Research in Brief - October 2007 - Volume 107 (6)

Technology as an Innovation in Science and Mathematics Teaching

Scott W. Slough and Gregory E. Chamblee
p. 222

“Will information technology change schools?” Or perhaps a better question is “Can schools change to accommodate the promise of technology to change teaching and learning?”

The successful implementation of an innovation - information technology in this instance - is a process not an event (Friel & Gann, 1993; Fullan, 1982; Hall & Hord, 1987), developmental in nature (Hall & Hord, 1987), and a highly personal experience for each teacher (Hall & Hord, 1987). Thus, for any change to be successful, the concerns of each individual teacher must be taken into consideration when intervention strategies are developed. Hall, George and Rutherford (1986) define concerns as the feelings, thoughts, and reactions that individuals have about an innovation or a new program that touches their lives. Hall, Wallace and Dossett (1973) developed the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to measure concerns as individuals' progress through the adoption of an innovation. Over the past several decades, CBAM has been used to assess technology integration effectiveness in various settings. This research brief will emphasize those studies that have gone beyond short-term implementation and low-level concerns, resulting in a deeper look to determine the uses of CBAM as a theoretical framework to study technology integration in mathematics and science.

The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is designed to provide “change facilitators with diagnostic tools” (Hall & Hord, 2006, p.35) to help individuals adopt an innovation. CBAM utilizes three primary diagnostic tools: Innovation Configurations (clarifies the innovation), Stages of Concern (identifies individuals concerns related to the innovation), and Levels of Use (identifies individual levels of implementation) (Hall & Hord, 2006). CBAM also posits that the change facilitator will impact the innovation adoption process. Thus, there is a need to study the interactions of the change facilitator and individuals involved in the adoption process so a holistic picture of the process can be determined. To measure this impact, the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ) was developed (Hall & George, 1988, 1999; Vandenberghe, 1988).

In three successive reviews of technology integration in mathematics and science effectiveness, the efficacy of the CBAM model has been investigated (Chamblee & Slough, 2004; Slough & Chamblee 2005; Slough & Chamblee 2007). The first two reviews focused on a decade of SITE proceedings (Chamblee & Slough, 2004) and an extensive review of any journal publication that included CBAM and technology with mathematics or science (Slough & Chamblee 2005). Three themes emerged from these two reviews. Theme one was very few research studies actually use the entire CBAM model to study the integration of technology. The majority of the studies reviewed studies only used the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SOCQ) diagnostic tool. A smaller number of studies used Levels of Use (LoU) diagnostic tool or Innovation Configuration (IC) diagnostic tool, typically when viewing an in-place technology. Theme two was almost all studies were short in duration (less than one year). The majority of the studies used a pre-post design model. Very few studies reported on follow-up surveys after the ‘implementation phase’ was completed as defined by the project or grant. Theme three was SoCQ studies documented modifying lower-level concerns (awareness and informational) and not higher-level concerns (management and consequence). The studies that focused on lower-level modifications overall were successful at decreasing these levels of concerns and thus, increasing higher-level concerns, as noted by the model.

Technology represents a constantly changing innovation and thus presents special problems for change. Thus a third review was initiated that emphasized only those studies that had gone beyond short-term implementation and low-level concerns (Slough & Chamblee, 2007). The studies reviewed present a different and more hopeful view of the informing nature of the CBAM model to understand and manage change through its framework and tools. The key understandings from these papers were that 1) early interventions that focus on Informational and Personal (low-level) concerns were effective but not sufficient (Adams, 2002; Casey & Rakes, 2002; James & Lamb, 2000; Mills & Tincher, 2003; Ward, West, & Isaak, 2002); 2) Management (mid-level) concerns can be persistent and must be addressed through long-term interventions, which were institutionalized (i.e., computer support staff and instructional support staff) (Chamblee & Slough, 2002; Hall & Hord, 2006); 3) pairing LoU (technology use data) with SoCQ (concerns data) can lead to more individualized interventions and perhaps faster progression to higher-level concerns (Cleland, Wetzel, Zambo, Buss & Rillero, 1999; Gershner & Snider, 2001; Newhouse, 2001); and 4) technology represented an ever-changing innovation and just as it is possible to have multiple concerns, it was possible to progress with one technology and stagnate in another (Chamblee & Slough, 2002; Gershner & Snider, 2001; Overbaugh, 1998).

One of CBAM's strengths, and perhaps its justification for continued use, is its demonstrated flexibility. Anderson (1997) notes that while many CBAM application studies have been published, few theoretical studies have been published on the relevance of the model to measure change, and in particular, systems change. Hall & Hord (2006) also notes that further study is needed to substantiate the CBAM model. This research supports these statements. While studying CBAM as a theoretical change model is much needed, the application of CBAM to specific innovations is warranted. Furthermore, the assumptions behind CBAM need to be explored, as researchers better understand how systems influence change. Change is not only about the individual.

References

Adams, N. (2002). Educational computing concerns of postsecondary faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 302-314.

Anderson, S.E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.

Casey, H. B., & Rakes, G.C. (2002). An analysis of the influence of technology training on teacher stages of concern regarding the use of instructional technology in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 124-132.

Chamblee, G. E., & Slough, S. W. (2002). Implementing technology in secondary science and mathematics classrooms: A perspective on change. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(1), 3-15.

Chamblee, G.E., & Slough, S.W. (2004). Using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to assess changes in technology implementation: A ten-year retrospective. In R. Ferdig & C. Crawford (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2004 (pp. 864-871). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: Charlottesville, VA.

Cleland, J., Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., Buss, R., & Rillero, P. (1999). Science integrated with mathematics using language arts and technology: A model for collaborative professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 18(2), 157-172.

Friel, S. N., & Gann, J. H. (1993). Making change in schools. Arithmetic Teacher, 40, 286-289.

Fullan, M.G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gershner, V.T., & Snider, S.L. (2001). Integrating the use of Internet as an instructional tool: Examining the process of change. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 283-300.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany NY: SUNY Press.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hall, G. E., & George, A. A. (1988, April). Development of a framework and measure for assessing principal change facilitator style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hall, G. E., & George, A. A. (1999). The impact of principal Change Facilitator Style on school and classroom culture. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.) School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. Philadelphia: Farmer Press.

Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. A. (1986). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoCQ questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin.

Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D. Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095 126)

James, R.K., & Lamb, C.E. (2000). Integrating science, mathematics, and technology in middle-school technology-rich environments: A study of implementation and change. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 27-36.

Mills, S.C., & Tincher, R.C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 382-401.

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). Retrieved October, 14 2003 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/JRTE/Issues/Volume_331/Number_5_Summer_2001/jrce-33-5-newhouse.pdf

Overbaugh, R.C. (1998). The effects of three different foci in graduate introductory computer courses on educators' stages of concern. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 15-23.

Slough, S. W., & Chamblee, G. E. (2005). Assessing the impact of integrating technology in the curriculum: A synthesis of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model approach. In D. Willis, J. D. Price, & J. Willis (Eds.), Society for Technology and Teacher Education Annual 2005 (pp. 1033-1038). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Slough, S. W., & Chamblee, G. (2007). Looking beyond short-term implementation and low-level concerns: Assessing the full impact of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). In C. Crawford, D.A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber (Eds.), Society for Technology and Teacher Education Annual 2007 (pp. 952-957). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Vandenberghe, R. (1988). The principal as maker of a local innovation policy: Linking research to practice. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(1), 69-79.

Ward, J., West, L., & Isaak, T. (2002). Mentoring: A strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 553-569.