self-efficacy of teachers as they encounter changes due to ... · web viewself efficacy of new...

Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report

Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers

Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty

with Integration of Technology

Submitted by Dr. J. Legacy

August 30, 2002

Table of Contents

Page

Review of Literature...........................................................................……………. 4

Results................................................................................................................... 31

Conclusions, Interpretations, and Recommendations............................................... 43

References.............................................................................................................. 55

Dr. Jane LegacyProject New TEACHERS II: Research ReportSelf Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology

9/1/02

List of Tables Page

1 Stages of Concern Model........................................................................................ 25

2 Stages of Concern Total Group Profile-IHE, IN-SERVICE, PRE-SERVICE........... 30

3 Highest Stage of Concern........................................................................................ 33

4 Stages of Concern Profile by Years of Classroom Experience.................................. 35

5 Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training.............................. 37

6 Respondent’s Levels of Use.................................................................................... 38

7 Respondent’s Years of Classroom Experience and Levels of Use............................ 39

8 Importance of Follow-up Training and Respondent’s Levels of Use ……………… 40

9 Stages of Concern Group Profile and Levels of Use ………………….…………….. 42

List of Figures Page

1 NH Teachers CBAM Profile-Stages of Concern ..................................................... 30

2 Highest Stage of Concern....................................................................................... 33

3 Stages of Concern Profile and by Years of Classroom Experience........................... 35

4 Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training.............................. 36

5 Respondent’s Levels of Use.................................................................................... 38

6 Stages of Concern Profiles for Levels of Use........................................................... 41

7 Stages of Concern and Levels of Use.................................................................... 42


9/1/02

Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers

Pre-service

IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology

Submitted by Dr. J. Legacy

August 30, 2002

If students are to be prepared to function effectively in the twenty-first century, the current

educational system must continue to change. Change in the system, however, is an immense undertaking

affecting everyone involved with the educational process. For change to occur, parents, administrators,

students, and, most importantly, teachers, must cope with and “buy into” the change. Teachers involved

with changes occurring in education will be impacted, and administrators need to understand and address

the teachers’ self-efficacy. For the purpose of this study, self-efficacy is as follows: The extent to which

the individual believes they are capable of performing the action necessary to produce desired results is

“self-efficacy”. According to Bandura (1977), expectations of efficacy are a major determinant of an

individual’s choice of activities, how much effort he/she expends on those activities, and the length of time

he/she will sustain an effort in dealing with any stressful situations.

This study specifically assessed the self-efficacy of teachers in New Hampshire (NH) resulting

from the implementation of educational reform, National Education Technology Standards (NETS),

involved with changes in new curriculum content and revised instructional delivery methodology. More

specifically, the study focused on the concerns the teachers have experienced due to implementation of a

change in curriculum and instruction in classrooms. Changes the teachers have encountered can be internal

(personal) or external. The research team identified internal changes as self or personal changes and those

changes may involve acceptance, resistance, understanding, and knowledge of the change. External

changes have been identified as task or impact changes, such as job-related outcome expectations,

accountability, adaptability, timing, and support, which also might create concerns.

Hall and Loucks (1978) determined that several premises about changes must be understood for

concerns created by change to be comprehended. Several of these premises are:


9/1/02

(a) change is a highly personal experience;

(b) the individual must be the primary target of the interventions designed to facilitate change in

the classroom. Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) rests on the conviction that

institutions cannot change until the individuals within them change;

(c) change takes time and is achieved only in stages; and

(d) the change process is not an undifferentiated continuum (pages 38-39).

Specifically, change is an extremely personal occurrence, with everyone reacting to change in

different ways; as such, these differences should be evaluated and considered during the change process

(Hall and Loucks, 1978). The self-efficacy of teachers should be acknowledged as the key factor in the

change process. Understanding the self-efficacy of teachers allows administrators to put into perspective

what is understood by change. A change process takes time to complete, and the process is not uniform.

There are usually learning peaks and valleys during the change process. The acceptance of change is

gradual, yet with time and experience, individual growth (feelings and skills) can occur. This allows

teachers to accept the innovation and its affect in their classroom (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).

In this study, the researchers examined the educational change issues at the federal, state, and

local levels that affect teachers and teachers’ concerns for the changes as a result of the implementation of

a curriculum and instructional innovation in NH.

Need for the Study

Federal educational reform initiatives and business and industry initiatives regarding improved

education of the worker have lead to an educational reform in NH. This reform has brought about state

mandates to integrate technology and revise the instructional delivery system that defines what students are

expected to know and are able to perform. These educational reform initiatives have placed additional

pressure on teachers to change teaching methods to improve the curriculum instruction for students who are

the future workers. These mandates for transformation of the teaching-learning environment bring about

changes for teachers, and changes bring about concerns (Hall, George and Rutherford, 1986). Teachers will

encounter internal or self (acceptance, understanding, resistance, and knowledge) and external or task and

impact (outcome expectations, accountability, adaptability, timing, and support) concerns (Hall, George,


9/1/02

and Rutherford, 1986) resulting from integration of technology, which began in the fall of 2001. Teachers’

self-efficacy in implementing technology in new curriculum content and instructional strategies depends on

how they accept the innovation and incorporate the curriculum changes into their classes.

The purpose of this study was to:

(a) Describe the self-efficacy of NH teachers regarding the implementation of the technology and

new instructional strategies as outlined in the National Educational Technology Standards for

Teachers and for Students (NETS-T and NETS-S).

(b) Describe the current technology levels of use of the NH teachers.

The review of the relevant research literature addresses five issues. Three of these issues include

the premise about change: educational reform, concerns created by the change process, and the self-

efficacy of teachers as a result of change. In addition, the research team considered how the teachers’ self-

efficacy could be affected by these three areas. The three areas include teachers’ personal concerns,

concerns created by changes, and concerns created by student changes. The review not only focused upon

the concerns of teachers’ uncertainties with the educational change process but also concentrated on

teacher concerns due to the challenges created by educational reform. The latter includes changes

involving federal and state educational reform in technology, curriculum and instruction. Many of these

change initiatives were influenced by the requirements of business and industry to prepare a more effective

worker for the new millennium. The fifth area of review was the CBAM. The CBAM/Stages of Concern

was selected as the best model to describe teachers’ concerns with implementation of the educational

reforms.

This review of literature is organized into the following sections:

(a) premise about change,

(b) the educational reform,

(c) change process and educational reform,

(d) change and teacher self-efficacy in relation to their personal concerns, the educational system

changes and student changes,

(e) challenges to teachers in educational reform, including changes involving federal and NH

technology integration educational reform, and


9/1/02

(f) the CBAM, including an evaluation of other studies using the CBAM-Stages of Concern

Questionnaire.

Premise about Change

Change is an inescapable reality of today’s world. Yet, 70% of all change initiatives fail (Beer,

2000). Frequently, this is because there is an overload of change initiatives causing organizational chaos,

which creates strong resistance from the people affected (Abrahamson, 2000). Other reasons may include

an ill-conceived change process and lack of identification of factors affecting the change.

Organizations change in two ways primarily through drastic action or evolutionary adaptation

(Meyerson, 2001). The former can be complex or radical and can be anticipated or unexpected. The later is

incremental and evolutionary (Meyerson, 2001).

Radical change frequently is mandated from the top, requires technological innovation with a

scarcity of resources, or may be caused by changes in the external environment. This transformational

change can be disruptive and cause significant pain (Meyerson, 2001). Since this type of change may

involve a fundamental redefinition of organizational strategy, values and goals, it is important that there is

a visionary leader driving it.

Evolutionary change is incremental and occurs to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the

organization (Meyerson, 2001). This type of change may include the implementation of new policies

and/or procedures, and the introduction of new technologies or products (Nadler, 1995). Similar to major

transformational change, this too will change the culture of the organization over time.

Some organizations may use a combination of these two approaches. A major change may

dismantle the status quo and evolutionary change promotes periods of organic equilibrium as the

organization seeks to reach dynamic stability (Abrahamson, 2002). There is not an absolute right way to

affect change. What works in some organizations may not work in others (Meyerson, 2001).

Kurt Lewin (1951) identified three stages in the change process, upon which more contemporary

researches have elaborated:

Unfreezing – In this stage, participants become aware of and committed to the need for

change. What is the rationale for the change? It is critical at this stage that the resistance to

change is minimized.


9/1/02

Change – This is the actual change.

Refreezing – In this stage, participants evaluate, review, and reflect upon the change and

adapt to the new situation.

In the unfreezing stage, participants should perform a Force Field Analysis wherein the

participants identify the forces that are for or driving the change and the forces against or restraining the

change. This technique can isolate the relevant factors in the change process. By minimizing or eliminating

the forces working against the change and increasing the strength or number of the forces for the change, a

new altered organizational situation is likely to occur.

Educational Reform

As our society moves from an industrial to a knowledge-based global economy, our educational

institutions must prepare students for a complex and uncertain future (Dede, 2002). Teachers must have the

required higher order cognitive, affective, and social skills for the knowledge-based global marketplace

(Drucker, 1994) and guide and support the development of these skills in students (Dede, 2002). Through

technology, students gain skills they must have to compete for jobs in the twenty-first century (Rice, 2001).

Externally imposed educational reform has stimulated school-centered change. Technology

integration is the agent of the reform effort (Girod, 1998). The use of technology can cause radical or

incremental change. The latter adds new ideas and approaches to the curriculum while the former

fundamentally changes the relationship of the learner and teacher (Girod, 1998).

In the traditional classroom, the teacher lectures, asks questions and the students take notes. In the

reformed classroom using the constructivist approach, students think for themselves and find out what they

need to know while the teacher provides the tools to help students make their own decisions (Rice, 2001).

In effect, teachers are changing their roles from “sages on the stage, to guides on the side” (Barker); they

change from being information providers to mentors and coaches (Nicaise, 1999).

Girod and Cavanaugh (2001) discuss technology as an agent of radical change in teacher

instruction—through changes in the “organization of subject matter and the kinds of knowledge that

qualify as school worthy” and changes in the way students “discover their own learning.” Venturing out on

the Internet, the learner is empowered to gain cutting-edge knowledge beyond the expertise of the teacher

and the textbook. Further, the global nature of Internet use allows students to become involved with and Dr. Jane LegacyProject New TEACHERS II: Research ReportSelf Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology

9/1/02

collaborate with the world community.

Technology can also cause incremental change. Teachers may use PowerPoint slides while

presenting material. Rather than using the traditional text, students research topics on the Internet. Teachers

and students use E-mail to request and share information with others.

The importance of using technology in the classroom is currently accepted. A survey conducted at

Southwestern University in Spring 2001, found that incoming students generally have good word

processing and Internet skills but “lack the understanding … of how to use the web most effectively in

education” (Charp, 2002).

The level of technology integration varies from class to class, school to school, district to district,

and so on. Schools need to be learning organizations (Sagor, 1997) where teachers are given time to plan,

learn more about technology and practice the “new behaviors that are expected of them.” This will

minimize the resistance to change and lead to successful implementation. Then teachers need time to

“introduce and institutionalize” the new strategies into their daily activities. Finally, teachers need time to

“reflect” on and assess the change initiatives (Adelman, 1997). For effective transformation to occur,

teachers reported that most of their work was in the planning (unfreezing) stage and not in delivering the

new curriculum (Herr, 2000). Inadequate attention to these steps can cause reform failure (Adelman, 1997).

There are forces for and against educational reform. Some of the driving forces are:

Federal and state mandates

School administration policies and initiatives

Teacher enthusiasm and dedication to technology integration

Student demands

Increased educational and business opportunities for students

Some of the restraining forces or barriers to technology integration include:

No long-term commitment from administration, teachers, parents, and/or staff

Unclear or ill-conceived goals

Pace of planned change is too fast

Lack of software/hardware/technical specialist or other resources


9/1/02

Lack of funding

Inadequate pre-service training

Lack of time to learn, practice and integrate new technologies

On-the-job training needs

Teacher attitude (resistance to change, feeling threatened or burned out)

To change, schools must increase the amount or strength of forces for change, decrease the forces

against change or do both. In general, “reducing the resistance to change creates less tension in a system

and few unanticipated consequences than increasing the forces for change” (Gordon,2002).

Premise about Educational Change

As implementation of a revised curriculum content and revised instructional delivery system is

encountered, teachers’ concerns may be expanded and intensified (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).

Research by Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) has indicated that for the change process to be successful,

premises about the change process should be understood and considered by the facilitators. During the

transformation of the teaching-learning environment, changes that will occur involve premises about

change that must be addressed during the implementation of the change. Four premises reviewed for this

study are (1) teachers’ acceptance of change, (2) teachers’ understanding of the change, (3) support for

teachers’ concerns during the change, and (4) time to address teachers’ concerns to support the

implementation of the change (Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991; and Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).

According to Hall and Loucks (1978), the change facilitator’s comprehension of the premises

regarding changes in the educational system is important to understand in order to evaluate how change

affects someone impacted by the implementation of the change. According to Hall and Loucks (1978),

change is a personal occurrence, and the person affected should have ample time to accept and understand

the change process. Change will create concerns for the teacher during its implementation. The success of

the change process is dependent upon the affected individual “buying-into” the change. As Pritchett (1993)

indicates, “Culture can be very controlling, but powerful as it might be, the culture cannot change without

permission from the people” (p. 1). Not unlike business and industry, teachers are asked to complete more

and more tasks each day with little assistance. Pritchett (1993) continues. “Change makes a lot of demands


9/1/02

on people, leaving [them] little time or energy to spare…[however,] most successful organizations will

conclude it is the people that make the difference in an organization” (p. 15). Educational change, a key

component to the restructuring of education curriculum effort, is a complex process. Teachers should have

personal acceptance and understanding of the change, support and time for proper implementation in order

for the change to be effective.

Change Process and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Fullan (1997), commenting on the change process in educational reform and resulting teacher self-

efficacy states, “It is easy to be pessimistic about educational reform. There are many legitimate reasons to

be discouraged. From a rational-technical point of view, the conclusion that large-scale reform is a

hopeless proposition seems justified…the emotional side of change has been either ignored or miscast. By

examining emotions and change from a different perspective, we not only gain insights about the dynamics

of change, but we also find new understandings of how to make change work more constructively. The

moral and the technical begin to fuse, instead of being two ships passing in the night” (p. 216).

During the education reform implementation process, there are three general areas in which the

challenges that teachers face develop into concerns (Bingham, 1995; Caine and Caine, 1997; and Hall,

George, and Rutherford, 1986). First, teachers may be affected on a personal level during the initial process

of accepting these changes. For instance, incorporating the curriculum content and instructional delivery

into their classes pressures them to be more responsible and accountable for the implementation of this

innovation. Secondly, concerns may often develop due to changes in the teaching environment (educational

system). As teachers learn and participate in the new process, they are influenced by the changes that will

occur within schools, administrations, and local communities (Caine and Caine, 1997). Finally, teacher

concerns may evolve not only resulting from this educational reform effect on the student, but also from

the changes the learner is experiencing as they become the increasingly diversified learner (changing

learner) of the twenty-first century (Bingham, 1995). According to Hall and Loucks (1978), however,

teachers are at the apex of the change process in educational reform. Therefore, for changes to succeed, the

apprehension teachers may experience about their unique pivotal role is dually affected by the changes in

the educational system as well as changes in the student.


9/1/02

Teachers’ concerns created by the change process affect their perceptions of themselves and,

therefore, are considered to be their self-efficacy. The concept of teacher self-efficacy is based on the

theory of self-efficacy presented by Bandura (1977). In a discussion of self-efficacy, Bandura states,

“Efficacy expectations are a major determinant of people’s choice of activities, how much effort they

expend, and how long they will sustain effort in dealing with stressful situations” (page 194). Personal

teacher efficacy is demonstrated in discussions about how changes affect the teachers themselves and the

affect the change has on teachers’ acceptance of the change and understanding of the results expected from

the change. Managing the effectiveness of the change process is the goal of understanding the teachers’

self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be described as how the teachers feel about themselves due to the changes

they are experiencing. If teacher self-efficacy is understood and considered in the implementation of the

change, the change has a better chance of surviving (Bandura, 1977).

Guskey (1987) defines his concept of teacher self-efficacy by dividing teacher efficacy into

personal teacher efficacy and general teacher efficacy. Guskey describes these personal and general

differences when he states, “Teachers may believe that certain practices or teaching behaviors will affect

student performances (general) but, at the same time, may not believe that they can perform those

necessary activities (personal)” (page 41). Kahn (1995) indicates the change process in the teachers’

environment causes concerns. Kahn states, “When an institution is involved in bringing about a

fundamental change in its system, individuals involved in the change process encounter numerous

obstacles” (page 44). According to Spady (1994), teachers are responsible to the educational system and to

the students for classroom reform, program alignment, external accountability, and system implementation

plans.

The focal point of this study is the concerns of teachers brought about by the implementation of an

educational reform (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986). The implementation of an educational reform

affects three different areas of concerns for teachers and they include teachers’ personal concerns, concerns

for the educational environment, and concerns with the changing learner.

Concerns of Teachers: Personal

The first area of concern noted is the teachers’ personal concerns experienced with change.


9/1/02

Teachers, who are facilitators of the change process, may personally develop concerns due to the changes

created by an educational reform. Their concerns, in turn, influence how the teachers perceive themselves,

which can either dilute or concentrate the power they possess to affect or implement the change. Personal

concerns, however, can be divided into two distinct components. According to Hall, George, and

Rutherford (1986), the components are internal (self) and external (task and impact), and need to be

addressed prior to the implementation of an innovation.

The first component of personal concern involves internal (self) issues: How does this affect me?

Why change? What is wrong with the current system? Will I have training? Will it be a fad? What if I

can’t learn? Will I have time to learn? The second component of teacher concern involves external (task

and impact) issues: How will this affect the student? How will this affect business? Will there be

resources? Will administrative support exist? How will this affect the community? Changes (both internal

and external), impacting teachers today, have created concerns for teachers involved with innovations.

Richardson (1995) continued this support of two distinct personal concerns caused by changes that revealed

a strength of the practical argument for moving a teacher’s thinking from an external (they expect me to

teach) to an internal (I choose to teach this way) reason for his or her actions. Both the external and internal

concerns of teachers are created by the implementation of an educational reform.

Research in the personal area of teacher concerns about change by Hall, George, and Rutherford

(1986) describe change as a process, not just an event. They continue, “Change is occurring so rapidly the

instructors have a difficult time taking any change too seriously” (page 14). They also noted, “Change is

accomplished by individuals, is a highly personal experience, involves developmental growth, is best

understood in operational terms, and the focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and the

context” (page 6). There is an emphasis on the individual’s acceptance and understanding of the context of

the change required for effective implementation.

The consequence of change also involves the teacher’s acceptance of and preparation for the

change. Fullan and Hargreaves (1992) state that educational reform will not be successful until the

education leaders and teachers, who own the change process, accept the change and have a working

knowledge of how to implement change. This ownership position establishes the teacher as the critical

player in the educational reform process and the necessity of them becoming stakeholders in the reform.


9/1/02

Without teacher acceptance, the reforms will not succeed.

To add another dimension to Fullan’s and Hargreaves’s (1992) support of the teachers’ acceptance

of the change that generates teachers’ personal concerns, Rutherford’s (1977) research indicates that the

premise of change or innovation adoption is individualistic. Each person will decide for himself or herself

whether or not to be involved in the adoptive decision. Each person also decides to what extent or degree to

apply the innovation supporting the individual nature of change.

Bridges (1986) continues the discussion of teachers’ concerns about the change process when he

states, “Unless the human side of a renewal effort is handled successfully, all the well-planned changes in

the world will leave everything essentially the same” (page 15). Bridges continues, “Unless people go

through the inner reorientation process of transition, the change simply will not ‘take’ in the form of new

behavior and attitude” (1986, page 15). Bridges is convinced that addressing teachers’ concerns is

elemental to the change process, with the individual involved designated as the key to success of the

change.

Sparks (1997) suggests that teachers have many concerns about the implementation of the change.

Sparks interviewed Loucks-Horsley on teachers’ concerns about change. Some of Loucks-Horsley’s major

points indicate teachers must

(a) understand the content they are teaching so they can provide students leadership to learn

concepts,

(b) use an instructional approach that assists students in constructing their own understanding for

how various things occur,

(c) provide opportunities for students to learn at sites where subject matter is being utilized, and

(d) have the opportunities themselves to learn together through networks of teachers, schools, and

possibly businesses (pages 20-21).

These comments address the impact the teacher has for successfully implementing an educational

reform.

Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) describe teacher concerns as a result of change that focuses

on time as being a key element of the implementation of an innovation. Adelman and Walking-Eagle

indicate that in order to implement an innovation successfully, teachers need time to comprehend the


9/1/02

purposes of the innovations, review the outcomes that might be expected from the innovation, discuss the

proposed new approach among their peers, and practice using the innovations. Typically, however, the

decision to introduce change is generally accomplished by a rapid implementation without opportunities

for proper preparation and practice. The problem of rapid implementation conflicts with the need for

several years to fully implement an educational reform. This rapid approach to implementation creates

concerns for teachers. In addition, Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) continue this discussion about

certain elements of change, indicating from the teachers’ perspective, the need to come to terms with new

ideas. The practice of new behaviors seems to be particularly critical when the reform in question is related

to instruction. In coming to terms with the movement of educational reform, teachers will be required to

learn or update their current technology skills for the curriculum, to develop new teaching strategies, to

implement the new content, and to assess the results.

According to Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991), the implementation of the change or innovation

must occur over a period of time rather than be considered a specific event. Teachers must be given time to

accept and apply the change. Hord, Rutherford, Hurling-Austin, and Hall (1987) echo this concern about

the time required for change to occur and conclude that the change process will require several years to be

completely implemented. Recognition of this time factor is an essential prerequisite for the effective

implementation of change. Time for acceptance and practice will enhance teacher self-efficacy thereby

reducing the concerns the teacher may develop.

Menlo (1985) described another viewpoint about concerns of teachers and their possible resistance

(or lack of resistance) to change. He observed that change is not always resisted but is oftentimes

encouraged. However, he notes teachers may resist the loss of a personal or material nature when making

the change and this attitude should be recognized. In the resistance attitude, Menlo suggested change is

resisted for the following reasons:

(a) questioning the purpose of the change,

(b) misunderstanding the importance of the change,

(c) anticipating another change will soon follow (fad), and

(d) feeling insecure about completing the tasks required in the change.

Menlo suggests these issues create concerns for the person impacted by the change and must be


9/1/02

addressed prior to the implementation of the innovation or change.

Morimoto’s (1973) work on the impact of change on the individual indicated that the individual

feels at risk and guarded when another person requires change. This situation does not allow time to

understand the change, freedom to consider the change, or assert the new learning as something desirable.

Morimoto concluded pressure to change, without an opportunity to understand and accept the change,

rarely results in the excitement in learning or reduces teachers’ concerns about the change.

Reflecting on the negative impact of concerns created by the change process, Bridges (1993)

suggests the teachers’ concerns created by an implementation of a change have a better chance of being

addressed if the implementers of the change (teachers) are not made scapegoats for past failures and are not

seen as the reasons for the change. Bridges (1993) states,

“Never denigrate the past. Many managers, in their enthusiasm for a future that is going to be

better than the past, ridicule or talk slightingly about the old way of doing things. In doing so they

consolidate the resistance against the transition because people identify with the way things used

to be and thus feel their self-worth is at stake when the past is attacked” (page 30).

Caine and Caine (1997) continue the support of teachers’ personal concerns and change in their

recent text titled Education on the Edge of Possibility. They describe individuals affected by change as

elaborate “adaptive systems” that seek to adjust to the change while maintaining their own identity. This

concept follows the notion that the individual has to accept the change in order to implement the change.

Caine and Caine (1997) conclude that real growth requires change even though change can affect one’s

sense of identity or self-efficacy. In educational reform, teacher perceptions of self-efficacy need to be

considered in the implementation process.

Linnell (1994) suggests “where the technology education curriculum has been implemented

successfully, the affective concerns of teachers have been a priority” (page 94). When implementing an

educational change, the focus is oftentimes on the technical qualities of the innovation, and the feelings

and concerns of teachers and administrators who are implementing the change are neglected. Linnell

concludes by stating, “Change [administrators] that understand the specific needs of teachers will help with

successful implementation. This understanding will create a constructive environment for the change and

lead to an understanding of the personal aspect of education change and the concerns of the individual”


9/1/02

(pages 93-94). The constructive environment that Linnell addresses includes incorporating teachers’

concerns in the educational reform implementation process.

In summary, personal concerns are divided into internal (How does the change affect me?) and

external (How does this change affect my job?) concern components. These concerns affect the teacher’s

personal self-efficacy or perceptions of himself or herself. The impact of one’s expectations is a major

determinant of their choices. As the teacher self-efficacy is the focal point of educational reform, teachers’

concerns are paramount to effective implementation as change is accepted.

Concerns of Teachers: Educational System

The second area of change that brings about concerns for teachers is a change in the teaching

environment (educational system). Concerns may develop as teachers prepare for and participate in a

transformation of an educational process and are influenced by the changes occurring within schools,

administrations, and local communities. Elements of the teachers’ environment or the educational system

researched for this study include changes in curriculum content, methodology of instruction, and impact of

changes the teacher will experience during implementation of this change.

Caine and Caine (1997) describe the problems associated with change in relation to how the

educational system creates concerns for teachers by stating, “Schools have resisted change because the

education system is part of a larger system and is extremely entrenched as a social machine that remains

static and constant over long period of times” (page 12). Caine and Caine (1997) conclude, “Change is an

arduous, rigorous and an unpopular thing to do” (page 12). This supports the resistance of the large

organization system toward implementing a change and concludes that the commitment of acceptance and

support for change is difficult.

Schein (1978) and Williams and Smith (1994) describe similar areas of concern for teachers faced

with reform such as changes in curriculum content and instructional methodology. According to Williams

and Smith (1994), teachers are still most comfortable with what they do best in educating students in

whole-group fashion within the confines of the self-contained classroom. Based on Williams and Smith

(1994) assumptions that teachers are more comfortable with the traditional curriculum and instructional

delivery system, teachers need to accept its importance and the benefits for the students in order for this

innovative approach to be effective.


9/1/02

Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) support the conclusion that teachers concerns should be a

prime focus during the educational change process. Adelman and Walking-Eagle discuss their concern with

the overall time of implementation of a change within the educational system. Clearly they indicate that an

implementation of a change has a better chance of staying on track when the pace of change and the

expectations or standards teachers set for themselves are reasonable. Additionally, Adelman and Walking-

Eagle state for a change in the educational system to be meaningful, it requires a good foundation and time

for maturation. For instance, no better foundation can be established than teachers supporting teachers to

make changes. Consequently, how teachers work with each other affects how they work with their students.

Educational innovations have as the ultimate goal the improvement of students’ learning

capabilities (Adelman and Walking-Eagle, 1997; and Williams and Smith, 1994). However, an important

first step in the process to improve students’ learning based on the implementation of a reconstructed,

improved educational reform (change) is to ensure teacher acceptance and preparation for the innovation.

To accomplish this task, research suggests teachers’ concerns must be addressed. Nonetheless, too

frequently, according to Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997), there is inadequate or nonexistent time,

resources, and support allocated for teachers to learn and become comfortable with new strategies,

structures, or content. Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) indicate most educational institutes involved in

the change process move too quickly from the planning, design, or policy development stage to an

implementation stage, ignoring the value of the preparation stage; and this omission can occur on any

educational implementation. Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) conclude that routinely, inadequate

attention to preparation and practice appears to be the key factor in reform failure as they cited one teacher

who observed, “In my 23 years of teaching, I have seen reforms get ahead of teacher preparation” (page

94). As part of the implementation of the change process, the educational system facilitators need to

sequence the implementation process so that the change will not proceed until teachers understand the

change and their concerns are addressed.

Further studies in support of teacher concerns about educational system changes include Negroni’s

(1994) discussion of additional changes in demographics that affect the educational systems. Negroni

indicates that an increase in poverty unfavorably affects the learning of students. In addition, the fact that

higher expectations of what the student should learn has been affected by a highly technological work


9/1/02

environment and complex society. Negroni concludes that assumptions of teachers must change about

students, but cautions the “slow to change” school organizations are established and operating in an

“industrial” mode rather than an “informational” mode. Negroni concludes that educational systems must

reduce the bureaucratic influences and return to “real world” thinking in order to address teacher concerns.

In summary, changes in the teaching environment (educational system), as teachers prepare for

and participate in the new process, result in concerns for teachers. These concerns require the support of

the educational system, whether the change affects the curriculum content or instructional delivery

methodology. Concerns may develop about the timing of the implementation and whether or not the

teacher has gained a solid understanding of the change. The foremost concern of teachers during the

implementation of the change will be the consideration by the system that the teachers be the primary

focus. Research suggests the educational system may have reluctance for change (which is intended to

improve students’ learning capabilities), but when change does occur, teachers’ concerns must be

paramount in the implementation plan.

Concerns of Teachers: The Changing Learner

As a result of the implementation of an innovation, the third area of change creating concerns for

teachers involves their responsibilities to the changing learner. The teachers’ concerns result from the

changing learners’ expectations due to educational reform and diversity changes in the students themselves.

Diversity changes include student demographic changes.

Bingham (1995) discusses the changing learner and the consequences of the changing teaching

environment as both of these occurrences create concerns for teachers when she states,

“Times have changed. Not only are more children of increased diversity coming to school, but

they are entering at a time when entry-level jobs have decreased precipitously, and the jobs

demand problem solving and collaborative skills never before required in the history of this

country. The fast-moving service sector has emerged as a major employer in this country.

Graduates have to adapt, adjust, remain, communicate, and meet the challenges of societal change

at rates unprecedented in our history” (page ix).

The teachers must be cognizant of the changing expectations of the future learner as well as

changes in the learner demographics. Research has identified significant reasons for changes in the student


9/1/02

population that create concerns for teachers (Uchinda, Cretron, and McKenzie (1996). Some of these

changes involve the changing learner coupled with the new learner-centered curriculum, new technology,

knowledge and skill requirements, and their changing demographics. Consequently, the changing learner

will also create both internal (self) and external (task and impact) concerns for the teacher. Therefore, the

teacher will develop self concerns as well as task concerns about teaching the diverse student and expected

teaching results.

Thomas (1991) addressed teachers’ concerns created by the changing learner, indicating that the

shift in expectations for students, calls for a new education model for the information age. Students must

know how to think and reason, analyze data, solve complex problems, and be effective communicators.

This requirement for new knowledge and skill is due to the changing environment of the rapidly

expanding, technologically advanced workplace that has created concerns for the teachers. Wirt and Kirst

(1989) suggest the student composition continue to grow and change. This has been demonstrated by the

changing role of the family comprised of a single working parent or both parents working toward meeting

the family’s needs. This change in the traditional role of the family causes a lack of consistency in what the

education process expects from the home. The changes in the student population have a significant impact

on the student’s desire and opportunity to learn, and that places additional pressure and concerns on the

teacher.

Further, Resnick (1987) describes the new understanding of how children learn. According to

Resnick, recent cognitive research on learning and constructivist views of knowledge indicate students

actually learn only when they are offered the opportunity to actively incorporate what they are studying

into their own experiences, concepts, and understandings of how the world works. This approach to “life

role” learning has become the focal point to the performance-based instructional delivery systems and is

the standard in many states (Resnick, 1987).

Following this theme of changes in the students’ new learning requirements and living

environments, a 1995 study by the American Association of School Administrators, advanced by Uchinda,

Cetron, and McKenzie (1996), suggests certain trends have been established in the student population.

Uchinda, Cetron, and McKenzie (1996) suggest these trends include how students have changed since the

1960’s and include:


9/1/02

(a) the number of “dysfunctional” families has grown and continues to grow

(b) high technology has influenced school, work, and home life

(c) communities are changing and becoming more diverse

(d) a hurry-up society often lacks a sense of community,

(e) the changing workplace demands create a need for higher levels of literacy, and

(f) knowledge about learning styles demands new kinds of education (pages 4-5).

In other words, educators must design the educational system with the understanding of the learner

in mind. Developing the curriculum framework for improving the changing learner should be based on

consideration of who the learners are, their backgrounds, and the workplace skills required. These diverse

factors create concerns for teachers (Resnick, 1987; and Uchinda, Cetron, and McKenzie, 1996).

Fiske (1991) continues discussing the issue of changing environment and student needs by stating,

“…schools can no longer function as filling stations to which young people drive up, receive

knowledge they need for a working lifetime then drive away. Students must be taught to think and

to solve problems” (page 14). Fiske further indicates, “Educational methods of the past have left

most learners ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the information explosion. “Students must

accept that the change in the instructional process moves beyond the emphasis on facts to learning

skills necessary for life” (page 14).

Lever (1997) discusses the changing learner by stating, “Students have been passive recipients of

knowledge throughout their educational experiences. They have rarely had to pursue information in the

classroom.” She concludes, “Unfortunately, when they enter the information-intensive society’s workforce

in which knowledge is often power, their passive approach handicaps them” (page 2). Lever believes the

learner must become an active participant rather than part of a passive audience. This concept will create

concerns for teachers who are responsible for educating the changing learner for the workforce.

Students’ changing expectations involving educational reform and the changing demographics of

the student have created concerns for teachers. Other changes involve new technology influencing school,

work, and home life; knowledge and skill requirements; and diverse communities providing the students.

All of these issues create concerns for teachers that need to be considered during the implementation

process.


9/1/02

Summary of Change Process and Teacher Self-Efficacy

In summary, the common themes of the publications addressed in this study include, among

others, premises about change, concerns created by the change process, and the self-efficacy of teachers as

a result of change (Caine and Caine, 1997; Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall, George, and Rutherford,

1986; and Resnick, 1987). The study focuses on concerns of teachers due to the challenges created by

educational reform, including changes involving federal and New Hampshire educational reform in

curriculum and instruction. Research suggests initial concerns of the teachers were internal or personal as

change affects their self-efficacy and, also, external as change affects their profession (task and impact).

The external areas also involve concerns with the educational system and the changes associated with

revised education curriculum content and instructional delivery, coupled with its impact on the changing

learner. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) the change process may create concerns for

teachers involved in the implementation of an innovation and the individual (teacher) needs to be the

primary focus of actions taken for change.

Business and industry had a significant role in influencing both federal and NH educational reform

initiatives to address their needs for a more effective worker. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford

(1986), the implementation of this educational reform initiative may create concerns for teachers. These

concerns may unfold because teachers will be responsible for teaching the future work force the relevant

courses that address the needs of business and industry (SCANS, 1994). In summary, the challenge of the

teacher, as a result of the change process and its many components, will be to cope with the significant

effect on their personal self-efficacy as they encounter these educational reforms (Guskey, 1987).

Morino (1995) believes,

“the massive technology changes in the workplace, daily life, and school reform through the last

decade have resulted in increasingly technology-based instruction to motivate students, reach them

in different ways of learning, and reduce reliance upon teaching the whole class at the same time”

(page 21).

The results of her study suggest that we must attempt to make school relevant. Morino further

states “the objective as an educator is to engage students in problems and questions that have application to

their daily lives. Thus students will think for themselves, analyze, evaluate, and reach a conclusion.


9/1/02

Knowledge such as this could last for a lifetime” (page 22).

Concerns-Based Adoption Model

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall, George and Rutherford, 1986. (CBAM) was the most

relevant model for this study. It provided a definitive method for assisting change facilitators, offered a

framework for the design of process that addressed the concerns and needs of the individuals involved with

the change, and provided tools to assess the effects of the change on the individual (Hord, Rutherford,

Hurling-Austin, and Hall 1987). The CBAM was originally designed to conceptualize educational change,

but the model is now being utilized in business and industrial arenas for change implementation. The

CBAM was first used by Hall, Wallace, and Dorsett in 1973 in the “original CBAM paper” to evaluate

teacher concerns about implementation of an innovation. The CBAM was developed to understand the

process of change in the educational environment, while not losing sight of the educator involved with the

change. The CBAM paper proposed that the levels of concern of an individual could be used as an

implementation tool for the acceptance or completion of an implementation of an innovation by studying

the individual and evaluating the concerns that could compromise the effective implementation of the

innovation. The key importance of this model is its ability to provide educational systems with analysis of

the teachers’ concerns in order to determine the need for training and teacher ownership of the innovation

(Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).

According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), the CBAM provides a guide to the

implementation of change and a means for monitoring the process and outcomes of the change efforts,

while giving highest priority to the individual teacher and his/her needs in relation to any change effort.

In developing the CBAM, different “stages of concerns about the innovation” have been identified.

Research by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) shows there is developmental movement by teachers

through these stages. In other words, certain types of concerns will be more intense and then become less

intense before an increase of other types of concerns occurs. These different types of concerns have been

labeled as stages. The stages of concern about an innovation align with Fuller’s (1969) initial work with

teachers’ concerns about teaching. Fuller, during the late 1960’s conducted a series of in-depth studies of the

“concerns” of teachers; and, based on these studies, proposed a “developmental conceptualization” of the


9/1/02

concerns of teachers. Building on Fuller’s work, Hall, George, and Rutherford found “first concerns appeared

to develop with the personal concerns of self, then to task concerns, and finally to impact concerns” (1986,

page 6).

Table 1 lists the seven stages of concerns about an innovation, groups the stages of concerns into

components, defines each stage of concern, and identifies each stage by its expression of concern.


9/1/02

Table 1

The Stages of Concern

Stages of Concerns Expressions of Concern

0. Self Awareness I am not concerned about it. What is it?

1. Self Informational I would like to know more about it. How does it work?

2. Self Personal How will using it affect me? How does this impact me? What's my

role in it?

3. Task Management How can I master this? How can I fit it all in? What's the minimum

I must do?

4. Impact Consequence How is my use affecting the students? Is it worth it?

5. Impact Collaboration I am concerned about relating what I am doing with what other

instructors are doing. How do others do this? What's the maximum

potential of this?

6. Impact Refocusing I have some ideas about something that would work even better. Is

there a better way?

Note. Adapted from Measuring Stages of Concern about the Innovation: A Manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire. By Hall, G. E.,

George, A. A., and Rutherford, W. L. (1986). Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education

In discussing the movement of the subject of the study through the stages, Hall, George, and

Rutherford (1986) cautioned,

“The resolution of earlier concerns and the increase of later concerns are not accomplished simply

by having more knowledge about or time and experience with the innovation. Many other factors

influence concerns as well…Highly intense concerns may not be easily reduced, and in some

cases a person’s history, dynamics, and capabilities may make resolution of certain concerns

nearly impossible. In general…a person’s concerns about an innovation develop toward the later

stages (i.e., toward impact concerns) with time, successful experience, and the acquisition of the

new knowledge and skill” (page 8).

In developmental movement of teachers through the stages, a review indicates concerns of "what

the innovation is and what does it mean for me". Stages 1 and 2, which are relatively intense for nonusers

of an innovation, and concerns regarding the possible impact that the innovation will have on the recipient


9/1/02

(in this study it is the student) are relatively low for the nonusers. For example, as implementation begins

and develops, (Stage 3) management concerns involving teachers’ administration of the change, begins to

increase. (Stage 1) informational concerns and (Stage 2), personal concerns begin to decrease. At the same

time (Stage 4) consequence concerns, (Stage 5) collaboration or cooperation with others, and (Stage 6)

refocusing concerns, begin to increase gradually (Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986).

In evaluating the research for a definitive instrument for this researcher’s study, it was

Rutherford’s research that was decisive. Rutherford (1989) concluded the CBAM (Stages of Concern) is an

effective instrument to use when analyzing concerns of change for the following four reasons:

(a) it identifies behaviors researchers have observed during a change implementation,

(b) collection of data can be done quickly and inexpensively when existing questions are used,

(c) data can be analyzed and displayed efficiently, and

(d) researchers are comfortable interpreting the data.

Studies Using the CBAM: Stages of Concern

The CBAM has been determined to be the “definitive tool in the development of in-service

training for a change process involving an innovation adoption” (Hall and Loucks, 1978, page 8). As part

of this researcher’s literature review, studies utilizing CBAM involving implementation of innovations in

education were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of this model. The innovations that were the

subject of some of those studies included microcomputers (Cicchelli and Baecher, 1989), curriculum in NH

(Savage, 1992), Tech Prep (Green, 1993 and Long, 1995) and Industrial Arts (Linnell, 1991) and (Smith,

2001) are described as follows:

Broyles and Tillman (1985) utilized CBAM (SoCQ) to provide a theoretical base for developing

in-service training for an innovation. Broyles and Tillman conducted twenty-three training workshops

utilizing CBAM. Trainers from exemplary programs sponsored by the National Diffusion Network

conducted the workshops. The trainers observed the workshops to evaluate the training. Additional studies

indicated that in-service training factors such as specific configuration of instructional content and training

delivery have not been explored to any great extent. The resulting data concluded training and learning

activities and content of staff development were influenced by SoCQ scores. Generally the results of

research on in-service education have not included descriptive studies; therefore, there was little known


9/1/02

about what actually occurs during teacher training. Broyles and Tillman’s study indicated that content

topics such as introduction, skills organization, and theory were beneficial to teachers’ concerns after

training was conducted (page 364).

Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize

and execute course of action required to attain designated types of performance” (page 391). Perceived

self-efficacy is an individual’s self-knowledge of his or her ability to initiate necessary steps to choice

situation specific goals. Bandura (1986) has suggested that self-efficacy has the greatest impact on a

person’s individual mastery.

Another research study by Cicchelli and Baecher (1989), utilizing CBAM (SoCQ), focused on

teacher concerns about the use of microcomputers in the classroom. Seventy-eight teachers in elementary,

junior high, and senior high school completed a SoCQ concerning the innovation of microcomputers in the

classroom. Results yielded reliable data on the seven stages of concern demonstrating that the highest

Stages of Concern were in Stages 0, 1, and 2, while the lowest Stages of Concern were those of Stages 4, 5,

and 6. According to Cicchelli and Baecher (1989), during the study, microcomputers in the classrooms

represented a dynamic change to the teachers and administrators. This study investigated the “personal”

concerns of the teachers because of the change process and validated the concerns of teachers (page 37).

With the change in curriculum from industrial arts to technology education, Linnell used the

CBAM SoCQ in 1991 to determine the stages of concern of technology education teachers (TET) in North

Carolina. The results and conclusions of the study indicated the following:

(1) a majority of the TET’s had positive feelings about the change,

(2) TET’s were personally concerned about the new curriculum, their knowledge of the subject,

their management of their responsibilities; and the states’ support for the new curriculum, and

(3) TET’s profile progression of their concerns followed Hall, George, and Rutherford’s

predicted wave pattern. A goal of this study was to provide a basis for and recommend

appropriate procedures to facilitate the implementation process.

Savage (1992) studied teachers’ use of an innovation in curriculum by using the CBAM. This study

evaluated the differences in teachers’ concerns as they corresponded to their involvement in the

development of the curriculum. The SoCQ was distributed to 321 third grade teachers in a New Hampshire


9/1/02

school district with the longest access to the district’s curriculum guides. 131 teachers responded to the

questionnaire. Based on teachers’ involvement in the development of the curriculum, Savage discovered

significant differences in their concerns that corresponded to their involvement with and use of the

curriculum guide.

Greene (1993) surveyed with CBAM (SoCQ) academic and vocational teachers in the southeast

region of the United States who participated in Tech Prep programs to determine if there were significant

differences in the concerns of academic and vocational teachers toward the implementation of Tech Prep.

The study participants were attendees at Tech Prep conferences in Knoxville, TN, and Atlanta, GA, during

the summer of 1992. A total of 304 teachers responded to the CBAM SoCQ. The results of this study

concluded that a significant difference was discovered in teachers’ concerns about Tech Prep, based on the

length of time they were involved in the innovation.

A research study by Long (1995) determined the concerns of Tech Prep teachers at the secondary

level in the State of Virginia as measured by the CBAM (SoCQ). Long conducted the study on 322

individuals consisting of administrators, academic teachers, vocational teachers, and guidance councilors

involved in implementing Tech Prep programs for two years or longer. Long concluded, based on the

theory of the CBAM and the mean scores of the Stages of Concern that the teachers were becoming

experienced users of the Tech Prep concept. Long further concluded staff development should relate to

strategies necessary to increase student outcomes and cooperation and coordination of others.

A more recent study conducted by Smith (2001), was student derived self-efficacy based on four

sources. Her study found that self-efficacy is affected by the four sources, which aligned with the review of

literature,

“According to Bandura (1977, 1986, 1995) personal self efficacy beliefs that can be developed by

the four major sources include: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and

affective states…self efficacy is critical to the mastery of a skill”.

Summary

This research study is intended to determine the self-efficacy of NH teachers concerning the

integration of technology, instructional methodology and the teachers’ concerns inherent in the change


9/1/02

process through the integration of technology. In the review of literature, the self-efficacy of teachers is

determined to be affected in multiple areas as they encountered the implementation of an innovation

(Fullan and Steigelbauer, 1991; and Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986). Teacher self-efficacy or concerns

involved teachers in at least three areas. Those areas include coping personally with the changes,

understanding and delivering the changed curriculum content using a revised instructional methodology to

the student, and producing the outcome desired by the change.

For this study, the CBAM (Concern-Based Adoption Model) was researched and determined to be

the definitive tool to implement the change process and identify teachers’ concerns for the change process

involving the integration of technology. CBAM/SoCQ was chosen because it can provide a definitive

method for assisting change facilitators, offers a framework for the design of process that addresses the

concerns and needs of the individuals involved with the change, and provides the tools to assess the effects

of the change (Hord, Rutherford, Hurling-Austin, and Hall, 1987). The CBAM/SoCQ instrument as

demonstrated above has been used successfully to evaluate change efforts in schools, as well as used to

clarify staff development and/or training needs for the implementation of an innovation in an educational

environment. In addition, the SoCQ component measures the individual variations in the acceptance, use of

innovations, and degree of implementation.

In conclusion, in this study, the researchers sought to address three related teacher concerns with

the educational reform: changes in curriculum content, revision of the methodology of instruction, and the

impact of changes teachers will experience resulting from implementing technology. More specifically,

this study suggests a need to evaluate and address personal concerns of the teacher that were both internal

or personal, as change affects their self-efficacy, and also external or job-related demands. The external

areas of concerns involve the educational system itself and educational reform resulting in revised

education curriculum content and instructional delivery as well as the educational reform’s impact on the

student. Change as evidenced by educational reform’s affect on the teachers personally, however, suggests

the need for time to allow them to understand and comprehend the change, to accept the change, and to

understand the expectation desired by the change. These changes create concerns for teachers who are

charged with the implementation of the educational reform.


9/1/02

RESULTS

The results are presented in narrative, graphic, and tabular form. Specifically, the results are

presented for each of the following two research questions:

(a) What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the integration of technology in the

classroom?

(b) What is the level of use of technology by the teachers as it relates to the implementation of

technology in the classrooms?

Results Obtained for Research Question One

The first research question asked: What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the

integration of technology in the classrooms? The following are the results obtained relevant to this research

question:

(a) stages of concern mean raw scores and standard deviations,

(b) total group profile,

(c) highest stage of concern,

(d) first and second highest stages of concern, and

(e) subgroup profiles.

According to CBAM theory, changes in participants concerns about the innovation reflective of

teacher growth and development. One way of looking at growth and development is through composite

group scores on the SoCQ. The following profile is the group scores in the Spring of 2002.

Total Group Profile

The total group profile for the 1,217 NH Teachers in this study was obtained by converting their

raw scores for each stage of concern’s question into percentile scores indicating “levels of intensity,”

utilizing the Stages of Concern Raw Score Percentile Chart for Stages of Concern Questions developed by

Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986). The resulting total group profile is presented in Figure 1 and Table 2

on the next page.


9/1/02

Figure 1

Stages of Concern Total Group Profile

NH Teachers CBAM Profile-Stages of Concern

81.3 79.366.7

37.744.3 48

0

20

40

60

80

100

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 6

Stages of Concern

Rel

ativ

e In

tens

ity

Prof

ile

Table 2

Stages of Concern Total Group Profile-IHE, IN-SERVICE, PRE-SERVICE

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Percentage 81.3 79.3 79.9 66.7 37.7 44.3 48_______________________________________________________

For the 1,217 teachers who participated in this study, the highest level of intensity of concern

(81.3 percent) was Stage 0 Awareness and the lowest level of intensity of concern (37.7 percent) was Stage

4 Consequence.

Highest Stage of Concern

The highest stage of concern for each respondent was tabulated. Figure 2 and Table 3 present the


9/1/02

results of this tabulation.

Figure 2


Stages of Concern

Table 3


Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Total_____________________________________________________________

N 495253160207

38019

1217

% 40.620.813.1


9/1/02

17.0.2

6.61.6

100.0_____________________________________________________________

Of the 1,217 teachers, 495 (40.6 percent) scored highest on Stage 0 Awareness, while the third

highest scored highest on Stage 3 Management. A total of 83.0 percent of the teachers scored highest in

Stages 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, or Stage 2 Personal. However, Stage 3 (Management) is a

major focus for teachers.

Subgroup Profiles

Subgroup profiles were obtained utilizing the following demographic categories:

(a) years of classroom experience, and

(b) training initiatives.

Of the 1,217 respondents, 910 teachers indicated their years teaching in the classroom on the

questionnaire. A Stages of Concern profile was developed for these 910 respondents. The profile was

developed for teachers in four groups:

(1) teachers who had less than ten years of experience,

(2) teachers who had ten to twenty years of experience,

(3) teachers who had twenty-one to thirty years of experience, and

(4) teachers who had thirty-one or more years of experience.

Figure 3 and Table 4 present the resulting profile.


9/1/02

Figure 3

Stages of Concern Profile and by Years of Classroom Experience

Table 4

Stages of Concern Profile by Years of Classroom Experience

Experience N Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Less than 10 337 81.5 77.8 75.6 64.0 32.1 44.1 48.7

10 to 20 266 82.0 76.8 75.6 63.3 30.6 46.5 48.7

21 to 30 196 82.9 77.6 76.4 65.1 29.1 42.8 45.9

Over 30 111 84.9 76.5 75.5 64.0 29.7 40.7 62.1

Total 910

As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, the profiles for the four groups who differed with regard to

experience appear to be quite similar with the highest levels of intensity in Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3; and the

lowest levels of intensity in Stages 4, 5, and 6. However, respondents with over thirty years of experience

seemed to have higher levels of intensity in Stage 6 than did respondents in the other three groups.


9/1/02

Importance of Follow-up Training

Of the 1,217 respondents, 893 indicated whether or not they believed follow-up training

implementing technology was important. Stages of concern profiles were developed for those who reported

they believed that follow-up training for the integration of technology was important (those whose response

was “Yes”) and for those who reported they believed that follow-up training integrating integration of

technology was not important (those whose response was “No”). Figure 4 and Table 5 on the next page

present the profiles obtained.

Figure 4

Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow-up Training

Stages of Concern


9/1/02

Table 5

Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow-up Training

N Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Yes 673 82.4 77.2 76.1 63.9 30.6 44.3 47.9

No 220 81.7 77.4 74.5 64.0 31.1 43.8 48.9

Total 893

As shown in Figure 4 and Table 5, the profile for those who reported that they believed follow-up

training was important and the profile for those who reported that they believed follow-up training was not

important appear to be quite similar with the highest levels of intensity in Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3 and the

lowest levels of intensity in Stages 4, 5, and 6.

Results for Research Question Two

The second research question asked: What is the level of use as it relates to the integration of

technology? The following are the results obtained relevant to the research question:

(a) respondents’ level of use integrating technology, and

(b) subgroup profiles.

Of the 916 teachers who responded to the question, 916 responded to the question indicating their

levels of use of technology integration. The four possible responses were

(a) nonuser,

(b) novice,

(c) intermediate, and

(d) old hand.


9/1/02

Table 6

Respondent’s Levels of Use

Category Number Percent

Nonuser 35 3.8

Novice 311 34.0

Intermediate 440 48.0

Old hand 130 14.2

Total 916 100.0

Figure 5

Respondent’s Levels of Use

Subgroup Profile Data

In addition to the description of the level of use of integration of technology provided in the

previous section in addressing the second research question, the following subgroup profiles were

developed related to levels of use:

(a) years of classroom experience,

(b) importance of follow up training, Dr. Jane LegacyProject New TEACHERS II: Research ReportSelf Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology

9/1/02

Levels of Use and Years of Experience

Of the 896 respondents identified both their level of use of technology and their years of

classroom teaching on the questionnaire. Table 7 presents the results obtained.

Table 7

Respondent’s Years of Classroom Experience and Levels of Use

Response Nonuser Novice Intermediate Old hand

N % N % N % N % N %

Less than 10 335 37.4 15 45.5 89 29.6 193 44.6 38 29.5

10 to 20 263 29.4 6 18.2 100 33.2 115 26.6 42 32.6

21 to 30 211 23.5 10 30.3 78 25.9 90 20.8 33 25.6

Over 30 87 9.7 2 6.1 34 11.3 35 8.1 16 12.4

Total 896 100.0 33 100.0 301 100.0 433 100.0 129 100.0

As shown in Table 7, of the total teachers the majority tended to describe themselves as “novice”

and “intermediate”. For example, 497 of 896 who described themselves as “novice” and “intermediate”

have taught less than 20 years. The highest percentage of “novice,” 189 or 63 percent, taught less than 10.

Levels of Use and Follow-up Training

885 respondents identified both their levels of use of technology and the importance of follow-up

training . Table 8 on the next page presents the results.


9/1/02

Table 8

Importance of Follow-up Training and Respondent’s Levels of Use

Response Nonuser Novice Intermediate Old Hand

N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 666 75.3 23 69.7 270 89.7 322 75.4 51 41.1

No 219 24.7 10 30.3 31 10.3 105 24.6 73 58.9

Total 885 100.0 33 100.0 301 100.0 427 100.0 124 100.0

As shown in Table 8 a majority in each of the four groups indicated that they thought follow-up

training in integration of technology integration was important. These ranged from 41.1 percent of the “old

hands” to 89.7 percent of the “novices.”

Levels of Use and Stages of Concern

The responses received allowed for an examination of the stages of concern profiles and levels of

use data obtained from 915 teachers. Figures 6 and 7 and Table 9 on the next two pages present the results

obtained.


9/1/02

Figure 6

Stages of Concern Profile for Levels of Use


9/1/02

Figure 7Stages of Concerns and Levels of Use

Table 9

Stages of Concern Group Profile and Levels of Use

Levels of Use N Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Nonuser 35 80.2 75.9 75.2 61.8 28.4 52.1 51.0

Novice 311 82.5 75.6 73.8 62.6 28.5 42.9 47.1

Intermediate 440 82.6 78.3 76.9 65.8 31.4 44.4 48.2

Old hand 129 81.8 77.9 76.5 62.2 33.4 44.0 50.1

Total 915

As shown in Figure 7 and Table 9, the Stages of Concern profiles for the four groups were very

similar. That is, Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3 were higher, while Stages 4, 5, and 6 were lower for “nonusers,”

“novices,” “intermediates,” and “old hands.”


9/1/02

CONCLUSIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The basis of this study was teachers’ concerns due to the state of NH mandating the integration of

technology and consequently curriculum and instructional delivery change. My study sought to describe

the stages of concern and the levels of use of teachers with regard to technology integration; and thus

examine the change in the teaching-learning environment at the onset of professional development.

The review of literature for this study clearly identifies the complexity of the educational change

process (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992; and Hall and Loucks, 1978), including the need for today’s schools

to provide the future work force with the necessary knowledge and skills due to the rapidly changing

technology in business and industry (Bissett, 1996). The State of New Hampshire DOE is spending

millions of dollars on the implementation of educational reform to enable students to meet the challenges

of the work force in the new millennium.

Students (changing learners) are challenged by ever increasing job demands of problem

solving and collaborative skills created by the new technologically intensive work

environment. These changing learners are the products of increased diversity that have

emerged from a transforming demographic society. This emergence of a diverse changing

learner and concurrent increasing job demands will require a new learning process. These

students will be the future work force and need to develop adequate knowledge and skills to

cope with the challenges of the new technology and reinforce the bridge between school and

the current work force.

Teachers responsible for this new learning process must encourage students to be “active”

participants rather than “passive” observers of information in the classroom. As more active

participants they will develop critical thinking, problem solving, and negotiating skills.

Teachers are being challenged to provide the changing learner appropriate educational

instruction necessary to fulfill the requirement brought about by the paradigm shift in

corporate America. These advancements in technology create a different work force

environment. Appropriate educational instruction needs to provide the work force with “doers

and thinkers”.


9/1/02

Teachers have developed concerns due to the rapid rate of technology changes in business and

industry; the pressure of business and industry for a more qualified work force; the diversification of the

learner; and the changes in education as a result of state mandated educational reforms. The curriculum

restructuring involving technology will create concerns for the teachers responsible for its implementation.

The results of this study conclude teachers in the early state of the implementation of educational

reform will develop personal concerns surrounding themselves and how the implementation will affect

them. These results are compatible with research reviewed that indicates teachers involved in an

educational innovation such as technology integration will progress through various stages of concerns,

depending on the individual, as they encounter an innovation (Greene, 1993; Johnson, 1984; and Long,

1995). Teachers’ acceptance and participation in the innovation will depend largely on the degree to which

they are comfortable with the innovation as they progress through these stages (Fullan and Hargreaves,

1992). Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) have identified the various stages that teachers progress

through as they encounter change in education. This progression begins with the developmental stages of

Stage 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, and Stage 2 Personal. Teachers continue progressing through

Stage 3 Management, Stage 4 Consequences, Stage 5 Collaboration, and finally reaching Stage 6

Refocusing.

Therefore, teachers’ concerns need to be identified and resolved in order to have effective

implementation. Fuller (1973) states, “concerns resolution is important not only so students (teachers) can

develop more mature concerns, but to prevent slipping back to less mature concerns" (page 11).

Facilitators/administrators involved with the implementation of educational reform need to understand the

concerns that are created for teachers as a result of the changes, and if an effective implementation is to be

accomplished, they need to provide support for teachers to resolve these concerns (Hall, George, and

Rutherford, 1986).

To obtain conclusions and interpretations of the results of the participant’s responses to the

statements on the survey, a profile of the NH teachers was developed. This profile described

(a) the stages of concerns and the levels of intensity which the respondents were experiencing due

to the integration of technology,

(b) demographic profile of the respondents, Dr. Jane LegacyProject New TEACHERS II: Research ReportSelf Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology

9/1/02

(c) and levels of use of technology.

From the conclusions and interpretation of the results obtained, implications for practice are

discussed, recommendations of appropriate programs and policies are provided, and recommendations for

future research on the implementation process are suggested.

Conclusions and Interpretations

Research Question One

The first research question asked: What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the

integration of technology?

As shown in the NH Teachers CBAM Profile Stages of Concern presented in Figure 1 (page 34)

the results reflect a profile describing a teacher with high intensity levels of concerns in the early stages,

“informational” and “personal,” low intensity levels of concerns in “collaboration” and “cooperation,” with

an increase or tailing up in the “refocusing” stage. The tailing up result indicates that the respondents in

this study may not understand fully or may not even be aware of technology integration and the

implications surrounding the implementation but are interested in learning more about it and understanding

the personal requirements that are expected. They demonstrate a strong will to refocus or to have a better

way of accomplishing the results expected.

Additionally, this pattern reveals that during the initial phase of the implementation, teachers

reported their greatest concerns were for themselves personally (or self-orientated concerns) and the need

for gaining more information about the innovation of technology. Consequently, they reported their least

concerns were in their involvement in or task/impact concerns of the innovation of technology integration.

The results of this study indicate the innovation is still in the developmental stages of implementation.

For the most part, the Stages of Concern patterns found for the subgroups were similar to those

found for the total group, i.e., “awareness,” “informational,” and “personal” were the highest levels of

concern and “management,” “consequences,” and “refocusing” were the lowest levels of concern.

Research Question Two

As shown in the Respondents’ Levels of Use taken as a whole, the subgroup profiles were similar

to the profile found for the total group in that there were high levels of concerns in the early stages of


9/1/02

informational and personal and low levels of concern in collaboration and cooperation with a increase or

tailing up in the refocusing stage.

The results obtained regarding the level of use of technology by the teachers as it relates to the

implementation of technology integration in the education program suggest that the following

interpretation is warranted: A majority of the respondents felt that they were “novice” users or

“intermediate” users with regard to technology integration while one-third of the respondents felt that they

were “nonusers” and “novice” level. Again, this result is anticipated for the early stages of the

implementation of an innovation.

Discussion of the Conclusions and Interpretations

According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), “Our past history, personality dynamics,

motivations, needs, feelings, education, roles, status, our entire social-psycho being in relation to our

experiences and knowledge shape how we perceive and, in our minds, contend with the issues, objects, or

problem at hand” (page 5). The observations of Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) were consistent with

the results obtained from my study and appear to be consistent with other studies that have examined the

concerns of teachers regarding the implementation of educational reform (Johnson, 1984; Long, 1995;

Rogers, 1993; and Savage, 1993). The conclusions of each of the studies reviewed, as well as the

conclusions achieved in my study, revolve around the teachers being allotted sufficient time to progress

through the developmental stages of the implementation process.

The total group profile obtained in this study depicted at the onset of the integration of technology

is indicative of a “typical nonuser negative one/two split” profile (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986,

page 36). According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), a “typical” nonuser negative one/two profile

with a tailing up indicates a nonuser with a relatively more intense Stage 0 Awareness, Stage 1

Informational, and Stage 2 Personal with all stages relatively equal in intensity levels and a decrease of

intensity levels at Stage 3 Management, Stage 4 Consequence, followed by a tailing up (6 percent-10

percent) or increase in intensity from the lowest intensity at Stage 4 to a higher intensity at Stage 6

Refocusing. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), this profile of a nonuser “negative one/two

split” suggests that the respondents will not, at this time, respond effectively to educational reform unless


9/1/02

their concerns are anticipated and addressed. Further, Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) describe these

stages of concern with the following profile:

A high intensity percentile score in Stage 0 Awareness suggests a teacher who may be

uninformed or who has little concern about or little involvement with the innovation.

A high intensity percentile score in Stage 1 Informational suggests a teacher who may be

generally aware of and interested in learning more detail, knowing available resources, and

understanding necessary requirements for using the innovation.

A high intensity percentile score in Stage 2 Personal suggests that a teacher may be uncertain

about the demands of the innovation in relation to his or her self-efficacy (professional status,

role, and teaching). A teacher may be concerned about decision-making, as well as the

personal time and energy needed for implementing the innovation. A high level of intensity

regarding “personal” concerns may also be indicative of a teacher having intense concerns

about the innovation and resistance to the innovation.

A low intensity percentile score in Stage 3 Management suggests that a teacher may not at

this time be concerned about the processes and/or tasks of using the innovation.

A low intensity percentile score in Stage 4 Consequence suggests that a teacher may not at

this time be concerned about the impact of the innovation on students.

A low intensity percentile score in Stage 5 Collaboration suggests that a teacher may not at

this time be focused on coordination and cooperation with colleagues and administration.

The tailing up on Stage 6 Refocusing is depicted when the lowest intensity at Stage 4

Consequences increases to Stage 6 Refocusing and suggests that a teacher may be exploring

other possible benefits from the innovation including the possibility of major changes or

replacement with a better alternative (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986, page 36).

This demographic profile coupled with the Stages of Concern total group profile displays high

self-orientated concerns (Stages 0, 1, and 2) with a definite interest in restructuring (Stage 6) the

innovation. The results also align with the “typical nonuser negative one/two split” in the following areas:

(a) the highest mean score was found in Stage 0 Awareness;


9/1/02

(b) highest level of intensities were in Stage 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, and Stage 2

Personal; and

(c) the highest and second highest Stages of Concern scores were adjacent to one another

indicating a close alignment of the concerns.

This type of “typical” profile of high levels of concerns in the early developmental stages and low

levels of concerns in later stages with an increase or tailing up in the last stage indicates that the

respondents in this study may not understand fully or may not even be aware of technology integration but

are interested in learning more about it and understanding the requirements. More significantly, however,

the respondents are concerned about how the change to technology integration will affect them personally

and the demands imposed on them because of technology integration. These personal concerns include

their own acceptance and understanding of technology integration as well as the amount of support and

time they will be given for the implementation.

On average, the respondents appear to have little involvement in technology integration, yet great

concern about the rewards technology integration will offer, the accountability technology integration

places on them, as well as the commitments required by technology integration. The tailing-up of Stage 6

indicates teachers possess a strong will to restructure the innovation or have a better way to accomplish the

task. The teachers in this study appear to indicate a significant concern about technology integration and its

implementation. Research reported by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) suggest that the profile of the

teachers’ personal concerns will have to be reduced before he or she is able to continue to progress towards

understanding the change and look positively at the innovation.

While the concerns of the teachers in this study may be correct or incorrect, it can be argued that

these results do provide a strong indication to program administrators that they need to address the

concerns of teachers by preparing and educating them regarding technology integration in order for the

innovation to be effectively implemented. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), such

resistance as mentioned above has shadowed the educational profession, not allowing educational reform to

be effectively implemented.

Clearly, the study revealed that the respondents were not in the “comfort zone” needed for

effective implementation of an innovation. This finding received support from the results obtained


9/1/02

regarding the “level of use” indicated by the respondents. Only 14 percent identified themselves as “old

hands” while the remainder 86 percent identified themselves as being “nonusers,” “novices,” or

“intermediate users.”

Implications for Practice

Research suggests that staff development which is designed to address teachers’ specific concerns

and is delivered in a logical progression may result in reducing teacher resistance to implementing

curricular innovation such as technology integration. A study by Cicchelli and Baecher in 1985 supported

this view as it found that staff development programs frequently failed to align in-service activities with

teacher concerns and, consequently, were ineffective.

Three significant findings were derived from this study that contribute to the implications for

practice and include

Business and industry technology has been changing at such a rapid rate that an effective

implementation of the reconstructed curriculum and instructional methodology is necessary

to teach workplace competencies like interpersonal, intrapersonal, and thinking skills,

including problem solving, decision making, and discovery learning to the changing learners

of the twenty-first century. This understanding has lead to the changes in curriculum content

and instructional methodology.

The profile of the teachers involved in this study indicates that the teachers’ personal and

informational concerns will have to be reduced before he or she is able to progress to higher

stages and look positively at innovation. Sagor (1997) comments that to build up teachers’

self-efficacy, they must be presented with the consequences of their actions; however, Sagor

suggests that those who are low on self-efficacy will not readily provide information that will

allow proper assessment of the teacher. Consequently, teachers must be made aware of the

requirements and immersed in the assessment of their actions regarding this implementation.

Expect the teachers to continue through all the CBAM Stages of Concerns. It will take a while

for the change process.


9/1/02

Expect the teachers to have numerous questions. Each answer to questions a teacher

might have is essential to understand at each level….what are we trying to do to resolve the

concerns the teachers may have.

In an effort to effectively gain the teachers’ buy-in to this implementation, a suggestion by Sagor is

appropriate when he states, “By creating an atmosphere where people were willing to take risks and

examine the results, a new openness to untried possibilities and potential emerges” (1997, page 190). Fullan

(1997) further supports the buy-in approach to the change in the teaching and learning environment when

he states, “By examining emotions and change from a different perspective, we not only gain insights about

the dynamics of change, but we also find new understandings of how to make change work more

constructively. The moral and the technical begin to fuse, instead of being two ships passing in the night”

(pages 216-217).

“Certainly there is a need for teachers to become more knowledgeable regarding technology

integration, but staff development must also focus on the affective needs of those teachers. Such

staff development activities will help optimize teacher strengths while minimizing teacher

frustration, confusion, and anxiety during the development, implementation, and evaluation stages

of technology integration (Aldeman and Walking-Eagle, 1997, p14).”

Recommendations for State Programs and Policy

This study provides information to state administrators regarding concerns of New Hampshire

teachers responsible for implementing a change in the teaching and learning environment. The following

are specific state programs that should be developed for those responsible for the integration of technology.

An instructional “change process” module should be designed, developed, and evaluated to

assure teachers understand the change process as it relates to the implementation of

technology.

Design and develop a program that includes a series of technology professional development

activities based on insights gained from the CBAM/SOCQ assessment, addressing the various

“stages of concerns” for those teachers and administrators who are integrating technology.

This program should be designed, developed, and implemented in a timely manner to help


9/1/02

them in this change process. (According to the review of literature, staff development must

include skill development, attitude change, knowledge acquisition, and altering the norms of

the culture.) Additionally, consider what information teachers will need at each level. A

major focus is on elevation of comfort in technology over proficiency. The initial focus of

these activities should be on the personal and self-orientated concerns of the teachers;

subsequently, the focus of these activities should be on the task and impact concerns of the

teachers. The staff development activities should incorporate evaluation procedures at specific

time frames that assess the extent to which teacher concerns are impacted by the activities

they have experienced. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), teachers would be

expected to move from personal and internal (self) concerns to external (task and impact)

concerns over the life of the staff development activities.

Plan a program that expects and supports teachers who will be at different levels compared to

each other and will move from level to level at different rates.

Design and develop a support system using information databases such as an electronic

network. This should be developed to facilitate dialogue and information exchange among

teachers. (This electronic network should include on-line teaching sessions with a “teach the

teacher” program, a chat room forum, and a central control system to provide a clearinghouse

of resource materials developed using various forms of media. This support system (network)

would facilitate the sharing of successful resources and enhance problem solving for teachers

as well as an instructional distance education capability to enhance the teachers’ knowledge

and skills.)

Assign knowledgeable and well trained mentor teachers at the local level to coordinate and

supervise the implementation of technology, including a support system to meet the ongoing

needs of teachers during the implementation. These selected teachers should also serve as

teacher liaisons between local and state administrators and task forces that are convened for

future educational enhancements.

The initial phase of the implementation of technology will directly affect hundreds and thousands

of teachers and students. These teachers are accountable for the implementation of this educational reform.


9/1/02

The following state policy should be developed as a result of this study to facilitate the effective

implementation of Technology integration:

o Provide an additional state grant utilizing the CBAM/SoCQ to continue assessment and

evaluation of the self-efficacy of NH teachers as they continue to integrate technology in their

classrooms.

o Increase professional staff development training and funds supporting the school districts for

the appropriate staff development to provide an effective implementation of technology. The

funds should be concentrated on staff development that will address teacher concerns, more

specifically, funding for

(a) instructional modules,

(b) professional development activities,

(c) teacher assignment to specific task forces for effective follow-up and dissemination of

current information,

(d) electronic network data base support system, and

(e) knowledge acquisition, and teachers as coordinators.

Linnell (1994) suggests that a technology curriculum has been implemented successfully when

the affective concerns of teachers have been given preference. This suggestion echoes the conclusions

developed in this study.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study is a snapshot taken at the beginning of an innovation. As change is a process completed

over time, Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) suggest future studies on the concerns of the teacher

involved in the implementation of an innovation during the implementation process. The recommendation

for future research suggests a longitudinal study be conducted over the next year after the initial integration

of technology and beginning next year using CBAM/SoCQ to describe the teachers’ progress in the change

process with regard to the integration of technology in the NH schools. The studies should give particular

attention to shifts or changes with regard to teacher concerns based on the amount and type of in-service or

training accomplished and the length of time after the implementation process began. This approach to


9/1/02

longitudinal studies would capture teacher concerns at various stages of the innovation. The success or

failure of the selected staff development can also be assessed by evaluating the stages of concerns that the

teachers express and whether or not those concerns are in the later stages. Additionally, the LoTi

technology assessment of teacher’s skills should be correlated with the CBAM/SoCQ.

Summary

Recommendations include professional development programs and policies for addressing teacher

concerns and suggestions for future teacher self-efficacy studies that will further support teachers’

concerns.

1. Increased sharing and collaboration with other teachers.

2. Assessments utilized to develop priorities for school wide planning and assessment efforts.

3. Develop skills for teachers to become teacher-researchers to assume responsibility for their

own professional growth.

“There is little disagreement that teachers who engage in self-directed inquiry into their own

classrooms find the process intellectually satisfying, they testify to the power of their own research to help

them better understand and ultimately to transform their teaching practices.” (Chochran-Smith & Lytle,

1993, pp. 18-19)

The results of this study indicate that teachers involved in an educational innovation such as

technology integration will progress through various stages of concerns, depending on the individual, as

they encounter an innovation. Based on the demographics of the typical respondent involved in this study,

the implementation of new teaching content and methodology often creates insecurities and

discouragement, thus decreasing one’s confidence and sense of self-efficacy. The implementation of

technology integration must be undertaken in a non-judgmental learning environment with administrative

support and adequate allotment of time to effectively implement this or any educational reform. If there is

to be full and effective technology integration, staff development activities that provide teachers with the

knowledge they need and that will shift their concerns from internal (self) to external (task and impact)

need to be designed, developed, and implemented. There should be periodical monitoring of the expressed

concerns of the teachers to assist them in coping with and resolving any inherent behavioral problems or


9/1/02

concerns with implementing technology integration by providing ongoing in-service instruction and

research. Staff development that ignores teacher concerns is not likely to bring about the outcomes desired

and may result in a teacher that closes the classroom door and continues with what has been previously

practiced. This situation would jeopardize the objective of business and industry seeking students trained in

appropriate knowledge and skills to provide a work force capable of successfully entering the global

economies of the twenty-first century.


9/1/02

References

Adleman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997). Teachers, time, and school reform. In C, Dede (Ed.) Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Abrahamson, E. (2000). “Change Without Pain.” Harvard Business Review. July-August 2000, 75-79.

Adelman, N.E, Walking-Eagle, K.P. (1997). “Teachers, Time, and School Reform.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Bailey, G.D., Lumpley, D. (1997). “Staff Development in Technology.” National Educational Service Indiana.

Baker, J. (1992). Future Edge: Discovering the New Paradigms of Success. New York: William Morrow.

Becker, H.J., Riel, M.M. (1999). “Teacher Professionalism and the Emergence of Constructivist-Compatible Pedagogies.” Irvine, CA: University of California. http://crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/special_report2/index.htm

Beer, et. al. (2000). “Cracking the Code of Change.” Harvard Business Review. May-June 2000, 133-141.

Bernauer, J. (1996). “The Power of Partnering.” T.H.E Journal. 24(3).

Bolman ,L. G. and Deal, T. E.(1997) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bradshaw, L.K. (2002). “Technology for Teaching and Learning: Strategies for Staff Development and Follow-up Support.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(1) 131-150.

Brush, T.A. (1998). “Teaching Preservice Teachers to Use Technology in the Classroom.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 6(4) 243-258.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barth, R. S. (1972). Open education and the American school. New York: Agathan Press.

Bernardo, A. S. (1997, May 12). School reform: A critical summary. [Online] Available: http://pwl.netcom.com/-efny/esteem/critical.html [1998, February 20].

Bingham, A. (1995). Exploring the multiage classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Bridges, W. (1986). Managing organizational transition. Organizational Dynamics, 15. 25-26.

Broyles, I., & Tillman, M. (1985). Relationships of inservice training components and changes in teacher concerns regarding innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 364.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:


9/1/02

http://crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/special_report2/index.htm

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Charp, S. (2002). “Educators’ Acceptance of Computer Technology.” T.H.E. Journal. April, 10-12.

Christensen, C., Overdorf, M. (2000). “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change.” Harvard Business Review.

Cicchelli, T., & Beacher, R. (1989). Microcomputers in the classroom: Focusing on teacher concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 13, 32-44.

Cooley, V. (2001). “Implementing Technology Using the Teachers as Trainers Staff Development Model.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 269-284.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). What matters most: 21st century teaching. The Education Digest, 63, 3-7.

Diamond, L. (1994, Spring). School reform, accountability, and charter schools: Making charters work- Strategies for charter school developers. Institute for Education Reform. [Online] Available: http://www.csus.edu/ier/ charter/charteraccount.html [1998, February 20].

Dede, C. (2002). “Effective Use of Learning Technologies.” In L. Holland, ed., Education Connection. University of Massachusetts/Amherst School of Education. Spring 2002.

Drucker, P. (1994). New Realities in Government and Politics/In Economics and Business/In Society and World View. New York: Harper Collins.

Fabry, D.L., Higgs, J.R. (1997). “Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in Education: Current Status.” Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17(4) 385-395.

Fullan, M. G. (1997). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In A. Hargreaves, (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind - 1997 ACSD Year Book. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 216-217.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. Bristol, PA: The Farmer Press.

Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

Gallos, J. V. (1997) Using Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbraith, J. K. (1977). Age of uncertainty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gillingham, M.G., Topper, A. (1999). “Technology in Teacher Preparation: Preparing Teachers for the Future.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 7(4) 303-321.

Girod, M., Cavanaugh, S. (2001). “Technology as an Agent of Change in Teacher Practice.” T.H.E Journal. 28(9) 40.


9/1/02

http://www.csus.edu/ier/charter/charteraccount.html

Girod, M. (1998). “Riding the Dinosaur Wave.” Educational Leadership. 56(1) 72-76.

Goldsby, D., Fazal, M. (2001). “Now That Your Students Have Created Web-Based Digital Portfolios, How Do You Evaluate Them?” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(4) 607-616.

Gordon, J. (2002). Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. The Journal of Education Research, 81, 41-47.

Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1986). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas.

Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facility and personnel staff development. Teachers College Record, 80, 36-53.

Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D., Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973) A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the University of Texas.

Hargreaves, A. (ed). (1997). Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). “Rethinking Educational Change: Going Deeper and Wider in the Quest for Success.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Hawkes, M., Romiszowski, A. (2001). “Examining the Reflective Outcomes of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication on Inservice Teacher Development.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 28-308.

Herr, P. (2000). “The Changing Role of the Teacher.” T.H.E Journal. 28(4) 28 32.

Hirsh, S. & Moffett, C. (1994). A reflective dialog about the change process. Journal of Staff Development, 15, 43.

Holland, L. (ed.) (2002). Education Connection. University of Massachusetts/Amherst School of Education.

Holland, P. (2001). “Professional Development in Technology: Catalysts for School Reform.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 245-267.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Hurling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Borne, TX: Southwest Education Enterprises.

Kalmbacher, S., Maxson, D. (2000). “Instructional Technology Academy: Empowering Teachers to Lead Instructional Change.” NASSP Bulletin. 84(616) 42-48.

Kariuki, M., Turner, S. (2001). “Creating Electronic Portfolios Using Laptops: A Learning Experience for Preservice Teachers, Elementary School Pupils, and Elementary School Teachers.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(4) 567-589.

Kegan, R., Lahey, L.L. (2001). “The Real Reason People Won’t Change.” Harvard Business Review. 79(10) 84-92.

Kinnaman, D.,Dyrl, O. (1995). “Part 2: Developing a technology powered curriculum.” Technology and Learning. 15(5).


9/1/02

Kozma, R., & Shank, P. (1998). Connection with the 21st Century: Technology in support of educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.) Learning with technology - 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 10-12.

Leron, W., Hazzan, O. (2000). “IT in Higher Education: Why Is IT so Hard and Why There Is Still Hope After All?” British Journal of Educational Technology. 31(3) 243-246.

Lever, J. C. (1997, October). Technology-assisted facilitated learning: Teaching for the information age. A paper presented at the League of Innovation Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harpers & Row.

Lieberman, A., Gronlick, M. (1997). “Networks, Reform, and the Professional Development of Teachers.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Lieux, E. M. (1996 Spring). A comparative study of learning in lecture vs. problem-based format. A Newsletter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, [Online] Available: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-nutr.html [1997, February 20].

Linnell, C. C. (1991). Determining the stages of concern of North Carolina technology education teachers with curriculum change from industrial arts to technology education (change concerns). (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University 1991). Dissertation Abstract International, 52/06, (ProQuest-Dissertation Abstract No. ACC 9123373).

Linnell, C. C. (1994). Facilitating curriculum change: Teacher concerns as a factor . Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 31, 93-94.

Long, B. D. (1995). Stages of concern in the implementation of tech prep programs in Virginia. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/03, (ProQuest-Dissertation Abstract No. AAC 9520746).

McCombs, B. L. (1992) Learning centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Physiological Association and The Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory.

Menlo, A. (1985). A reconceptualization of resistance to change and its application to the institutionalization process. A paper presented at the Institutional School Improvement Project Seminar on Institutionalization, Luzern, Switzerland.

Morimoto, K., with Gregory, J., & Butler, P. (1973). Notes on the content for learning. Harvard Education Review, 43, 245-257.

Meyerson, D. (2001). “Radical Change the Quick Way.” Harvard Business Review. October 92-100.

Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. (1995). “Types of Organizational Change: From Incremental Improvement to Discontinuous Transformation.” In Nadler, D.A., et. al. Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Negroni, P. J. (1994). The transformation of America’s public schools. Equity and Excellence in Education 27, 25-26.

Newhouse, C.P. (2001). “Applying the Concerns – Based Adoption Model to Research on Computers in Classrooms.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 33(5).

Nicaise, M., Barnes, D. (1999). “The Union of Technology, Constructivism and Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education. 47(3) 205-212.

Northrup, P., Little, W. (1999). “Establishing Instructional Technology Benchmarks for Teacher Preparation Programs.” Journal of Teacher Education. 47(3) 213-222.


9/1/02

Parker, R. (1996). “Integrating Faculty Use of Technology in Teaching and Teacher Education.” A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Mid-South Educational research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL.

Parker, E. W., & Griffin, T. H. (1979). A quick scoring device for the stages of concern questionnaire (Report No. 3079). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rice, M.L., Wilson, E.K., Bagley, W. (2001). “Transforming Learning with Technology: Lesson from the Field.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 211-230.

Richardson, V. (1995). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instructions. Journal of Staff Development, 15 80-81.

Riel, M., Fultin, K. (2001). “The Role of Technology in Supporting Learning Communities.” Phi Delta Kappan. 82(7) 518-524.

Riley, R. W. (1994, March 11). Quality education: School reform for the new American economy. A speech presented by U. S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley in Baltimore, MD: U. S. Department of Education.

Roberts, K. M. (1993). A tri-dimensional description of collaboration: Effective change for school improvement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/06, (ProQuest-Dissertation Abstract No. AAC 9329520).

Rogan, J. M., Borich, G. D., & Taylor, H. P. (1992). Validation of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Action in Teacher Education, 14, 43.

Rosenholtz, S. J, Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Bassler, O. C. (1985). Teacher opinion questionnaire. Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee (Grant No. NIE-G830 041).

Roueche J. (1998, February 18). Future of community colleges. University of Texas at Austin. A speech at North Harris Montgomery County Community College Inservice. Houston, TX.

Rutherford, W. L. (1977, April). An investigation of how teachers’ concerns influence innovation adoption. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York.

Rutherford, W. L. (1986, April). Teachers’ contributions to school improvement: Reflections on fifteen years of research. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.

Rutherford, W. L. (1987). Educational secretaries and support staff training programs. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Rutherford, W. L. (1988). Summary report of the effective schools support services pilot. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Rutherford, W. L. (1989a). Summary report of the administrator / teacher effective schools model-Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Rutherford, W. L. (1989b). Summary report of the administrator effective schools model-Sheldon ISD. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Rutherford, W. L. (1989, November). The concerns-based adaptation model: Evolution and utilization. A paper presented at the Conference of Members of the Flemish and Dutch CBAM Network at Den Bosch, Netherlands.

Sagor, R. (1997). Collaborative action research for educational change. In A. Hargreave (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 169-174.


9/1/02

Savage, D. J. (1992). An examination of teacher use of curricula innovation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston (1992). Dissertation Abstract International, 53/07, (ProQuest-Disretation Abstract No. AAC 9236681).

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Schmoker, M. (1997). “Setting Goals in Turbulent Times.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Mind and Heart. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sologuk, S., Stammer, R., Vetter, R. (2001). “A Collaborative Approach for Creating Curriculum and Instructional Materials.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 199-210.

Sparks, D. (1997). Reforming teaching and reforming staff development: Interview with Susan Loucks-Horsley. Journal of Staff Development, 18, 20-21.

Stuhlmann, J. Taylor, H. (1999). “Preparing Technically Competent Student Teachers: A Three Years Study of Interventions and Experiences.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 7(4) 333-350.

Thomas, G. (1992). Learning for the 21st century. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 22, 8-12.

Time for teachers. (No Date). Teachers and goals 2000. [Online] Available: http://www.ed.gov/G2K/teachers/time.html [1996, March 27].

Uchinda, D., Cetron, M., & McKenzie, F. (1996). Times have changed: Backdrop of concerns for our nation’s children. Preparing Students for the 21st Century. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. pp. 4-5.

Udall, D., & Rugend, A. (1997). From inside out: The expeditionary learning process of teacher change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 404.

United States Department of Education. (1994) Goals 2000: Educate America: Supporting community efforts to reach challenging goals and high standards. Washington, DC. Author.

United States Department of Labor. (1995, March). Nation’s voluntary skills standard: Orientation guide for members of the national skills standard board. Washington, DC. Author.

Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B. (2000). “Facilitating a Constructivist Vision of Technology Integration Among Education Faculty and Preservice Teachers.” Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 33(2).

Whetzel, D. (1992). The Secretary of labor’s commission on achieving necessary skills. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Skills. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. ED 339 749).

Williams, W. W., & Smith, J. A. (1994). Technology for the information age: Moving out of the complacency paralysis. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 42.

Willis, S. (1997). National standards: Standards for performance, where do they stand? Educational Update, 39, 1, 6-8.

Wirt, F. W., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). Schools in conflict: The politics of education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publication Corp.


9/1/02

http://www.ed.gov/G2K/teachers/time.html

self-efficacy of teachers as they encounter changes due to ... · web viewself efficacy of new...

Documents