 |
Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W.
Michael Reed, New York University
|
| formerly Journal of Research on Computing in
Education |
Volume 33 Number 5 Summer
2001
Applying the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model to Research on Computers in
Classrooms
C. Paul Newhouse
Edith Cowan University
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.”
|
Table 6. Concerns-Based Adoption Model Level of Use for Pam
|
 |
|
Judge
|
Knowledge
|
Acquiring Information
|
Sharing
|
Assessing
|
Planning
|
Status Reporting
|
Performing
|
|
|
Researcher’s analysis
|
III
|
III
|
IVB
|
IVB
|
IVA
|
IVA
|
IVA
|
|
Expert’s anaylsis
|
III
|
IVA
|
IVA
|
III
|
III
|
III
|
III
|
|
Level IVA is defined thus:
Use of the innovation is stabilised. Few if any changes are being
made in ongoing use. Little preparation or thought is being given to
improving innovation use or its consequences. (p. 8)
Level III is defined as a:
State in which the user focuses most effort on the short-term,
day-to-day use of the innovation with little time for reflection.
Changes in use are made more to meet user needs than client needs. The
user is primarily engaged in a stepwise attempt to master the tasks
required to use the innovation, often resulting in disjointed and
superficial use. (p. 8)
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:
State in which the user varies the use of the innovation to increase
the impact on clients within immediate sphere of influence. Variations
are based on knowledge of both short- and long-term consequences for
clients. (p. 8)
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.
|
Table 7. Innovation
Configuration Variation for Eliza
|
|
|
Dimension
|
Variation
|
|
|
1.
|
Access to computers
|
(1)
|
All students have a portable computer available at all times.
|
|
2.
|
Student use of computers in a subject area
|
(1)
|
Students use portable computers at home and in many lessons, where
appropriate.
|
|
3.
|
Classroom organisation
|
(1)
|
Teacher uses a variety of teaching strategies based on computer
use.
|
|
4.
|
Independent learning
|
(1)
|
Students use portable computers extensively to support working at
their own pace and constructing their own knowledge.
|
|
5.
|
Teacher–student relationship
|
(2)
|
Students often do not depend on teacher for knowledge acquisition or
completion of tasks on the computer.
|
|
6.
|
Learning activities
|
(1)
|
Students use their computers to complete practical or investigative
activities that are relevant to their experience. The activities will be
designed to develop higher- and lower-order learning skills.
|
|
7.
|
Nature of task environment
|
(2)
|
Students will be given tasks to complete on the computers that are
motivating and students will receive regular feedback on those
tasks.
|
|
8.
|
Technological literacy
|
(2)
|
Students develop a level of technological literacy relevant to school
through the use of the computers. Students will improve the presentation
of their work and use the drafting cycle.
|
|
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.
|
Table 8. Type of Response
of Teachers to the Presence of Student-Owned Portable
Computers
|
|
| |
Description of Teacher Actions Indicating Type of Response
|
|
|
Dissension
|
Overtly criticises use of computers and deliberately discourages
students from using computers.
|
|
Negation
|
Believes that computers are not useful in his or her particular
subject area. May unconsciously discourage students from using
computers. Avoids involvement with the computers.
|
|
Toleration
|
Neither encourages nor discourages use of computers and makes no
allowance for their presence in the classroom. Does not deliberately
consider the use of computers for any classroom learning activities. May
allow some students to use their computers if they choose to do so.
|
|
Accommodation
|
Considers the use of computers when preparing classroom activities
but does not make substantial changes. Assumes that the computers will
often be used by students. May alter some activities to make use of the
capabilities of the computers.
|
|
Investigation
|
Seeks out new ideas and begins to try new learning activities based
on the capabilities of the computers.
|
|
Integration
|
The computers are a necessary component of the classroom and many
learning activities would either not be possible or be inadequately
presented without the use of the computers. Computers fit routinely
within the classroom being used whenever they can achieve the
teaching/learning objectives of the teachers and students more
effectively than by other means not involving computer use.
|
|
Reflection
|
Continually considers changes to own practice and changes to
programme to incorporate more of the potential of the use of the
computers.
|
|
Contribution
|
Becomes involved in collaborative activities associated with the use
of the computers in the classroom in order to benefit students.
|
|
Evolution
|
Takes an active leadership role in the evolution of the application
of computers to the teaching and learning.
|
|
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
2 Bradford St.
Mount Lawley 6155
Western Australia, Australia
p.newhouse@cowan.edu.au
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.
Back
to first page...
Download
the full article (PDF, 117 KB, 18 seconds PDF Instructions)
Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology
in Education). All rights reserved.
|
