Why do some new ideas and programs spread rapidly across the nation while others are ignored? That question was asked with heightened interest in the 1960s when massive investments were made in curriculum development. Funding agencies, policy makers, and researchers wanted to know what factors determined whether new products and ideas reached their intended users. Gradually, there grew a body of research on the diffusion and implementation of educational innovation. Unfortunately, only a few studies focused on social studies innovations, in particular.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrittonH. (1976). Diffusion of social studies innovation in Santa Clara County, California. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
2.
GuentherJ. & DumasW. (1973). Teacher familiarity with and use of project social studies materials in the midwest. Educational Leadership, 30, 641–43.
3.
HahnC.L. (1974). Perceptions of new social studies projects and their adoption in four states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Chicago, Illinois. ED 098 141.
4.
HahnC.L. (1977). Attributes and adoption of new social studies materials. Theory and Research in Social Education, 5, 19–40.
5.
HahnC.L. (1978). The adoption of new social studies textbooks in Georgia: A case study of innovation diffusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto.
6.
HahnC.L. (1982). Adopting curriculum innovations: Testing the applicability of Rogers’ and Shoemakers’ theory to textbook adoption. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
7.
HenryL.L. (1971). Innovation and membership in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in selected secondary schools of Indiana. Abstract from unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts, 32, P. 4242-A.
8.
RobesonR.L. (1974). The diffusion of educational innovations through the explicit in-service training of teachers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
9.
RogersE.M. & ShoemakerF.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A cross-cultural approach. New York, N.Y.: Free Press.
10.
SchumacherS. (1972). Limitations of a research, development, and diffusion (RD&D) strategy in diffusion; A case study of nine local implementations of a state adopted curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Boston.
11.
SwitzerT.J.LowtherM.A.HannaW.M. & KidderR.D. (1974). Dissemination and implementation of social studies project materials. Paper adapted from paper presented at annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Chicago. ED 102 066.
12.
TurnerM.J. & HaleyF. (1975). Utilization of new social studies curriculum programs. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies Social Science Education. ED 102 038.
13.
WalkerR.E. (1974). Factors affecting the implementation of national project materials in social studies programs in secondary schools in Nebraska. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB.
14.
WeidnerD.W.F. (1972). A study of American history teachers’ use of national social studies programs in public secondary schools of Alabama. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, University, AL.
15.
WellsT.J. (1973). Oklahoma secondary social studies teachers and the usage of new national social studies projects. Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
