Learning technologies may be considered on a continuum of innovation ranging from renewal to new. Renewal would be replacing one technology with another similar technology. In the middle between renewal and new would be replacing a technology with one that has many new features. New would be introducing a technology that has few or no similarities to previously used learning solutions. We would like you to consider where on this continuum your design falls.
If your design falls far towards the new end of the spectrum then you may want to consider whether it may actually be disruptive. According to Dron (2014) new technologies may be disruptive enough to result in poorer performance at first when compared to the previous technology and possibly dampen initial uptake. However, if it’s a new technological solution for a problem without a prior solution then these concerns may not apply. If it is a solution on the new end of the spectrum that is replacing an existing solution you may want to consider how disruptive the solution may be and whether this disruptiveness may be mitigated.
Another thing to consider is that solutions that replace older solutions are often more flexible or have more functionality, and, according to Kay (2001), solutions that are more flexible or have more functionality are usually more difficult to use. Solutions that have more functionality may not be better if most of that functionality goes unused, resulting in a solution that may be more difficult to use without significant user benefit.
References
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda.Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Kay, J. (2001). Learner Control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1-2), 111-27. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&i d=doi:10.1023/A:1011194803800
Hi Jason,
I find your article interesting. It made me realise how almost all “novelties” out there are subject to the same fact: too much new tweaks might only serve to make the gadget expensive. Amazing that it might happen in instructional design too, don’t you think?
Cheers!
Hi Alfonso,
Some learning technologies allow you to disable features that you don’t expect your users to use, which can make them easier for your users to use. Fewer feature can often be better if hardly anyone is going to use the extra features.
Thanks for your comment!
Jason:
Thanks for the post. I appreciate how you outline the continuum concisely. I have read and re-read a few sources and keep trying to have a visual of the continuum in my mind. Your words capture what I was imagining. Regarding your thoughts on the disruptive end of the spectrum. Although I agree that we should avoid innovation just for the sake of innovation and that we should be cautious to be disruptive. Could disruption not also be a good thing. For example, when the iPod or iPhone was introduced was it not so far along the spectrum that it turned the industry on its head? Disrupting convention, changing the standard and almost resetting the mean of the continuum? Just my thoughts, curious your opinion…
PS, love the graphic, what is the source?
Hi Doug,
If a company is introducing a new product to the market then it may be a good thing for the company and consumer if the product is disruptive. However, if a university introduces a new learning technology that ends up being disruptive then it’s probably not a desirable outcome (but maybe it could be).
The image is from istockphotos.com.