The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was Web viewDecember 16, 2007. The student ... while they...

LITERATURE REVIEW:

THE APPLICATIONS OF THE

CONCERNS-BASED ADOPTION MODEL (CBAM)

IN K-12 EDUCATION

ISTC 741

Dr. Xxxxxxxx

Fall 2007

Joseph Student

December 16, 2007

LITERATURE REVIEW: CBAM IN K-12 EDUCATION

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was formulated by Hall and Hord

in 1987 (Slough, 1999b). The model came out of an approach in which “the dominant

strategy for school improvement hinged on facilitating the implementation of discrete

innovations in curriculum and instruction…” (Anderson, 1997, p. 332). CBAM was

designed to measure and to facilitate innovation and change among instructors.

The model features three categories – Stages of Concern (SoC), Levels of Use

(LoU), and Innovation Configurations (IC). The Stages of Concern are the following:

Stage 0, Awareness; Stage 1, Informational; Stage 2, Personal; Stage 3, Management;

Stage 4, Consequence; Stage 5, Collaboration; and Stage 6, Refocusing. The Levels of

Use are the following: Level 0, Nonuse; Level I, Orientation; Level II, Preparation; Level

III, Mechanical; Level IVA, Routine use; Level IVB, Refinement; Level V, Integration;

and Level VI, Renewal. The Innovations Category does not feature specific

classifications, as it is analyzed through surveys, interviews, or observations (Anderson,

1997).

Furthermore, to measure SoC, the Stages of Concerns Questionnaire (SoC Q) was

developed. This is a 35-item Likert scale questionnaire designed to measure teacher

concerns. (Chamblee & Slough, 2004) Along with this, an Open Ended Concerns

Statement procedure and other interview strategies were outlined. To measure LoU, a

Levels of Use Interview was designed along with a “branching interview” (Anderson,

1997, p. 336). Finally, the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ) was

constructed so that a holistic picture could be drawn from the examination process

(Chamblee & Slough, 2004).

The student introduces the topic and defines the terms.

1


The literature on CBAM since its inception has shown a number of discoveries in

its application. First, teacher psychology, school climate, school leadership, and physical

layout can all influence how well innovation spreads among teachers and how much of an

impact that training through a CBAM program can make. Second, patterns of technology

advancement are not predictable, and patterns of faculty development are not linear,

while some scholars have noted that CBAM assumes stable innovation and linearity in

instructor advancement. Third, CBAM presents challenges in its application in other

countries and cultures.

School Climate, School Leadership, Psychological State, and Physical Layout

The psychological profiles of instructors, the school climate, the type of school

leadership, and the physical layout of the school building influence the spread of

innovation among teachers, and the impact that CBAM can make in improving the use of

technology and innovation among instructors is helped or hindered by these factors.

McKibbin and Joyce (1980) conducted a study on the influence of psychological

state on teacher innovation. They conclude that the psychological states and the

personalities of instructors were extremely important in developing in-service programs.

Evans and Hopkins, in their study using CBAM as a model, build upon the importance of

the psychological state of the instructor in accomplishing change and innovation.

However, they add that school climate should be added to this equation. They note that

more research is needed to link these two dynamics. They conclude that an “open,

democratic school” climate has a significant positive influence on innovation and the

development of ideas for the classroom. (Hopkins, 1990, p. 42).

The student lets the reader know how the paper will be divided. Note the use of transition words (“First,” “Second,” Third..”).

The student identifies his first category. Notice that the name of the category is centered on the page.

2


The study conducted by Evans and Hopkins analyzed “school climate, the

psychological state of the teachers, and levels of use regarding the individual teacher’s

use of educational ideas” (Hopkins, 1990, p. 48). They found that the majority of

teachers’ psychological profiles show that they prefer “slow, incremental” change

(Hopkins, 1990, p. 55). This characteristic, when juxtaposed with other features of the

curriculum and the school, posed interesting problems for innovation and diffusion of

ideas. They profiled various schools that had a range of climates. Nonetheless, the

mean score for school climate was 97.2 (Hopkins, 1990). Therefore, most schools in the

study did lean toward a democratic system of management, one that was “fairly open to

innovation…” (Hopkins, 1990, p. 51). However, even in such schools, “actual use was

hampered by the lack of an effective communication system and by teacher isolation and

classroom autonomy” (Hopkins, 1990, p. 51). Hopkins goes on to maintain that, while

the teachers were progressive in their teaching philosophies, their psychological profiles

indicating a tendency for sequential thinking made it difficult for them to change their

patterns. (Hopkins, 1990).

The combination of these characteristics rendered teachers’ patterns in innovation

and development of ideas to be mechanical, with little regard for pedagogical

considerations. Specifically, they found that forty-seven percent of the instructors were

incorporating ideas at the mechanical level of use, 3 percent were at the level of

refinement, 24 percent were at the level of preparation, 3 percent were at the level of

orientation, and 3 percent were at the level of non-use (Evans & Hopkins, 1988).

Overall, while the school climate was typically characterized by an open-ended,

democratic system, the lack of coordination among instructors and their psychological

3


characteristics perhaps counterbalanced this climate and produced a scenario that was not

conducive to innovation or change.

Vandenberghe’s study of innovation in Belgium reinforces this notion of climate

and its relationship to school leadership, as it shows the influence of the principal in

nurturing faculty innovation and change. Belgium, because of its three main divisions of

Flanders, Walloon, and the city of Brussels and its suburbs, has three ministers of

education (Vandenberghe, 1992). It has a history of centralized control of educational

policies in each region. However, recent laws have allowed for more autonomy in

Belgium that promotes decentralization and less central administrative control.

Nonetheless, in the midst of this increasing decentralization, a number of activities are

still coordinated by the central administration. These conflicting patterns have produced

confusion, and the resulting impact on the role of a principal has been profound

(Vandenberghe, 1992). Vandenberghe states that “unclear goals, ill-defined expectations,

constantly changing requirements and administrative rules” cause the principals to feel

the need to “justify permanently the general and specific decisions they make”

(Vandenberghe, 1992, p. 5).

In this context of conflicting patterns, Vandenberghe (1983) conducted a CBAM-

based study in Belgium that emphasized stages of concern among instructors as the

country was embarking on large-scale projects of change. He notes that personal

concerns and informational concerns ranked very high among participants.

Vandenberghe attributes the high ranking in these areas to the large-scale innovation

projects that the system was undertaking, many of which had unclear goals.

(Vandenberghe, 1983) His conclusions support the notion that if guidelines are

4


confusing or unclear, teachers reflect this in their high scores for Stage 2 in the SoC scale.

A high level of anxiety characterizes faculty innovation in such a scenario.

Thus, Vandenberghe’s findings are consistent with those of Evans and Hopkins

with regard to the role of climate in affecting innovation and of the principal in nurturing

innovation among instructors. Evans and Hopkins, in fact, note that in their study some

schools were perceived as providing excellent support for instructors, some were

characterized as being “dogmatic in behaviour and reluctant to hand over authority,” and

some had leadership that simply “tended to adopt a low profile” (Evans and Hopkins,

1988, p. 223). Evans and Hopkins conclude as well the connection between the support

perceived from above and the innovativeness of the instructors in the school system.

Marsh (1987) reinforces this argument. He conducted a study of stages of

concern and levels of use of a particular social studies curriculum in an Australian

elementary school. He describes the climate of the school as friendly and open, with an

effective principal who maintains informal and positive interactions with teachers

(Marsh, 1987). The study showed several significant patterns, one of which I focus on in

this review. The SoU scores for Marsh’s study, as was the case for Vandenberghe’s

study, showed that stage 2, Personal, represented the category with the highest score.

Marsh echoes the sentiments of the authors of the CBAM model that “teachers having

Stage 2 concerns have major uncertainties about an innovation, especially concerns about

the status, reward, and potential or actual benefits of the innovation” (Marsh, 1987, p.

480). Furthermore, in this particular context in Australia, the teachers lacked guidelines

on how to use the social studies curriculum that was being studied. “The curriculum

contains so many innovations…” and the lack of guidelines on them may have resulted in

5


teachers’ defaulting to the use of the teacher’s guides for direction (Marsh, 1987, p. 483).

Therefore, they exhibited high SoC scores for Stage 2, reflecting a very similar pattern to

those exhibited by teachers in Belgium in Vandenberghe’s study.

Overall, Hopkins, who studied levels of use, and Vandenberghe, who studied

stages of concern, and Marsh, who studied both LoU and SoC, all support the argument

that school climate, changing demands, unclear guidelines, and types of leadership play

significant roles in helping or hindering teachers’ development along the stages and

levels that CBAM outlines.

However, Anderson (1997) sees shortcomings in the study by Evans and Hopkins.

He notes that Evans and Hopkins’ findings reveal an inconsistency in the data about

school climate and innovation behavior because “(w)hile the school rated as having the

most open and democratic school climate did have the highest mean implementation

score, the school with the second highest school climate rating only ranked fifth in mean

implementation score” (Anderson, 1997, p. 340). Anderson also calls into question the

authors’ lack of investigation into follow-up measures when the intervention had finished

and the teachers had returned to the classroom. However, Anderson, notes, “Despite its

problems, the Evans and Hopkins study draws attention to the potential for (and

complexity of) examining the relationship between school context and implementation

using CBAM theory” (Anderson, 1997, p. 341).

It is clear, overall, that while data produced by CBAM is not always clean and

predictable, overall patterns have emerged regarding the value of open, democratic

leadership, clear guidelines in curriculum, and a connection between individual teachers’

psychological profiles and their LoU and SoC scores.

6


Finally, another barrier towards promoting innovation relates to the physical

layout of a school building. Science classrooms are particularly vulnerable to this

pattern. Slough (1999a) used CBAM to conduct a study of high school science teachers

and their perceptions on a number of pedagogical concerns and attitudes toward

innovation. His findings illustrate unique challenges that physical science classes

experience, including “loss of laboratory space and safety concerns with wires running in

and around sinks and gas supplies” (Slough, 1999a, p. 529). The typical set-up of a

science classroom requires some overlap between the laboratory, in which experiments

are conducted, and the computer lab or classroom, in which computer technology might

be used. Slough points out that computers take up space, protrude wires and cables, and

can interfere with lab equipment such as sinks and faucets. Thus, we can conclude that

classes in the physical sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics, may present

physical challenges toward teacher innovation. High school principals and administrators

may have to make decisions between having a lab or a computer classroom, if space is

not sufficient for both, or may have to be involved in intricate design decisions about how

to overlap the two, if space is made for both.

Criticisms of CBAM Methodology and Assumptions

The purpose of CBAM is to help teachers innovate, to help them change their

ways of instruction. Anderson (1997) summarizes its design as one in which a “key

assumption…is that classroom change can be facilitated” (p. 336). The tool can be used

to “assess teacher concerns about a change, their levels of use, and their configurations of

use. This information can be used for planning and delivering interventions to assist

individuals or groups of teachers in implementing the change.” (Anderson, 1997, p. 337)

The student identifies his second category.

7


Criticisms of CBAM in its ability to accomplish these tasks include the steps it

outlines and the assumptions it maintains. Bailey and Palsha (1992) note that Stage 0 and

Stage 1 of the SoC scale are basically indistinguishable. “The only distinguishing feature

is that individuals in Stage 0 do not necessarily want to learn about the innovation,

whereas those in Stage 1 are interested in finding out about it” (Bailey and Palsha, 1992,

p. 232). They also argue that Stage 6, Refocusing, is not a reasonably separate category.

They found in their studies that individuals at Stage 6 are simply at a slightly higher level

than those at lower stages in desiring to act on whether a particular innovation is helpful

to students. They, therefore, propose a revised five-stage model of Awareness, Personal,

Management, Impact, and Collaboration (Bailey and Palsha, 1992).

In addition, Slough (1999b) has expressed criticism of the CBAM theory because

of what he perceives as its assumption of the nature of technology and its use among

instructors. In terms of telecommunications technology, he argues that CBAM “assumes

a static innovation,” but that such advancements in general are not static at all (Slough,

1999b, p. 1951). He notes that instructors who are at the lower stages of concern are

uncomfortable and intimidated by this unpredictability in technology, while teachers who

are comfortable with it are actually motivated by this instability: “In fact, they considered

the challenges created by the changes to be a driving force for their involvement with

telecommunications” (p. 1951). However, he argues, CBAM does not take this

phenomenon into account. Overall, Slough feels that CBAM’s assumptions about the

nature of technological progress results in problematic application of the model.

Furthermore, Slough disagrees with what he sees as an assumption in the CBAM

framework that teachers progress linearly in their development and innovation. He

8


argues that exceptions abound to this rule, most notably in the management stage. He

notes that, in his study, teachers at the management level typically restricted student use

of such technology in the classroom, listed more barriers at this stage than at other stage

for the use of telecommunications innovations, and tended to reject any notion of the

possibility that telecommunications technology enhances pedagogy. (Slough, 1999b).

He maintains that CBAM does not assume any points in its scale at which tension

becomes tighter and resistance becomes higher, while such points do exist.

Leithwood and Montgomery (1980) developed an alternative model to CBAM

because of similar concerns to those of Slough. They make the case that a policy maker

can be very explicit about innovation but that each context in which this innovation is to

be implemented demands different modifications of it (Leithwood & Montgomery,

1980). However, they maintain that CBAM does not reflect sensitivity to this process.

As a result, they designed an alternative model with a procedure for deciding how many

levels are necessary for an innovation. It is distinguished from CBAM in that it does not

assume a fixed number of levels for curriculum change or innovation. Overall,

Leithwood, and Montgomery seem to concur with Slough that CBAM’s linear and

pattern-like style of progress presents difficulties in its application.

CBAM’s Application to Other Countries and Cultures

Studies have been conducted on faculty innovation and change in other countries

using CBAM as the theoretical framework. Such attempts have occasionally experienced

problematic results due to translation concerns and other cross-cultural issues.

Vandenberghe’s study in Belgium and the Netherlands featured a translated

version of the 35 items in the original Stages of Concern questionnaire. The resulting

The student identifies his third category.

9


effort eventually led to a 57-item questionnaire (Vandenberghe, 1983). Subsequent

evaluation showed that the Belgian-Dutch SoC-questionnaire maintained a close meaning

to that of the original questionnaire. However, Vandenberghe goes on to articulate a

“conspicuous difference” (Vandenberghe, 1983, p. 8). Stage 1, Information, and Stage 2,

Personal, appear together in the Belgian-Dutch version, while they are separate in the

original English version. His analysis shows that this distinction was not significant in

overall findings.

Nonetheless, the SoC Q features another category, Consequences for Pupils, that

comes after Personal/Informational category. The translation from English to Dutch in

this case proved a bit problematic. “Although we used the word ‘consequences’ in this

case, this subscale apparently has another meaning than it has in the American

questionnaire” (Vandenberghe, 1983, p. 9). Vandenberghe makes the case that the

Belgian-Dutch version of the SoC questionnaire asks the teacher about the desire to hear

“something about the value of the innovation for the pupils,” an issue that is not pursued

in the American form of the questionnaire (Vandenberghe, 1983, p. 9). “The problems

the teacher experiences himself, are, as it were, expressed via problems he anticipates

among his pupils” (Vandenberghe, 1983, p. 9). Anderson elaborates on Vandenberghe’s

study and the significance of this addition to the Belgian-Dutch version of the SoC

questionnaire, arguing that the original CBAM model maintained that “intense teacher

concerns about the impact of a change on students are not predicted until after the teacher

has gained some mastery over the use of change…,” while the Belgian and Dutch

researchers maintain that “early concerns about possible consequences for students may

reflect teacher uncertainty about the impact of vaguely defined large-scale innovations, as

10


well as a tendency for teachers to express anxieties about their performance in terms of

anticipated student response” (Anderson, 1997, p. 343). Overall, researchers in Belgium

wanted to allow teachers to express any concerns about an innovation with regard to

student satisfaction at the beginning of the study, while the American version calls for

this analysis later in the study.

One might conclude that the large-scale changes that the educational system in

Belgium was experiencing at the time of Vandenberghe’s study contributed to a need for

researchers in that study to add a category that reflected a concern for consequences for

students. This example indicates that cultural and contextual factors can affect the

application of CBAM and can call for researchers to propose an adjustment or

modification of its wording. Anderson concludes: “The Belgian-Dutch findings show

that the validity of CBAM classification schemes should not be taken for granted nor

applied noncritically to any educational change and context” (Anderson, 1997, p. 343).

In addition, Marsh’s study in Australia experienced some challenges due to cross-

cultural transfers in using CBAM in that country. In western Australia, curricula is

developed by a central office. This resulted in a high degree of Stage 0 concerns among

teachers. Some of the questions in the CBAM model may not have been appropriate for

this setting. Marsh (1987) explains that instructors and administrators in western

Australia are not presented with many alternatives to a given curriculum and that

CBAM’s questions, some of which ask whether a syllabus is effective or whether other

syllabi should be considered, may be awkward for teachers to answer. Overall, the

degree of autonomy and decisionmaking power assumed in CBAM’s questionnaire may

11


not all be suitable for certain cultural settings in which teachers are not afforded such

power and control.

Conclusion

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model has been used worldwide and is seen by

many as a robust, valid tool for measuring and diagnosing innovation and in facilitating

change among faculty members. Studies that have used CBAM as their theoretical

framework have noted the importance of the psychological profile of the instructors, the

climate of the school, the leadership of the school, and the physical layout of the school.

I found it interesting that open-ended, democratic styles of leadership are lauded

throughout the literature, while at the same time strong guidelines are also deemed

necessary. Perhaps the tension between these two demands is what results in principals

becoming dogmatic, monarchical, or simply uninterested in faculty innovation. It may be

difficult for an administrator to maintain a democratic system while establishing strong

guidelines on how to use an innovation in a curriculum. The tension here may result in

administrative frustration and a resignation to maintain the status quo on the part of the

principal.

It is also noteworthy that Marsh’s study in Australia featured a context in which

curricula are developed centrally but that faculty members felt uncomfortable because

“they had no official guidelines” (Marsh, 1987, p. 483). Perhaps a culture has been

developed in that section of Australia that has resulted in faculty members’ expecting and

even desiring guidelines and parameters to be directed from above. If such a culture has

been developed, this dynamic would certainly influence levels of innovation that might

The student provides his conclusion.

12


occur from teachers. CBAM’s application and usability in this context would certainly

be affected by these characteristics.

Moreover, criticisms of CBAM are that it assumes a linear approach to progress

among teachers and a stable, static pattern of development of technology, neither of

which occurs, according to some scholars. I found this intriguing, as I did not detect any

assumptions in the CBAM model that instructors progress from one level to another in a

rational pattern. Nor did I ever assume that the seven-stage process of SoU meant that

the stages were passed through with equal degree of rigor among all instructors. I found

Slough’s criticisms fairly sharp, and they provoked me to want to investigate the CBAM

model further.

Finally, applying CBAM across the globe in various countries, other contexts, and

in other languages has presented some translation and cultural problems that have had to

be factored in when gathering data. This was perhaps the most significant finding for me

in this review. First, the fact that CBAM has been applied on such a global scale

indicates that administrators and principals are looking for methods by which to assess,

measure, and facilitate faculty innovation. Second, while I certainly would have

expected some language translation issues emerging from its adoption in another country,

I did not expect that a nation such as Australia would have had significant cultural

problems with the questions. I would have anticipated such a phenomenon in Taiwan,

South Korea, or other non-western countries in which educational systems are

characterized by significant differences in history and philosophy from those of the

United States.

13


References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based

adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331-367. Retrieved September 29, 2007,

from Education Abstracts database.

Bailey, D., & Palsha, S. (1992, March). Qualities of the Stages of Concern questionnaire

and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research

(Washington, D.C.), 85, 226-232. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from Education

Abstracts database.

Chamblee, G. & Slough, S. (2004). Using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to assess

changes in technology implementation. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings

of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International

Conference 2004 (pp. 864-871). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved December

6, 2007, from AACE Database.

Evans, M., & Hopkins, D. (1988). School climate and the psychological state of the

individual teacher as factors affecting the utilisation of educational ideas

following an inservice course. British Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 211-

230. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from SocINDEX with Full Text database.

Hopkins, D., (1990). Integrating staff development and school improvement: A study of

teacher personality and school climate. Yearbook (Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development), 1990, 41-67.

Leithwood, K. Montgomery, D, & Sage Publications, I. (1980, April). Evaluating

program implementation. Evaluation Review, 4(2), 193-214. Retrieved December

8, 2007, from SocINDEX with Full Text database.

The student provides a “references” page. References are listed in APA format. Please note that the paper was written in 2007, so the APA rules for that year were followed. The guidelines for APA have changed slightly since then, as we have discussed in class.

14


Marsh, C. J. (1987). Implementation of a social studies curriculum in an Australian

elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 87, 475-486. Retrieved December

1, 2007, from Education Abstracts Database.

McKibbin, M., & Joyce, B. (1980). Psychological states and staff development. Theory

Into Practice, 19(4), 248. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from Academic Search

Premier Database.

Slough, S. (1999). High school science teachers’ perceptions of barriers and supporting

conditions to telecommunications implementation. In Proceedings of

International Conference on Mathematics / Science Education and Technology

1999 (pp. 526-530). Retrieved December 6, 2007, from AACE Database.

Slough, S. (1999). Some concerns about the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

and technology. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information

Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 1949-

1953). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from AACE

Database.

Slough, S. & 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 et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007

(pp. 952-957). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from

AACE Database.

15


Vandenberghe, R. (1983, April 1). Studying change in primary and secondary schools in

Belgium and the Netherlands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED233439) Retrieved December 6, 2007, from ERIC database.

Vandenberghe, R. (1992, January 1). The changing role of principals in primary and

secondary schools in Belgium. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 20.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ449890) Retrieved December 6,

2007, from ERIC database.

16

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was Web viewDecember 16, 2007. The student ... while they...

Documents

Transcript of The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was Web viewDecember 16, 2007. The student ... while they...