The first component of the system is an obvious but most often overlooked one. The central administration of the RCU is the point at which the whole product utilization system begins. The very fact that educational research and development activities are often viewed from a jaundiced perspective by local administrators and instructional staff, necessitates the development of a system that will meet the needs of local clientele. The administrator of the unit that is change oriented, must make possible all the activities, in appropriate sequential order, at strategic points and they must be made available to all clientele from the innovator to the late adopter. The unit must commit time, personnel and other resources needed to accomplish the task of change; and the administrator must provide appropriate publicity to the program in order that it might diffuse via the social interaction process.
The second component is the resource base. The resource base consists of:
- Hard copy and microfiche from Central ERIC and selected clearinghouses;
- Selected curriculum materials and publications produced by local educational agencies from within a limited geographical area (in this case the State of Tennessee):
- A data bank of census statistics, economic information, educational statistics and educational program enrollments, program cost information and program evaluation (accountability) information;
- Experts representing various disciplines that are skilled in problem solving processes and able to interpret research reports, statistics, legislation and the writings of theoreticians and research writers; and 5. A source of funds (known as the mini-grant program in Tennessee) that can be used to assist local educational agencies experiment with or simply try something new or different from what they had been doing.
The agent serves both as a solution giver and a process helper so actually he is a change agent according to Havelock (1970).
The fourth component of the system is a coordinator of product utilization, located at the central office. That coordinator has the prime responsibility of packaging the results of research and development activities. Various types of packages are developed, dependent on the product, but are aimed at serving two primary groups, namely the extension-change agent or the regional resource center person.
The system was designed to try to focus the efforts of national research centers and laboratories, the State Department of Education, and the University upon the problems of the local school system and its instructional personnel. With the information explosion resulting from technological developments and massive numbers of researchers and agencies exploring alternative systems, methods, techniques, etc., it has become necessary to establish a series of screens through which information and related products flow, with key results being sifted out and packaged for the various users of those efforts.
The objective of the organizational structure as described, is to provide something for everyone. More specifically, the researcher has access to rather complete document and data based information from the information systems housed at the Central RCU; the teacher educator and in-service education coordinator have access to packages of information, designed to acquaint teachers, administrators, and supervisors with new concepts and current developments, from the system's coordinator of product utilization; the local administrator or supervisor has access to information related to practical applications of research and development results from the extension-change agent; and the local teacher has access to similar information from the regional resource center. In addition, since any educator can access the system at any point, all types of people from the innovator to the laggard (Rogers, 1962) can be accommodated. For example, an innovative teacher in a local education agency may access information, about a new instructional technique, from one of the regional resource centers located near him geographically to see who is using the technique or how it is being used, or the teacher may access more detailed information and results of research on the instructional technique directly from the Central RCU. Further, a less-innovative teacher may be less interested in technically written research reports and go to the extension-change agent who provides interpretation of research results to the teacher.
At this point the information dissemination system must be re-emphasized. In order for clientele to make changes, they must be aware of and have knowledge about improved concepts, techniques, methods and processes. The information dissemination system is designed to assist with this critical area.
In the adoption (of change) process, individuals usually progress through the awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption or rejection phases (Rogers, 1962). Various products and activities of the RCU are targeted to most of these phases. Specifically, the "RCU Circulator" contains short notes related to research and development results-and is disseminated bimonthly to clientele throughout the State. The objective of the "Circulator" is to assist with making clientele aware of various developments. Selective dissemination of information (SDI) sheets are disseminated in alternate months to specific audiences and contain information related to how the previous development or concept is applied to their specific instructional area. The SDI sheet may include abstracts of projects utilizing the concept, lists of selected curriculum guides or sources of additional information. This technique helps to develop the interest of various clientele. To assist clientele with the evaluation phase, the information dissemination system has the responsibility of developing and disseminating such products as annotated bibliographies, popularized (condensed) versions of technically written research and development reports and indexes to additional sources of information.
Assuming that, after sufficient evaluation, the individual wants to move to the trial phase, he may find a human resource and development coordinator at the Central RCU and financial resources through the Mini-grant program (usually $1000 limit) from the RCU's small grant program. Depending upon results of the mini-grant project, the individual may decide to adopt or reject all or part of his product. Results of mini-grant projects are also incorporated into the information dissemination system and utilized at the awareness, interest and evaluation phases for other clientele.
Does It Work?
One way of judging the value or effectiveness of the total system is to examine how many people are making use of the system and how much and what kinds of information is being requested. A study by Kelly (1973) revealed that after 2 years, approximately 30 per cent of the vocational-technical teachers in local schools throughout Tennessee had some knowledge of the role and function of the RCU. That study also revealed that all segments of the system were being utilized to some degree.
Analysis of requests for information has been most encouraging. In 1971, an average of twenty-one people per month made on-site use of the document and data based systems at the Central RCU. In 1973 that number had increased to 96 on-site users per month. In 1971, requests for copies of microfiche titles averaged approximately 10 per month. In 1973, monthly requests for 520 titles were received. And in 1971, requests for complete (computer and manual) searches of the ERIC system for specific information averaged five per month. In 1973, 32 requests for new searches were received each month. An analysis of RCU funded mini-grant projects in Tennessee (Sutton, 1973) revealed that 98 per cent of the mini-grant project directors felt that local school students had benefited as a direct result of mini-grant projects. Project directors listed 23 different ways in which students had benefited from the mini-grant program. In addition to yielding benefits to students, there is evidence (Sutton, 1973) that other teachers, administrators, parents and other community leaders derived benefits from the mini-grant program. Examples of changes, based upon the results of research, directly affecting students include individualizing selected units of some courses in a school, revising the content of selected courses, updating the total curriculum of a school and the implementation of a pupil placement program. In addition, approximately 200 schools are making more and better occupational information available to their students through the use of the INFOE (Information Need for Occupational Entry) system.
