Professional Development and the Adoption and Implementation of New Innovations: Do Teacher Concerns Matter? 6(5)
Winston Vaughan
Xavier University
Abstract
Although the trend today is leaning toward including teachers in the decision-making process, policymakers have historically tended to design professional development activities based on skills and knowledge they assume teachers need, rather than allowing teachers to identify their needs and concerns when designing new programs. Research suggests that successful implementation of new programs depends on teachers’ participation and comfort level. Concerns theory reports that at the early stages of an innovation, teachers’ concerns tend to be more personal. As personal concerns are resolved, teachers tend to be more concerned about the application (task and the impact of the innovation). This study examines the importance of taking teacher concerns into consideration when planning professional development activities for new innovations using a sample of seventy-nine teachers from two rural school districts in Ohio who elected to participate in a two-week training session on SchoolNet computers and networking applications. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ), teachers’ weekly reflections, and journal responses provided the data. Results suggest that as teachers became more familiar with SchoolNet technology, there was a shift in concerns from personal to task and impact concerns.
Introduction
SchoolNet/Partners in Learning
Ohio’s SchoolNet program is a legislatively driven network technology initiative to support school reform in Ohio. In June 1994, Ohio’s then governor, George Voinovitch, demonstrated the state of Ohio’s commitment to school reform and the importance of technology in the process by signing House Bill 790. This bill legislated a five-year plan for the total networking of Ohio’s schools’ classrooms (SchoolNet), providing electronic communication to various sources through the Internet. SchoolNet was identified as having the potential to:
- help students and teachers in organizing, manipulating, and displaying information.
- move students beyond learning a body of knowledge to a student-centred inquiry.
- provide linkage to the outside world, interactive learning experiences and informational resources, as well as opportunities for the integration of telecommunications and computer technology in the everyday learning experiences of students.
Partners in Learning was established as a community-wide collaborative leadership prototype team in 1990. The team consisted of two local school districts, a local university, and members of the business community. The goal of the team was the development of a technologically enhanced prototype for teaching, learning, and professional development. Since Partners in Learning had a technology plan in place, they submitted a proposal for funding and were selected in 1995 as one of fourteen prototypes to lead Ohio into the twenty-first century. Partners in Learning/SchoolNet Prototype was the name selected for this project. Each prototype was charged with developing a professional development plan. The professional development plan is a teacher-leader model grounded in concerns theory with a strong conviction that the concerns-based approach could maximize the understanding and use of SchoolNet in classrooms by administrators, teachers, and learners.
Concerns Theory
Concerns theory emerged during the 1960’s through ten years of work and measurement by Frances Fuller and others. Hall and Hord (1987) report that concerns theory assumes that change is a process that follows a seven-stage developmental sequence regarding the concerns that teachers have when an innovation is adopted. Based on these premises, Hall, Wallace and Dossett (1973) developed the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), which emphasized the teacher and the innovation as the main focus. One of the dimensions of the CBAM is the Stages of Concern (SoC) which teachers indicate when involved in the implementation of an innovation. Three stages of concern were expanded into seven dimensions of concerns that can vary in intensity. Self-concerns consist of three stages. Stage 0—Awareness, Stage 1—Informational, and Stage 2—Personal. Task concerns consist of Stage 3—Management, and Impact concerns consist of Stage 4—Consequence, Stage 5—Collaboration, and Stage 6—Refocusing. This model suggests that interventions and professional development should address the specific expressed concerns of the teachers. Research indicates that expressed concerns permit the identification of acceptance or adoption of the innovation on the part of teachers. As concerns at the four sequential, non-adopter stages of Awareness, Informational, Personal, and Management are reduced, users begin to express higher concerns at the three adopter stages of Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing. If teachers do not have their concerns first reduced at the non-adopter stages, they will not move on to the adopter stages.
Further concerns theories from which the Stages of Concern emerged enjoy solid empirical support in the literature through intensive studies by Adams and Martray (1981), Damarte and Manhood (1981), Hall et al. (1973), and Marso and Pigge (1994).
Support for Concerns-Based Professional Development
As we enter the twenty-first century, schools are being urged to prepare students to meet the challenges of a changing global economy. This means changing the way schools have historically operated in designing and implementing innovations for the teaching learning process.
Research suggests that never before in the history of education has there been recognition of the importance of professional development and technology. The Office of Technology Assessment (1995), the U.S. Department of Education (1994), and several other educators have identified the professional development of teachers and the use of technology as two major components of school reform that are necessary to provide students with the best educational practices during the new millenium. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) argue that professional development is critical to systemic educational reform and school improvement that is designed to enhance the teaching learning process. Guskey (1986) argues that the purpose of professional development is to bring about changes in the beliefs, attitudes, and classroom practices of teachers with the ultimate goal being changes in student outcomes. Borko and Putnam (1995) argue that professional development should involve teachers in the identification of what they need to learn and in the development of the learning opportunity and /or the process to be used. Guskey (1995) and Hargreaves (1995) argue that, when teachers are denied input in their own professional development, they are likely to become cynical and removed from school improvement efforts.
On the other hand, Lambert (1988) and Wade (1989) report that professional development has been only moderately effective in bringing about changes in schools. Norris (1993) and Little (1993) report that the reason behind the limited impact of professional development is that concerns of teachers have not been taken into consideration when planning professional development programs. Little (1993) argues that there is a serious disconnection between school reform and teachers’ professional development. Too often, professional development programs are designed, organized, and delivered based on the skills and knowledge policymakers assume teachers need, rather than allowing teachers to identify their needs and concerns and designing programs to address those needs. Further research (Hall & Hord, 1987; Rutherford, Hall & George ,1982; Norris, 1993; Todd, 1993; and Hope,1995) supports the concept of addressing the concerns of teachers when planning professional development activities since successful implementation will depend on the attitudes of the teachers involved in the process. Too often, professional development activities for implementing new programs usually take the form of a one-time workshop, and teachers are asked to go back to their respective classrooms and successfully implement the programs. Teachers therefore become reluctant to implement because of the lack of training and interest. Cunningham, Hillison and Horne (1985) report that, during the successful adoption of any innovation, teachers’ participation is crucial. Their participation will largely depend on the degree to which they are comfortable with the innovation. Hall, George and Rutherford (1979) report that one method for determining the degree of comfort teachers have with an innovation is to monitor their concerns about the innovation. They report that the Stages of Concern about the Innovation has provided great insights into monitoring the implementation of innovations in educational settings. The monitoring of expressed concerns provides opportunities for feedback to teachers and educators providing professional development. Monitoring also assists administrators with the implementation of the innovation.
This study examines the importance of taking teacher concerns into consideration when planning professional development activities for new innovations using a sample of seventy-nine teachers from two rural school districts in Ohio who elected to participate in a two-week training session on SchoolNet computers and networking applications.
Method
Participant, Procedures, and Workshop
The target population for this study included a group of seventy-nine K-12 teachers from two rural school districts in Ohio who were involved in the Partners in Learning SchoolNet Prototype. Teachers in both school districts were asked to complete the SoCQ prior to the workshop. The teachers were not required but invited to complete the questionnaire. Ninety-four teachers in both school districts completed and returned the questionnaire. Data were analyzed and results of the questionnaire were returned to the participating teachers. The results included a graphic representation of their concerns and a brief interpretation of their individual profile of concerns. Results from the ninety-four respondents provided a developmental measure of the individual teacher’s stages of concern about the SchoolNet innovation. The results of these data were used to guide the design of a two-week professional development experience.
The professional development experience was organized in a two-week workshop format. On the morning of the first day of the workshop, participating teachers who had not completed the SoCQ in the spring were asked to do so. A total of 119 teachers enrolled in the summer workshop but the only teachers included in the quantitative sample were the seventy-nine teachers who completed and returned a pre-workshop and post-workshop Stages of Concern Questionnaire.
Participating teachers were then introduced to the workshop goals, structure, content, and requirements. Participants were organized into teaching teams within buildings. These teaching teams, in most cases, consisted of two to three teachers. During the two weeks of professional development activities, teachers worked in self-selected teams at their personal computer workstations and in their own classrooms. In some cases, teachers chose to work at one computer with others looking on. Other teachers relocated computers to permit conversation, collaboration, and access to individual computers. The workshop was designed to achieve the goals of the SchoolNet Prototype. At the beginning of each day, teachers were provided with opportunities to go online and chat with other participants to collaborate and share various concerns. Teachers were then given instructions, information, and activities for the day. Participants were provided with training and opportunities to explore the potential that technology could bring to the teaching /learning process. Some workshop activities included using components of Claris Works applications, e-mail, exploring the Internet using basic Internet skills, and incorporating technology into the development of curriculum units and instructional activities. Two university professors coordinated the workshop, while consultants and technical support served the participants. Audiotapes were used as a tool for individual training. High school students with expertise in computers were hired to provide building-level support. One faculty leader was used in each building to coordinate the high school students. Great effort was taken to create a support organization that would facilitate immediate answers to questions as they occurred. All teachers were required to keep daily journals and turn in weekly reflections to the coordinators. The entire workshop was coordinated online from one high school. All participating teachers were networked and used each other as online resources. On the last day of the workshop, participants were asked to complete the Stages of Concern Questionnaire.
Instrument/Quantitative Investigations
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (Hall, Wallace & Dossett, 1973) was the primary source of data collection. The SoCQ is a thirty-five-item questionnaire designed to measure the stages of concern about an innovation. It yields data on the seven stages of concern about an innovation on a Likert scale with values ranging from 0 to 7 according to how the test taker perceives the items as a description of the concern felt at the time. There are five questions for each of the seven related stages of concerns. The raw score for each scale is the sum of responses to the five statements on the scale for the item numbers and statements arranged according to the stages of concern. The instrument has a high internal reliability with estimates of internal consistency (alpha coefficients) ranging from .64 to .83 with six of the seven coefficients being above .70. Stage score correlations ranged from .65 to .86 with four of the seven correlations being above .80.
Data Analysis
Data were computer scored to obtain group raw scores that were specifically representative of concerns that were prominent at a specific level of concern. These raw scores for the seven levels of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire were converted to normed percentiles. The SoCQ has predetermined normed percentiles as a feature of the questionnaire. The pre-test/post-test group percentiles for each stage of concern as reported in Table1 were used to build a graphic composite profile for the group of seventy-nine teachers. This profile (Figure 1) reports the peak stages of concern and the relatively more or less intense stages of concern. It also reports a comparison of the pre-test/post-test graphic composite concerns profile for the group of teachers at each stage.
Table 1
Pre-test/Post-test Group Percentiles as Measured by the Stages of
Concern Questionnaire
| Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pre-test Percentile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Post-test Percentile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results
The results suggest that the most intense pre-test percentile score was at Stage 0—Awareness. The lowest intense pre-test percentile score was at Stage 6—Refocusing. The most intense post-test score was at Stage 5—Collaboration, and the lowest intense post-test score was at Stage 4—Consequence. The pre-test /post-test percentile score that was most similar was Stage 4—Consequence. The pre-test/post-test Stages of Concern Comparison Composite Profile as displayed in Figure 1 indicates a shift from high intense concerns to lower intense concerns at Stage 0—Awareness, Stage 1—Informational, and Stage 2—Personal. A shift from low intense concerns to higher intense concerns is reported at Stage 5—Collaboration and Stage 6—Refocusing. There was no change at Stage 4—Consequence. These findings indicate a shift in concerns from personal to task and impact, which is consistent with the tenets of Concerns Theory. Group mean scores for each stage of concern as indicated in Table 2 were also included to strengthen the findings in the quantitative investigations. A comparison of the pre-test/post-test means scores as displayed in Figure 2 indicate a shift in intensity concerns from self-concerns to task and impact concerns. These findings correspond with those of the Stages of Concern Profile displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Pretest/posttest Stages of Concern Comparison Composite Profile for
79 K-12 teachers' concerns about SchoolNet technology as measured by the
Stages of Concern Questionnaire.
Table 2
Pre-test/Post-test Means as Measured by the Stages of Concern Questionnaire
| Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pre-test Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Post-test Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2.
Comparison of the pretest/posttest mean scores as measured by the Stages
of Concern Questionnaire.
Qualitative Investigations
The primary purpose of the qualitative investigations was to add depth and complexity to the findings of the quantitative analysis of the SoCQ. Therefore, the qualitative methods used in this investigation were primarily embedded within the framework of standard discourse. The qualitative data collection consisted of a questionnaire at the end of the first day of the workshop, weekly reflections, and journal responses. At the end of the first day, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire in order to identify their concerns about the innovation and the organization of the professional development activities. Questions asked were:
- What comments do you have on the organization of the first day of the workshop?
- What can we assist you with tomorrow to continue your professional development on the Macintosh, First Class or Claris Works?
- How has the workshop impacted your understanding of SchoolNet, the Macintosh, First Class and Claris Works now that the day is over?
- What ideas do you have for the application of SchoolNet to the organization of your classroom, or building and your instruction for next year?
Data Analysis
Data analysis was a guided process that began with reflections of factors investigated in the quantitative analysis. The qualitative set was content-analyzed to develop cues for specific themes; then similar themes were grouped together to develop major themes. In order to understand and analyze the participants’ concerns about SchoolNet and the professional development activities, it was necessary to reflect on the seven stages of the SoCQ. Using Van Manen’s (1990) selective reading approach to isolating statements in themes, responses from the questionnaires, reflections, and journals were analyzed thoroughly, and statements and phrases that seemed particularly essential or revealing about the participants’ concerns toward SchoolNet were identified. Certain themes recurred as commonality or possible commonalties in the data set. Themes identified as associated with self-concerns were: 1) knowledge acquisition, 2) non-users, 3) anxiety, 4) general awareness, and 5) users capabilities. Themes associated with task and impact concerns were: 1) organization, 2) scheduling, 3) processes, 4) task, 5) time management, 6) innovation implementation, 7) co-operation/collaboration with colleagues, and 8) colleagues as resources. Table 3 displays the major themes as associated with the Stages of Concern. All the data were therefore analyzed to discover commonalties or insights that could be used to develop text to add depth and complexity to the results found in the quantitative analysis.
Table 3
Major Themes as Associated with the Stages of Concern
|
|
|
| Stage 0—Awareness | General awareness |
| Stage 1—Informational | Knowledge acquisition and non-users |
| Stage 2—Personal | General anxiety, users capabilities and self-expectations |
| Stage 3—Management | Organization, scheduling, task, processes, time management and innovation implementation |
| Stage 4—Consequence | |
| Stage 5—Collaboration | Co-operation/collaboration with colleagues and colleagues as resources |
| Stage 6—Refocusing |
Findings
The motive for including qualitative investigations was guided by the following question: How do responses from a questionnaire, weekly reflections, and daily journals of a group of seventy-nine K-12 teachers support, refute, and/or elaborate on the quantitative investigations? Findings in the qualitative investigations suggest that teachers’ concerns were consistent with the tenets of the Stages of Concern found in the quantitative investigations. At the beginning and during the first day of the workshop, emerging themes clearly suggest that teachers involved in the SchoolNet technology prototype were interested in self-concerns. Teachers showed a general awareness of the innovation, (Stage 0—Awareness), were eager, excited, and willing to gain information. Teachers were also well focused and experienced a sense of joy when new skills were accomplished, and new concepts understood. Their primary concern was to gain more knowledge about the innovation (Stage 1—Informational), and their ability to comprehend and meet the demands embedded in SchoolNet technology (Stage 2—Personal). In general teachers identified themselves as non-users, were concerned about having SchoolNet technology in their classrooms, but anxious about grasping new concepts that would be needed to properly implement this innovation.
As the workshop progressed through the second week, and teachers became more knowledgeable and skillful in using SchoolNet technology, new themes began to emerge which indicated that self-concerns diminished over time. They began to reflect concerns that indicated a shift from self-concerns, to task (Stage 3—Management concerns). Teachers with a high level of concerns at the Management stage are concerned with the processes and tasks of using the innovation, and issues relating to organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands. These were all quite evident in the themes at this stage. No evidence was found to suggest that teachers expressed these concerns during the early stages of the innovation, but, by the second week of the workshop, emerging themes suggested that they were expressing concerns that were consistent at this stage. No evidence was found to suggest that teachers were overly concerned about Stage 4—Consequence, where the emphasis would be on the impact of the innovation on their students, or Stage 6—Refocusing, where teachers reflected concerns about having alternatives that could replace or be competitive with SchoolNet technology. Their main focus was on SchoolNet technology and the potential for enhancing teaching and learning.
On the other hand, during the latter stages, results suggested high intense concerns were reflected at the Stage 5—Collaboration Stage where the emphasis is on collaboration and co-operation with others. This stage was the most intense as reported in the quantitative findings. This could have been a result of the organization of the workshop. The workshop was designed to encourage teachers to collaborate with their colleagues in order to acquire skills and knowledge from each other. Teachers utilized this opportunity and benefited from it. All teachers participated in a daily activity designed for teachers to interact with their colleagues on line. They were able to share their successes and frustrations. Overall findings suggest that the qualitative investigations strongly support those found in the quantitative investigations. That is, at the beginning of the innovation, major themes in the qualitative investigations suggest that teachers expressed intense self-concerns. This is consistent with the findings reported in the quantitative investigations. As they gained more knowledge, major themes also suggest that self-concerns diminished as concerns shifted to task and impact concerns. This also supports the findings in the quantitative investigations.
Discussion of Findings
Limitations of the Study
Implications for Educational Practices
The results of this study suggest that the key to successful intervention is to personalize the innovation by taking the concerns of those engaged in the change process and accepting those concerns as crucial components and legitimate reflections of the change process. This gives a different perspective and contrast to the way the change process has been historically conducted. Policymakers have always had the tendency to adopt and implement innovations based on their own concerns, goals, and objectives. Policymakers and school administrators historically have been known to make decisions and to direct change processes without considering the concerns of the teachers who are going to be affected by the change. Research suggests that, when policymakers and school personnel adopt appropriately designed concerns-based professional development delivered in logical progression, it will result in reducing teachers’ resistance to change. Furthermore, teachers are more likely to adopt and implement an innovation if their needs and concerns are met during the initial phases. Initial professional development should be more focussed on providing teachers with the relevant information about the innovation and less directed on the impact of students, and intervention strategies should change as teachers’ concerns change.
References
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35-66). NY: Teachers College Press.
Cunningham, D.L., Hillison, J., & Horne, R. (1985). Adoption of an innovation: Monitoring the concerns of vocational teachers. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 10(1), 15-28.
Demarte, P. J. & Mahood, R. W. (1981). The concerns of teachers in rural, urban, and suburban school settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your schools? NY: Teachers College Press.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 114-132). NY. Teachers College Press.
Hall, G.E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools facilitating the process. NY: State University of New York Press.
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring stages of concerns about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 147 342).
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Rep. No. 3006). Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 095 126).
Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire: A postmodern perspective. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp.9-34). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hope, W. C. (1995). Micro computer technology: Its impact on teachers in elementary school. Dissertation, Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 384 336).
Lambert, L. (1988). Staff development redesigned. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 665-668.
Little, J. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 15(2), 129-159.
Marso, R. N. & Pigge, F. L. (1994). Concerns about teaching at four different stages of career development. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 69-72.
Norris, C. (1993). Assessing and evaluating teacher concerns. Computing Teacher, 20, 27-29.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. U. S. Congress, Washington, D C
Ohio Department of Education (1993). Ohio's Commitment to School Renewal. Columbus, OH: Author.
Ravitch, D. (1993). The promise of technology. Electronic Learning, 12 (4), 50.
Sparks, D. M., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
Rutherford, W.L. Hall, G. E., & George, A. S. (1982). An instrument for measuring the concerns change facilitators have about their role in guiding change. The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. ( ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 221 600).
Todd, N. I. (1993). Faculty concerns as gateways to teacher competency with computer technology. Paper presented at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, Louisiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 362 209).
United States Department of Education. (1994). National goals report: Building a nation of learners. Report by the National Educational Goals Panel, Washington, D. C.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: Sunny.
Wade, R. K. (1989). What makes a difference in inservice
education? A meta-analysis of research. Educational Leadership, 43(4),
48-54.
Author Notes
Telephone: (W) 513-7453614 (H) 859-4856124 Fax 513 745 1052
Email Vaughan@admin.xu.edu Highest Degree Earned: Ph.D.
Position/Title: Assistant Professor Department of Education
Organization and Address: Xavier University
3800 Victory Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45207
Teaching Interests: Multicultural Education
Professional Development
Reflective teaching
School reform
Middle level teaching /learning