate of adoption" 1. Relative Advangggg Rogers and Shoemaker define relative advantage as "the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it super- sedes."8 If new idea x is perceived as cheaper than already-in-use idea y, then new idea x has more relative advantage than y and stands a better chance of adoption. In addition to money, relative advantage might also be higher social prestige by the user, convenience, or 6Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York: The Free Press, 1971) p. 39. 7Ibid., p. 22. 8151a. 11 satisfaction. An important point here is that the advantage does not necessarily have to be objectively real, the potential adopter only has to perceive it as such in order to increase the chances of adoption. 2. Compatibility Rogers and Shoemaker define this as "the degree to which an inno— vation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of the receivers."9 This means that a potential innovation which deviates sharply from the existing values and norms of the social system of which the adopter is a part will stand less of a chance of being adopted than an innovation which does-not deviate so sharply. Innovations which are radically different from present practice stand less of a chance of being adopted than innovations which closely resemble present practice. 3. Complexity This is defined as "the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use."10 A complex inno- vation, one which requires a high degree of new learning on the part of the adopter has less of a chance of being adopted than does an innovation which requires little or no new learning from.the adopter. 4. Trialability I This is defined as "the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis."11 An innovation represents a 9Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 22 10Ibid. lllbid., p. 23 12 degree of risk to the adopter. If he were to adopt an innovation which turned out not to his liking, he may be out money or prestige. Hence an innovation which can be experimented with, adopted partially or piece-meal, is preferable to one which must be adopted in its entirety, and will have a more rapid rate of diffusion. 5. Observability Rogers and Shoemaker define this as "the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others."12 An innovation which has immediate and highly visible results will be adopted faster than one which produces results over a longer period of time and which are not so visible. "which is communicated through certain channels . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker define communication as "the process by which messages are transmitted from a source to a receiver", and a communication channel as "the means by which the message gets from the source to the receiver."13 A potential adopter must be informed somehow of the existence of the innovation if it is to be adopted, and this flow of information contributes to the diffusion process. The social relationship between the source and the receiver will determine whether or not the measage is passed on, and also how it will be received. The channel is also significant, in that a mass media channel is more suited to passing out information to large groups, 12Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 23. 13Ib1d., pp. 23-24. 13 while an interpersonal channel is better suited to bringing about more favorable attitudes on the part of small groups. What this means for the adoption process is that the receiver's social relationship with a source will determine whether or not he is- informed of a possible innovation and will also influence how he reacts to that news. How he receives the information is also significant, in that if he hears of a potential innovation through a mass media channel, he will be less likely to adopt than_if a friend informed him.14 "over time . . . " Time is involved in the diffusion process in three ways: 1) in the process by which a potential adopter proceeds from first knowledge of an innovation to a decision to adopt or reject; 2) at the point where the individual decides to adopt an innovation in comparison to his peers; and 3) in the spread of an innovation through a social system.15 Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that each potential adopter proceeds through a series of stages on the adoption or rejection of an innovation. These stages are: 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion; 3) decision; and 4) confirmation.16 A potential adopter enters the knowledge stage when he becomes aware of the existence of an innovation, proceeds to the persuasion stage when he forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude“ toward the innovation, goes to the decision stage when he decides to adopt or reject, and ends in the confirmation stage when he seeks 1('Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 24. 15Ibid., pp. 24-25. 16Ibid., p. 28. 14 approval of others for the decision he has made. Since the central purpose of this study is to examine the diffusion of a teaching technique, not to determine if there are stages in the adoption process, the adoption aspect of the Rogers and Shoemaker Social Interaction model will be dealt with only briefly. When a person decides to adopt an innovation is important, Rogers and Shoemaker maintain, because that time of adoption is determined and influenced by certain personality, socioeconomic and communication characteristics. Adapters are divided into categories depending on the relative earliness or lateness of their time of adoption. Rogers and Shoemaker describe five types of adopters, but in their review of the research, they construct hypotheses based on only two categories, early and late adopters. On the basis of these two categories, Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that a relationship exists between the following variables and time of adoption: 15 Table 1.1 "Over Time" Hypotheses Independent Variables Type of Relationship to Dependent Variable (Time of Adaption) Age None Education Positive Social Status Positive Upward Social Mobility Positive Size of Unit Positive Specialized Operations Positive Empathy Positive Dogmatism Negative Ability to deal with Abstractions Positive Rationality Positive Intelligence Positive Attitude toward Change Positive Attitude toward Risk Positive Attitude toward Education Positive Attitude toward Science Positive Fatalism Positive Achievement Motivation Positive Higher Aspirations Positive Social Participation Positive Integration with Social System Positive Cosmopoliteness Positive Change Agent Contact Positive Exposure to Mass Media Positive Interpersonal Communication Channels Positive Information Seeking Positive Knowledge of Innovations Positive Degree of Opinion Leadership Positive Modern vs. Traditional Norms Positive Integration of Systems Positive 16 The time dimension is also involved in the speed with which an innovation spreads through a system. The rate of adoption is measured by the length of time required for a certain percentage of the members of a system to adopt the innovation. Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that innovations which have more relative advantage, are more compatible, less complex, can be easily tried, and have more observable results will diffuse more quickly than an innovation which possesses less of these qualities. "amongmembers of a social system . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker define a social system as "a collectivity of units which are functionally differentiated and engaged in joint problem solving with respect to a common goal."17 The units may be individuals, informal groups, complex organizations, or subsystems. Diffusion of an innovation occurs within this social system, and Rogers and Shoemaker describe four factors related to social systems which influence diffusion. If, in a social system, distinctions are made between the units, then structure exists. A school faculty is usually divided into groups along lines such as good teachers and bad, coaches and non-athletes, male and female, principal and teacher. This arrangement of hier- archical positions influences the diffusion of an innovation in that it affects the.flow of information, freedom to act, power, and other factors vital to the spread of an innovation. Further, the diffusion of an innovation may also change the social structure of a system, in 17Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 28. 17 that it could bring the innovator more power, money, or prestige. A second area of a social system's influence of diffusion are the norms of that system. Rogers and Shoemaker define norms as "the established behavior patterns for the members of a given social I system. They define a range of tolerable behavior and serve as a guide or a standard for the members of a social system."18 Rogers and Shoemaker formulate two ideal sets of norm systems which influences diffusion, traditional and modern norms. A traditional norm system has the following characteristics: 1. Lack of favorable orientation to change. 2. A less developed or "simpler" technology. 3. A relatively low level of literacy, education and under- standing of the scientific method. 4. A social enforcement of the status quo in the social system, facilitated by affective personal relationships, such as friendliness and hospitality, which are highly valued as ends in themselves. 5. Little communication by members of the social system with outsiders. 6. Lack of ability to empathize or to see oneself in other's roles, particularly the roles of outsiders to the system. By contrast, the modern norm system has the following characteristics: 1. A generally positive attitude toward change. 2. A well developed technology with a complex division of labor. 3. A high value on education and science. '8 Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 30-31. 19 Ibid. , p. 32. 18 4.Rational and businesslike social relationships rather than emotional and affective. 5. Cosmopolite perspectives, in that members of the system often interact with outsiders, facilitating the entrance of new ideas into the social system. 6. Empathetic ability on the part of the system's members, who are able to see themselves in roles quite different from their own.20 Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that systems characterized by modern norms are more open to innovation and change, while systems characterized by traditional norms are less 30.21 In addition to the modern vs. traditional orientation of the system's norms, it is also important to consider the individual's commitment to those norms. A potential innovator may be a member of a traditional society, yet still be an innovator because he has not committed himself to the norms of that traditional system. A third area of social system influence on the diffusion process consists of opinion leaders and change agents. Rogers and Shoemaker define opinion leadership as "the degree to which an individual is able to informally influence other individual's attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency."22 Often the most innovative members of a system are perceived as deviants and given low status. Yet there are members of the system who function in the Irole of opinion leaders. Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that in a 20Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 32-33. 211bid., p. 33. 221bid., p. 35. 19 social system where the norms are modern, the opinion leaders are likely to be quite innovative, whereas in traditional systems the opinion leaders are more conservative. However, opinion leaders, when compared to their followers, are more likely to have the follow- ing characteristics: 1. Be more exposed to all forms of external communication. 2. Be more cosmopolite. 3. Have higher social status. 4. Be more innovative.23 Change agents are defined as "professional(s) who influence innovation decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency."24 Change agents often work with opinion leaders to bring about a desired change. The fourth area of influence lies in the type of decisions the social system can make concerning an innovation. Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that there are three types of decisions that can 25 An "authority decision" occurs when a supervisor orders be made. his subordinate to adopt an innovation. The adopter's attitude toward the innovation is not considered; he is expected to comply with the order. This type of decision leads to a fast rate of adoption but the order is likely to be circumvented and the innovation 23Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 35 24Ibid. 251bid., p. 36. 20 discontinued at the first opportunity.26 A collective decision occurs when the members of a system agree to adopt an innovation. Those who disagree are expected to go along with the majority, but the wishes of the non-adopters are considered. An optional decision occurs when an individual may decide to adopt an innovation, regardless of what others may do. Of course, the person is still subject to group norms and expectations, but the decision is still the individual's to make. Overview Chapter Two of this thesis is a review of the pertinent liter- ature involving diffusion studies constructed under the Social Interaction model of Rogers and Shoemaker dealing with social studies innovations. The design of the study will be described in Chapter Three and the results presented in Chapter Four and analyzed in Chapter Five. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction A review of the literature concerned with the Social Inter- action perspective on the diffusion of innovations reveals several major sources. The classic source for research on the Social Interaction model itself is still Rogers' and Shoemaker's Communication of Innovations: A.Cross-Cultural Approach. In this work, the authors cite more than 1500 studies related to this model. In Review of Research In Social Studies Education: 1970-1975, Carole Hahn reviews the research available on the diffusion of social studies materials using all four models of diffusion. In addition, a search of the Education Research Information Center (ERIC) system, using the descriptors DIFFUSION and SOCIAL STUDIES, revealed other relevant sources published since 1975. A search through Dissertation Abstracts since 1975, using the categories of General Education, Administration, Curriculum and Instruction, and Social Sciences also provided other relevant studies. This chapter will discuss the. findings relevant to this study from each source. The Communication pf Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach This work, which is an up-dated version of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, attempts to achieve two purposes. One purpose is to construct and describe a model which will explain the spread of an innovation through a society. The other purpose of the book is to 21 22 cite relevant research dealing with diffusion from a Social Inter- action perspective. Rogers and Shoemaker postulate that the spread of an innovation is dependent on the interaction of four crucial elements: 1) charac: teristics of the innovation itself; 2) the communication channel through which the potential adapter learns about the innovation; 3) the time of adoption of the innovation (various personal charac- teristics of the adopter are involved here); and 4) the characteristics of the social system of the adopter.1 This model is not a prescriptive one, in that it does not describe how change phpplg_ occur, but it is claimed to be a descriptive one describing how change gggg occur. Rogers and Shoemaker have constructed a series of generalizations for each of the four elements of the model. These generalizations, 103 of them, attempt to describe in greater specificity the operation of the Social Interaction model of diffusion. For each generalization, appropriate research is cited, both supportive and non-supportive.2 The bulk of the research cited, however, deals primarily with various characteristics of what the authors call the early adopter, those who are among the first to adopt an innovation. Since early and late adopters are classified on the basis of time of adoption, that part of the Social Interaction model labeled "over time . . . 1Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. (New York: The Free Press, 1971). p. 18. 21bid., pp. 347-385. 23 has the best supporting evidence.3 The section of the model that has the least supporting evidence are the characteristics of the social system of the adopter.4 This book is a valuable contribution to the study of the diffusion of innovations in that it constructs a theory and offers supporting evidence for that theory. However, because of the exploratory nature of many of the hypotheses, it should not be con- sidered the final authority in this field. Review pf Research 33 Social Studies Education: 1970-1975 In chapter five of this National Council for the Social Studies publication, Carole Hahn reviews the relevant literature on the diffusion of social studies innovations.5 There are currently four models being used to describe the diffusion of innovations, and she uses these four models to organize the chapter. These models are: 1) Research, Development, Dissemination and Adoption; 2) Problem Solver; 3) Social Interaction; and 4) Linkage. Relevant research in social studies diffusion is reported under the model used to conduct the study. Since this dissertation uses the Social Interaction model of diffusion, her findings in that area will be described. In keeping with the Rogers and Shoemaker description 3Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 352-376. 4Ibid., pp. 376-380. 5Francis Hunkins, et. al. Review of Research in Social Studies Education: 1970—1975. (washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977) pp. 137-177. 24 that the spread of an innovation is dependent on the characteristics of an innovation, comunicated through certain channels, over time, among members of a social system, her findings will be described under these headings. In addition, comments will be made, where appropriate, on the research cited by Hahn, based upon an examination of the source. "The innovation . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesize that certain perceived charac- teristics of an innovation influence its spread. They label these characteristics Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Trialability, Observability and Complexity. Relative advantage is defined as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than that which it replaces. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is seen as being compatible with the potential adopter's needs, values and previous experience. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation can be tried on a limited basis. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to use and understand.6 Hahn cites the following reSearch in social studies diffusion dealing with these five areas. The diffusion of the Materials and Activities for Teachers and Children program'was inhibited by its cost, while the lower cost and greater compatibility of the Holt 6Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 22-23. 25 Social Studies Pigggam contributed to its greater degree of diffusion.7 Cost and compatibility were also found to be factors in the diffusion of the Georgia Anthropology Curriculum Project.8 - Hahn also cites her own work in the perceived characteristics of social studies innovations and their relationship to diffusion. In a four-state survey, 412 potential adopters who were familiar with "New Social Studies" project materials were asked to complete questionnaires dealing with their perceptions of thematerials.9 Using factor analyses, she found that items related to Observability of valued outcomes, difficulty, costs in money and risk, and similarity to previous experience were crucial factors.10 Richburg found that nearly half of the people who purchased sets of the Geoggia Anthropology Curriculum Project materials had first used sample sets.11 Walker found that some adopters of "New Social Studies" projects in Nebraska tried out sample sets of material prior to adoption.12 Upon examination, this study appears to be an excellent one, involving all of the secondary social studies teachers in Nebraska. An 80% response rate on the questionnaire was achieved, and the methodology involved using the questionnaire combined with 7Hunkins, et. al., op. cit., p. 157. 81bid. 91bid. 10Ibid. 11Ibid., p. 160. lzIbid. 26 personal interviews. However, the interview confined itself to asking teachers for the source of information on new products, and the names of people who were involved in the selection and implementation process.13 "which is communicated through certain channels . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesized that mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge stage and interpersonal sources are more important at the persuasion stage. Also, mass media, cosmopolite channels are relatively more important than interpersonal, localite channels for earlier adopters as compared to later adopters.14 Hahn reports that Richburg found that most of the early adopters of the GeoggiaAnthropologyggurriculum.Project's materials first learned about them from professional literature.15 In Switzer's study of the diffusion of "New Social Studies" project materials, 252 of the respondents said they first learned about projects from professional publications, but 242 said they got this knowledge from friends or colleagues.16 Orlich 25, pl, surveyed 175 elementary school principals to determine the sources they used to learn about social studies innovations. Half of the respondents cited 13RobertEdwin Walker, "Factors Affecting the Implementation of National Project Materials in Social Studies Programs in Secondary Schools in Nebraska," Dissertation Abstracts International 35 (1974): 2665-A. I 1“Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 23-24. ”Hunkins, et. al., op. cit., p. 159. 16 Ibid. 27 commercial publishers, 432 cited district resources such as supervisors, and 332 cited books and magazines.17 Kinerney studied the diffusion of the High School Geoggaphprroject and found that the most frequently named source of knowledge for the respondents was professional literature.18 However, an examination of this study revealed that it dealt with instructors of college introductory geography courses, which might have influenced the results.19 "over time . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that the adoption rate of an innovation follows the pattern of a bell-shaped curve. Those who are among the first to adopt are classified as earlier adopters, while those following are classified as later adopters. Rogers and Shoemaker found the following to be true of earlier adopters as compared to later adopters: they have more years of education, have higher social status, have a greater degree of upward mobility, and come from larger-sized units. In addition, earlier adopters have greater empathy, are less dogmatic, have a more favorable attitude toward change and risk, are more highly integrated into the social system, are more cosmopolite, have greater exposure to mass media and interpersonal communication, seek more information about 17Hunkins, et. al., op. cit., p. 159. laIbid. 19 Eugene James Kinerney, "The High School Geography Project In Relation To Instructional Practices In Introductory College Geography: An Upward Dissemination Of Educational Innovation," Dissertation Abstracts International 36 (1975): 6591-A. 28 innovations and have a higher degree of opinion leadership. There also tends to be no difference in age between earlier and later adopters.20 In reviewing the relevant research, Hahn cites the studies of Switzer and Turner and Haley which found no relationship between adoption and the age of the adopters of "New Social Studies" projects. There was also no relationship between the number of years of teaching experience and adoption of "New Social Studies" projects.21 Crowther found no relation between years of teaching experience or the amount of professional training and the adoption of "New Social Studies" curriculum.22 walsh found no relation between years of experience and implementation of the Minnesota Project Social Studies.23 Beckerman and Matula found no relation between years of experience, education and adoption.24 However, an examination of the Matula study revealed that the results were obtained under simulated conditions, where teachers were asked to assume that they were faced with the decision of whether to use a certain program in their classrooms. This study does not reflect the actual behavior of the teachers, but only their simulated behavior.25 Robeson and 2Onogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 185-191. 21Hunkins, et. al., op. cit., p. 151. 2233.11; 23.1.1229; 24141111; 25 Franklin Vincent Matula, "A Study Of Selected Factors Contributing To The Expressed Willingness 0f Elementary Teachers To Try Selected Selected Classroom Innovations," Dissertation Abstracts International 33 (1972): 3207-A. 29 Switzer found no relation between the number of degrees held and the adoption of "New Social Studies" project materials.26 Wells found a positive correlation between adoption of "New Social Studies" materials and membership in the National Council for the Social Studies.27 However, an examination of the Wells study, conducted on a stratified sample of 300 Oklahoma social studies teachers, found that while there was a positive correlation between adoption and membership in the NCSS, 882 of the population, consisting of all Oklahoma social studies teachers, did ppp;belong to the National Council.28 In a study of the use of the Sociological Resources for the Social Studies, Switzer found a positive correlation between membership in the National Council for the Social Studies and adoption. He also found that adopters who said they wanted to be doing something else in five years were more likely to adopt SRSS materials than were individuals who did not have these characteristics.29 Turner and Haley found that schools with larger graduating classes were more likely to be adopters of "New Social Studies" 30 project materials. Switzer's two studies showed no relation 26Hunkins, et al., 0p. cit., p. 151. 27Ibid., p. 152. 28TimJoe we11s, "Oklahoma Secondary Social Studies Teachers And The Usage Of New National Social Studies Projects," Dissertation Abstracts International 34 (1973): 6509-A. 29Hunkins, et al., op. cit., p. 152. 3oIbid. 30 between the size of the graduating class and the use of project materials.31 "among members of a social system . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker emphasize the importance of opinion leadership to diffusion. Opinion leaders are those individuals who informally influence other people's attitudes or behavior with‘ relatively high frequency. In general, opinion leaders are more cosmopolite, have higher status, and are slightly more innovative than other members of their social system.32 Hahn found no studies relating to opinion leaders and social studies innovation diffusion. However, she did identify another role, that of advocate.33 Richburg reported that the most crucial factor that led to the use of the Georgia Anthropology,Curriculum Project materials was the presence of a key person who desired the materials because he or she was dissatisfied with the existing elementary social studies curriculum.34 Reilly's report of the dissemination of Man: A Course of Study concludes that dissemination of a program is most rapid when someone in an area sees personal advancement in some way tied to the success of the program and, hence, takes an advocacy role.35 ”Hunkins, et al., op. cit., p. 152. 32Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 34-36. 33Hunkins, et al., op. cit., p. 154. 34Ibid., p. 155. 35 Ibid. 31 Hahn concludes by stating that most of the research on the diffusion of innovations from the Social Interaction perspective has examined characteristics of people in the adopting systems. Further, most of the studies focus on product adoption. There have been no studies on the characteristics of people who are aware of recent research findings and other "nonpackaged" ideas or who utilize these less than concrete innovations.36 Review of Research Since 1975 The Education Research Information Center system (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts were used to discover research on the diffusion of social studies innovations, based on the Social Interaction model of Rogers and Shoemaker. With this definition, few examples were found. Bintner, in a study involving teachers from thirty-five Iowa public high schools, found that 642 of the teachers reported using teaching methods that reflected a combination of traditional and new social studies approaches. 31% indicated that they taught in a tradi- tional manner, while 42 showed a considerable use of new social studies approaches. Three variables were used: 1) Years of teacher experience; 2) Number of class preparations; and 3) Educational exposure of the teacher to the "New Social Studies". Bintner found no significant relationship between teaching methods, materials, class organization, or teacher opinions and any of the three variables - - - with one exception. Teachers with more than seven years of experience 36Hunkins, et al., op. cit., p. 155. 32 showed more favorable attitudes toward "New Social Studies" approaches than did teachers with seven or fewer years.37 Blaga, in a study involving the distribution of 752 surveys through 149 secondary principals, found that 37% of the social studies teachers had never used a simulation, 52 had used but since had discontinued use, and 58% were regular users. Of the regular users of simulation games, 57% used them on a light basis, 342 occasionally, and 92 used simulations on a heavy basis. Both users and non-users were asked their perceptions of simulation games, and it was found that non-users were more skeptical about the educational benefit, cost and time needed to prepare and use games. Blaga found no relationship between use and various personal and professional characteristics.38 Falkenstein, in a study examining the extent of the diffusion of Mon: A Course of Study in Oregon, found that size and location of school district, amount of money spent on program materials, contact with a training center, and attitudes toward MACOS all influenced the diffusion of this program.39 37Stuart John Bintner, "A Study Of The Teaching Methods, Materials, Class Organizations, And Opinions Of American History Teachers In Selected Iowa High Schools", Dissertation Abstracts International 39 (1979): 4857-A. 38Jeffrey James Blaga, "A Study Of Teacher's Perceptions And Utilization Of Simulations In Public Secondary Social Studies Class- rooms In Ohio," Dissertation Abstracts International 39 (1979): 4858-A 39Lynda Carl Falkenstein, "Man: A Course Of Study - A Case Study Of Diffusion In Oregon," Dissertation Abstracts International 38 (1977): 3247-A. 33 Britton, in a survey of 162 Santa Clara County, California, social studies teachers, concluded that there was a very limited amount of innovation in social studies education going on. Very few social studies project materials were being used, and most teachers reported a lack of awareness of most of the materials. She found that recency of educational experience was the only predictor of innovation.40 Superka examined innovativeness among high school social studies teachers and departments and found that the two major indicators of innovation were awareness of new project materials and use of innovative practices. The variables which were identified as having the strongest relationships with these indicators included tenure, current position, academic degree, professional memberships and number of college courses relating. to social studies teaching."1 Conclusion and Summary This examination of the available research found no studies using the complete Social Interaction model of diffusion as described by Rogers and Shoemaker applied to the diffusion of social studies innovations, in particular simulation games. aoHelen Ann Britton, "Diffusion Of Social Studies Innovation In Santa Clara County, California", Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national 37 (1977): 6395-A. - 41Douglas P. Superka, An Exploration of Social Studies Innovation In Secondary Schools (Arlington, Va.: ERIC Docmument Reproduction Service ED 150 028, 1977). 34 Research using this model generally focuses on certain parts of the theory, especially characteristics of innovations and the hypotheses associated with the "time" variable. Some work was done using the communication channel section of the model, but the significant variable of the social system was excluded in all studies. The studies cited were conducted on a variety of populations, ranging from all the secondary social studies teachers in a state to college instructors of an introductory geography course. All studies used a questionnaire as the able method of gathering data, except the Walker study which used an interview technique for certain select questions. None of the studies cited used the complete Social Interaction model as described by Rogers and Shoemaker. Studies indicate that the diffusion of an innovation is influenced by certain characteristics of the innovation, among them being cost in both money and risk, compatibility with needs, values and previous experience, Observability and complexity. In addition, several studies also indicated that professional publications were an important source of information for adopters of "New Social Studies" project material. Most of the studies cited drew heavily from the "over time . . . " aspect of the model and found that there was no relationship between age, number of years of teaching experience, amount of professional training, number of degrees held and the adaption of "New Social Studies" project materials. Two studies indicate a positive relationship between membership in the National Council for the Social Studies and adoption of "New Social I Studies" materials, while another found that adopters who said they wanted to be doing something else in five years were more 35 likely to adopt than individuals who did not have these characteristics. Size of graduating class was a factor in one study, but not in another. No study involved itself with the "social system" aspect of the model, but two found that the presence of an advocate helped in the diffusion of certain "New Social Studies" project materials. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The general purpose of this study is to determine if the diffusion of the teaching technique of simulation gaming among the secondary social studies teachers of National Union of Christian Schools, District II High Schools, took place according to the Social Interaction model of Everett M. Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker. In this chapter, the research design will be described, concentrating on the following topics: Rogers and Shoemaker Hypotheses Simulation Gaming Instrument National Union of Christian Schools District II Data Collection Procedure Treatment of Data Rogers and Shoemaker Hypotheses Selection of Hypotheses Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, in Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (1971) use a Social Interaction model to explain the diffusion of innovations. This model differs from others in that it attempts to explain how diffusion occurred, rather than how it should occur. 36 37 The authors used diffusion research from a wide variety of areas, such as agriculture and medicine, and from many areas of the world. More than 1500 publications were used to construct 103 hypo- theses dealing with the diffusion of innovations. These statements, because of the broad background from.which they were constructed, are intended to describe the diffusion of any innovation under any condition. In applying the Rogers and Shoemaker hypotheses to education, and in particular to the involved population of this study, a certain amount of selectivity had to be used because certain hypotheses were not applicable. The following criteria were used in selecting hypo- theses for this study: 1. The hypotheses used had to apply to schools. For example, Rogers and Shoemaker postulated that earlier adopters of an innovation are more likely to be literate than are later adopters. Since literacy, in spite of certain questions on the part of some, is a prerequisite for teaching, this hypo- thesis does not apply. Another example is the hypothesis which states that earlier adopters are more likely to have a commercial (rather than a subsistence) orientation than are later adopters. Since teachers are employees of not- for-profit organizations, this hypothesis is not applicable. 2. The hypotheses had to apply to the spread of the teach- ing technique of simulation gaming. The adoption of this technique is an individual decision made by the classroom teacher, and is generally not dependent upon others, such 38' as administrators or colleagues, for implementation. As a result, hypotheses dealing with other types of decisions were eliminated. In addition, since the primary concern here is with the diffusion of an innovation through a population, certain hypotheses which deal with the question of stages in the adoption process are judged not relevant to the scope of this study. Hypotheses dealing with the dis- continuation of an innovation are also not used. 3. Since the primary means of gathering information is a self-administered questionnaire, only those hypotheses which lend themselves to this are used. Any hypothesis which requires other means for testing is dropped from consideration. 4. The nature of the surveyed population also influences the choice of hypotheses. The primary focus of the study is on social studies teachers in the eight National union of Christian Schools high schools, which means that since these teachers are only part of the faculty, certain hypo- theses which apply to the whole faculty are not used. Hypotheses Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that "the main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are the innovation, which is communicated through certain channels, over time, among members of a social system." The following hypotheses have been selected for this study. 39 "The innovation . . . " 1. The relative advantage of a new idea, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. 2. The compatibility of a new idea, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. 3. The complexity of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is negatively related to its rate of adoption. 4. The trialability of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. 5. The Observability of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. "communicated through certain channels . . . " 6. Mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge function, and interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function in the innovation-decision process. 7. Cosmopolite channels are relatively more important at the knowledge function, and localite channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function in the innovation-decision process. 8. Mass media channels are relatively more important than interpersonal channels for earlier adopters than for later adopters. 9. Cosmopolite channels are relatively more important than localite channels for earlier adopters than for later adopters. "over time . . . " 10. Earlier adopters are no different from later adopters in age. 11. Earlier adopters have more years of education than do later adopters. 12. Earlier adopters have higher social status than later adopters. 13. Earlier adopters have a greater degree of upward social mobility than later adopters. 4O 14. Earlier adopters have larger sized units than later adopters. 15. Earlier adopters have more specialized operations than later adopters. l6. Earlier adopters have greater empathy than later adopters. 17. Earlier adopters are less dogmatic than later adopters. 18. Earlier adopters have a greater ability to deal with abstractions than later adopters. 19. Earlier adopters have greater rationality than later adopters. 20. Earlier adopters have greater intelligence than later adopters. 21. Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward change than later adopters. 22. Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward risk than later adopters. 23. Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward education than later adopters. 24. Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward science than later adopters. 25. Earlier adopters are less fatalistic than later adopters. 26. Earlier adopters have higher levels of achievement moti- vation than later adopters. 27. Earlier adopters have higher aspirations (for education, occupations and so on) than later adopters. 28. Earlier adapters have more social participation than later adopters. J 29. Earlier adopters are more highly integrated with the social system than later adopters. 30. Earlier adopters are more cosmopolite than later adopters. 31.Earlier adopters have more change agent contact than later adopters. 32. Earlier adopters have greater exposure to mass media commun- ication channels than later adopters. 41 33. Earlier adopters have greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels than later adopters. 34. Earlier adopters seek information about innovations more than later adopters. 35. Earlier adopters have greater knowledge of innovations than later adopters. 36. Earlier adopters have a higher degree of opinion leader- ship than later adopters. 37. Earlier adopters are more likely to belong to systems with modern rather than traditional norms, than are later adopters. 38. Earlier adopters are more likely to belong to well- integrated systems than are later adopters. 39. Innovations that are perceived by receivers as possessing greater relative advantage, compatibility and the like have a more rapid rate of adoption. "among members of a social system . . . " 40. When the system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are more innovative, but when the norms are traditional, opinion leaders are not especially innovative. 41. When the norms of a system are more modern, opinion leader- ship is more monomorphic. 42. The individual's degree of integration into a social system affects his adoption behavior. 43. Interpersonal diffusion is mostly homophilous. 44. When interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers seek opinion leaders of higher social status. 45. When interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers seek opinion leaders with more education. 46. Interpersonal diffusion is characterized by a greater degree of homophily in traditional than in modern systems. 47. In traditional systems followers interact with opinion leaders less (or no more) technically competent than themselves, whereas in modern systems opinion leaders are sought who are more technically competent than their followers. 42 . 48. Opinion leaders are more cosmopolite than their followers. 49. Opinion leaders have greater social participation than their followers. 50. Opinion leaders are more innovative than their followers. The above hypotheses, selected from Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Appgoach by Rogers and Shoemaker, will be used in this study. The Choice of Simulation Games as the Innovation; In deciding which innovation to use in this diffusion study, several elements had to be considered. Simulation gaming was chosen because it met the following criteria: 1. The innovation under study had to be one which could be adopted by the individual teacher. Since the research instrument is a questionnaire given to all teachers over a short period of time, this rules out those more complex adoption decisions that would be best studied by other means, such as interviews and observations. 2. The innovation under study had to have a reasonable chance of already diffusing through the system. A purpose of this study is to determine the validity of the Rogers and Shoemaker Social Interaction model of diffusion and to choose an innovation that had not diffused would have elim- inated the opportunity to make any judgements of the model. 3. Simulation games, as opposed to other innovations such as computer assisted instruction, involves a relatively low outlay of money, thus contributing to its 43 desirability 4. In addition, simulation gaming does involve a degree of change in normal behavior on the part of the teacher, thus making this an observable innovation. The Instrument A questionnaire was constructed to gather information from the three groups of teachers that make up the population of this study. (See Appendix B) All teachers were to take the first part, dealing ‘with such matters as system norms, while only the social studies teachers were to take the second part. Of the social studies teachers, only those who had used a simulation game were asked to complete the whole questionnaire. Since there is no complete existing questionnaire for use in a study like this, one was constructed to gather two basic types of information; demographic data, and information on attitudes. On the attitudinal responses, the teachers were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale, ranging from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree". The Rogers and Shoemaker hypotheses that were to be used in this study were determined beforehand, and questions were constructed which seemed to give the best opportunity to provide the information needed. Several previous studies proved helpful in this regard, 44 notably the ones by Mortimer (1968),1 Keller (1974),2 and Anderson (1975).3 Personnel in the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation checked the questionnaire several times. National Union of Christian Schools District II The National Union of Christian Schools is a service organ- ization set up to promote the interest and welfare of Calvinistic Christian Day Schools, primarily in the United States and Canada. These schools, based on the Biblical teachings of John Calvin and later those of Dr. Abraham Kuyper of the Netherlands, attempt to translate Calvinism into the field of education.4 As of 1977-1978, there were 322 schools affiliated with the National Union, enrolling 62,269 pupils and employing 3,048 teachers. Subtracting the Canadian membership makes the National Union the third largest non-public school movement in the United States, schools operated by the Roman Catholic Church and the Missouri Synod Lutherans being the two largest. The geographical area 1Frederic J. Mortimer, Diffusign of Edgcational Innovations in the Government Secondary Schools of Thailand, (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968). 2Clare Keller, The Diffusion of Innovation Within One Michigan School System Using a Communication Flow Inventory, (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974). 3Thomas Reid Anderson, A Cross-Sgctignal Case Study of the Results of Communigy Education Implementation and Diffusion in Process City, USA, (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1975). 4Donald Oppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic Day School Move- ment, (Grand Rapids: Calvin College Monograph Series, 1963), pp. 18- 26. 45 covered by the National Union is divided into eleven districts, covering the United States and Canada. Of these, District II covers the state of'Michigan.S The population for this study consists of all eight secondary schools in District II. These schools are a varied lot, yet with many'similarities and common ties. All eight schools are located in the western half of the state, primarily in the HollandeMuskegon-Grand Rapids area which contains six of the schools. Northern Michigan Christian High is located in the upper part of the Lower Peninsula, and Kalamazoo Christian High is at the southern edge of this territory. Four of the schools are located in urban areas, two in suburban areas and two in rural areas. These areas constitute the major areas of Dutch settlement in the state. Table 3.1 shows the size and location of the schools as of 1977-1978: Table 3.1 Size and Location of Schools Surveyed School Pupils Teachers~ Location Grand Rapids Christian 1073 49 Grand Rapids Northern Michigan Christian 100 8 McBain Unity Christian 679 36 Hudsonville Holland Christian 939 47 Holland South Christian 552 26 Cutlerville Calvin Christian 628 33 Grandville Kalamazoo Christian 505 24 Kalamazoo western Michigan Christian 317 17 Muskegon 5 1977-1978 Directory, (Grand Rapids: National Union of Christian Schools, 1977) pp. 16-25 46 All schools and faculty officially subscribe to a common philosophy of education, share a common ethnic heritage and are united in their attempts to provide a unique Christian education, yet there are differences among the schools in the application and interpretation of this philosophy. The administrators of these schools are members of the Michigan Christian School Administrator's Council, and the teachers form the majority of the Christian Educator's Association, which also includes teachers from Christian Schools in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The majority of the teachers were trained at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, and are members of the Christian Reformed Church. The students are primarily from a Dutch background, mostly members of the Christian Reformed Church, although this percentage has decreased slightly as the various schools make more of an effort to recruit pupils. All schools are financed by tuition charged to the parents, which is paid primarily by them.with some contribution made by local churches. The schools, however, are controlled by boards elected from the parents who enroll their children in the schools. There is no formal connection between the schools and the Christian Reformed Church, though informal ones are many. Data Collection Procedures The questionnaire was administered during the last two weeks in May of 1978. The administrators of the eight schools were contacted in person and were informed of the survey, and all eight agreed. 47 The questionnaire was distributed by each administrator to his faculty in a manila envelope, with a cover letter describing the purpose of the study and instructing the faculty member to return the completed questionnaire in the sealed envelope to the school office, where they were later collected. (See Appendix A) A followbup letter with another copy of the questionnaire was mailed to all of ‘ those who did not hand in the original. This procedure produced the returns shown in Table 3.2: Table 3.2 Summary of Questionnaire Returns School Total Number Number 2 Total Number of Number 2 of Faculty Returned Social Studies Returned Teachers 1 24 21 88 4 4 100 2 49 47 96 6 6 100 3 47 28 60 8 3 38 4 33 29 88 S 5 100 5 8 8 100 2 2 100 6 26 21 81 4 3 75 7 17 16 94 3 3 100 8 36 26 72 4 4 100 Totals 240 196 821 35 30 862 Treatment of Data Since the schools under study constitute all of the National Union of Christian School Christian High Schools in Michigan (District II), for the purpose of this study they are regarded as a population. How- ever, inferential statistics will be used to analyze the data. The hypotheses chosen for this study are such that complex statistical formulas are not called for. Each hypothesis calls for 48 the establishment of a simple correlation in a predicted direction between two or more variables. Because of this, the following formulas are used in analyzing the data: 1. The Pearson Correlation formula is used to establish correlations where the data is reported as interval data, data such that the distances between any two numbers on the scale are of known size. 2. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation formula is used to establish correlations where the data is reported as ordinal data, or data which can be ranked. 3. The Chi-Square formula is used in situations where two or more dependent variables are correlated with two or more independent variables. 4. The Kendal Coefficient of Concordance is used in situations where information on the variation of certain rankings is desired. 5. The Student-t is used in situations where the means of one group are compared to the means of another group. In addition, certain data will be reported in tabular form. In all cases, the level of statistical significance is set at .05. Summagy A total of fifty hypotheses were selected from the four sections of the Social Interaction model of innovation diffusion as developed by Rogers and Shoemaker. Only those hypotheses were selected which applied to schools, involved an individual's decision to adopt or 49 reject as opposed to the decision of a group, held the promise of being measured by a questionnaire, and applied to a part of the surveyed faculties. The teaching technique of simulation gaming was chosen as the innovation to be studied because it is a part of the "New Social Studies". In addition, it is a technique that can be adopted by an individual teacher, as opposed to those adopted by a group, and seemed to be already in use. Simulation gaming is a relatively inexpensive innovation, and involves a change in teacher behavior. A questionnaire was constructed to collect demographic and attitudinal data from the three groups of teachers involved in this study: 1) All faculty members of the eight National Union of Christian Schools Christian High Schools in District II; 2) All social studies teachers in these schools; and 3) Those social studies teachers who had used a simulation game. This questionnaire was given to the teachers over a two week period in May, 1978. A followrup letter increased the total returns to 822 for all faculty members and 862 for the social studies teachers. Since the hypotheses called for the establishment of correlations between variables in a predicted direction, the Pearson, Spearman, and Chi-Square formulas were used, along with the Kendal Coefficient of Concordance and Student-t. The significance level in all cases was set at .05. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES OF RESULTS Overview In this chapter, each Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesis will be stated and explained, analyzed by the proper statistical test, and the results discussed. In keeping with the Rogers and Shoemaker generalization that "the main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are: 1) the innovation; 2) which is communicated through certain channels; 3) over time; 4) among members of a social system," this structure will be used in presenting and discussing the data.1 Early-Later Adopter Categories Since the time of adoption of an innovation plays a crucial role in the Rogers and Shoemaker model, it was necessary to establish this adoption timetable early in the study. Each social studies teacher who had used simulation gaming in the classroom was asked to give the month and year in which this innovation was first used. Each month of the years from 1964 to 1978 was then assigned a number, starting with 001 for January of 1964 and ending with 174 for June of 1978, the month in which the study was conducted. An adopter timetable was then constructed from this information. (See Appendix C). The group of twenty-four social studies teachers who had used simulation games was then divided in half to produce the early and 1Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. (New York: The Free Press, 1971). p. 39. 50 51 later adopter categories. However, because the twelfth and thirteenth teachers both adopted in the same month of the same year, it was decided to include them both in the early adopter category, thus leaving thirteen early adopters and eleven later adopters. Statistical Tests Several of the hypotheses were tested using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. These hypotheses involved the use of data reported as interval data, such as the responses to the nine- point Likert Scale correlated with time of adoption. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation was used in correlating other hypotheses dealing with time of adoption and data reported as ordinal, such as size of school population or where school systems are being compared with each other. The Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used to test hypotheses involving the correlation of two dependent variables such as adopter categories, with two or more independent variables. Yates' Correction was applied where the expected cell sizes were smaller than five. It was necessary to use the Kendal Coefficient of Concordance‘ in two hypotheses where variations in rankings were measured. Finally, with certain other hypotheses involving a comparison of means of certain groups, the test statistic used was the Student t. Each test will be identified as it is used. A significance level of .05 was set as the criterion for rejecting or failing to reject all hypotheses. 52 Results and Discussion of Data The Rogers and Shoemaker generalization on the spread of an innovation is based upon the relationship between the innovation and the following variables: 1) characteristics of the innovation; 2) type of communication; 3) time of adoption; and 4) type of social system. These four variables will serve as the framework for a discussion of the data generated in this study. "The innovation . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that certain characteristics of an innovation govern its spread. Among these characteristics are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and Observability. 1. "The relative advantage of a new idea, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption." The authors define advantage as the idea that what is being adopted is perceived as better than what is being replaced. Earlier adopters should give an innovation a higher score on relative advantage than later adopters. The Pearson Correlation formula yielded a correlation of -.10 with a level of significance of .33. However, the correlation was not in the expected direction, and since .05 is used as the level of statistical significance for this and all subsequent items, this finding is considered not statistically significant. 2. "The compatibility of a new idea, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption." Compatibility is defined as the relationship between a new idea and the other ideas already held by the members of the social system. 53 Earlier adapters should see an innovation as being more compatible with present ideas than later adapters would. The Pearson Correlation formula yielded a correlation of -.30 with a significance level of .08. However, the correlation was not in the expected direction and this finding is considered not statistically significant. 3. "The complexity of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is negatively related to its rate of adoption." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that "those new ideas requiring little additional learning investment on the part of the reader will be adapted more rapidly than innovations requiring the adapter to develop new skills and understandings." The Pearson Correlation formula yielded a correlation of .12, with a significance level of .39. This correlation was not in the expected direction, and is not considered statistically significant. 4. "The trialability of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption." The authors maintain that "new ideas which can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations which are not divisible." Earlier adapters should have had more opportunity to try simulation games before adapting them for classroom use than did later adapters. A Chi-Square analysis of the data produced the following: Early Yes No Adapters 6 7 13 Later Adapters 7 4 11 13 11 24 x2-.73 p-.29 df-l 54 The relationship of trialability to rate of adoption is rejected. 5. "The Observability of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption." The authors explain that "the easier it is for an individual to see the results of an innovation, the more likely he is to adopt." Earlier adapters are more likely to have seen the innovation in operation than later adopters. A Chi-Square analysis of the data, with Yates' Correction applied, produced the following: Played and/or Saw Neither Early Adapters 9.5 3.5 13 Later Adapters 7.5 3.5 11 17 7 24 X2- .07 p- ,21 df-l The relationship of Observability to rate of adoption is rejected. Discussion of Results Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and Observability of an innovation affect the rate at which the innovation is diffused. They predicted positive relationships between time of adoption and relative advantage, compatibility, trialability and Observability, and a negative relationship between time of adoption and complexity. In this study, no significant relationships were found for any of the five independent variables with time of adaption, although 55 compatibility was significant at the .08 level. Further, in the three hypotheses where correlation coefficients were used, the relationships were found to be in the opposite direction from that predicted. Earlier adapters found simulation games to have less relative advantage, less compatibility, and were more complex than their regular teaching methods. These correlations were all law. No relationship was found to exist between time of adoption and the characteristics of trialability and Observability. These results are summarized in Table 4.1: Table 4.1 Summary of Relationships Between Time of Adoption and Innovation Charac- teristics Innovation Characteristics Time of Adoption (Independent Variable) (Dependent Variable) Predicted Pearson Sig. X2 Sig. Relationship Relative Advantage + -.10 .33 Complexity - .12 .39 Trialability + .73 .29 Observability + .07 .21 "type of communication channel . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker use the following definitions: Mass Media Channel - radio, TV, magazines and so forth. Interpersonal Channel- from person to person, either in or out of the social system. Cosmopolite Channel- from outside the system. Mass Media are almost entirely cosmopolite; interpersonal channels may 56 be cosmopolite. Localite Channel-from inside the system. These are pri- marily interpersonal. They maintain that the communication channel, "the means by which the message gets from the source to the receiver", has an influence on the adoption of an innovation. Mass media, cosmopolite channels do a better job of informing potential adapters about an innovation, while interpersonal, localite channels do a better job of persuading potential adapters to adopt an innovation. In addition, mass media, cosmopolite channels are more important sources for bath informing and persuading earlier adopters, while interpersonal, localite channels are more important for informing and persuading 1333; adapters to adopt an innovation. 6. "Mass Media channels are relatively more important at the know- ledge function, and interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function in the innovation-decision process." A Chi-Square analysis of the data, with Yates' Correction applied, produced the following: Mass Media Interpersonal Channels Channels Knowledge Function 4.5 18.5 23 Persuasion Function 3.5 19.5 23, 38 46 2 X -.15 p=.30 df=1 The hypothesis is rejected. 57 7. "Cosmopolite Channels are relatively more important at the knowledge function, and Localite Channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function in the innovation-decision process." A~Chi-Square analysis of the data, with Yates' Correction applied, produced the following: Cosmopolite Localite Channels Channels Knowledge Function 19.5 . 3.5 23 Persuasion ‘ Function 16.5 5.5 22 36 ' 9 45 x2-.67 p-.57 df-l The hypothesis is rejected. 8. "Mass Media Channels are relatively more important than Inter- personal Channels for earlier adapters than for later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that Mass Media Channels are more important at informing and persuading Earlier Adapters to adopt an innovation, while Interpersonal Channels are more important at inform? ing and persuading Later Adapters to adopt an innovation. The twenty-four social studies teachers were asked to choose the sources that first informed them about and then convinced them to use simulation games. These answers were then combined and a Chi- Square analysis, with Yates' Correction applied, produced the following: Mass Media Interpersonal Channels Channels Earlier ‘ Adapters 5.5 18.5 24 Later Adapters 2.5 19.5 22 38 46 X aI1.02 p=.68 df=1 58 The hypothesis is rejected. 9. "Cosmopolite Channels are relatively more important than Local- ite Channels for earlier adapters than for later adopters." For this hypothesis, the answers for the questions dealing with source of information and persuasion were combined. A Chi- Square analysis of the data, with Yates' Correction applied, produced the following: Cosmopolite Localite Channels Channels Earlier Adapters 18.5 5.5 24 Later Adapters 17.5 3.5 21 36 9 . 45 x2-.27 p-.38 dfal The hypothesis is rejected. Discussion of Results Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesize that mass media, cosmopolite channels do a better job of informing potential adapters about an innovation, while interpersonal, localite channels do a better job of persuading potential adapters to adopt an innovation. They also maintain that mass media, cosmopolite channels are more important sources for informing and persuading earlier adapters. while interpersonal, localite channels are more important for informing and persuading lp£g£_adopters to adopt an innovation. These hypotheses were all rejected after Chi-Square analysis of the data. A summary of the hypotheses and the findings is presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Summary of Predicted and Actual Relationships Between Mass Media- Cosmopolite, Interpersonal-Local- ite Channels and Time of Adoption- Decisian to Adopt ‘Mass Media- Interpersonal- Casmopalite Channels Localite Channels Rogers- Findings Rogers~ Findings Shoemaker Shoemaker Prediction Prediction 0: g Knowledge More Na 8 Important Relation- s. ship g '3 Persuasion More No '3 Important Relation- g ship Early More No Adapters Important Relation— : ship a ...] 1H U 0 3- Later fig Adapters E4 60 "over time . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that time is involved in the diffusion process in that people who adopt an innovation earlier than others are different on certain criteria from those who adopt later. In addition, innovations which have more or less of the five characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and Observability will diffuse through systems at different rates of time. 10. "Earlier adapters are no different from later adapters in age." The age of the social studies teachers who had adopted simulation games was correlated with the time of their adoption of this innovation. The Pearson Correlation formula yielded a correlation of -.28, with a level of significance of .10. However, this correlation is not statistically significant and the hypothesis is rejected. 11. "Earlier adopters have more years of education than do later adapters." The number of teachers with AB Degrees, MA Degrees and time of adoption was analyzed according to the Chi-Square method, with Yates' Correction applied, which produced the following: AB Degree MA.Degree Early Adapters 3.5 '~ 9.5 13 Later Adapters 4.5 6.5 11 8 16 24 X2-.48 p-.51 dfal The relationship of years of education to rate of adoption 61 is rejected. 12. "Earlier adopters have higher social status than later adopters." The faculties of each school were asked to respond to the following questions: a. Among the teachers in this school, name three whom you respect most as teachers. b. Among the teachers in this school, name three whose opinions you most frequently seek when you have problems related to your teaching performance. c. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers whose opinions on crucial educational issues are usually very valuable to you. d. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers that you consider to be the most innovative. The number of times that each adapting social studies teacher was chosen by his colleagues were tallied, and the results were combined by question into the two adapter categories. A Chi-Square analysis of the data was performed, with the following results: Questions a b c d Early Adapters 57 41 50 39 187 Later Adapters 31 33 29 37 130 88 74 76 76 317 X2-4.O6 p-. 77 df-3 The relationship of social status to rate of adoption is rejected. 62 13. "Earlier adopters have a greater degree of upward social mobility than later adapters." Social studies teachers who had adopted simulation games were asked to list their father's current occupation. Using the National Opinion Research Center's scale of occupational prestige, as found in Occupations and Social Status by Albert Reis, Jr. (1961), each occupation, including that of teacher, was given a value. Using the value for the respondent's present job as a teacher for the base, distances were calculated between the respondent's present position and that of his father. These distances were then ranked and correlated with time of adoption. Using the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation formula, the result was a correlation of -.02, significant at the .07 level. This correlation is not in the expected direction, and is not considered statistically significant. 14. "Earlier adopters have larger sized units than later adapters." The schools were ranked from largest to smallest based on their number of pupils as reported in the 1977-1978 National Union of Christian Schools Directory. This ranking was then correlated with time of adoption, using the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation formula. The results were a correlation of -.18, significant at the .03 level. Since a significance level of .05 was set as the criterion for significance, this finding is statistically significant. There is a relationship between size of unit and time of adoption, but not the one predicted by Rogers and Shoemaker. In this case, earlier adopters came from smaller schools than did later adopters. 63 15. "Earlier adopters have more specialized operations than later adopters." The adopting social studies teachers were asked how many different courses they taught during the school day. These answers were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .02, with a level of significance of .46. However, this correlation is not statistically significant and the hypothesis is rejected. 16. "Earlier adopters have greater empathy than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define empathy as "the ability of an individual to project himself into the role of another". The adopt- ing social studies teachers were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "I generally consider myself able to understand and sympathize with other people." These results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .33, with a level of significance of .06. However, this correlation is not statistically significant and the hypothesis is rejected. 17. "Earlier adapters are less dogmatic than later adapters." .Rogers and Shoemaker define dogmatism as "a variable repre- senting a relatively closed belief system, a set of beliefs that are strongly held. The highly dogmatic person does not welcome new ideas; he prefers to hew to the past in a closed manner." The social studies teachers who had used simulation games were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Generally,teaching methods and educational philosophies 64 used by past generations are more reliable than the newer methods and philosophies of the present generation." These results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .11, with a significance level of .30. However, this finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. 18. "Earlier adapters have a greater ability to deal with abstractions than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that "innovators must be able to adopt a new idea largely on the basis of abstract stimuli, such as are received from the mass media. But later adopters can observe the innovation in the here-and-now of a peer's operation. Therefore they need less ability to deal with abstractions." The adopting social studies teachers were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Usually, when someone explains something to me that is highly abstract, I find that I understand better if I am shown a diagram or a picture." The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.17, with a significance level of .21. The correlation was not in the expected direction, and the finding was not statistically significant, so the hypothesis was rejected. 19. "Early adopters have greater rationality than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define rationality as "the use of the most effective means tO‘reach a given end." Adopting social studies teachers were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "My friends 65‘ Iconsider me to be highly efficient and organized in my work." These results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .09, with a significance level of .34. Since the finding was not statistically significant, the hypothesis was rejected. 20. "Earlier adopters have greater intelligence than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker do not define intelligence. For the purpose of this study it will be defined as college grade point average. The subjects were asked to indicate what their approximate college grade point average was. This was then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .13, with a significance level of .27. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. 21. "Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward change than later adopters." This hypothesis is not defined by Rogers and Shoemaker. The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Most changes introduced in the last \ ten years have contributed very little in promoting education in our schools." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.25, with a significance level of .11. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. The correlation, however, was not in the predicted direction. 66 22. "Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude toward risk than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker do not define this term. The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "One of the best ways to achieve ' a goal is to take a risk." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.11, with a significance level of .31. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. The correlation, howb ever, was nat in the predicted direction. 23. "Earlier adapters have a more favorable attitude toward education than later adapters." Rogers and Shoemaker do not define this term. The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "An education is a very important part of being successful." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .43, with a significance level of .02. Since a significance level of .05 was set as the criterion for significance, this finding is statistically significant. There is a relationship between attitude toward education and time of adoption, with earlier adopters having a more favorable attitude than later adopters 24. "Earlier adapters have a more favorable attitude toward science than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that "because most innovations 67 are the products of scientific research, it is logical that innovators should be more favorably inclined toward science." The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-paint Likert Scale to the following statement: "Most of man's recent progress has been due to scientific research." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .09, with a significance level of .33. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. 25. "Earlier adapters are less fatalistic than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define fatalism as "the degree to which an individual perceives a lack of ability to control his future." The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Most of what lies in store for me in the future is beyond my control." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .01, with a significance level of .48. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. 26. "Earlier adopters have higher levels of achievement motivation than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define achievement motivation as "a social value which emphasizes a desire for excellence in order for an individual to attain a sense of personal accomplishment." The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "When I do something, it must be done 68 perfectly or I am not satisfied." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .30, with a significance level of .08. The finding was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was rejected. 27. "Earlier adopters have higher aspirations (for education, occupations and so on) than later adopters." Since Rogers and Shoemaker use several examples of higher aspirations, the subjects were asked to respond on nine-point Likert Scales to the four statements that were used to measure this variable. The statements were: a. "I am satisfied with the thought that I might be a social studies teacher for the rest of my life." b. "Administration appeals to me." c. "I can see myself in the future working in some form of business." d. "College teaching of some type appeals to me." The result of each statement was then seperately correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced the following , correlations: ‘ a. -.37, with a significance level of .04. b. .47, with a significance level of .01. c. -.01, with a significance level of .47. d. .20, with a significance level of .17. The results for statements c and d were not statistically sig- nificant. However, since .05 was set as the level of statistical significance, the results for statements a and b are statistically 69 significant. The correlation of the results of statement a and time of adoption is a negative one, which means that earlier adapters are less satisfied with the thought that they might be social studies teachers for the rest of their lives, but earlier adopters do find administration to be more appealing than later adopters. If aspirations are defined as dissatisfaction with the idea that their present career as a social studies teacher is a life-long one, and that administration is appealing, then the hypothesis is not rejected. I 28. "Earlier adopters have more social participation than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker do not define "social participation." It was decided to ask each adopting social studies teacher to list the community organizations that he belonged to as a measure of social participation. In addition, since the church plays such an important part in this culture, the respondents were also asked to identify positions of leadership that they held over the past four years. These positions were either in the governing bodies of the church or in various supporting committees. The number of community organizations that the subjects belong- ed ta was correlated with time of adoption by using the Pearson Correlation formula, which produced a correlation of -.09, with a signifitance level of .35. A Chi-Square analysis of the data for the second question produced the following: 70 Council Supporting 'Member Committees Early Adapters 14 11 25 Later Adapters 6 ~ 7 13 20 18 38 112-. 33 p-.42 ‘- dfsl In the relationship of community organizations to time of adoption, the finding was not statistically significant. There was no relationship between time of adoption and church organization membership. The hypothesis was rejected. 29. "Earlier adapters are more highly integrated with the social system than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define communication integration as "the degree to which the units in a social system are interconnected by interpersonal communication channels." Further, an interpersonal communication channel is one which "involves a face-to-face exchange between two or more individuals." Two statements were used to test this hypothesis. The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the follawb ing statements: a. "Most of my social life is spent with my colleagues." b. My colleague's evaluation of me is important to me." The results were then correlated with time of adoption.. Earlier adopters should have more agreement with these statements than later adopters. The Pearson Correlation formula produced the following results: a. A correlation of .15, with a significance level of .24. 71 b. A correlation of .13, with a significance level of .27. Both findings are not considered statistically significant, and the hypothesis is rejected. 30. "Earlier adapters are more cosmopolite than later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that a cosmopolite person is more likely to have his reference groups located outside of, rather than within, his social system. They travel widely and are involved in matters beyond the boundary of their local system. Three questions were used to measure this variable: a. "How many professional meetings which involved educators from more than one school have you attended in the last two years?" b. Respondents were asked to react on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Many of my insights and new ideas regarding education result from discussions with educators in this school outside this school system system '1 I I | i l I I . I c. "List the professional teachers organizations of which you are a member." The results were all correlated with time of adoption. The Spearman RankrOrder Correlation formula was used to analyze the data for questions a and c. The results of this analyses were: a) a correlation of -.10, with a significance level of .49; and c) a correlation of -.10, with a significance level of .48. Both findings are not statistically significant. The Pearson Correlation formula was used to analyze the data for question b. The result of this analysis was a correlation of .33, with a significance level of .05. Since .05 was established as the level of statistical significance, this finding 72 is considered statistically significant. If cosmopoliteness is defined as source of new ideas regarding education, than earlier adopters feel they get more of them outside of their school system than do later adapters. However, membership in teacher organizations and attendence at professional meetings correlated with time of adoption is not statistically significant. 31. "Earlier adopters have more change agent contact than later adopters." The subjects were asked if they had ever used the services of a social studies consultant, either from the National Union of Christian Schools or from their local area, and, if yes, how many times they used this service. Of the twenty-four subjects, only eight answered that they had used such services, four being "early adapters" and four being "later adopters." The four "early adopters" used these services a total of twelve times while the "later adopters" used these services a total of eight times. 32. "Earlier adopters have greater exposure to mass media communication channels than later adopters." Four questions were used to measure this variable. The results of each were correlated with time of adoption.‘ a. Subjects were asked how many hours per day they listened to radio. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .01, with a significance level of .48. b. Subjects were asked how many hours per day they watched television. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.15, with a significance level of .24. 73 c. Subjects were asked to list the titles of books that they had read in the past thirty days. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .19, with a significance level of .19. d. Subjects were asked to list the non-professional magazines and newspapers that they read. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .34, with a significance level of .05. Since .05 was established as the level of statistical signi- ficance, the findings for questions a, b, and c are not not con- sidered statistically significant. However, the results for question d are significant and there is a relationship between the number of non-professional magazines and newspapers read and time of adoption. Earlier adopters read more of these than do later adopters. 33. "Earlier adopters have greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels than later adopters." The subjects were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "I am usually up on the latest faculty gossip." The results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of .27, with a significance level of .10. The finding is not statistically significant and the hypothesis is rejected. 74 34- "Earlier adopters seek information about innovations more than later adopters." The subjects were asked whether they were actively seeking information on any of the following list of innovations in the social studies area: a. Values Clarification f. Career Education b. Inquiry Method . 3. Ethnic Group Studies c. Simulation Gaming h. Feminist Movement d. Use of Case Studies 1. Use of Videotape Equipment e. Concept Formation The relationship between adopter category and a yes-or-no answer was analyzed by using the Chi-Square formula, with Yates' Correction applied. A summary of this analysis found in Table 4.3. 75 Table 4.3 A Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses With Yates' Correction Applied of the Data for Hypothesis #34 Innovation Seeking Early Later X Sig. Deci- Informa- Adopter Adopter Level sion tion Values Yes 4.5 3.5 Clarifi- cation No 7.5 7.5 .07 .21 Reject Inquiry Yes 4.5 3.5 Math“ No 6. 5 7. 5 . 19 . 33 Reject Simulation Yes 2.5 1.5 Gaming No 8.5 9.5 .31 .41 Reject Use of Case Yes 3.5 2.5 Studies No 7.5 8.5 .22 .35 Reject Concept Yes 2.5 2.5 Forma- tion No 8.5 8.5 .00 .00 Reject Career Yes 1.5 1.5 Education No 9.5 9.5 .00 .00 Reject Ethnic Yes 5.5 2.5 Group Studies No 5.5 8.5 1.77 .82 Reject Feminist Yes 3.5 2.5 Movement No 7.5 8.5 .22 .35 Reject Use of Yes 2.5 .5 Videotape Equipment No 8.5 10.5 1.54 .78 Reject 76 The Chi-Square analyses of the data, with Yates' Correction applied, found no relationship between time of adoption and information seeking behavior with any of the nine innovations. The hypothesis is rejected. 35. "Earlier adopters have greater knowledge of innovations than later adapters." - Using the same nine social studies innovations listed under hypothesis #34 above, the respondents were asked to respond on a nine-point continuum ranging from "Have enough information" to "Need more information" to the following question: "If you were asked to use the following in your teaching, would you need more information about them, or would you have enough?" The results were then correlated with time of adoption, using the Pearson Correlation formula. Table 4.4 summarizes the results of this analysis. 77 Table 4.4 A Summary of the Pearson Analysis of the data for Hypothesis # 35 Innovation. Correlation Significance Decision Level Values Clarification .15 .24 Reject Inquiry Method .29' ..08 Reject 1 Simulation Gaming . zo . 17 Reject Use of Case Studies .01 .49 Reject Concept Formation .06 .39 Reject Career Education -.14 .26 Reject Ethnic Group Studies .38 .03 Accept Feminist Movement .34 .05 Accept Use of Videotape Equipment -.02 .47 Reject 78 Since .05 was established as the level of statistical sig- nificance, the findings dealing with innovations "Values Clarification" through "Career Education" and "Use of Videotape Equipment" are not significant. However, in two cases, knowledge of "Ethnic Group Studies"and knowledge of the "Feminist Movement", the findings were significant at the .05 level. Early adopters felt that they had enough information on these innovations, more so. than did later adopters. 36. "Earlier adopters have a higher degree of opinion leadership than later adopters." All faculty members of the eight schools surveyed were asked to respond to these questions: a. "Among the teachers in this school, name three whose opinions you most frequently seek when you have problems relating to your teaching performance." b. "Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers whose opinions on crucial educational issues are usually very valuable to you." The number of times that each of the twenty-four adopting social studies teachers were chosen on each of the two questions was noted, and combined to give each one an opinion leadership scare. These scores were then ranked and correlated with time of adoption. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.07, with a significance level of .32. The correlation was not in the predicted direction (earlier adopters had a lower degree of opinion leadership), and the finding is not considered statistically significant. 79 37. "Earlier adapters are more likely to belong to systems with modern rather than traditional norms, than are later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that social systems with modern rather than traditional norms have the following characteristics: a. A generally positive attitude toward change vs. a lack of favorable orientation to change. b. A well-developed technology with a complex division of labor vs. a less developed or "simpler" technology. c. A high value on education and science vs. a relatively low level of literacy, education, and understanding of the scientific method. d. Rational and business-like social relationships rather than emotional and affective vs. a social enforce- ment of the status quo in the social system, facilitated by affective personal relationships, such as friend- liness and hospitality, which are highly valued as ends in themselves. e. Cosmopolite perspectives, in that members of the system often interact with outsiders, facilitating the entrance of new ideas into the social system vs. little communication by members of the social system.with outsiders. f. Empathic ability on the part of the system's members, who are able to see themselves in roles quite different from their own vs. lack of ability to empathize or see oneself in other's roles. Treating each of the eight schools as a social system, it is necessary to rank the systems on a modern-traditional continuum using the Rogers and Shoemaker definitions of the values of each system. The faculties of all eight schools were asked the following questions associated with the six characteristics in an attempt to define each system on the continuum. a. "A generally positive attitude toward change vs. a lack of favorable orientation to change." The faculty members were asked to respond on a nine-point 80 Likert Scale to the following statement: "People here generally look with favor on any kind of change." The response scale in this case and all others, was scored with 0 assigned to "Strongly Disagree", 2 to "Disagree", 4 to "Neutral", 6 to "Agree", and 8 to "Strongly Agree". The mean score for each school is as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 3.00 4.51 2.59 3.65 3.25 3.90 3.13 3.19 Number 21 47 27 29 8 21 15 26 b. "A.well-develaped technology with a complex division of labor vs. a less developed or 'simpler' technology." The question of technology is a difficult one to answer, since teaching involves little technology. The "complex division of labor" part of the statement was handled by asking the teachers how many different courses they taught each day. The mean score for each school is as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'Mean 2.60 2.36 2.54 2.51 3.25 2.85 3.06 2.26 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 16 26 c. "A high value on education and science vs. a relatively low level of literacy, education, and understanding of the scientific method." Three questions were used to measure this statement. 1. All faculty members were asked to list their highest degree. These were scored as follows: - Bachelor's Degree -.Bachelor's Degree plus hours beyond - Master's Degree - Master's Degree plus hours beyond Specialist Degree Doctor's Degree Other m0m¢wNH 81 The mean level of degree was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 3.33 3.23 3.07 2.90 2.38 3.43 2.88 3.15 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 16 26 2. All faculty members were asked to react on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "An education is a very important part of being successful." The mean response was calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 5.75 6.17 6.34 5.89 4.14 5.14 5.66 6.08 Number 20 47 28 28 7 21 15 26 3. All faculty members were asked to react an a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement:"Most of man's recent progress has been due to scientific research." The mean response was calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ‘Mean 4.57 5.02 4.89 3.50 4.43 4.71 4.79 4.46 Number 21 46 28 28 7 21 14 26 d. "Rational and business-like social relationships rather than emtional and affective vs. a social enforcement of the status quo in the social system, facilitated by affective personal relationships, such as friendliness and hospitality, which are highly valued as ends in themselves." TWO statements were used to measure this. Each asked the faculties to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale, and the means were calculated for each school. The results are as follows: 1. "Most of my social life is spend with my colleagues." School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Mean 2.76 2.30 3.10 2.00 4.50 2.61 2.47 3.39 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 15 26 82 2. "My colleague's evaluation of me is important to me." School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 5.61 5.87 5.89 5.83 5.75 5.52 5.53 6.19 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 15 26 e. "Cosmopolite perSpectives, in that members of the system often interact with outsiders, facilitating the entrance of new ideas into the social system vs. little communication by members of the social system with outsiders." Five questions were used to measure this variable. 1. Faculty members were asked to list the community organzations that they belonged to. The mean number of organizations was then I calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean .76 .68 .79 .55 .50 .71 .25 .54 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 16 26 2. Faculty members were asked to give the number of professional educational meetings that they attended in the last two years that involved educators from more than one school. The mean number of meetings was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 4.43 5.04 4.71 4.97 2.63 4.76 4.63 5.08 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 16 26 3. All faculty members were asked to respond on a nine-point continuum, where 0 was assigned to "outside" and 8 to "inside", to the following statement:"Many of my insights and new ideas regarding education result from discussions with educators in this school system/ outside this school system." The mean response was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: 83 School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 Mean 4.09 4.02 4.07 3.72 4.71 3.52 4.64 4.00 Number 21 47 28 29 7 21 14 26 4. Faculty members were asked to list the professional teachers organizations that they belonged to. The mean number of organizations was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 2.19 2.87 2.25 2.24 2.00 1.91 2.50 2.73 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 16 26 5. Faculty members were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "Most of my social life is spent with my colleagues." The mean response was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 2.76 2.30 3.10 2.00 4.50 2.61 2.47 3.39 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 15 26 f. "Empathic ability on the part of the system's members, who are able to see themselves in roles quite different from their own vs. lack of ability to empathize or see oneself in other's roles." The faculty members were asked to respond on a nine-point Likert Scale to the following statement: "I generally consider myself able to understand and sympathize with other people." The mean response was then calculated for each school. The results are as follows: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ‘ Mean 6.23 6.30 6.57 6.44 6.13 6.52 5.87 6.23 Number 21 47 28 29 8 21 15 26 Using the results of the preceding questions dealing with system norms, each mean was ranked and the results placed in order from/highest to lowest. A summary of the ranks, arranged by school and variable, is shown in Table 4.5. 84 Table 4.5 A Summary of Ranks, Arranged By Variable and School Variable School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Change 7 1 8 3 4 2 6 5 Preps 5 2 4 3 8 6 7 1 Degrees 2 3 5 6 8 1 7 4 Ed/Success 5 2 1 4 8 7 6 3 Progress/Research 5 1 2 8 7 4 3 6 Social Life 5 2 6 1 8 4 3 7 Colleague's Evaluation 3 6 7 5 4 1 2 8 Comm. Organizations 2 4 1 5 7 3 8 6 Prof. Ed. Meetings 7 2 5 3 8 4 6 1 Insights and New Ideas 6 4 5 2 8 1 7 3 Prof. Teacher Organizations .6 1 4 5 7 8 3 2 Social Life 5 2 6 1 8 4 3 7 Empathy 5 4 l 3 7 2 8 6 The Kendal Coefficient of Concordance was used to determine the extent to which the set of rankings of the thirteen items was similar. This formula, which measures the extent of the variability among the respective sums of the ranks, produced a W of .29. The test for significance of the W produced the calculation of a X2 of 26.39, which was significant at the .05 level with seven degrees of freedom. There is a high degree of agreement among the schools on the ranking of the variables. Any attempt, then, to rank the schools on a Modern-Traditional System continuum would be futile because of the significantly high 85 degree of agreement on the ranks, and would also preclude any attempt to correlate the time of adoption with this continuum. Because of this hypothesis thirty-seven is unanswerable. 38. "Earlier adapters are more likely to belong to well-integrated systems than are later adopters." Rogers and Shoemaker define communication integration as " the degree to which the units in a social system are interconnected by interpersonal communication channels." A "well-integrated" system should have a higher degree of this interconnection than a less "well-integrated" system. To test this hypothesis, all faculty members were asked to respond on a nine-point continuum to the following statement: "Many of my insights and new ideas regarding education result from discussions with educators in this school system/outside this school I system." Mean response was then computed for each school and the results were ranked: School Mean Rank (in this school system) 5 5.25 1 7 4.33 2 3 4.07 3 2 4.04 4 8 4.00 5 4 3.72 6 6 3.53 7 (outside this 1 2.05 8 school system) Each social studies teacher was then given a school rank (example: teacher #613 was given the rank of 7) and these ranks were then correlated with time of adoption. The Spearman Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.09, with a significance level of .22. The finding is not considered to 86 be statistically significant, and the hypothesis is rejected. 39. "Innovations that are perceived by receivers as possessing greater relative advantage, compatibility and the like have a more rapid rate of adoption." Only one innovation, simulation games, was used in this study, thus eliminating comparisons between different innovations. However, if the eight school system scores on the five characteristics are compared, then those schools which have higher scores on the characteristics should have social studies teachers who were earlier adopters than those systems with lower scores. The responses of the social studies teachers to the questions dealing with advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and Observability were averaged according to school. A summary of the ranks, arranged by school and variable, is shown in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 A Summary of Ranks, Arranged by Variable and School Variable ' School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Advantage 2.5 5 7 6 2.5 8 2.5 2.5 Compatibility 4 7 5.5 , 3 2 1 8 5.5 Complexity 2.5 6 4.5 8 2.5 1 7 4.5 Trialability 8 2 2 5.5 2 4 5.5 7 Observability 8 5 2.5 6 2.5 2.5 2.5 7 The Kendal Coefficient of Concordance was used to determine the extent to which the set of rankings of the five items was similar. This formula, which measures the extent of the variability among the respective sums of the ranks, produced a W of .22. The test for significance of the W involved the calculation of a X2 of 7.70, which 87 was significant at the .05 level with seven degrees of freedom. There is a high degree of agreement among the schools on the ranking of the variables. Since there is a significantly high degree of agreement among the schools on the five characteristics, no attempt can be made to rank the schools on their reaction to the characteristics of the innovation. This also eliminates any attempt to correlate this rank with time of adoption. Because of this, hypothesis thirty-nine is not answerable. Discussion of Results Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesized that earlier adapters are no different in age from later adopters, have more years of education and higher social status, are more upwardly mobile, come from larger size units, have more specialized operations, greater empathy, and are less dogmatic. In addition, earlier adopters have a greater ability to deal 'with abstractions and are more rational, intelligent, and more favorably inclined toward change, risk, education and science. Earlier adapters are also less fatalistic, have higher levels of achievement motivation, aspirations, social participation, and are more highly integrated with the social system. Earlier adapters are also hypothesized to be more cosmopolite, have more change agent contact, greater exposure to mass media, interpersonal communication channels, have greater knowledge of innovations, a higher degree of opinion leadership, are more likely to belong to systems with modern rather than traditional norms, and are more likely to belong 88 to well-integrated systems. Finally, it was hypothesized that innovations with more of the characteristics of advantage, compatibility and the like have a more rapid rate of adoption. These twenty-nine hypotheses all involve the dependent variable of time, and the contention of the authors is that those who adopt an innovation earlier are different from later adapters in twenty- eight areas. Time is involved in the twenty-ninth hypothesis in that an innovation which has more of the five characteristics will diffuse at a faster rate. Because most of the hypotheses were found to be not significant,‘ constructing a profile of the earlier adapter is relatively simple. Based on the results, an earlier adapter is one who has more favorable attitudes toward education, teaches in a smaller school, has higher aspirations in that he is not content with the idea of being a social studies teacher for the rest of his life and finds administration appealing, gets most of his insights and new ideas from educators outside his school system, reads more non-professional magazines and newspapers, and would need more information about the topics of ethnic group studies and the feminist movement before he could teach them. It was not possible to rank the eight schools on a Modern- Traditional Value System continuum because of the high degree of agreement among the schools on the values chosen. It also was not possible to determine if the characteristics of the innovation influenced the rate of diffusion between schools because of the high degree of agreement among the schools on the characteristics. The variables, predictions and findings are summarized in Table 4.7. 89 Table 4.7 A Summary of Independent Variables, Predictions, and Results for TIME Hypotheses Independent Variables Predictions Results Age No difference Not Significant Education More Not Significant Social Status Higher Not Significant Upward Social Mobility Greater Not Significant Size of Unit Larger Significant, but not in predicted direction Specialized Operations More Not Significant Empathy- Greater Not Significant Dogmatism Less Nat Significant Ability to Deal with Abstractions Greater Not Significant Rationality Greater Not Significant Intelligence Greater Not Significant Attitude toward: Change More Favorable Not Significant Risk More Favorable Not Significant Education 7 More Favorable Significant Science More Favorable Not Significant Fatalism Less Not Significant Achievement Motivation Higher Not Significant Aspirations Higher 1. Significant 2. Significant 30 NOt $180 4. Not Sig. Social Participation More 1. Not Sig. 2. Not Sig. Integration with More 1. Not Sig. Social System 2. Not Sig. Cosmopoliteness More 1. Not Sig. 2. Significant 3. Not Sig. Change Agent Contact More Numbers Reported Mass Media Communication Greater 1. Not Sig. Channels 2. Nat Sig. 3. Not Sig. 4. Signigicant Interpersonal More Not Significant Communication Channels Information Seeking More Not Significant 90 Table 4.7 (cont'd.) ’ Independent Predictions Results Variables Greater Knowledge More Items a-f:Not Sig. g,h:Sig. . i:Not Sig. Opinion Leadership More Not Significant System Norms Modern Unanswerable Integration of More Not Significant Systems . Innovations ~ More Unanswerable "among members of a social system . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that the diffusion of an innovation occurs within a social system, and that the social structure and norms of the system affect the pattern of diffusion in several ways. 40. "When the system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are more innovative, but when the norms are traditional, opinion leaders are not especially innovative." Faculty members of all eight schools were asked to respond to the following three questions which were used to establish the opinion leaders of each school. The fourth question was used to establish which faculty members were looked on by their colleagues as innovators. a. Among the teachers in this school, name three whom you respect most as teachers. b. Among the teachers in this school, name three whose opinions you most frequently seek when you have problems related to your teaching performance. c. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers whose opinions on crucial educational issues are usually very valuable to you. d. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers that you consider to be the most innovative. 91 The results were then tabulated by noting how many times each teacher was listed. The top three totals in each school were then selected as the faculty choices for each question. This resulted in three to five teachers being selected. The results are presented in Table 4.8. The teacher's number is given, followed by the number of times he or she was selected by their colleagues. Social Studies teachers are indicated by the line drawn under the teacher number. 92 Table 4.8 A Summary of Choices of Opinion Leaders and Innovative Teachers Made By All Faculty Members of the Eight Schools School Opinion Leadership Questions Innovation Question Fuestion Question Question Question 1 2 3 4 In. in at. w5'5- u u u u 3 m8 2 ma .2 m5 .2 m8 0 GO) 0 3m O NO) 0 mm 3 3° 3 ..3 3 3° 3 .33 Ea 5463 54 54:: PI eiég 9: Pic) 1 2 15 2 10 2 9 3!; 10 9 11 6 5 10 7 .24 7 10 13 10 7 6 4 13 6 2 44 24 43 8 43 13 31 18 43 24 44 8 §_ 12 49 18 9 10 24 7 44 9 48 18 6 10 24 9 .5 10 6 9 3 23 17 23 8 23 12 46 15 46 14 37 6 31_ 10 23 10 34_ 9 46 5 34_ 8 21 6 .31 9 4 21 12 7 8 20 24 31 9 20 25 32 6 21 11 5. 8 32 7 21 6 32 7 7 7 5 2 7 2 4 2 6 8 6 9 4 5 4 8 4 9 3 8 3 8 3 9 3 2 3 11 3 6 _1_3_ 15 21 5 _1_3_ 17 20 6 21 8 13. 5 21 5 21 6 26 6 12; 5 12. 5 17 5 7 5 27 5 2 5 7 _L4_ 10 L4 11 14 11 15 9 7 6 2 6 2 9 8 7 2 6 7 6 15 4 14_ 6 2 6 8 22 19 22 7 18 18 22 17 18 13 10 6 7 11 7 10 ‘32 8 18 6 33 10 25 8 .33 8 7 6 93 The teachers who appear in both the opinion leadership and the innovative columns, and thus are considered by their colleagues to be both innovative and opinion leaders, are as follows: School Teacher Number Total Appearing “ In Both Columns #23 #7 #2 #8 #9 #21 7 #15 3 #14 #2 8 #22 2 #7 LnJ>wNH OJHHOO ...-s However, since it was not possible to rank the schools on a Modern-Traditional Norm continuum, a comparison with the number of innovative opinion leaders per school is not valid. Hypothesis #40 is unanswerable, given the available data. 41. "When the norms of a system are more modern, opinion leadership is more monomorphic." Rogers and Shoemaker define monomorphism as "the tendancy for an individual to act as an opinion leader for only one topic." Its opposite, polymorphism, is defined as "the degree to which an individual acts as an opinion leader for a variety of topics." The results shown in Table 4.7 were used to measure this hypothesis. The number of different names that appeared most in response to the three opinion leadership questions were tallied, and the results were then ranked, as shown: 94 School Number of Names Rank oo-eoxmouni-o O‘J-‘UIUJ-‘#O‘J> HOMUO‘O‘HO‘ UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI However, since it was not possible to rank the schools on a Modern-Traditional Norm continuum, a comparison of the degree of mono-polymorphism per~school with system norms is not valid. Hypothesis #41 is unanswerable, given the available data. 42. "The individual's degree of integration into a social system affects his adoption behavior." Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that the individual's degree of commitment to his social system influences his adoption behavior. Those individuals with a low degree of commitment are likely to be earlier adopters of an innovation because they are not as committed to maintaining the status quo of the system. All social studies teachers were asked to respond on a nine- point Likert Scale to the following statement: "There are a lot of things around here that need to be changed." These results were then correlated with time of adoption. The Pearson Correlation formula produced a correlation of -.04, with a significance level of .10, which was not significant. .The hypothesis is rejected. 43. "Interpersonal diffusion is mostly homophilous." Rogers and Shoemaker define homophily as "the degree to which 95 pairs of individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes, such as beliefs, values, education, social status, and the like." According to the hypothesis, in cases of person-to-person diffusion, as opposed to mass media-to-person diffusion, the pairs of individuals should be. homophilous. Table 4.9 describes the sources that convinced the twenty-four social studies teachers to try simulation games. Table 4.9 Summary of Sources That Convinced Teachers to Try Simulation Games Type of Diffusion Source Number Interpersonal Fellow’ 8 . teacher Professor 6 Meeting 6 Mass Media Article 3 Book 0 No Reply 1 In the twenty cases of interpersonal diffusion, 402 occured between teachers. 44. "When interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers seek opinion leaders of higher social status." Rogers and Shoemaker define heterophily as "the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different in certain attributes." In the twenty cases of interpersonal diffusion, six cases or 302 occured between a teacher and a college professor. 96 45."When interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers seek opinion leaders with more education." The six teachers involved in this situation have Master's Degree's, and the professor involved has a Ph.D. 46. "Interpersonal diffusion is characterized by a greater degree of homophily in traditional than in modern systems." Cases of homophilous diffusion were tallied for each school, and the schools were then ranked on the basis of the number of cases they had: School Cases Rank 2 3 1.5 4 3 1.5 8 1 3.5 1 1 3.5 3 0 7.5 5 0 7.5 6 0 7.5 7 0 7.5 However, since it was not possible to rank the schools on a Modern-Traditional Norm continuum, a comparison of the degree of homophily per school with system norms is not valid. Hypothesis #46 is unanswerable, given the available data. 47. "In traditional systems followers interact with opinion leaders less (or no more) technically competent than themselves, whereas in modern systems opinion leaders are sought who are more technically competent than their followers." All faculty members were asked to respond to the following- question, which was scored as follows: "What degree do you hold?" Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's Degree plus hours beyond Master's Degree ‘Master's Degree plus hours beyond Specialist Degree Doctor's Degree Other ~ ImloImIeIuI~I~ 97 In each school, the average degree held by the opinion leaders and the rest of the faculty was then calculated. The differences between the two were also calculated and then ranked, as shown: School Difference Rank 1.00 , l 1.00 1 .68 .59 .50 .46 .12 -.O7 anomxn-‘qu: QVO‘UIL‘UOUIUI However, since it was not possible to rank the schools on a Modern-Traditional Norm continuum, a comparison of the technical competency of opinion leaders with system norms is not valid. Hypothesis #47 is unasnwerable, given the available data. 48. "Opinion leaders are more cosmopolite than their followers." All faculty members were asked to respond to the following questions to determine their degree of cosmopoliteness: a. "Please list the professional teacher's organizations of which you are a member." b. "How many professional educational meetings which involved educators from more than one school have you attended in the last two years?" c."Many of my insights and new ideas regarding education result from discussions with educators in this school system/outside this school system." The following shows the average number of professional - teacher's organizations reported by opinion leaders and the rest of the faculty: School 1 2 3 4 5- 6 7 8 Opinion Leaders 1.66 3.83 3.00 2.25 2.66 2.00 4.50 3.33 Rest 2.70 2.73 2.53 2.24 1.60 1.88 2.58 2.55 98 A t-test performed on the data produced a score of 1.76, with a significance level of .47, which is not statistically significant. The following shows the average number of professional educational meetings attended by opinion leaders and the rest of the faculty: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Opinion Leaders 5.00 5.00 (6.00 4.75 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.16 Rest 4.33 5.49 4.61 5.00 2.40 4.70 4.66 5.05 A t-test performed on the data produced a score of 1.62, with a significance level of 1.48, which is not statistically significant. The following shows the average responses of the two groups to the question dealing with the sources of new ideas and insights regarding education: School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Opinion Leaders 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.33 2.50 3.40 4.33 Rest 3.95 4.02 4.00 3.52 5.80 3.76 5.00 3.40 A t-test performed on the data produced a score of .03, with a significance level of .57, which is not statistically significant. Since the results for all three questions were not statistically significant, the hypothesis is rejected. 49. "Opinion leaders have greater social participation than their followers." All teachers were asked to list the community organizations that they belonged to. The following shows the average number of community organizations for each group: School 1 2 3 4 '5 6 7 8 Opinion Leaders .33 .67 .00 .75 .67 .75 .25 1.00 Rest .77 .68 .85 .52 .40 .71 .25 .40 A t-test performed on the data produced a score of -.13, with a significance level of .32, which is not statistically 99 significant. Since the result is not significant, the hypothesis is rejected. 50. "Opinion leaders are more innovative than their followers." If this hypothesis is valid, then the faculty members of all the schools should look on those they choose as opinion leaders as also being innovative teachers. The data in Table 4.8 was used to answer this question. The number of opinion leaders in each school was tallied, along with the number of innovative teachers. The names of the teachers who were chosen as being both innovative and opinion leaders were also tallied, with the results shown in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 Summary of Totals of Choices Of Opinion Leaders, Innovative Teachers and Names in Both Categories School Number of Names in Both Number of Innovative Opinion Leaders Columns Teachers mNO‘U‘J-‘UJNH O‘J-‘UIUIbJ-‘O‘b MunHHOO UbU‘IUwUMW 100 Of the 65 names listed in both the opinion leader and innovative teacher columns, 11 or 17% appear in both columns. It would seem that opinion leadership and being an innovative teacher are quite seperate matters. Being an opinion leader seems to preclude being an innovative teacher and vice-versa, in the eyes of the faculty. Thus it would appear that in this case opinion leaders are not more innovative than their followers. Discussion of Results Rogers and Shoemaker hypothesized that the norms and structure of a social system would affect the diffusion of an innovation in that when the system's norms favored change, opinion leaders would be more innovative, but when the norms were traditional, opinion leaders would be less innovative. In addition, when the norms of the system were more modern, opinion leadership would be more monomorphic. The authors also theorized that the degree of integration of an individual into a system would affect his adoption behavior. Further, interpersonal diffusion was postulated as being mostly homophilous, and in cases where it was heterophilous, the followers sought out opinion leaders of higher status who had more years of education. Homophily was also thought to be greater in traditional systems'in cases of interpersonal diffusion. In traditional systems, followers were supposed to interact with opinion leaders less or no more technically competent than themselves, while the reverse was supposed to hold in modern systems. Finally, opinion leaders were theorized to be more cosmopolite, have greater social participation, and be more innovative than their followers. 101 Since it was impossible to create a Modern-Traditional Norms rank because of the high degree of agreement among the schools on the norms, hypotheses #40, #41, #46 and #47 were unanswerable. The results for hypotheses #42, #48 and #49 were found to be not significant. Hypothesis #43 maintains that interpersonal diffusion is mostly homophilous. Only 402 of the cases of interpersonal diffusion were found to be homophilous. Hypothesis #44 maintains that when interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers will seek opinion leaders of higher social status. In only 302 of the cases of interpersonal diffusion was this found to be the case. Hypothesis #45 maintains that when interpersonal diffusion is heterophilous, followers seek opinion leaders with more I education. The six teachers involved had a Master's Degree, while the professor had a Ph.D. Finally, Hypothesis #50 said that opinion leaders would be more innovative than their followers. Only 17% of the names given by the faculties as innovative teachers and opinion leaders were considered to be both. The results of this section of the Rogers‘and Shoemaker model are summarized in Table 4.11. 102 Table 4.11 Summary of the Findings for SOCIAL SYSTEM Hypotheses Hypothesis Finding When the system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are more innovative, but when the norms are traditional, opinion leaders are not especially innovative When the norms of a system are more modern, opinion leadership is more monomorphic The individual's degree of integration into a social system affects his adaption behavior Interpersonal diffusion is mostly homophilous When interpersonal diffusion is heter- ophilous, followers seek opinion leaders of higher social status When interpersonal diffusion is heter- ophilous, followers seek opinion leaders with more education Interpersonal diffusion is character- ized by a greater degree of homophily in traditional than in modern systems In traditional systems followers interact with opinion leaders less (or no more) technically competent than themselves, whereas in modern systems opinion , leaders are sought who are more technically competent than their followers Opinion leaders are more cosmopolite than their followers -Opinion leaders have greater social parti- cipation than their folowers Opinion leaders are more innovative than, their followers Not Answerable Not Answerable Not Significant In 402 of the cases In 302 of the cases Yes Not Answerable Not Answerable Not Significant Not Significant 172 of the cases were both innovative and opinion leaders 103. Simulation Games Each social studies teacher was asked to list the simulation games that he had used. This list is presented in Table 4.12. Table 4.12 Simulation Games Used By Teachers Game Number of Teachers Reporting Use STARPOWER 6 PANIC GHETTO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY REBELS AND REDCOATS DIG STRIKE FRENCH REVOLUTION SPANISH ARMADA PROPAGANDA ABOLITION ECONOMIC MONOPOLIES MAN AND WOMAN DANGEROUS PARALLEL INTERNATION SDMULATION GAME RAILROAD BLACK AND WHITE CITIES FARMING CIVIL WAR SIMSOC INFLUENCE HHHr—HHHHHHHHHHr—Nquwb "Many" Teacher constructed No Response NO‘H The games that were used the most were STARPOWER, PANIC, GHETTO, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY and REBELS AND REDCOATS. A number of teachers reported that they made their own simulation games, while one person 104 reported that he used simulation games in his classroom, but he could not remember the names of the games that he used. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summagy "Perhaps this was what Henry Adams meant when he wrote, in the early years of this century, that the test of twentieth-century Americans would be their capacity for adjustment. Change is a constant theme in the American past. The United States is the only nation in the world to worship it for its own sake, and to regard change and progress as indistinguishable. 'We want change. We want progress,' Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, 'and we aim to get it.‘ The spirit of America in the 1960's is captured in the above quote from Lyndon B. Johnson, President at a time when change was equated with progress and both were to be had for the asking. In keeping with this spirit, the American educational establishment produced a large number of curricular and instructional reforms, often with governmental assistance, to improve education. But how was this change to be accomplished? How much actually was accomplished? "The Great Society" of the 1960's ran afoul of the war in Vietnam and its attendant backlash in the 1970's, and the educational sector was also affected. Government and public support for educational reform decreased, leaving questions of how much improvement was actually brought about and to what extent did the reforms reach their intended audience. a 1William‘Manchester, The Glory and_theDream (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974), p. 1588. 105 106 An examination of the degree to which the reforms of the 1960's and 1970's reached their audiences leads to an examination of the various theories explaining the spread or diffusion of an innovation. There are four models dealing with diffusion that are explained in the literature. The Research, Development, Diffusion and Adoption (RDDA) model assumes that change takes place in a rational sequence of steps, the ProblemrSolver model assumes that change is brought about by change agents who bring together people with problems and the information needed to solve those problems. These models are prescriptive in that they attempt to describe how change should take place, and they do not deal with the role played by the social environment in the change process. The Social Interaction model attempts to remedy these deficiencies by including an examination of the role of the social environment, and by attempting to be a descriptive model, explaining how change occurs, rather than how it should occur.2 The Social Interaction model proposes that the diffusion of an innovation is dependent on certain characteristics of the innovation itself, which is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system. Rogers and Shoemaker, in the development of this model, propose many hypotheses, of which fifty were chosen for this study. The researcher studied the diffusion of the teaching technique 2Francis Hunkins, et. al. Review of Research in Social Studies Education: 1970-1975. (washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977) p. 149. 107 of simulation gaming, part of the "New Social Studies", among the thirty-five social studies teachers of the eight Christian High Schools in the National Union of Christian Schools District II, using the Social Interaction diffusion model. Self-administered questionnaires were given to the faculty members of all eight schools, and the data were analyzed by using the Pearson and Spearman Correlation formulas, Chi-Square, Kendal Coefficient of Concordance and Student-t tests. These statistics were chosen because of the need to establish simple correlations between the variables and the time of adoption of the innovation. Conclusions The only significant findings were those associated with the "time" variable of the model. No significant findings were associated with the characteristics of the innovation, the type of communication channel or the social system. Based on the data produced by this study, there is a significant relationship between the time of adoption of the innovation and the following variables, as shown in Table 5.1. 108 Table 5.1 Summary of Significant Findings Variable Correlation Significance N ' Level Size of Unit -.18 .03 8 Aspirations: a. Satisfaction with thought of being social studies teacher for rest of life -.37 .04 24 b. Appeal of administration .47 .01 24 Source of insights and new ideas regarding education (outside of school system) .33 .05 24 Attitude toward education .43 .02 24 Non-professional magazine and newspaper'reading 4 habits .34 .05 24 Knowledge of innovations: a. Ethnic group studies .38 .03 24 b. Feminist movement .34 .05 24 Almost all of the results were in the predicted direction. Earlier adopters had higher aspirations, got most of their insights and new ideas regarding education from sources outside their educational system, had more favorable attitudes toward education, read more non-professional magazines and newspapers, and had more knowledge of ethnic group studies and the feminist movement than did later adopters. The exception occurred with the size of unit 109 variable. It was hypothesized that earlier adopters would be part of larger units, while the reverse was found to be true, that is, earlier adopters were part of smaller units than later adopters. Rogers and Shoemaker also predicted that in situations where diffusion between people occurred, these people would be similar in certain attributes. It was found that in twenty cases of inter- personal diffusion, 402 occurred between teachers. However, in cases where people are different in certain attributes, Rogers and Shoemaker predicted that the followers would seek opinion leaders of higher social status and more education. It was found that in twenty cases of interpersonal diffusion, 30% occurred between teachers and a college professor with a Ph.D. Finally, Rogers and ' Shoemaker predicted that apinion leaders would be more innovative than their followers. Only 20% of the teachers listed as opinion leaders or innovative teachers were considered by their colleagues as both. Discussion This study examined the spread of an innovation through a population using fifty hypotheses from the Social Interaction model of diffusion as formulated by Rogers and Shoemaker. Statistical significance was found in six of the fifty hypotheses, thus leading to some speculation on the reasons for such a situation. One possible answer is that the model is not adequate to explain the diffusion of this innovation in this situation. The Social Interaction model attempts to explain hp! change occurs, as opposed to how it should change, yet in this case many questions are left 110 unanswered. This raises the distinct possibility that further work should be done on the model itself. For example, the model, as described in Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach, is designed to describe the spread of any innovation through any population. An innovation is defined as anything perceived as new by a population, ranging from objects to ideas. The population could be anyone from a group of Brazilian peasants to Madison Avenue ad writers. It would seem that any theory with suah global claims to validity would encounter difficulties, given the diversity of the human experience. That many of the terms used by Rogers and Shoemaker are not defined or explained in their book poses difficulties for a researcher attempting to test their predictions. For example, these authors assert that "Earlier adopters have greater intelligence than later adapters", yet their definition of intelligence is not given. This could lead to varied interpretations on the part of researchers. Other terms are defined, yet in a sketchy manner which again poses problems for anyone attempting to work with this model. Another possible area of concern with the model is the matter of the combined effects of several of the variables in varying degrees. Each of the Rogers and Shoemaker hypotheses are treated in Commugication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach as though they are seperate, independent phenomena, yet the possibility may exist that the spread of an innovation through a population is a function of combinations of these variables in varying degrees. For example, it is conceivable that the spread of an innovation through a population with less modern norms depends primarily on 111 that innovation being rated higher on Observability than on the other characteristics of the innovation. Yet the model does not take into account this interrelation, assuming that all the parts are seperate and of equal importance. An examination of the sources which informed teachers about simulation games indicates that most of the teachers (nine of twenty- four) first heard about them from their Social Studies Methods professor while student teaching, thus indicating the role of teacher preparation in any theory of educational change. However, eight of the twenty-four teachers reported that their fellow teachers were the ones who finally convinced them to try simulation games in their class- rooms. .Also important in convincing teachers to try simulation games were meetings (six of twenty-four) and the same college Social Studies Methods professor (six of twenty-four). This last fact indicates the importance of an eclectic approach to any attempt to explain change, in particular change in education. Change can occur from many causes. For example, change can occur by altering structures, such as the change brought about in people's behavior by changing the economic or political structures of their societies. Change can also occur through the use of incentives such as the offering of a reward for increased production. The Social Interaction perspective of Rogers and Shoemaker, with its emphasis on communication, might not be an adequate description of the change process, which can be an exceedingly complex and multi- faceted affair. It would seem that a single theory explaining this process has yet to be formulated. The methodology used and the population surveyed might also 112 have contributed to the number of significant findings. This study used a self-administered questionnaire as the means for gathering the data, with the possibility that this was not an adequate tool to gather the needed information. All teachers were asked to place their name on the questionnaire, and, when finished, place the questionnaire in an envelope, seal it, and return it to the office. Despite assurances of anonymity, some teachers might have felt threatened by this enough so that their answers were not a true indication of their opinions. Given the fact that several of the schools faced reductions in staff for 1978-1979 because of declining enrollment,- this questionnaire, with its personal questions, might have been looked on by certain faculty members as an administrative attempt to determine who was to be released, especially since it was the administrator who handled the distribution and collection of the questionnaires. The survey was distributed during the last two weeks in May, 1978, only one and a half weeks before school was to end for the year. Teachers traditionally are not at their best at that time of the year, many are emotionally and physically exhausted after teaching for a year. This factor may have influenced the data in that teachers may have viewed filling in the questionnaire as one more onerous bureaucratic detail to plague their lives. The questionnaire also contained items which asked the teachers to recall events which, in some cases, occurred as early as 1967. It is difficult for anyone, even a harried teacher in the last weeks of school, to recall with any degree of accuracy events and feelings which, in some cases, occurred eleven years ago when they first adopted simulation games. 113 Given the nature of the Social Interaction model with the sensitive nature of many of the hypotheses, such as those dealing with system norms or opinion leadership, perhaps a better method to use to study the diffusion of an innovation through a population would be the participant-observer one, where the researcher would be present to interview each subject. This might have the effect of reducing possible suspicion.on the part of the teachers, and the researcher would also be in a position to clarify and check on the accuracy of answers. However, in spite of certain difficulties with the study, there are some features that should be noted. The use of simulation games as a teaching technique had diffused through the systems generally by 1974, and the games were being used by most of the social studies teachers of the eight schools. In effect this means that the innovation had diffused through the systems in approximately seven years, which is a fairly rapid rate of diffusion, since Rogers and Shoemaker report diffusion rates of anywhere from five to fifty years for various innovations. In the field of education, they report that U.S. public schools required fifty years to adopt the idea of the kindergarten, and about five or six years to adopt "modern math."3 Based on the findings, the early adopter is one who fits Rogers' and Shoemaker's definition of a cosmopolite person. This person is one who looks outside his social system for ideas and inspiration, and sees his present situation as temporary. This person is oriented 3Everett Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. (New York: The Free Press, 1971). p. 16. 114 more toward outside groups and forces than he is toward the situation that he finds himself in. An interesting finding involved the sociogram where teachers were asked to choose those opinion leaders and innovative teachers from among their colleagues. 0f the fifty-five names given by the teachers, eleven or 20; were teachers considered by their colleagues to be both innovative teachers and opinion leaders. This means that 802 of the names given, or 44, were considered by their colleagues to be either an opinion leader, or an innovative teacher, BUT NOT BOTH. It would seem that in this situation opinion leaders are not considered innovative, while innovative teachers are not considered to be opinion leaders. It is interesting to recall that Rogers and Shoemaker predicted that Opinion leaders would be more innovative than their followers, but that is generally not the case in this study. Implications for Future Study Parents, teachers and students have a vital interest in change in education. In order to do a better job of educating students, new methods and materials must be developed and used in the classroom. Yet the question of how and why change occurs, particularly in education, is a complex one needing more research than has previously been done. Change does occur, but a better understanding of the process is vital for planned change. Therefore some specific recommendations growing out of the present study are the following: 115 1. That the study be replicated as a controlled experiment using a current innovation. This study involved an innovation that spread through the population during the period of 1967 to 1977, with most of the subjects first using the innovation during 1967 to 1974. The questionnaire, administered in May, 1978, was such that the subjects were asked to rely on their memories for the answers to some very complicated questions. It is possible that the general lack of statistically significant findings in the study was caused by the subjects' reliance on their faulty memories. In addition, the questionnaire did not provide for the possibility of change in the subjects over the years since they first used the innovation under study. The earlier adopters may have met the standards of the Social Interaction model at the time they adopted the innovation, but they may have changed over the period between adoption and the administration of the questionnaire. This raises the possibility that a self-administered questionnaire is inadequate for studying the diffusion of certain innovations. Therefore it is suggested that the study be replicated as a controlled experiment, where the researcher supplements questionnaire data with observations made as a participant-observer of the experiment. In addition, the researcher would be able to study any innovation that might come into the system while he or she is present. 2. That the study be replicated using larger numbers and more and different schools. This study used eight schools classified as a population. There is a possibility that the twenty-four subjects involved in the adoption 116 of the innovation were too small a number for the statistics that were used. Therefore it is suggested that future studies of this kind be carried out using a larger population or sample. There is also the possibility that the eight schools are more alike than different, thus making it difficult to detect differences in values and other criteria between schools. For example, Hypothesis #37 involved an attempt to distinguish among the schools which ones had more modern or which ones had more traditional values. This attempt failed because of the significantly high degree of agreement among the schools on the criteria used to measure these values. A replicated study, using different schools, such as public and non- public, urban and rural, or middle and lower class might eliminate this problem. 3. That the study be replicated after a re—evaluation of the Social Interaction model of Rogers and Shoemaker. There were thirty-five social studies teachers in the surveyed population. Questionnaires were received from thirty of them, and of these thirty, twenty-four had used simulation games by May, 1978. Yet, given the many variables studied and the small number of statistically significant findings, the Social Interaction model described by Rogers and Shoemaker does not do an adequate job of explaining the rate of diffusion reported in this study. A replicated study should concern itself with possible revisions, major and minor, in the theory. Attempts should be made to clarify several of the definitions used in the hypotheses, and consideration should be given to the possible effects of the inter- action of several of the hypotheses, since in this situation the 117 theory was not adequate to explain the high rate of diffusion. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE May 17, 1978 Dear Faculty Member; I would appreciate your cooperation in this survey I am giving as part of the requirements for my doctoral program at Michigan State University. The survey is an attempt to determine if a theory of change and innovation, as formulated by E. M. Rogers and F. Shoemaker, is valid when applied to teachers in the eight NUCS related Christian High Schools in Michigan. I am.focusing on the use of simulation games by social studies teachers, but the theory is such that all faculty members are asked to participate in the survey. Please be'assured that your anonymity is guaranteed. I will be the only person who will see these questionnaires, and the data will be handled in such a way so that neither you nor your school will be recognized. Answer each question as honestly and completely as you can. Please return the completed questionnaire in the sealed envelope to the office. Thank you for your participation and cooperation. Yours truly, LeRoy Stegink 118 APPENDIX B TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PART ONE: All faculty members are requested to answer the questions in this section. 1. Name 2. How many different courses do you normally teach each day? (NOTE-courses, not sections of each. Government is one course, even though the instructor may have three sections of it.) 3. What is the grade level of most of the students that you teach? __Mainly 12th grade ‘ __Mainly 9th grade _Mainly 11th grade _A mixture __Mainly 10th grade 4. What degree do you hold? .__Bachelor's Degree __Bachelor's Degree plus hours beyond ___Master ' 8 Degree __Master's Degree plus hours beyond __Specialist Degree __Doctors Degree '__Other (Please specify) 5. Please list the community organizations that you belong to. a. b. c. d e. 6. How'many professional educational meetings which involved educators from more than one school have you attended in the last two years? (Such as the CEA Convention, various subject matter conventions, etc.) 7. Please list the professional teachers organizations of which you are a member. a. b. c. d. e. 119 120 8. Among the teachers in this school, name three whom you respect most as teachers. a. b. c. 9. Among the teachers in this school, name three whose opinions you most frequently seek when you have problems related to your teaching performance. a. b. c. 10. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers whose opinions on crucial educational issues are usually very valuable to you. a. I b. C. 11. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers that you consider to be the most innovative. a. b. c. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATE- MENTS BY PLACING AN APPROPRIATE MARK ON THE CONTINUUM. 12. 13. People here generally look with favor on any kind of change. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L J I I I I I I Most of my social life is spent with my colleagues. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I I J L J 1 I 14. My colleague's evaluation of me is important to me. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I I I L I I I 15. There are a lot of things around here that need to be changed. Strongly Agree L _Agree Neutral Disagree L L J I I Strongly Disagree 1 121 16. An education is a very important part of being successful. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I ___l_ I l l L J 17. Most of man's recent progress has been due to scientific research. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree l L I ‘ I I I I I 18. I generally consider myself able to understand and sympathize with other people. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L L J I I I I l 19. Many of my insights and new ideas regarding education result from discussions with educators in this school outside this system school system I I l #1 I L J I PLEASE CONTINUE IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY TEACHING ANY COURSES IN THE SOCIAL STUDIES AREA. ALL OTHER TEACHERS ARE REQUESTED TO STOP AT THIS POINT AND PLACE THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE, SEAL IT, AND RETURN IT TO THE OFFICE. PART TWO: All social studies teachers are requested to answer the questions in this section. 20. Have you ever used a simulation game in your classroom? Yes No (If no, please stop here and return the questionnaire in the sealed envelope to the office. Thank you. 21. If yes, please list the ones that you have used. a. b. c. d. e. 122 22. Age (Please check) _20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 23. What is(was) your father's occupation? 24. What social studies subjects are you currently teaching? United States History world History Government Sociology ‘_;Psychology __Bconomics '__Other (Please specify) 25. What was your grade point average upon graduation from college? 26. Which church positions have you held in the past four years? None Elder Deacon Committee member Other (Please specify) 27. Have you ever used the services of a social studies consultant, either from the National Union of Christian Schools or from you local area? ‘ __Yes __No 123 If yes, how many times have you used this service? 28. About how many hours per day do you listen to radio? 29. About how many hours per day do you watch television? 30. List the titles of the books that you have read during the past 30 days. ' a. b. c. d. e. 31. List the non-professional magazines and newspapers that you read. a. b. c. d. e. 32. My best estimate of the hours per week that I spend in seeking information about new educational innovations in my field is hours per week 33. Please indicate the approximate month and year when you first tried a simulation game with your class. Month Year 124 34. As best as I can remember, the main source where I first heard about simulation games was (CHECK ONE) ___A college instructor __ A.fellow teacher (Name) ___An article in an educator's magazine, such as Social Education A book A principal (Name) A‘newspaper An article in a popular magazine, such as Newsweek An educational meeting TV or radio Other (Please specify) 35. As best as I can remember, the main source that convinced me to try simulation games was (CHECK ONE) __.A college instructor -__ A fellow teacher (Name) ___An article in an educator's magazine, such as Social Education A book A principal ~ (Name) A.newspaper An article in a popular magazine, such as Newsweek An educational meeting TV or radio Other (Please specify) 36. I was able to experiment with simulation games before I intro- duced them to my classes. __Yes ._;No 37. Before I used simulation games in my classroom, I __was able to observe one being played __participated in the playing of a simulation game __both of the above __peither of the above 125 PLEASE INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BY PLACING AN APPROPRIATE MARK ON THE CONTINUUM 38. When I first heard about simulation games as a teaching method, I thought they were ' superior no different inferior L L I I J A I L I to the teaching methods I normally used. 39. When I first heard about simulation games, I thought they were an acceptable not an acceptable method method I I I IL _I J L I j to be used, considering the values of my school and community. 40. If you were asked to use the following in your teaching, would you need more information about them, or would you have enough? a. Values Clarification Need more Have enough information I, information I L L L I L I j b. Inquiry Method Need more _ Have enough information ' information L L J I I L I I I c. Simulation Gaming Need more Have enough information information L L L I I I L1 L LI d. Use of Case Studies Need more _ Have enough information information I I I I _1__ L L . I LI e. Concept Formation Need more Have enough information information I I I L I I I _l_ I f. Career Education Need more Have enough information information I L L I l L I_ I I 126 g. Ethnic Group Studies Need more Have enough information information I L 4 L I I L I I , h. Feminist Movement Need more ' ‘Have enough information information I I I L I 1 L I I 1. Use of Videotape Equipment Need more . Have enough information information- I I J I L I I 41. At the present time, are you actively seeking information about any of the following? a. Values Clarification f. Career Education Yes No Yes No b. Inquiry Method g. Ethnic Group Studies ___Yes No Yes No c. Simulation Gaming h. Feninist Movement ___Yes No Yes No d. Use of Case Studies 1. Use of Videotape Equipment _ Yes No Yes No e. Concept Formation __ Yes No 42. Generally, teaching methods and educational philosophies used by past generations are more reliable than the newer methods and philosophies of the present generation. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I L 1L I I I J 43. Usually, when someone explains something to me that is highly abstract, I find I understand better if I am shown a diagram or a picture. Strongly ' Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I I I L L I I _Ll 127 44. My friends consider me to be highly efficient and organized in my work. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I I I I I L L 45. Most changes introduced in the last ten years have contributed very little in promoting education in our schools. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I L _I I I L I 46. One of the best ways to reach a goal is to take a risk. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I L I I I L 47. Most of what lies in store for me in the future is beyond my control. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I I I IL I I I I 48. When I do something, it must be done perfectly or I am not satisfied. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I L I L I L I __I 49. I am satisfied with the thought that I might be a social studies teacher for the rest of my life. Strongly Strongly Agree I Agree Neutral Disagree I Disagree I I I I I 50. Administration appeals to me. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I L I I I I L I 51. I can see myself in the future working in some form of business. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree L I I I I I I 128 52. College teaching of some type appeals to me. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I I IL I L _L I 53. I am usually up on the latest faculty gossip. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I I I I I I I L) THANK YOU FOR.YOUR COOPERATION. PLEASE PLACE THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE, SEAL IT, AND RETURN IT TO THE OFFICE. L. STEGINK APPENDIX C ADOPTER CURVE Number of Teachers Adopting APPENDIX C ADOPTER CURVE 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Year of Adoption 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Study of the Diffusion Process of Vocational Education Innovations. East Lansing: Michigan State Department of Education, Division of Vocational Education, 1967. Allan, Glenn Stewart. "A Study of the Perceived Attributes of Innovations and Their Adoption." Dissertation Abstracts International 37 (1977): 1747-A. Anderson, Thomas Reid. "A Cross-Sectional Case Study of the Results of Community Education and Implementation and Diffusion in Process City, USA." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Bienenstock, Theodore. "Resistance to an Educational Innovation." The Elementary School Journal 65 (May, 1965): 420-428 Bintner, Stuart John. "A Study of the Teaching Methods, Materials, Class Organizations, and Opinions of American History Teachers in Selected Iowa High Schools." Dissertation Abstracts International 39 (1979): 4857-A. Blaga, Jeffrey James. "A Study of Teachers' Perceptions and Utilization of Simulations in Public Secondary Social Studies Classrooms in Ohio." Dissertation Abstracts International 39 (1979): 4858-A. Britton, Helen Ann. "Diffusion of Social Studies Innovations in Santa Clara County, California." Dissertation Abstracts International 37 (1977): 63952A. Carlson, Richard O. The Adoption of Educational Innovations. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Education- al Administration, 1965. Carlson, Richard 0.; Fox, Robert S.; and Stevens, W} Williams, Jr. The Diffusion of Educational InnovatiOns: Recommendations For Policy Makers and Administrators. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1975. Catone, James Edward. "An Observation of Communication Patterns and the Development of Attitudes Toward Three Innovative Aspects of A Methods of Education Class." Dissertation Abstracts International 37 (1977): 57542A. 130 131 Coleman, James; Katz, Elihu; and Menzel, Herbert. "The Diffusion of An Innovation Among Physicians." Sociometry 20 (1957): 253-269. Cowelti, Gordon. "Innovative Practices in High Schools: Who Does What and Why and How?" Nation's Schools 79 (May, 1967): 56-58. Falkenstein, Lynda Carl. "Man: A Course g£_Study - A Case Study of Diffusion in Oregon." Dissertation Abstracts International 38 (1977): 3247-A. Ford, Richard B. The University Model and Educational Change. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1971. Haas, John D. The Era of the New Social Studies. Boulder: ‘ ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1977. Hahn, Carole; Marker, Gerald W.; Switzer, Thomas J.; and Turner, Mary Jane. Three Studies on Perception and Utilization of "New Social Studies" Materials. Boulder: Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1977. Harmer, Earl W. "Veteran Teachers and Curriculum Development." Phi Delta Kappan 58 (June, 1977): 751-752. Holloway, Robert E. Perceived Characteristics of an Innovation. Arlington, Va.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 150 716, 1978.. House, Ernest R. The Politics of Innovation. Berkeley, California: McCutcheon, 1973. Hunkins, Francis P.; Ehman, Lee H.; Martorella, Peter H.; Hahn, Carole L.; and Tucker, Jan L. Review of Research in Social Studies Education: 1970-1975. Boulder: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., and Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977. Jwaideh, Alice, and Marker, Gerald W. Bringing About Changg_In Social Studies Education. Boulder: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1973. 132 Keller, Clare. "The Diffusion of Innovation Within One Michigan School System Using a Communication Flow Inventory." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Kinerney, Eugene James. "The High School Geography Project in Relation to Instructional Practices in Introductory College Geography: An Upward Dissemination of Educational Innovation." Dissertation Abstracts International 36 (1975): 6591-A. Lawlor, James C. "Selected Charcteristics of Innovators and Their Relationship to Social Studies Teachers' Adoption of New Currriculum Materials." Dissertation Abstracts International 24 (1978): 5887-A. Manchester, William. The Glory and the Dream. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974. Matula, Franklin Vincent. "A Study of Selected Factors Contributing to the Expressed Willingness of Elementary Teachers to Try ‘ Selected Classroom Innovations." Dissertation Abstracts International 33 (1972): 3207-A. Mortimer, Frederic J. "Diffusion of Educational Innovations in the Government Secondary Schools of Thailand." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. 1977-1978 Directory. Grand Rapids: National Union of Christian Schools, 1977. Oppewal, Donald. The Roots of the Calvinistic Day School Movement. Grand Rapids: Calvin College Monograph Series, 1963. Reiss, Albert, Jr. Occupations and Social Status. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Siegal, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Superka, Douglas P. An Exploration of Social Studies Innovation in Secondary Schools. Arlington, Va.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 150 028, 1977. Walker, Robert Edwin. "Factors Affecting the Implementation of National Project Materials in Social Studies Programs in Secondary Schools in Nebraska," Dissertation Abstracts International 35 (1974): 2665-A. 133 wells, Tim Joe. "Oklahoma Secondary Social Studies Teachers and the Usage of New National Social Studies Projects." Dissertation Abstracts International 34 (1973): 6509-A. A Summary of Independent Variables, Predictions, and Results for TIME 89 Table 4.7 Hypotheses Independent Variables Predictions Results Age No difference Not Significant Education More Not Significant Social Status Higher Not Significant Upward Social Mobility Greater Not Significant Size of Unit Larger Significant, but not in predicted direction Specialized Operations More Not Significant Empathy- Greater Not Significant Dogmatism Less Not Significant Ability to Deal with Abstractions Greater Not Significant Rationality Greater Not Significant Intelligence Greater Not Significant Attitude toward: Change More Favorable Not Significant Risk More Favorable Not Significant Education More Favorable Significant Science More Favorable Not Significant Fatalism Less Not Significant Achievement Motivation Higher Not Significant Aspirations Higher 1. Significant 2. Significant 3. Not Sig. 4. th Sig. Social Participation More 1. Not Sig. 2. Not Sig. Integration with More 1. Not Sig. Social System 2. Not Sig. Cosmopoliteness More 1. Not Sig. 2. Significant 3. Not Sig. Change Agent Contact More Numbers Reported Mass Media Communication Greater 1. Not Sig. Channels 2. Not Sig. 3. Not Sig. 4. Signigicant Interpersonal More Not Significant Communication Channels Information Seeking ‘More Not Significant 90 Table 4.7 (cont'd.)' Independent Predictions Results Variables Greater Knowledge More Items a-f:Not Sig. g,h:Sig. - i:Not Sig. Opinion Leadership More Not Significant .System Norms Modern Uhanswerable Integration of More Not Significant Systems Innovations . More Unanswerable "amonggmembers of a social system . . . " Rogers and Shoemaker maintain that the diffusion of an innovation occurs within a social system, and that the social structure and norms of the system affect the pattern of diffusion in several ways. 40. "When the system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are more innovative, but when the norms are traditional, opinion leaders are not especially innovative." Faculty members of all eight schools were asked to respond to the following three questions which were used to establish the opinion leaders of each school. The fourth question was used to establish which faculty members were looked on by their colleagues as innovators. a. Among the teachers in this school, name three whom you respect most as teachers. b. Among the teachers in this school, name three whose opinions you most frequently seek when you have problems related to your teaching performance. c. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers whose opinions on crucial educational issues are usually very valuable to you. d. Among the teachers in this school, name three teachers that you consider to be the most innovative.