Volume 33 Number 5 Summer 2001 Applying the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to Research on Computers in Classrooms C. Paul Newhouse Using the CBAM Data in Teacher Case Studies Six teacher case studies were developed in detail to describe a range of teacher responses to the implementation of student-owned portable computers in their classrooms. To illustrate the value of the CBAM data to these case studies, two are summarised here. Some of the other data is given as a background to the case study. Pam the Investigator Pam had nearly 20 years of experience teaching social studies, including 9 at Hillview. She was involved with the study in all three years. In the third year, she was interviewed using the schedule based on the CBAM LoU structure and completed a SoC questionnaire. Before the beginning of the PCP, Pam had some experience in the use of computers for report writing and other administrative tasks. She had not used computers in her classroom but had taken her classes to use CD-ROMs in the library. She felt her lack of personal computing skills, in addition to the lack of access to computers by students, had held her back from using computers in the classroom. She saw some potential for using computers in social studies but did not think she would do anything she could not already do without the computers. She felt the computers would help students to think laterally, “when it doesn’t work, do something else.” However, she was concerned about the amount of work it may require of her, the possibility that the computers may limit student access to a variety of sources, and that there would not be suitable software. Despite her reservations, Pam was sure the computers were needed to improve the computer literacy of the students and that it was part of “moving into the future.” She could see the computers replacing some of the verbal activities in group work. Her role as a teacher would change to focus more on thinking of different methods to fulfil her aims. From the interview transcript, the independent expert and I used the rating sheet to consider each of the categories of LoU, which are shown in Table 6. Based on these analyses, I determined Pam’s overall LoU to be represented by Level IVA, Routine. The independent expert also rated her LoU as Level IVA and commented that there had been difficulty in arriving at this conclusion. He commented, “She’s on the boundary between III and IVA, but increasingly tending toward the latter.”
Level IVA is defined thus:
Level III is defined as a:
The graph in Figure 3 shows the SoC profile for Pam constructed from the questionnaire data at the end of the third year. Pam has a single peak user profile (Hall et al., 1986) with moderate awareness stage (0) concerns. Hall and Hord (1987) suggest that a high 2 and low 1 combination tends to indicate that the person has “self concerns, tend to be more negative toward the innovation and generally not open to information about the innovation per se” (p. 54). Her major concern was at the personal stage (2) and definitely not the informational stage (1). Concerns at the personal stage tend to indicate that Pam was uncertain about the demands on her of facilitating the use of the computers, her inadequacy to meet those demands, and her role (Hall et al., 1986). The low score on the informational stage tends to indicate that she was not interested in getting more information about applying the computers, which was consistent with other data on her, which indicated that, though she was seeking information, this was not her major emphasis. She was more experimental in terms of trying out things and seeing if they worked for her. She was also concerned a little about her lack of computer-related skills.
Figure 3. Stages of Concern profile for Pam Toward Integration—Eliza Eliza was an English teacher at the school who was involved in the study during the second semester of the third year. One of her Year Eight classes was observed for four lessons. The students completed an English class questionnaire and two forms of the New Classroom Environment Instrument (NCEI;. Also, five students were interviewed, and Eliza was interviewed using the CBAM-based interview schedule. She may have completed the SoC questionnaire anonymously. From the interview, the independent expert and I used the LoU rating sheet to consider each of the categories. Based on this analysis, I determined Eliza’s overall LoU to be represented by the Level IVB, refinement. The independent expert also rated her LoU as Level IVB and commented that, “She’s clearly at IVB. Unusual to find one. Generally there [are] not too many of these in any population.” Level IVB is defined as the:
An IC variation, presented in Table 7, was constructed for Eliza using the variety of data sources (e.g., interviews, observations). In terms of the complete innovation, Eliza was one of only a few teachers who had satisfactorily implemented the innovation.
Computers were integral, and indeed critical, to the functioning of Eliza’s class. Eliza said that her students used computers “every session” and that they did not have a physical file. All marking was done off disk, and any printouts were stored in a filing cabinet. She liked students to use computers approximately 50% of each lesson. She had experimented with using computers to develop “nonlinear thinking,” for example, trying to use HyperCard in place of a word processor. Her emphasis in English was on the drafting process, which was supported by using the computers. She tried to vary her lessons and plan for each activity to take approximately four lessons of group work with a plenary lesson on either side. The computer use was integrated with the programme, and she saw “no reason why anything can’t be done on the computers.” She felt that nothing could stop her using computers, because she could get around any problems. Eliza was a strong supporter of the PCP and encouraged other teachers. She had used a computer personally for three years and loved using computers but found it difficult to motivate other staff to use them. She informally collaborated with the social studies teacher, Barbara, who taught the same Year 8 classes. This involved some informal coordination, feedback, and discussion, but not an integrated programme. She recognised that the school needed more student-centred learning. Building a Model The study had many findings other than those directly linked to the CBAM data. However, after analysing all the data and, in particular, considering the case studies, a model was proposed to explain teacher responses to the availability of the computers. The model included a variation of the SoC and LoU that was given the label type of response. This provided nine types of responses (Table 8) specific to the innovation of student-owned portable computers in schools. Most of the innovations to which CBAM has been applied are brought into the class by the teacher and largely controlled by the teacher. In this innovation, the students owned and controlled the computers and initially determined whether the computers were brought into the class. This gave rise to the potential negative responses (dissension and negation) of teachers, which is less likely in other types of innovations. The ToR was one component of the model developed to explain the findings of the main study. However, the model evolved from the development of the ToR, which in turn developed out of the use of the CBAM model.
Conclusions This study applied the CBAM instruments and methods of data analysis to an innovation involving the implementation of portable computers in a secondary school. When used in conjunction with other methods, CBAM was found to be very useful in developing an initial understanding of the innovation and its effect on teachers. In particular, it was very helpful in developing in-depth case studies of teachers by suggesting the likely concerns of teachers, providing benchmarks for comparisons, and suggesting likely reasons for teacher behaviours. This would then assist in the recommendation for professional development. The CBAM structure provided the researcher with a framework within which to develop a model more tailored to the particular characteristics of the innovation. A major variation on the typical innovation was the control of the computers by the students. It is hoped that other researchers will be encouraged to consider the value of the CBAM instruments and methods to research in educational computing. CBAM provides a well-developed framework within which to conduct research and incorporate educational computing research into the mainstream of educational research. Contributor C. Paul Newhouse, PhD, has always considered himself to be both an educator and learner in all aspects of his life. For nine years, this was largely realised in an innovative state secondary school in Western Australia, where he had the opportunity to put into practice a range of philosophically based programmes and strategies in teaching across the curriculum. Since then he has had the privilege of sharing his experiences with preservice and practicing teachers for more than 10 years in two universities. His current appointment is as a lecturer with the School of Education at Edith Cowan University. He is a life member of the Educational Computing Association of Western Australia. Contact Dr. C. Paul Newhouse References Carbines, R. J. (1986). The relationship between the degree of implementation of computers for use in learning in the primary school and selected characteristics of the school: Organizational climate and strategies used for implementation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New England, Australia. Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. (1990, March). Theory and practice: Implementing computer technology in a secondary school. Paper presented at the seventh International Conference on Technology and Education, Brussels, Belgium. Collis, B. (1994). Triple innovation in the Netherlands. The Computing Teacher, 22(2), 23–26. Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226. Hall, G. E., & Carter, D. S. G. (1995). Implementing change in the 1990s: Paradigms, practices and possibilities. In D. S. G. Carter & M. H. O’Neill (Eds.), International perspectives on educational reform and policy implementation (pp. 171–183). London: Falmer Press. 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: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: a framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56. Heck, S., Stiegelbauer, S. M., Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1975). Measuring Innovation Configurations: Procedures and applications. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hope, W. C. (1995). Microcomputer technology: Its impact on teachers in an elementary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Florida State University. Loucks, S. F., Newlove, B. W., & Hall, G. E. (1975). Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1995). Differences in computer use of practicing versus preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2), 184–197. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Welliver, P. W. (1993, January). Procedures for assessing teachers’ computer use based on instructional transformations. Paper presented at the 15th National Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans. Marsh, C. J. (1988). Curriculum implementation: An analysis of the use of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) in Australia, 1981–87. Curriculum Perspectives, 8(2), 30–42. Moersch, C. (1997). Computer efficiency: Measuring the instructional use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 24(4), 52–56. Newhouse, C. P. (1994). Computer-supported learning environments: Making them happen! In Australian Computers in Education Conference (pp. 147–151). Brisbane, Queensland: Australian Council for Computers in Education. Newhouse, C. P. (1998). Teachers’ responses and classroom learning environments associated with student access to portable computers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Overbaugh, R. C., & Reed, W. M. (1995). Effect of an introductory versus a content-specific computer course on computer anxiety and stages of concern. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2), 211–220. Rieber, L. P., & Welliver, P. W. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream educational computing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), 21–32. Rutherford, R. (1977, April). An investigation of how teachers’ concerns influence innovation adoption. Procedures for adopting educational innovations project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1992). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 479–505. Vernooy-Gerritsen, M. (1994, July). Schools with SPIRIT, a new approach to implementation. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference: APITITE ’94, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved. Download the full article (PDF, 117 KB, 18 seconds PDF Instructions) Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
