WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.899 Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're tackling 00:00:02.899 --> 00:00:05.200 something, well, a lot of educators probably 00:00:05.200 --> 00:00:08.660 find frustrating. Why is getting technology to 00:00:08.660 --> 00:00:12.839 really work in schools so hard, even with all 00:00:12.839 --> 00:00:15.160 the money spent? Yeah, it's a common headache, 00:00:15.300 --> 00:00:17.519 isn't it? Lots of investment, but the results. 00:00:18.640 --> 00:00:21.019 Sometimes messy. Exactly. And you hear so much 00:00:21.019 --> 00:00:23.940 conflicting advice. So we've been looking at 00:00:23.940 --> 00:00:26.980 research from several K -12 schools trying to 00:00:26.980 --> 00:00:29.579 make this tech -rich thing actually happen. And 00:00:29.579 --> 00:00:32.479 what we found isn't some magic bullet. But a 00:00:32.479 --> 00:00:35.119 really solid research -backed way to think about 00:00:35.119 --> 00:00:38.219 it, it focuses on how people actually use the 00:00:38.219 --> 00:00:40.520 tech. OK, so what's the mission here? Well, our 00:00:40.520 --> 00:00:42.659 mission for this deep dive is really to unpack 00:00:42.659 --> 00:00:45.500 this concept called technology acceptance. We're 00:00:45.500 --> 00:00:47.340 using a framework, it sounds technical, but it's 00:00:47.340 --> 00:00:49.600 useful, called the Unified Theory of Acceptance 00:00:49.600 --> 00:00:52.140 and Use of Technology, Utah for short. Utah, 00:00:52.399 --> 00:00:54.479 got it. Yeah. And basically, it's a model built 00:00:54.479 --> 00:00:56.679 on lots of research. It helps pinpoint the key 00:00:56.679 --> 00:00:59.439 things that make people actually adopt and use 00:00:59.439 --> 00:01:01.740 new technology. about using evidence, right? 00:01:01.780 --> 00:01:04.599 So not just guesswork. Not just guesswork. And 00:01:04.599 --> 00:01:07.819 we'll see how real schools use this Utah idea 00:01:07.819 --> 00:01:10.140 alongside something called educational design 00:01:10.140 --> 00:01:14.480 research to tackle some very specific, very real 00:01:14.480 --> 00:01:16.920 problems. OK, educational design research. Let's 00:01:16.920 --> 00:01:18.980 quickly touch on that. The sources suggest it's 00:01:18.980 --> 00:01:21.739 like a cycle. Right, not a one -off plan. Exactly. 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:25.079 It's iterative. You identify a problem in the 00:01:25.079 --> 00:01:27.859 school. You try out a solution, maybe informed 00:01:27.859 --> 00:01:30.799 by research like Utah. You see how it works in 00:01:30.799 --> 00:01:32.719 the real classroom. And then you tweak it. Yeah, 00:01:32.900 --> 00:01:35.519 you adjust based on what actually happens. It's 00:01:35.519 --> 00:01:37.540 ongoing. OK, so let's get into an example. There's 00:01:37.540 --> 00:01:40.719 a principal. Jerry. Yes, Jerry. He was hearing 00:01:40.719 --> 00:01:43.180 constant complaints from teachers about tech 00:01:43.180 --> 00:01:45.840 problems that just weren't getting solved. He 00:01:45.840 --> 00:01:48.340 called it endless griping. I can picture that. 00:01:48.500 --> 00:01:52.519 Right. So their first attempt was a basic help 00:01:52.519 --> 00:01:54.400 desk system. You know, log a ticket, someone 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:56.840 fixes it. Standard stuff. Standard stuff. But 00:01:56.840 --> 00:01:58.500 Jerry and his tech committee realized, you know, 00:01:58.620 --> 00:02:00.859 just fixing broken things wasn't really the issue. 00:02:01.180 --> 00:02:04.049 Ah, OK. What was it then? It was deeper. They 00:02:04.049 --> 00:02:05.989 needed to figure out what the technology should 00:02:05.989 --> 00:02:08.449 be doing for teaching and learning, not just 00:02:08.449 --> 00:02:12.389 is it working, but is it useful? Is it easy enough 00:02:12.389 --> 00:02:15.789 to actually help? That's a big shift. From fixing 00:02:15.789 --> 00:02:19.750 to in - enabling. Exactly. That shift seems crucial. 00:02:19.849 --> 00:02:22.090 It's not just about the tech itself, but how 00:02:22.090 --> 00:02:25.530 it's perceived and used. So Jerry gets his committee 00:02:25.530 --> 00:02:27.870 to dig into this. Not just the symptoms, the 00:02:27.870 --> 00:02:30.569 griping, but the root cause, the purpose. And 00:02:30.569 --> 00:02:33.210 this leads them to create a more formal technology 00:02:33.210 --> 00:02:35.590 planning cycle. But it wasn't just, you know, 00:02:35.949 --> 00:02:38.189 more bureaucracy. It had a pretty interesting, 00:02:38.349 --> 00:02:40.969 maybe slightly controversial part to it. What 00:02:40.969 --> 00:02:43.610 was that? Well, the new guidelines actually said 00:02:43.610 --> 00:02:46.169 that any complaints, any issues raised, had to 00:02:46.169 --> 00:02:48.969 be discussed in terms of effort expectancy and 00:02:48.969 --> 00:02:52.090 performance expectancy. So using the Utah language, 00:02:52.330 --> 00:02:54.870 how easy is it? How useful is it? Precisely. 00:02:55.090 --> 00:02:57.349 The leadership was apparently quite firm. Our 00:02:57.349 --> 00:02:59.449 computers must work for students and teachers. 00:02:59.750 --> 00:03:02.050 It was a very practical way to embed that Utah 00:03:02.050 --> 00:03:04.389 thinking right into their process. OK, so how 00:03:04.389 --> 00:03:06.370 did this play out? Did they test it? Oh, yeah. 00:03:07.229 --> 00:03:09.889 Almost immediately, teachers found that students 00:03:09.889 --> 00:03:12.810 couldn't get into the online gradebook, the SIS, 00:03:13.090 --> 00:03:16.289 from the new laptops they'd been given. Turned 00:03:16.289 --> 00:03:18.530 out, the tech coordinator, being cautious about 00:03:18.530 --> 00:03:21.210 security, had basically locked down access at 00:03:21.210 --> 00:03:23.930 the school level. His solution, he suggested 00:03:23.930 --> 00:03:26.610 students could maybe use the teacher's laptop 00:03:26.610 --> 00:03:28.750 or just check grades when they got home. Which 00:03:28.750 --> 00:03:30.830 kind of defeats the purpose of having easy access 00:03:30.830 --> 00:03:33.280 at school, right? Exactly. The principal actually 00:03:33.280 --> 00:03:35.740 stepped in, sent a memo pointing out that this 00:03:35.740 --> 00:03:38.479 workaround made things harder for students, that's 00:03:38.479 --> 00:03:42.259 low effort expectancy, and made the online system 00:03:42.259 --> 00:03:44.599 less useful right when they needed it, that's 00:03:44.599 --> 00:03:46.639 low performance expectancy. So the principal 00:03:46.639 --> 00:03:50.199 used the framework's terms. Yep. Directly. And 00:03:50.199 --> 00:03:52.120 instructed the coordinator to fix the network 00:03:52.120 --> 00:03:54.939 settings. It really showed how usability for 00:03:54.939 --> 00:03:57.080 the end users, the students in this case, had 00:03:57.080 --> 00:03:59.099 to be paramount. We see another angle on this 00:03:59.099 --> 00:04:01.590 with Donna, right? A teacher of younger kids. 00:04:01.750 --> 00:04:04.530 Yeah, a less formal situation, but just as telling. 00:04:05.169 --> 00:04:06.729 Her students, like first graders, had always 00:04:06.729 --> 00:04:09.430 used super simple logins. Easy passwords. Makes 00:04:09.430 --> 00:04:12.150 sense for little kids. Totally. But then a new 00:04:12.150 --> 00:04:15.189 server came in, and suddenly, the requirement 00:04:15.189 --> 00:04:18.470 was for these complex, like, 20 -character passwords. 00:04:18.670 --> 00:04:22.009 20 characters for six -year -olds? Wow. I struggle 00:04:22.009 --> 00:04:24.670 with mine sometimes. Right. Donna immediately 00:04:24.670 --> 00:04:28.050 saw this was a huge barrier. It completely torpedoed 00:04:28.050 --> 00:04:30.250 the effort expectancy for her students trying 00:04:30.250 --> 00:04:32.290 to use the computers independently. So what did 00:04:32.290 --> 00:04:35.329 she do? Well, she flagged it. Initially, her 00:04:35.329 --> 00:04:37.779 principal was a bit hesitant. You know, didn't 00:04:37.779 --> 00:04:40.300 want to step on the tech department's toes. Understandable, 00:04:40.339 --> 00:04:42.860 maybe. Yeah, but Donna kept at it. She explained 00:04:42.860 --> 00:04:45.439 this whole idea of technology acceptance, focusing 00:04:45.439 --> 00:04:48.360 on the ease of use part. She even got the principal 00:04:48.360 --> 00:04:51.420 to come down and watch the kids trying and failing 00:04:51.420 --> 00:04:55.160 to log in. Ah, seeing is believing. Pretty much. 00:04:55.500 --> 00:04:57.639 Seeing the kids' frustration really changed the 00:04:57.639 --> 00:05:00.259 principal's mind. They called a meeting focused 00:05:00.259 --> 00:05:02.879 specifically on how these passwords were an obstacle 00:05:02.879 --> 00:05:05.660 to the educational use of the computers. So again, 00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:08.459 it's applying that ease of use lens. Exactly. 00:05:08.860 --> 00:05:10.899 So the pattern here, the takeaway from Jerry 00:05:10.899 --> 00:05:14.620 and Donna, is the cycle. Spot a problem, analyze 00:05:14.620 --> 00:05:17.100 it using these Utah ideas, especially effort 00:05:17.100 --> 00:05:20.439 expectancy. How easy is it? Try something, see 00:05:20.439 --> 00:05:22.480 what happens with real users, and then refine 00:05:22.480 --> 00:05:25.560 it. Keep tweaking until it works. It's practical. 00:05:25.870 --> 00:05:28.490 Not just theory. Very practical. Okay, so moving 00:05:28.490 --> 00:05:30.829 on. The research also talks about something called 00:05:30.829 --> 00:05:34.509 reflexive curriculum design. Reflexive? Like 00:05:34.509 --> 00:05:37.569 looking back at itself? Sort of, yeah. Think 00:05:37.569 --> 00:05:40.069 of it like a mirror. It's not just about bolting 00:05:40.069 --> 00:05:42.410 technology onto existing lessons. It's about 00:05:42.410 --> 00:05:44.870 how the technology itself might make us rethink 00:05:44.870 --> 00:05:47.889 how we teach, how students engage with information. 00:05:48.350 --> 00:05:51.110 It influences the teaching and the teaching influences 00:05:51.110 --> 00:05:54.220 how we use the tech. Okay, two -way street. Exactly. 00:05:54.519 --> 00:05:56.860 We see this with Linda, a curriculum coordinator. 00:05:57.060 --> 00:05:58.860 They had new standards coming in and she wanted 00:05:58.860 --> 00:06:01.759 technology to be, well, essential, not just an 00:06:01.759 --> 00:06:03.850 add -on. How did she approach that? Her goal 00:06:03.850 --> 00:06:06.370 was specifically to increase the performance 00:06:06.370 --> 00:06:09.410 expectancy of the tech, make teachers really 00:06:09.410 --> 00:06:11.850 see its value for meeting those new standards. 00:06:12.470 --> 00:06:14.810 She encouraged teachers to design lessons where 00:06:14.810 --> 00:06:17.449 maybe a specific piece of tech they hadn't used 00:06:17.449 --> 00:06:20.689 much became the key tool for teaching a particular 00:06:20.689 --> 00:06:23.750 concept. Interesting. So finding the right tool 00:06:23.750 --> 00:06:27.300 for the job. intentionally. Yes. And Scott's 00:06:27.300 --> 00:06:29.680 project is another good example. He needed to 00:06:29.680 --> 00:06:31.620 create an online course because students couldn't 00:06:31.620 --> 00:06:34.480 fit the regular class into their schedules. Logistical 00:06:34.480 --> 00:06:36.720 problem driving innovation. Right. And what's 00:06:36.720 --> 00:06:38.560 cool is how different teachers approach this. 00:06:38.620 --> 00:06:40.399 They started with their learning goals, but then 00:06:40.399 --> 00:06:43.339 they were flexible. They adapted the actual tasks 00:06:43.339 --> 00:06:46.040 to make the best use of the tech they had. Like 00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:48.439 what? Well, one middle school math teacher, for 00:06:48.439 --> 00:06:50.540 instance, found that using Excel just worked 00:06:50.540 --> 00:06:52.279 better for her and her students for a certain 00:06:52.279 --> 00:06:54.319 type of data analysis, even though, you know, 00:06:54.379 --> 00:06:57.199 Google Apps were available, she felt more confident 00:06:57.199 --> 00:07:00.959 it was easier for her. So prioritizing ease of 00:07:00.959 --> 00:07:03.439 use and effectiveness for that specific task? 00:07:03.660 --> 00:07:06.120 Exactly. And Scott, developing his online course, 00:07:06.300 --> 00:07:08.899 he experimented. Tried discussion boards, then 00:07:08.899 --> 00:07:11.920 blogs, then wikis, figuring out which tool actually 00:07:11.920 --> 00:07:14.040 fostered the kind of student interaction he was 00:07:14.040 --> 00:07:16.680 aiming for. So it wasn't just picking one tool 00:07:16.680 --> 00:07:19.139 and saying this is it. It was iterative again. 00:07:19.240 --> 00:07:22.420 Very much so. A lot of trial and error that reflects 00:07:22.420 --> 00:07:25.600 a process, seeing what the tech could do, adjusting 00:07:25.600 --> 00:07:28.680 the tasks, seeing how students responded, and 00:07:28.680 --> 00:07:31.300 feedback was key. How do they manage feedback? 00:07:31.699 --> 00:07:34.220 Linda actually set up a protocol, a process, 00:07:34.360 --> 00:07:37.360 for teachers to document why a particular technology 00:07:37.360 --> 00:07:40.259 was essential for their lesson. This wasn't just 00:07:40.259 --> 00:07:43.279 for evaluation, it helped share effective practices 00:07:43.279 --> 00:07:45.879 across different schools. Smart. building a shared 00:07:45.879 --> 00:07:48.079 knowledge base. And it had a side benefit for 00:07:48.079 --> 00:07:50.160 the tech coordinator, too. Oh, yeah. All this 00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:52.060 feedback gave them really clear direction on 00:07:52.060 --> 00:07:53.759 what kind of support teachers actually needed, 00:07:53.959 --> 00:07:56.500 maybe what upgrades were necessary, or even what 00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:59.300 new tools to purchase. It helped bridge that 00:07:59.300 --> 00:08:01.639 gap between the curriculum side and the technology 00:08:01.639 --> 00:08:04.000 infrastructure side. They started speaking the 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:06.819 same language, sort of. That communication piece 00:08:06.819 --> 00:08:10.160 seems huge. OK, let's shift gears slightly. Curriculum 00:08:10.160 --> 00:08:13.269 repositories, what are these? OK, so imagine 00:08:13.269 --> 00:08:16.649 basically an online library, but specifically 00:08:16.649 --> 00:08:19.569 for teachers within a district or school group, 00:08:20.069 --> 00:08:23.250 a place to share lesson plans, activities, resources, 00:08:23.509 --> 00:08:26.050 things they've created or found. Like a shared 00:08:26.050 --> 00:08:28.930 drive, but more organized for teaching materials. 00:08:29.089 --> 00:08:31.889 Yeah. And often with the idea of open educational 00:08:31.889 --> 00:08:34.769 resources so things can be adapted and reused. 00:08:35.129 --> 00:08:37.330 We have an example from Pam, a sixth grade teacher. 00:08:37.409 --> 00:08:39.830 Pam's experience. So her school system started 00:08:39.830 --> 00:08:42.909 one. Initially, they tried to be quite formal, 00:08:42.990 --> 00:08:45.070 you know, asking teachers to categorize the resources 00:08:45.070 --> 00:08:47.690 they uploaded using those UTAT terms like tag 00:08:47.690 --> 00:08:50.850 this as high performance expectancy or easy effort 00:08:50.850 --> 00:08:53.950 expectancy. Pam noticed it got kind of clunky. 00:08:54.169 --> 00:08:56.029 Teachers didn't really stick with the formal 00:08:56.029 --> 00:08:58.690 tagging. Instead, it just evolved more organically. 00:08:58.850 --> 00:09:00.990 People started posting things they found useful, 00:09:01.389 --> 00:09:03.990 sharing links, uploading files they'd used in 00:09:03.990 --> 00:09:06.730 class. More natural. Yeah. Less like homework. 00:09:06.960 --> 00:09:09.580 Exactly. And the collaborative part really took 00:09:09.580 --> 00:09:12.259 off. Pam talked about seeing colleagues post 00:09:12.259 --> 00:09:15.440 maybe a basic idea, and then others would jump 00:09:15.440 --> 00:09:18.460 in with comments, suggest tweaks, upload modified 00:09:18.460 --> 00:09:21.100 versions. You'd end up with several iterations 00:09:21.100 --> 00:09:23.620 of an activity refined by different people. That 00:09:23.620 --> 00:09:25.960 sounds really powerful, like collective intelligence 00:09:25.960 --> 00:09:28.779 building. It really was. And this is where the 00:09:28.779 --> 00:09:31.700 third UTAT factor, social influences, became 00:09:31.700 --> 00:09:34.600 really apparent. Ah, right. What your peers are 00:09:34.600 --> 00:09:37.820 doing. Precisely. The repository became the place 00:09:37.820 --> 00:09:39.899 everyone went to find stuff, especially during 00:09:39.899 --> 00:09:42.259 curriculum planning meetings. And importantly, 00:09:42.480 --> 00:09:44.879 this wasn't top down. It wasn't the administration 00:09:44.879 --> 00:09:48.700 forcing it. Pam called it a grassroots kind of 00:09:48.700 --> 00:09:50.899 thing. Teachers driving it themselves because 00:09:50.899 --> 00:09:53.730 they found it useful. Absolutely. Pam even took 00:09:53.730 --> 00:09:55.690 it upon herself to create a little guide for 00:09:55.690 --> 00:09:57.789 new teachers joining the school, showing them 00:09:57.789 --> 00:10:00.309 how to use the repository. That really signals 00:10:00.309 --> 00:10:02.330 ownership, doesn't it? Definitely. Shows they 00:10:02.330 --> 00:10:05.029 value it. Did it affect Pam personally? Yeah. 00:10:05.230 --> 00:10:07.210 Interestingly, she said that getting involved 00:10:07.210 --> 00:10:09.509 with the repository actually made her feel... 00:10:09.470 --> 00:10:12.009 much more comfortable with the school's main 00:10:12.009 --> 00:10:14.570 learning management system, the LMS. How so? 00:10:14.950 --> 00:10:17.409 Because she was constantly finding great resources 00:10:17.409 --> 00:10:20.330 in the repository, things she could easily pull 00:10:20.330 --> 00:10:23.230 into her online assignments or class pages. It 00:10:23.230 --> 00:10:25.769 made the whole prospect of online teaching feel 00:10:25.769 --> 00:10:28.470 less daunting. It lowered the barrier, reduced 00:10:28.470 --> 00:10:32.070 the effort. Exactly. It improved her effort expectancy 00:10:32.070 --> 00:10:35.059 regarding the LMS. What might have seemed like 00:10:35.059 --> 00:10:37.139 a lot of work before finding materials, building 00:10:37.139 --> 00:10:39.940 online activities, suddenly became much simpler. 00:10:40.759 --> 00:10:42.580 Just a couple of clicks, as she put it, because 00:10:42.580 --> 00:10:45.340 the repository was feeding into it. So the repository 00:10:45.340 --> 00:10:49.360 hit multiple points. Easier effort, better performance 00:10:49.360 --> 00:10:51.840 because the materials were good, and strong social 00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:54.059 influence. A trifecta, really. It became this 00:10:54.059 --> 00:10:56.820 really valuable ecosystem for them. OK, so pulling 00:10:56.820 --> 00:10:59.080 these threads together, it really seems like 00:10:59.080 --> 00:11:02.120 thinking about technology acceptance. ease of 00:11:02.120 --> 00:11:05.240 use, usefulness, social factors, gives schools 00:11:05.240 --> 00:11:08.220 a practical tool, a planning heuristic, as the 00:11:08.220 --> 00:11:10.519 research calls it. Yeah, a useful shortcut for 00:11:10.519 --> 00:11:13.340 thinking, basically. It helps you zero in on 00:11:13.340 --> 00:11:15.600 what might be going wrong and how you might design 00:11:15.600 --> 00:11:17.899 interventions that actually stick. We saw that 00:11:17.899 --> 00:11:20.100 with Jerry and Donna, didn't we? focusing on 00:11:20.100 --> 00:11:24.039 ease of use, the effort involved, led them to 00:11:24.039 --> 00:11:26.679 push for changes that made the tech systems genuinely 00:11:26.679 --> 00:11:29.720 more usable? Absolutely. And Jerry noted something 00:11:29.720 --> 00:11:32.659 important. Having that shared language, those 00:11:32.659 --> 00:11:35.600 clear targets, easy to use, useful for learning, 00:11:36.059 --> 00:11:38.960 actually gave everyone, including leaders, more 00:11:38.960 --> 00:11:41.480 confidence in making tech decisions. Even if 00:11:41.480 --> 00:11:43.659 the leaders weren't tech gurus themselves. Right. 00:11:43.960 --> 00:11:46.360 They felt they could ask better questions. Okay, 00:11:46.460 --> 00:11:48.899 but how does this impact effort expectancy for 00:11:48.899 --> 00:11:51.840 our teachers? How does it boost performance expectancy 00:11:51.840 --> 00:11:54.360 for student learning? It empowers them. But it's 00:11:54.360 --> 00:11:56.419 not always simple, is it? The sources point out 00:11:56.419 --> 00:11:58.659 some complexities. Definitely not black and white. 00:11:58.750 --> 00:12:01.230 For instance, people within the same school might 00:12:01.230 --> 00:12:04.070 understand acceptance differently. Remember Donna, 00:12:04.629 --> 00:12:06.809 the complex passwords weren't hard for her, but 00:12:06.809 --> 00:12:09.049 she knew they were impossible for her first graders. 00:12:09.490 --> 00:12:11.929 Right. Context matters. What's easy for one person 00:12:11.929 --> 00:12:15.210 or one task isn't universal. Exactly. And perceptions 00:12:15.210 --> 00:12:17.750 of ease and usefulness can change depending on 00:12:17.750 --> 00:12:20.129 whether you're talking about, say, using email 00:12:20.129 --> 00:12:22.730 versus using a complex simulation for a science 00:12:22.730 --> 00:12:25.289 class. And social influences can pull in different 00:12:25.289 --> 00:12:27.409 directions too, right? For sure. You might have 00:12:27.409 --> 00:12:29.429 your colleagues in your department who are really 00:12:29.429 --> 00:12:32.389 into a new tool, but maybe the broader school 00:12:32.389 --> 00:12:35.610 culture is a bit resistant. Or personal friends 00:12:35.610 --> 00:12:37.570 might recommend something your professional network 00:12:37.570 --> 00:12:40.470 hasn't adopted. Plus, that potential disconnect 00:12:40.470 --> 00:12:43.580 between how teachers see effort and how the IT 00:12:43.580 --> 00:12:46.100 team sees it. That's a classic tension in many 00:12:46.100 --> 00:12:49.240 places, isn't it? What seems like a minor inconvenience 00:12:49.240 --> 00:12:52.080 to IT might be a major workflow disruption for 00:12:52.080 --> 00:12:54.500 a teacher. So how do we navigate that? There 00:12:54.500 --> 00:12:57.299 was an idea about conceptual artifacts. Yeah, 00:12:57.320 --> 00:12:59.720 this comes from Beriter. The idea is basically 00:12:59.720 --> 00:13:02.879 to make concepts like effort expectancy and performance 00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:06.799 expectancy more concrete. Define them by observable 00:13:06.799 --> 00:13:09.259 actions. What does it look like when a technology 00:13:09.259 --> 00:13:12.019 is easy to use in this context? What are students 00:13:12.019 --> 00:13:14.799 or teachers doing when it's useful? So you can 00:13:14.799 --> 00:13:17.379 actually measure or observe if things are improving. 00:13:17.860 --> 00:13:20.919 Precisely. It moves it away from just vague feelings 00:13:20.919 --> 00:13:23.580 towards something more tangible you can assess. 00:13:24.019 --> 00:13:26.120 Interestingly, the study mentioned that some 00:13:26.120 --> 00:13:28.879 of the standard UTAC factors, like age or gender, 00:13:29.639 --> 00:13:31.419 weren't strong predictors here. That's right. 00:13:31.679 --> 00:13:33.820 In these specific school settings, things like 00:13:33.820 --> 00:13:36.100 the teacher's age, their previous experience, 00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:39.039 or whether using the tech was mandatory, didn't 00:13:39.039 --> 00:13:41.460 seem to explain that much about who adopted it 00:13:41.460 --> 00:13:43.940 and how. But something else did seem important. 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:47.740 Autonomy. Yes. Autonomy emerged as potentially 00:13:47.740 --> 00:13:50.100 really significant in the educational context. 00:13:50.279 --> 00:13:52.279 Remember Linda, the curriculum coordinator? Mm 00:13:52.279 --> 00:13:54.580 -hmm. Making tech essential. Her goal wasn't 00:13:54.580 --> 00:13:57.200 just usage, it was deeper. She wanted teachers 00:13:57.200 --> 00:13:59.539 to understand when technology was the best choice, 00:13:59.840 --> 00:14:02.120 and crucially, to feel they had the skills, the 00:14:02.120 --> 00:14:04.360 confidence, and the freedom to use it effectively. 00:14:04.659 --> 00:14:08.600 So autonomy here means what? Having a say. It's 00:14:08.600 --> 00:14:11.139 a mix of things. A sense of agency, like, I can 00:14:11.139 --> 00:14:13.870 make choices about this. Awareness and understanding, 00:14:14.149 --> 00:14:16.769 I get why this is useful or not. Capacity, I 00:14:16.769 --> 00:14:19.129 have the skills. And authority, I am allowed 00:14:19.129 --> 00:14:21.470 to make this decision for my classroom. And we 00:14:21.470 --> 00:14:24.450 saw glimmers of that. Teachers pushing back on 00:14:24.450 --> 00:14:27.730 the SIS access. Teachers actively shaping curriculum 00:14:27.730 --> 00:14:31.090 with tech tools they chose. Exactly. The research 00:14:31.090 --> 00:14:33.549 suggests teachers might actually need more autonomy 00:14:33.549 --> 00:14:35.809 regarding classroom technology than maybe tech 00:14:35.809 --> 00:14:38.029 users in a corporate office setting, for example. 00:14:38.470 --> 00:14:40.769 Their work is complex and context dependent. 00:14:40.909 --> 00:14:43.159 That makes sense. And the final piece that seemed 00:14:43.159 --> 00:14:45.539 to weave through all the examples was leadership. 00:14:45.799 --> 00:14:48.620 Huge. Absolutely crucial. Think about Jerry's 00:14:48.620 --> 00:14:51.080 and Donna's principals. They weren't necessarily 00:14:51.080 --> 00:14:53.700 tech experts, but they listened, they observed 00:14:53.700 --> 00:14:56.320 the impact on ease of use and usefulness, and 00:14:56.320 --> 00:14:58.620 they made decisions based on those technology 00:14:58.620 --> 00:15:01.360 acceptance principles. They facilitated the process. 00:15:01.419 --> 00:15:04.139 They did. And their engagement seemed to directly 00:15:04.139 --> 00:15:06.259 influence things like how much the curriculum 00:15:06.259 --> 00:15:09.200 repository was used. If the principal was involved 00:15:09.200 --> 00:15:11.299 and supportive, teachers were more likely to... 00:15:11.019 --> 00:15:14.320 to participate. So leadership acts as a key facilitating 00:15:14.320 --> 00:15:17.120 condition, another Utahier idea. Okay, so wrapping 00:15:17.120 --> 00:15:20.889 this up. It feels like the big takeaway is that 00:15:20.889 --> 00:15:23.309 using this educational design research approach 00:15:23.309 --> 00:15:26.830 guided by these core ideas from technology acceptance, 00:15:26.990 --> 00:15:29.649 especially making tech easy and making it obviously 00:15:29.649 --> 00:15:32.289 useful, is a really practical path forward for 00:15:32.289 --> 00:15:35.070 schools. I think so. It gives the structure a 00:15:35.070 --> 00:15:38.029 way to focus efforts rather than just, you know, 00:15:38.149 --> 00:15:40.490 buying more devices or trying the latest shiny 00:15:40.490 --> 00:15:43.429 thing. It really emphasizes understanding the 00:15:43.429 --> 00:15:46.070 people using the tech, the teachers, the students, 00:15:46.409 --> 00:15:48.690 and being willing to adjust based on their actual 00:15:48.690 --> 00:15:51.190 experience. It's iterative. Constantly learning 00:15:51.190 --> 00:15:54.149 and refining, that seems to be the key. So a 00:15:54.149 --> 00:15:56.470 final thought for you listening. Think about 00:15:56.470 --> 00:15:59.269 your own school or district. What's that balance 00:15:59.269 --> 00:16:02.870 like between support, teacher autonomy, and leadership 00:16:02.870 --> 00:16:05.389 when it comes to technology? Is it working? And 00:16:05.389 --> 00:16:08.090 maybe pick one small tech challenge you've noticed. 00:16:08.299 --> 00:16:10.120 Could you try looking at it through this lens? 00:16:10.580 --> 00:16:12.600 Is the root of the problem really about the effort 00:16:12.600 --> 00:16:14.799 involved, or is it more about people not seeing 00:16:14.799 --> 00:16:17.340 the value, the performance benefit? Just asking 00:16:17.340 --> 00:16:19.059 that question might start to unpack it.