Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers
Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty
with Integration of Technology
Submitted by Dr. J. Legacy
August 30, 2002
Table of Contents
Page
Review of Literature .............................................................................. …………….
4
Results .........................................................................................................................
31
Conclusions, Interpretations, and Recommendations .................................................
43
References ...................................................................................................................
55
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 2
9/1/02
List of Tables
Page
1
Stages of Concern Model ............................................................................................
25
2
Stages of Concern Total Group Profile-IHE, IN-SERVICE, PRE-SERVICE ............
30
3
Highest Stage of Concern ...........................................................................................
33
4
Stages of Concern Profile by Years of Classroom Experience ...................................
35
5
Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training ...............................
37
6
Respondent’s Levels of Use ........................................................................................
38
7
Respondent’s Years of Classroom Experience and Levels of Use .............................
39
8
Importance of Follow-up Training and Respondent’s Levels of Use ………………
40
9
Stages of Concern Group Profile and Levels of Use ………………….…………….. 42
List of Figures
Page
1
NH Teachers CBAM Profile-Stages of Concern .......................................................
30
2
Highest Stage of Concern ...........................................................................................
33
3
Stages of Concern Profile and by Years of Classroom Experience ............................
35
4
Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training ...............................
36
5
Respondent’s Levels of Use ........................................................................................
38
6
Stages of Concern Profiles for Levels of Use .............................................................
41
7
Stages of Concern and Levels of Use .........................................................................
42
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 3
9/1/02
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers
Pre-service
IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Submitted by Dr. J. Legacy
August 30, 2002
If students are to be prepared to function effectively in the twenty-first century, the current
educational system must continue to change. Change in the system, however, is an immense undertaking
affecting everyone involved with the educational process. For change to occur, parents, administrators,
students, and, most importantly, teachers, must cope with and “buy into” the change. Teachers involved with
changes occurring in education will be impacted, and administrators need to understand and address the
teachers’ self-efficacy. For the purpose of this study, self-efficacy is as follows: The extent to which the
individual believes they are capable of performing the action necessary to produce desired results is “selfefficacy”. According to Bandura (1977), expectations of efficacy are a major determinant of an individual’s
choice of activities, how much effort he/she expends on those activities, and the length of time he/she will
sustain an effort in dealing with any stressful situations.
This study specifically assessed the self-efficacy of teachers in New Hampshire (NH) resulting from
the implementation of educational reform, National Education Technology Standards (NETS), involved with
changes in new curriculum content and revised instructional delivery methodology. More specifically, the
study focused on the concerns the teachers have experienced due to implementation of a change in curriculum
and instruction in classrooms. Changes the teachers have encountered can be internal (personal) or external.
The research team identified internal changes as self or personal changes and those changes may involve
acceptance, resistance, understanding, and knowledge of the change. External changes have been identified as
task or impact changes, such as job-related outcome expectations, accountability, adaptability, timing, and
support, which also might create concerns.
Hall and Loucks (1978) determined that several premises about changes must be understood for
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 4
9/1/02
concerns created by change to be comprehended. Several of these premises are:
(a) change is a highly personal experience;
(b) the individual must be the primary target of the interventions designed to facilitate change in the
classroom. Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) rests on the conviction that institutions
cannot change until the individuals within them change;
(c) change takes time and is achieved only in stages; and
(d) the change process is not an undifferentiated continuum (pages 38-39).
Specifically, change is an extremely personal occurrence, with everyone reacting to change in
different ways; as such, these differences should be evaluated and considered during the change process (Hall
and Loucks, 1978). The self-efficacy of teachers should be acknowledged as the key factor in the change
process. Understanding the self-efficacy of teachers allows administrators to put into perspective what is
understood by change. A change process takes time to complete, and the process is not uniform. There are
usually learning peaks and valleys during the change process. The acceptance of change is gradual, yet with
time and experience, individual growth (feelings and skills) can occur. This allows teachers to accept the
innovation and its affect in their classroom (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).
In this study, the researchers examined the educational change issues at the federal, state, and local
levels that affect teachers and teachers’ concerns for the changes as a result of the implementation of a
curriculum and instructional innovation in NH.
Need for the Study
Federal educational reform initiatives and business and industry initiatives regarding improved
education of the worker have lead to an educational reform in NH. This reform has brought about state
mandates to integrate technology and revise the instructional delivery system that defines what students are
expected to know and are able to perform. These educational reform initiatives have placed additional
pressure on teachers to change teaching methods to improve the curriculum instruction for students who are
the future workers. These mandates for transformation of the teaching-learning environment bring about
changes for teachers, and changes bring about concerns (Hall, George and Rutherford, 1986). Teachers will
encounter internal or self (acceptance, understanding, resistance, and knowledge) and external or task and
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 5
9/1/02
impact (outcome expectations, accountability, adaptability, timing, and support) concerns (Hall, George, and
Rutherford, 1986) resulting from integration of technology, which began in the fall of 2001. Teachers’ selfefficacy in implementing technology in new curriculum content and instructional strategies depends on how
they accept the innovation and incorporate the curriculum changes into their classes.
The purpose of this study was to:
(a) Describe the self-efficacy of NH teachers regarding the implementation of the technology and
new instructional strategies as outlined in the National Educational Technology Standards for
Teachers and for Students (NETS-T and NETS-S).
(b) Describe the current technology levels of use of the NH teachers.
The review of the relevant research literature addresses five issues. Three of these issues include the
premise about change: educational reform, concerns created by the change process, and the self-efficacy of
teachers as a result of change. In addition, the research team considered how the teachers’ self-efficacy could
be affected by these three areas. The three areas include teachers’ personal concerns, concerns created by
changes, and concerns created by student changes. The review not only focused upon the concerns of
teachers’ uncertainties with the educational change process but also concentrated on teacher concerns due to
the challenges created by educational reform. The latter includes changes involving federal and state
educational reform in technology, curriculum and instruction. Many of these change initiatives were
influenced by the requirements of business and industry to prepare a more effective worker for the new
millennium. The fifth area of review was the CBAM. The CBAM/Stages of Concern was selected as the best
model to describe teachers’ concerns with implementation of the educational reforms.
This review of literature is organized into the following sections:
(a) premise about change,
(b) the educational reform,
(c) change process and educational reform,
(d) change and teacher self-efficacy in relation to their personal concerns, the educational system
changes and student changes,
(e) challenges to teachers in educational reform, including changes involving federal and NH
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 6
9/1/02
technology integration educational reform, and
(f) the CBAM, including an evaluation of other studies using the CBAM-Stages of Concern
Questionnaire.
Premise about Change
Change is an inescapable reality of today’s world. Yet, 70% of all change initiatives fail (Beer,
2000). Frequently, this is because there is an overload of change initiatives causing organizational chaos,
which creates strong resistance from the people affected (Abrahamson, 2000). Other reasons may include an
ill-conceived change process and lack of identification of factors affecting the change.
Organizations change in two ways primarily through drastic action or evolutionary adaptation
(Meyerson, 2001). The former can be complex or radical and can be anticipated or unexpected. The later is
incremental and evolutionary (Meyerson, 2001).
Radical change frequently is mandated from the top, requires technological innovation with a
scarcity of resources, or may be caused by changes in the external environment. This transformational change
can be disruptive and cause significant pain (Meyerson, 2001). Since this type of change may involve a
fundamental redefinition of organizational strategy, values and goals, it is important that there is a visionary
leader driving it.
Evolutionary change is incremental and occurs to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
organization (Meyerson, 2001). This type of change may include the implementation of new policies and/or
procedures, and the introduction of new technologies or products (Nadler, 1995). Similar to major
transformational change, this too will change the culture of the organization over time.
Some organizations may use a combination of these two approaches. A major change may dismantle
the status quo and evolutionary change promotes periods of organic equilibrium as the organization seeks to
reach dynamic stability (Abrahamson, 2002). There is not an absolute right way to affect change. What works
in some organizations may not work in others (Meyerson, 2001).
Kurt Lewin (1951) identified three stages in the change process, upon which more contemporary
researches have elaborated:
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 7
9/1/02
 Unfreezing – In this stage, participants become aware of and committed to the need for change.
What is the rationale for the change? It is critical at this stage that the resistance to change is
minimized.
 Change – This is the actual change.
 Refreezing – In this stage, participants evaluate, review, and reflect upon the change and adapt to
the new situation.
In the unfreezing stage, participants should perform a Force Field Analysis wherein the participants
identify the forces that are for or driving the change and the forces against or restraining the change. This
technique can isolate the relevant factors in the change process. By minimizing or eliminating the forces
working against the change and increasing the strength or number of the forces for the change, a new altered
organizational situation is likely to occur.
Educational Reform
As our society moves from an industrial to a knowledge-based global economy, our educational
institutions must prepare students for a complex and uncertain future (Dede, 2002). Teachers must have the
required higher order cognitive, affective, and social skills for the knowledge-based global marketplace
(Drucker, 1994) and guide and support the development of these skills in students (Dede, 2002). Through
technology, students gain skills they must have to compete for jobs in the twenty-first century (Rice, 2001).
Externally imposed educational reform has stimulated school-centered change. Technology
integration is the agent of the reform effort (Girod, 1998). The use of technology can cause radical or
incremental change. The latter adds new ideas and approaches to the curriculum while the former
fundamentally changes the relationship of the learner and teacher (Girod, 1998).
In the traditional classroom, the teacher lectures, asks questions and the students take notes. In the
reformed classroom using the constructivist approach, students think for themselves and find out what they
need to know while the teacher provides the tools to help students make their own decisions (Rice, 2001). In
effect, teachers are changing their roles from “sages on the stage, to guides on the side” (Barker); they change
from being information providers to mentors and coaches (Nicaise, 1999).
Girod and Cavanaugh (2001) discuss technology as an agent of radical change in teacher
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 8
9/1/02
instruction—through changes in the “organization of subject matter and the kinds of knowledge that qualify
as school worthy” and changes in the way students “discover their own learning.” Venturing out on the
Internet, the learner is empowered to gain cutting-edge knowledge beyond the expertise of the teacher and the
textbook. Further, the global nature of Internet use allows students to become involved with and collaborate
with the world community.
Technology can also cause incremental change. Teachers may use PowerPoint slides while
presenting material. Rather than using the traditional text, students research topics on the Internet. Teachers
and students use E-mail to request and share information with others.
The importance of using technology in the classroom is currently accepted. A survey conducted at
Southwestern University in Spring 2001, found that incoming students generally have good word processing
and Internet skills but “lack the understanding … of how to use the web most effectively in education”
(Charp, 2002).
The level of technology integration varies from class to class, school to school, district to district,
and so on. Schools need to be learning organizations (Sagor, 1997) where teachers are given time to plan,
learn more about technology and practice the “new behaviors that are expected of them.” This will minimize
the resistance to change and lead to successful implementation. Then teachers need time to “introduce and
institutionalize” the new strategies into their daily activities. Finally, teachers need time to “reflect” on and
assess the change initiatives (Adelman, 1997). For effective transformation to occur, teachers reported that
most of their work was in the planning (unfreezing) stage and not in delivering the new curriculum (Herr,
2000). Inadequate attention to these steps can cause reform failure (Adelman, 1997).
There are forces for and against educational reform. Some of the driving forces are:
 Federal and state mandates
 School administration policies and initiatives
 Teacher enthusiasm and dedication to technology integration
 Student demands
 Increased educational and business opportunities for students
Some of the restraining forces or barriers to technology integration include:
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 9
9/1/02
 No long-term commitment from administration, teachers, parents, and/or staff
 Unclear or ill-conceived goals
 Pace of planned change is too fast
 Lack of software/hardware/technical specialist or other resources
 Lack of funding
 Inadequate pre-service training
 Lack of time to learn, practice and integrate new technologies
 On-the-job training needs
 Teacher attitude (resistance to change, feeling threatened or burned out)
To change, schools must increase the amount or strength of forces for change, decrease the forces
against change or do both. In general, “reducing the resistance to change creates less tension in a system and
few unanticipated consequences than increasing the forces for change” (Gordon,2002).
Premise about Educational Change
As implementation of a revised curriculum content and revised instructional delivery system is
encountered, teachers’ concerns may be expanded and intensified (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).
Research by Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) has indicated that for the change process to be successful,
premises about the change process should be understood and considered by the facilitators. During the
transformation of the teaching-learning environment, changes that will occur involve premises about change
that must be addressed during the implementation of the change. Four premises reviewed for this study are
(1) teachers’ acceptance of change, (2) teachers’ understanding of the change, (3) support for teachers’
concerns during the change, and (4) time to address teachers’ concerns to support the implementation of the
change (Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991; and Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986).
According to Hall and Loucks (1978), the change facilitator’s comprehension of the premises
regarding changes in the educational system is important to understand in order to evaluate how change affects
someone impacted by the implementation of the change. According to Hall and Loucks (1978), change is a
personal occurrence, and the person affected should have ample time to accept and understand the change
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 10
9/1/02
process. Change will create concerns for the teacher during its implementation. The success of the change
process is dependent upon the affected individual “buying-into” the change. As Pritchett (1993) indicates,
“Culture can be very controlling, but powerful as it might be, the culture cannot change without permission
from the people” (p. 1). Not unlike business and industry, teachers are asked to complete more and more tasks
each day with little assistance. Pritchett (1993) continues. “Change makes a lot of demands on people, leaving
[them] little time or energy to spare…[however,] most successful organizations will conclude it is the people
that make the difference in an organization” (p. 15). Educational change, a key component to the restructuring
of education curriculum effort, is a complex process. Teachers should have personal acceptance and
understanding of the change, support and time for proper implementation in order for the change to be
effective.
Change Process and Teacher Self-Efficacy
Fullan (1997), commenting on the change process in educational reform and resulting teacher selfefficacy states, “It is easy to be pessimistic about educational reform. There are many legitimate reasons to be
discouraged. From a rational-technical point of view, the conclusion that large-scale reform is a hopeless
proposition seems justified…the emotional side of change has been either ignored or miscast. By examining
emotions and change from a different perspective, we not only gain insights about the dynamics of change,
but we also find new understandings of how to make change work more constructively. The moral and the
technical begin to fuse, instead of being two ships passing in the night” (p. 216).
During the education reform implementation process, there are three general areas in which the
challenges that teachers face develop into concerns (Bingham, 1995; Caine and Caine, 1997; and Hall,
George, and Rutherford, 1986). First, teachers may be affected on a personal level during the initial process
of accepting these changes. For instance, incorporating the curriculum content and instructional delivery into
their classes pressures them to be more responsible and accountable for the implementation of this innovation.
Secondly, concerns may often develop due to changes in the teaching environment (educational system). As
teachers learn and participate in the new process, they are influenced by the changes that will occur within
schools, administrations, and local communities (Caine and Caine, 1997). Finally, teacher concerns may
evolve not only resulting from this educational reform effect on the student, but also from the changes the
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 11
9/1/02
learner is experiencing as they become the increasingly diversified learner (changing learner) of the twentyfirst century (Bingham, 1995). According to Hall and Loucks (1978), however, teachers are at the apex of the
change process in educational reform. Therefore, for changes to succeed, the apprehension teachers may
experience about their unique pivotal role is dually affected by the changes in the educational system as well
as changes in the student.
Teachers’ concerns created by the change process affect their perceptions of themselves and,
therefore, are considered to be their self-efficacy. The concept of teacher self-efficacy is based on the theory
of self-efficacy presented by Bandura (1977). In a discussion of self-efficacy, Bandura states, “Efficacy
expectations are a major determinant of people’s choice of activities, how much effort they expend, and how
long they will sustain effort in dealing with stressful situations” (page 194). Personal teacher efficacy is
demonstrated in discussions about how changes affect the teachers themselves and the affect the change has
on teachers’ acceptance of the change and understanding of the results expected from the change. Managing
the effectiveness of the change process is the goal of understanding the teachers’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy
can be described as how the teachers feel about themselves due to the changes they are experiencing. If
teacher self-efficacy is understood and considered in the implementation of the change, the change has a
better chance of surviving (Bandura, 1977).
Guskey (1987) defines his concept of teacher self-efficacy by dividing teacher efficacy into personal
teacher efficacy and general teacher efficacy. Guskey describes these personal and general differences when
he states, “Teachers may believe that certain practices or teaching behaviors will affect student performances
(general) but, at the same time, may not believe that they can perform those necessary activities (personal)”
(page 41). Kahn (1995) indicates the change process in the teachers’ environment causes concerns. Kahn
states, “When an institution is involved in bringing about a fundamental change in its system, individuals
involved in the change process encounter numerous obstacles” (page 44). According to Spady (1994),
teachers are responsible to the educational system and to the students for classroom reform, program
alignment, external accountability, and system implementation plans.
The focal point of this study is the concerns of teachers brought about by the implementation of an
educational reform (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986). The implementation of an educational reform
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 12
9/1/02
affects three different areas of concerns for teachers and they include teachers’ personal concerns, concerns
for the educational environment, and concerns with the changing learner.
Concerns of Teachers: Personal
The first area of concern noted is the teachers’ personal concerns experienced with change.
Teachers, who are facilitators of the change process, may personally develop concerns due to the changes
created by an educational reform. Their concerns, in turn, influence how the teachers perceive themselves,
which can either dilute or concentrate the power they possess to affect or implement the change. Personal
concerns, however, can be divided into two distinct components. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford
(1986), the components are internal (self) and external (task and impact), and need to be addressed prior to
the implementation of an innovation.
The first component of personal concern involves internal (self) issues: How does this affect me?
Why change? What is wrong with the current system? Will I have training? Will it be a fad? What if I can’t
learn? Will I have time to learn? The second component of teacher concern involves external (task and
impact) issues: How will this affect the student? How will this affect business? Will there be resources? Will
administrative support exist? How will this affect the community? Changes (both internal and external),
impacting teachers today, have created concerns for teachers involved with innovations. Richardson (1995)
continued this support of two distinct personal concerns caused by changes that revealed a strength of the
practical argument for moving a teacher’s thinking from an external (they expect me to teach) to an internal (I
choose to teach this way) reason for his or her actions. Both the external and internal concerns of teachers are
created by the implementation of an educational reform.
Research in the personal area of teacher concerns about change by Hall, George, and Rutherford
(1986) describe change as a process, not just an event. They continue, “Change is occurring so rapidly the
instructors have a difficult time taking any change too seriously” (page 14). They also noted, “Change is
accomplished by individuals, is a highly personal experience, involves developmental growth, is best
understood in operational terms, and the focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and the
context” (page 6). There is an emphasis on the individual’s acceptance and understanding of the context of
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 13
9/1/02
the change required for effective implementation.
The consequence of change also involves the teacher’s acceptance of and preparation for the change.
Fullan and Hargreaves (1992) state that educational reform will not be successful until the education leaders
and teachers, who own the change process, accept the change and have a working knowledge of how to
implement change. This ownership position establishes the teacher as the critical player in the educational
reform process and the necessity of them becoming stakeholders in the reform. Without teacher acceptance,
the reforms will not succeed.
To add another dimension to Fullan’s and Hargreaves’s (1992) support of the teachers’ acceptance
of the change that generates teachers’ personal concerns, Rutherford’s (1977) research indicates that the
premise of change or innovation adoption is individualistic. Each person will decide for himself or herself
whether or not to be involved in the adoptive decision. Each person also decides to what extent or degree to
apply the innovation supporting the individual nature of change.
Bridges (1986) continues the discussion of teachers’ concerns about the change process when he
states, “Unless the human side of a renewal effort is handled successfully, all the well-planned changes in the
world will leave everything essentially the same” (page 15). Bridges continues, “Unless people go through the
inner reorientation process of transition, the change simply will not ‘take’ in the form of new behavior and
attitude” (1986, page 15). Bridges is convinced that addressing teachers’ concerns is elemental to the change
process, with the individual involved designated as the key to success of the change.
Sparks (1997) suggests that teachers have many concerns about the implementation of the change.
Sparks interviewed Loucks-Horsley on teachers’ concerns about change. Some of Loucks-Horsley’s major
points indicate teachers must
(a) understand the content they are teaching so they can provide students leadership to learn
concepts,
(b) use an instructional approach that assists students in constructing their own understanding for
how various things occur,
(c) provide opportunities for students to learn at sites where subject matter is being utilized, and
(d) have the opportunities themselves to learn together through networks of teachers, schools, and
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 14
9/1/02
possibly businesses (pages 20-21).
These comments address the impact the teacher has for successfully implementing an educational
reform.
Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) describe teacher concerns as a result of change that focuses on
time as being a key element of the implementation of an innovation. Adelman and Walking-Eagle indicate
that in order to implement an innovation successfully, teachers need time to comprehend the purposes of the
innovations, review the outcomes that might be expected from the innovation, discuss the proposed new
approach among their peers, and practice using the innovations. Typically, however, the decision to introduce
change is generally accomplished by a rapid implementation without opportunities for proper preparation and
practice. The problem of rapid implementation conflicts with the need for several years to fully implement an
educational reform. This rapid approach to implementation creates concerns for teachers. In addition,
Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) continue this discussion about certain elements of change, indicating
from the teachers’ perspective, the need to come to terms with new ideas. The practice of new behaviors
seems to be particularly critical when the reform in question is related to instruction. In coming to terms with
the movement of educational reform, teachers will be required to learn or update their current technology
skills for the curriculum, to develop new teaching strategies, to implement the new content, and to assess the
results.
According to Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991), the implementation of the change or innovation must
occur over a period of time rather than be considered a specific event. Teachers must be given time to accept
and apply the change. Hord, Rutherford, Hurling-Austin, and Hall (1987) echo this concern about the time
required for change to occur and conclude that the change process will require several years to be completely
implemented. Recognition of this time factor is an essential prerequisite for the effective implementation of
change. Time for acceptance and practice will enhance teacher self-efficacy thereby reducing the concerns the
teacher may develop.
Menlo (1985) described another viewpoint about concerns of teachers and their possible resistance
(or lack of resistance) to change. He observed that change is not always resisted but is oftentimes encouraged.
However, he notes teachers may resist the loss of a personal or material nature when making the change and
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 15
9/1/02
this attitude should be recognized. In the resistance attitude, Menlo suggested change is resisted for the
following reasons:
(a) questioning the purpose of the change,
(b) misunderstanding the importance of the change,
(c) anticipating another change will soon follow (fad), and
(d) feeling insecure about completing the tasks required in the change.
Menlo suggests these issues create concerns for the person impacted by the change and must be
addressed prior to the implementation of the innovation or change.
Morimoto’s (1973) work on the impact of change on the individual indicated that the individual feels
at risk and guarded when another person requires change. This situation does not allow time to understand the
change, freedom to consider the change, or assert the new learning as something desirable. Morimoto
concluded pressure to change, without an opportunity to understand and accept the change, rarely results in
the excitement in learning or reduces teachers’ concerns about the change.
Reflecting on the negative impact of concerns created by the change process, Bridges (1993)
suggests the teachers’ concerns created by an implementation of a change have a better chance of being
addressed if the implementers of the change (teachers) are not made scapegoats for past failures and are not
seen as the reasons for the change. Bridges (1993) states,
“Never denigrate the past. Many managers, in their enthusiasm for a future that is going to be better
than the past, ridicule or talk slightingly about the old way of doing things. In doing so they
consolidate the resistance against the transition because people identify with the way things used to
be and thus feel their self-worth is at stake when the past is attacked” (page 30).
Caine and Caine (1997) continue the support of teachers’ personal concerns and change in their
recent text titled Education on the Edge of Possibility. They describe individuals affected by change as
elaborate “adaptive systems” that seek to adjust to the change while maintaining their own identity. This
concept follows the notion that the individual has to accept the change in order to implement the change.
Caine and Caine (1997) conclude that real growth requires change even though change can affect one’s sense
of identity or self-efficacy. In educational reform, teacher perceptions of self-efficacy need to be considered
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 16
9/1/02
in the implementation process.
Linnell (1994) suggests “where the technology education curriculum has been implemented
successfully, the affective concerns of teachers have been a priority” (page 94). When implementing an
educational change, the focus is oftentimes on the technical qualities of the innovation, and the feelings and
concerns of teachers and administrators who are implementing the change are neglected. Linnell concludes by
stating, “Change [administrators] that understand the specific needs of teachers will help with successful
implementation. This understanding will create a constructive environment for the change and lead to an
understanding of the personal aspect of education change and the concerns of the individual” (pages 93-94).
The constructive environment that Linnell addresses includes incorporating teachers’ concerns in the
educational reform implementation process.
In summary, personal concerns are divided into internal (How does the change affect me?) and
external (How does this change affect my job?) concern components. These concerns affect the teacher’s
personal self-efficacy or perceptions of himself or herself. The impact of one’s expectations is a major
determinant of their choices. As the teacher self-efficacy is the focal point of educational reform, teachers’
concerns are paramount to effective implementation as change is accepted.
Concerns of Teachers: Educational System
The second area of change that brings about concerns for teachers is a change in the teaching
environment (educational system). Concerns may develop as teachers prepare for and participate in a
transformation of an educational process and are influenced by the changes occurring within schools,
administrations, and local communities. Elements of the teachers’ environment or the educational system
researched for this study include changes in curriculum content, methodology of instruction, and impact of
changes the teacher will experience during implementation of this change.
Caine and Caine (1997) describe the problems associated with change in relation to how the
educational system creates concerns for teachers by stating, “Schools have resisted change because the
education system is part of a larger system and is extremely entrenched as a social machine that remains static
and constant over long period of times” (page 12). Caine and Caine (1997) conclude, “Change is an arduous,
rigorous and an unpopular thing to do” (page 12). This supports the resistance of the large organization
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 17
9/1/02
system toward implementing a change and concludes that the commitment of acceptance and support for
change is difficult.
Schein (1978) and Williams and Smith (1994) describe similar areas of concern for teachers faced
with reform such as changes in curriculum content and instructional methodology. According to Williams and
Smith (1994), teachers are still most comfortable with what they do best in educating students in whole-group
fashion within the confines of the self-contained classroom. Based on Williams and Smith (1994)
assumptions that teachers are more comfortable with the traditional curriculum and instructional delivery
system, teachers need to accept its importance and the benefits for the students in order for this innovative
approach to be effective.
Adelman and Walking-Eagle (1997) support the conclusion that teachers concerns should be a prime
focus during the educational change process. Adelman and Walking-Eagle discuss their concern with the
overall time of implementation of a change within the educational system. Clearly they indicate that an
implementation of a change has a better chance of staying on track when the pace of change and the
expectations or standards teachers set for themselves are reasonable. Additionally, Adelman and WalkingEagle state for a change in the educational system to be meaningful, it requires a good foundation and time
for maturation. For instance, no better foundation can be established than teachers supporting teachers to
make changes. Consequently, how teachers work with each other affects how they work with their students.
Educational innovations have as the ultimate goal the improvement of students’ learning capabilities
(Adelman and Walking-Eagle, 1997; and Williams and Smith, 1994). However, an important first step in the
process to improve students’ learning based on the implementation of a reconstructed, improved educational
reform (change) is to ensure teacher acceptance and preparation for the innovation. To accomplish this task,
research suggests teachers’ concerns must be addressed. Nonetheless, too frequently, according to Adelman
and Walking-Eagle (1997), there is inadequate or nonexistent time, resources, and support allocated for
teachers to learn and become comfortable with new strategies, structures, or content. Adelman and WalkingEagle (1997) indicate most educational institutes involved in the change process move too quickly from the
planning, design, or policy development stage to an implementation stage, ignoring the value of the
preparation stage; and this omission can occur on any educational implementation. Adelman and WalkingDr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 18
9/1/02
Eagle (1997) conclude that routinely, inadequate attention to preparation and practice appears to be the key
factor in reform failure as they cited one teacher who observed, “In my 23 years of teaching, I have seen
reforms get ahead of teacher preparation” (page 94). As part of the implementation of the change process, the
educational system facilitators need to sequence the implementation process so that the change will not
proceed until teachers understand the change and their concerns are addressed.
Further studies in support of teacher concerns about educational system changes include Negroni’s
(1994) discussion of additional changes in demographics that affect the educational systems. Negroni
indicates that an increase in poverty unfavorably affects the learning of students. In addition, the fact that
higher expectations of what the student should learn has been affected by a highly technological work
environment and complex society. Negroni concludes that assumptions of teachers must change about
students, but cautions the “slow to change” school organizations are established and operating in an
“industrial” mode rather than an “informational” mode. Negroni concludes that educational systems must
reduce the bureaucratic influences and return to “real world” thinking in order to address teacher concerns.
In summary, changes in the teaching environment (educational system), as teachers prepare for and
participate in the new process, result in concerns for teachers. These concerns require the support of the
educational system, whether the change affects the curriculum content or instructional delivery methodology.
Concerns may develop about the timing of the implementation and whether or not the teacher has gained a
solid understanding of the change. The foremost concern of teachers during the implementation of the change
will be the consideration by the system that the teachers be the primary focus. Research suggests the
educational system may have reluctance for change (which is intended to improve students’ learning
capabilities), but when change does occur, teachers’ concerns must be paramount in the implementation plan.
Concerns of Teachers: The Changing Learner
As a result of the implementation of an innovation, the third area of change creating concerns for
teachers involves their responsibilities to the changing learner. The teachers’ concerns result from the
changing learners’ expectations due to educational reform and diversity changes in the students themselves.
Diversity changes include student demographic changes.
Bingham (1995) discusses the changing learner and the consequences of the changing teaching
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 19
9/1/02
environment as both of these occurrences create concerns for teachers when she states,
“Times have changed. Not only are more children of increased diversity coming to school, but they
are entering at a time when entry-level jobs have decreased precipitously, and the jobs demand
problem solving and collaborative skills never before required in the history of this country. The
fast-moving service sector has emerged as a major employer in this country. Graduates have to
adapt, adjust, remain, communicate, and meet the challenges of societal change at rates
unprecedented in our history” (page ix).
The teachers must be cognizant of the changing expectations of the future learner as well as changes
in the learner demographics. Research has identified significant reasons for changes in the student population
that create concerns for teachers (Uchinda, Cretron, and McKenzie (1996). Some of these changes involve the
changing learner coupled with the new learner-centered curriculum, new technology, knowledge and skill
requirements, and their changing demographics. Consequently, the changing learner will also create both
internal (self) and external (task and impact) concerns for the teacher. Therefore, the teacher will develop self
concerns as well as task concerns about teaching the diverse student and expected teaching results.
Thomas (1991) addressed teachers’ concerns created by the changing learner, indicating that the
shift in expectations for students, calls for a new education model for the information age. Students must
know how to think and reason, analyze data, solve complex problems, and be effective communicators. This
requirement for new knowledge and skill is due to the changing environment of the rapidly expanding,
technologically advanced workplace that has created concerns for the teachers. Wirt and Kirst (1989) suggest
the student composition continue to grow and change. This has been demonstrated by the changing role of the
family comprised of a single working parent or both parents working toward meeting the family’s needs. This
change in the traditional role of the family causes a lack of consistency in what the education process expects
from the home. The changes in the student population have a significant impact on the student’s desire and
opportunity to learn, and that places additional pressure and concerns on the teacher.
Further, Resnick (1987) describes the new understanding of how children learn. According to
Resnick, recent cognitive research on learning and constructivist views of knowledge indicate students
actually learn only when they are offered the opportunity to actively incorporate what they are studying into
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 20
9/1/02
their own experiences, concepts, and understandings of how the world works. This approach to “life role”
learning has become the focal point to the performance-based instructional delivery systems and is the
standard in many states (Resnick, 1987).
Following this theme of changes in the students’ new learning requirements and living environments,
a 1995 study by the American Association of School Administrators, advanced by Uchinda, Cetron, and
McKenzie (1996), suggests certain trends have been established in the student population. Uchinda, Cetron,
and McKenzie (1996) suggest these trends include how students have changed since the 1960’s and include:
(a) the number of “dysfunctional” families has grown and continues to grow
(b) high technology has influenced school, work, and home life
(c) communities are changing and becoming more diverse
(d) a hurry-up society often lacks a sense of community,
(e) the changing workplace demands create a need for higher levels of literacy, and
(f) knowledge about learning styles demands new kinds of education (pages 4-5).
In other words, educators must design the educational system with the understanding of the learner
in mind. Developing the curriculum framework for improving the changing learner should be based on
consideration of who the learners are, their backgrounds, and the workplace skills required. These diverse
factors create concerns for teachers (Resnick, 1987; and Uchinda, Cetron, and McKenzie, 1996).
Fiske (1991) continues discussing the issue of changing environment and student needs by stating,
“…schools can no longer function as filling stations to which young people drive up, receive
knowledge they need for a working lifetime then drive away. Students must be taught to think and to
solve problems” (page 14). Fiske further indicates, “Educational methods of the past have left most
learners ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the information explosion. “Students must accept that
the change in the instructional process moves beyond the emphasis on facts to learning skills
necessary for life” (page 14).
Lever (1997) discusses the changing learner by stating, “Students have been passive recipients of
knowledge throughout their educational experiences. They have rarely had to pursue information in the
classroom.” She concludes, “Unfortunately, when they enter the information-intensive society’s workforce in
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 21
9/1/02
which knowledge is often power, their passive approach handicaps them” (page 2). Lever believes the learner
must become an active participant rather than part of a passive audience. This concept will create concerns
for teachers who are responsible for educating the changing learner for the workforce.
Students’ changing expectations involving educational reform and the changing demographics of the
student have created concerns for teachers. Other changes involve new technology influencing school, work,
and home life; knowledge and skill requirements; and diverse communities providing the students. All of
these issues create concerns for teachers that need to be considered during the implementation process.
Summary of Change Process and Teacher Self-Efficacy
In summary, the common themes of the publications addressed in this study include, among others,
premises about change, concerns created by the change process, and the self-efficacy of teachers as a result of
change (Caine and Caine, 1997; Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986; and
Resnick, 1987). The study focuses on concerns of teachers due to the challenges created by educational
reform, including changes involving federal and New Hampshire educational reform in curriculum and
instruction. Research suggests initial concerns of the teachers were internal or personal as change affects their
self-efficacy and, also, external as change affects their profession (task and impact). The external areas also
involve concerns with the educational system and the changes associated with revised education curriculum
content and instructional delivery, coupled with its impact on the changing learner. According to Hall,
George, and Rutherford (1986) the change process may create concerns for teachers involved in the
implementation of an innovation and the individual (teacher) needs to be the primary focus of actions taken
for change.
Business and industry had a significant role in influencing both federal and NH educational reform
initiatives to address their needs for a more effective worker. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford
(1986), the implementation of this educational reform initiative may create concerns for teachers. These
concerns may unfold because teachers will be responsible for teaching the future work force the relevant
courses that address the needs of business and industry (SCANS, 1994). In summary, the challenge of the
teacher, as a result of the change process and its many components, will be to cope with the significant effect
on their personal self-efficacy as they encounter these educational reforms (Guskey, 1987).
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 22
9/1/02
Morino (1995) believes,
“the massive technology changes in the workplace, daily life, and school reform through the last
decade have resulted in increasingly technology-based instruction to motivate students, reach them
in different ways of learning, and reduce reliance upon teaching the whole class at the same time”
(page 21).
The results of her study suggest that we must attempt to make school relevant. Morino further states
“the objective as an educator is to engage students in problems and questions that have application to their
daily lives. Thus students will think for themselves, analyze, evaluate, and reach a conclusion. Knowledge
such as this could last for a lifetime” (page 22).
Concerns-Based Adoption Model
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall, George and Rutherford, 1986. (CBAM) was the most
relevant model for this study. It provided a definitive method for assisting change facilitators, offered a
framework for the design of process that addressed the concerns and needs of the individuals involved with
the change, and provided tools to assess the effects of the change on the individual (Hord, Rutherford,
Hurling-Austin, and Hall 1987). The CBAM was originally designed to conceptualize educational change, but
the model is now being utilized in business and industrial arenas for change implementation. The CBAM was
first used by Hall, Wallace, and Dorsett in 1973 in the “original CBAM paper” to evaluate teacher concerns
about implementation of an innovation. The CBAM was developed to understand the process of change in the
educational environment, while not losing sight of the educator involved with the change. The CBAM paper
proposed that the levels of concern of an individual could be used as an implementation tool for the
acceptance or completion of an implementation of an innovation by studying the individual and evaluating the
concerns that could compromise the effective implementation of the innovation. The key importance of this
model is its ability to provide educational systems with analysis of the teachers’ concerns in order to
determine the need for training and teacher ownership of the innovation (Hall, George, and Rutherford,
1986).
According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), the CBAM provides a guide to the
implementation of change and a means for monitoring the process and outcomes of the change efforts, while
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 23
9/1/02
giving highest priority to the individual teacher and his/her needs in relation to any change effort.
In developing the CBAM, different “stages of concerns about the innovation” have been identified.
Research by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) shows there is developmental movement by teachers through
these stages. In other words, certain types of concerns will be more intense and then become less intense before
an increase of other types of concerns occurs. These different types of concerns have been labeled as stages. The
stages of concern about an innovation align with Fuller’s (1969) initial work with teachers’ concerns about
teaching. Fuller, during the late 1960’s conducted a series of in-depth studies of the “concerns” of teachers; and,
based on these studies, proposed a “developmental conceptualization” of the concerns of teachers. Building on
Fuller’s work, Hall, George, and Rutherford found “first concerns appeared to develop with the personal
concerns of self, then to task concerns, and finally to impact concerns” (1986, page 6).
Table 1 lists the seven stages of concerns about an innovation, groups the stages of concerns into
components, defines each stage of concern, and identifies each stage by its expression of concern.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 24
9/1/02
Table 1
The Stages of Concern
Stages of Concerns
Expressions of Concern
0.
Self
Awareness
I am not concerned about it. What is it?
1.
Self
Informational
I would like to know more about it. How does it work?
2.
Self
Personal
How will using it affect me? How does this impact me? What's my
role in it?
3.
Task
Management
How can I master this? How can I fit it all in? What's the minimum I
must do?
4.
Impact
Consequence
How is my use affecting the students? Is it worth it?
5.
Impact
Collaboration
I am concerned about relating what I am doing with what other
instructors are doing. How do others do this? What's the maximum
potential of this?
6.
Impact
Refocusing
I have some ideas about something that would work even better. Is
there a better way?
Note. Adapted from Measuring Stages of Concern about the Innovation: A Manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire. By Hall, G. E.,
George, A. A., and Rutherford, W. L. (1986). Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education
In discussing the movement of the subject of the study through the stages, Hall, George, and
Rutherford (1986) cautioned,
“The resolution of earlier concerns and the increase of later concerns are not accomplished simply
by having more knowledge about or time and experience with the innovation. Many other factors
influence concerns as well…Highly intense concerns may not be easily reduced, and in some cases a
person’s history, dynamics, and capabilities may make resolution of certain concerns nearly
impossible. In general…a person’s concerns about an innovation develop toward the later stages
(i.e., toward impact concerns) with time, successful experience, and the acquisition of the new
knowledge and skill” (page 8).
In developmental movement of teachers through the stages, a review indicates concerns of "what the
innovation is and what does it mean for me". Stages 1 and 2, which are relatively intense for nonusers of an
innovation, and concerns regarding the possible impact that the innovation will have on the recipient (in this
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 25
9/1/02
study it is the student) are relatively low for the nonusers. For example, as implementation begins and
develops, (Stage 3) management concerns involving teachers’ administration of the change, begins to
increase. (Stage 1) informational concerns and (Stage 2), personal concerns begin to decrease. At the same
time (Stage 4) consequence concerns, (Stage 5) collaboration or cooperation with others, and (Stage 6)
refocusing concerns, begin to increase gradually (Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986).
In evaluating the research for a definitive instrument for this researcher’s study, it was Rutherford’s
research that was decisive. Rutherford (1989) concluded the CBAM (Stages of Concern) is an effective
instrument to use when analyzing concerns of change for the following four reasons:
(a) it identifies behaviors researchers have observed during a change implementation,
(b) collection of data can be done quickly and inexpensively when existing questions are used,
(c) data can be analyzed and displayed efficiently, and
(d) researchers are comfortable interpreting the data.
Studies Using the CBAM: Stages of Concern
The CBAM has been determined to be the “definitive tool in the development of in-service training
for a change process involving an innovation adoption” (Hall and Loucks, 1978, page 8). As part of this
researcher’s literature review, studies utilizing CBAM involving implementation of innovations in education
were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of this model. The innovations that were the subject of some
of those studies included microcomputers (Cicchelli and Baecher, 1989), curriculum in NH (Savage, 1992),
Tech Prep (Green, 1993 and Long, 1995) and Industrial Arts (Linnell, 1991) and (Smith, 2001) are described
as follows:
Broyles and Tillman (1985) utilized CBAM (SoCQ) to provide a theoretical base for developing inservice training for an innovation. Broyles and Tillman conducted twenty-three training workshops utilizing
CBAM. Trainers from exemplary programs sponsored by the National Diffusion Network conducted the
workshops. The trainers observed the workshops to evaluate the training. Additional studies indicated that inservice training factors such as specific configuration of instructional content and training delivery have not
been explored to any great extent. The resulting data concluded training and learning activities and content of
staff development were influenced by SoCQ scores. Generally the results of research on in-service education
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 26
9/1/02
have not included descriptive studies; therefore, there was little known about what actually occurs during
teacher training. Broyles and Tillman’s study indicated that content topics such as introduction, skills
organization, and theory were beneficial to teachers’ concerns after training was conducted (page 364).
Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and
execute course of action required to attain designated types of performance” (page 391). Perceived selfefficacy is an individual’s self-knowledge of his or her ability to initiate necessary steps to choice situation
specific goals. Bandura (1986) has suggested that self-efficacy has the greatest impact on a person’s
individual mastery.
Another research study by Cicchelli and Baecher (1989), utilizing CBAM (SoCQ), focused on
teacher concerns about the use of microcomputers in the classroom. Seventy-eight teachers in elementary,
junior high, and senior high school completed a SoCQ concerning the innovation of microcomputers in the
classroom. Results yielded reliable data on the seven stages of concern demonstrating that the highest Stages
of Concern were in Stages 0, 1, and 2, while the lowest Stages of Concern were those of Stages 4, 5, and 6.
According to Cicchelli and Baecher (1989), during the study, microcomputers in the classrooms represented a
dynamic change to the teachers and administrators. This study investigated the “personal” concerns of the
teachers because of the change process and validated the concerns of teachers (page 37).
With the change in curriculum from industrial arts to technology education, Linnell used the CBAM
SoCQ in 1991 to determine the stages of concern of technology education teachers (TET) in North Carolina.
The results and conclusions of the study indicated the following:
(1) a majority of the TET’s had positive feelings about the change,
(2) TET’s were personally concerned about the new curriculum, their knowledge of the subject, their
management of their responsibilities; and the states’ support for the new curriculum, and
(3) TET’s profile progression of their concerns followed Hall, George, and Rutherford’s predicted
wave pattern. A goal of this study was to provide a basis for and recommend appropriate
procedures to facilitate the implementation process.
Savage (1992) studied teachers’ use of an innovation in curriculum by using the CBAM. This study
evaluated the differences in teachers’ concerns as they corresponded to their involvement in the development
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 27
9/1/02
of the curriculum. The SoCQ was distributed to 321 third grade teachers in a New Hampshire school district
with the longest access to the district’s curriculum guides. 131 teachers responded to the questionnaire. Based
on teachers’ involvement in the development of the curriculum, Savage discovered significant differences in
their concerns that corresponded to their involvement with and use of the curriculum guide.
Greene (1993) surveyed with CBAM (SoCQ) academic and vocational teachers in the southeast
region of the United States who participated in Tech Prep programs to determine if there were significant
differences in the concerns of academic and vocational teachers toward the implementation of Tech Prep. The
study participants were attendees at Tech Prep conferences in Knoxville, TN, and Atlanta, GA, during the
summer of 1992. A total of 304 teachers responded to the CBAM SoCQ. The results of this study concluded
that a significant difference was discovered in teachers’ concerns about Tech Prep, based on the length of
time they were involved in the innovation.
A research study by Long (1995) determined the concerns of Tech Prep teachers at the secondary
level in the State of Virginia as measured by the CBAM (SoCQ). Long conducted the study on 322
individuals consisting of administrators, academic teachers, vocational teachers, and guidance councilors
involved in implementing Tech Prep programs for two years or longer. Long concluded, based on the theory
of the CBAM and the mean scores of the Stages of Concern that the teachers were becoming experienced
users of the Tech Prep concept. Long further concluded staff development should relate to strategies
necessary to increase student outcomes and cooperation and coordination of others.
A more recent study conducted by Smith (2001), was student derived self-efficacy based on four
sources. Her study found that self-efficacy is affected by the four sources, which aligned with the review of
literature,
“According to Bandura (1977, 1986, 1995) personal self efficacy beliefs that can be developed by
the four major sources include: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and
affective states…self efficacy is critical to the mastery of a skill”.
Summary
This research study is intended to determine the self-efficacy of NH teachers concerning the
integration of technology, instructional methodology and the teachers’ concerns inherent in the change
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 28
9/1/02
process through the integration of technology. In the review of literature, the self-efficacy of teachers is
determined to be affected in multiple areas as they encountered the implementation of an innovation (Fullan
and Steigelbauer, 1991; and Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986). Teacher self-efficacy or concerns involved
teachers in at least three areas. Those areas include coping personally with the changes, understanding and
delivering the changed curriculum content using a revised instructional methodology to the student, and
producing the outcome desired by the change.
For this study, the CBAM (Concern-Based Adoption Model) was researched and determined to be
the definitive tool to implement the change process and identify teachers’ concerns for the change process
involving the integration of technology. CBAM/SoCQ was chosen because it can provide a definitive method
for assisting change facilitators, offers a framework for the design of process that addresses the concerns and
needs of the individuals involved with the change, and provides the tools to assess the effects of the change
(Hord, Rutherford, Hurling-Austin, and Hall, 1987). The CBAM/SoCQ instrument as demonstrated above has
been used successfully to evaluate change efforts in schools, as well as used to clarify staff development
and/or training needs for the implementation of an innovation in an educational environment. In addition, the
SoCQ component measures the individual variations in the acceptance, use of innovations, and degree of
implementation.
In conclusion, in this study, the researchers sought to address three related teacher concerns with the
educational reform: changes in curriculum content, revision of the methodology of instruction, and the impact
of changes teachers will experience resulting from implementing technology. More specifically, this study
suggests a need to evaluate and address personal concerns of the teacher that were both internal or personal,
as change affects their self-efficacy, and also external or job-related demands. The external areas of concerns
involve the educational system itself and educational reform resulting in revised education curriculum content
and instructional delivery as well as the educational reform’s impact on the student. Change as evidenced by
educational reform’s affect on the teachers personally, however, suggests the need for time to allow them to
understand and comprehend the change, to accept the change, and to understand the expectation desired by
the change. These changes create concerns for teachers who are charged with the implementation of the
educational reform.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 29
9/1/02
RESULTS
The results are presented in narrative, graphic, and tabular form. Specifically, the results are
presented for each of the following two research questions:
(a) What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the integration of technology in the
classroom?
(b) What is the level of use of technology by the teachers as it relates to the implementation of
technology in the classrooms?
Results Obtained for Research Question One
The first research question asked: What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the
integration of technology in the classrooms? The following are the results obtained relevant to this research
question:
(a) stages of concern mean raw scores and standard deviations,
(b) total group profile,
(c) highest stage of concern,
(d) first and second highest stages of concern, and
(e) subgroup profiles.
According to CBAM theory, changes in participants concerns about the innovation reflective of
teacher growth and development. One way of looking at growth and development is through composite group
scores on the SoCQ. The following profile is the group scores in the Spring of 2002.
Total Group Profile
The total group profile for the 1,217 NH Teachers in this study was obtained by converting their raw
scores for each stage of concern’s question into percentile scores indicating “levels of intensity,” utilizing the
Stages of Concern Raw Score Percentile Chart for Stages of Concern Questions developed by Hall, George,
and Rutherford (1986). The resulting total group profile is presented in Figure 1 and Table 2 on the next
page.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 30
9/1/02
Figure 1
Stages of Concern Total Group Profile
NH Teachers CBAM Profile-Stages of
Concern
Relative Intensity
Profile
100
81.3
80
79.3
66.7
60
40
48
44.3
37.7
20
0
Stage 0 Stage 1
Stage 2 Stage 3
Stage 4 Stage 6
Stages of Concern
Table 2
Stages of Concern Total Group Profile-IHE, IN-SERVICE, PRE-SERVICE
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Percentage
81.3
79.3
79.9
66.7
37.7
_______________________________________________________
Stage 5
Stage 6
44.3
48
For the 1,217 teachers who participated in this study, the highest level of intensity of concern (81.3
percent) was Stage 0 Awareness and the lowest level of intensity of concern (37.7 percent) was Stage 4
Consequence.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 31
9/1/02
Highest Stage of Concern
The highest stage of concern for each respondent was tabulated. Figure 2 and Table 3 present the
results of this tabulation.
Figure 2
Highest Stage of Concern
100
90
Number of Respondents
80
70
60
50
40.6
40
20.8
30
17
13.1
20
6.6
10
1.6
0.2
0
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stages of Concern
Table 3
Highest Stage of Concern
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
_____________________________________________________________
N
495
253
160
207
3
80
%
40.6
20.8
13.1
17.0
.2
6.6
_____________________________________________________________
Stage 6
Total
19
1217
1.6
100.0
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 32
9/1/02
Of the 1,217 teachers, 495 (40.6 percent) scored highest on Stage 0 Awareness, while the third
highest scored highest on Stage 3 Management. A total of 83.0 percent of the teachers scored highest in
Stages 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, or Stage 2 Personal. However, Stage 3 (Management) is a major
focus for teachers.
Subgroup Profiles
Subgroup profiles were obtained utilizing the following demographic categories:
(a) years of classroom experience, and
(b) training initiatives.
Of the 1,217 respondents, 910 teachers indicated their years teaching in the classroom on the
questionnaire. A Stages of Concern profile was developed for these 910 respondents. The profile was
developed for teachers in four groups:
(1) teachers who had less than ten years of experience,
(2) teachers who had ten to twenty years of experience,
(3) teachers who had twenty-one to thirty years of experience, and
(4) teachers who had thirty-one or more years of experience.
Figure 3 and Table 4 present the resulting profile.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 33
9/1/02
Figure 3
Stages of Concern Profile and by Years of Classroom Experience
100
90
80
Relative Intensity
Percentile
70
60
50
40
30
20
Less than 10
10 to 20
10
21 to 30
Over 30
0
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Table 4
Stages of Concern Profile by Years of Classroom Experience
Experience
N
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Less than 10
337
81.5
77.8
75.6
64.0
32.1
44.1
48.7
10 to 20
266
82.0
76.8
75.6
63.3
30.6
46.5
48.7
21 to 30
196
82.9
77.6
76.4
65.1
29.1
42.8
45.9
Over 30
111
84.9
76.5
75.5
64.0
29.7
40.7
62.1
Total
910
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, the profiles for the four groups who differed with regard to
experience appear to be quite similar with the highest levels of intensity in Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3; and the
lowest levels of intensity in Stages 4, 5, and 6. However, respondents with over thirty years of experience
seemed to have higher levels of intensity in Stage 6 than did respondents in the other three groups.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 34
9/1/02
Importance of Follow-up Training
Of the 1,217 respondents, 893 indicated whether or not they believed follow-up training
implementing technology was important. Stages of concern profiles were developed for those who reported
they believed that follow-up training for the integration of technology was important (those whose response
was “Yes”) and for those who reported they believed that follow-up training integrating integration of
technology was not important (those whose response was “No”). Figure 4 and Table 5 on the next page
present the profiles obtained.
Figure 4
Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow-up Training
100
90
80
Relative Intensity
Percentile
70
60
50
40
30
20
Yes
10
No
0
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stages of Concern
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 35
9/1/02
Table 5
Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow-up Training
N
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Yes
673
82.4
77.2
76.1
63.9
30.6
44.3
47.9
No
220
81.7
77.4
74.5
64.0
31.1
43.8
48.9
Total
893
As shown in Figure 4 and Table 5, the profile for those who reported that they believed follow-up
training was important and the profile for those who reported that they believed follow-up training was not
important appear to be quite similar with the highest levels of intensity in Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3 and the lowest
levels of intensity in Stages 4, 5, and 6.
Results for Research Question Two
The second research question asked: What is the level of use as it relates to the integration of
technology? The following are the results obtained relevant to the research question:
(a) respondents’ level of use integrating technology, and
(b) subgroup profiles.
Of the 916 teachers who responded to the question, 916 responded to the question indicating their
levels of use of technology integration. The four possible responses were
(a) nonuser,
(b) novice,
(c) intermediate, and
(d) old hand.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 36
9/1/02
Table 6
Respondent’s Levels of Use
Category
Number
Percent
Nonuser
35
3.8
Novice
311
34.0
Intermediate
440
48.0
Old hand
130
14.2
Total
916
100.0
Figure 5
Respondent’s Levels of Use
450
400
350
440
300
Nonuser
Novice
Intermediate
Old hand
311
250
200
150
130
100
50
35
0
Subgroup Profile Data
In addition to the description of the level of use of integration of technology provided in the previous
section in addressing the second research question, the following subgroup profiles were developed related to
levels of use:
(a) years of classroom experience,
(b) importance of follow up training,
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 37
9/1/02
Levels of Use and Years of Experience
Of the 896 respondents identified both their level of use of technology and their years of classroom
teaching on the questionnaire. Table 7 presents the results obtained.
Table 7
Respondent’s Years of Classroom Experience and Levels of Use
Response
N
Nonuser
Novice
%
N
%
N
%
Intermediate
N
%
Old hand
N
%
Less than 10
335
37.4
15
45.5
89
29.6
193
44.6
38
29.5
10 to 20
263
29.4
6
18.2
100
33.2
115
26.6
42
32.6
21 to 30
211
23.5
10
30.3
78
25.9
90
20.8
33
25.6
Over 30
87
9.7
2
6.1
34
11.3
35
8.1
16
12.4
896
100.0
33
100.0
301
100.0
433
100.0
129
100.0
Total
As shown in Table 7, of the total teachers the majority tended to describe themselves as “novice”
and “intermediate”. For example, 497 of 896 who described themselves as “novice” and “intermediate” have
taught less than 20 years. The highest percentage of “novice,” 189 or 63 percent, taught less than 10.
Levels of Use and Follow-up Training
885 respondents identified both their levels of use of technology and the importance of follow-up
training . Table 8 on the next page presents the results.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 38
9/1/02
Table 8
Importance of Follow-up Training and Respondent’s Levels of Use
Response
Nonuser
Novice
Intermediate
Old Hand
N
N
N
%
N
%
N
%
%
%
Yes
666
75.3
23
69.7
270
89.7
322
75.4
51
41.1
No
219
24.7
10
30.3
31
10.3
105
24.6
73
58.9
Total
885
100.0
33
100.0
301
100.0
427
100.0
124
100.0
As shown in Table 8 a majority in each of the four groups indicated that they thought follow-up
training in integration of technology integration was important. These ranged from 41.1 percent of the “old
hands” to 89.7 percent of the “novices.”
Levels of Use and Stages of Concern
The responses received allowed for an examination of the stages of concern profiles and levels of
use data obtained from 915 teachers. Figures 6 and 7 and Table 9 on the next two pages present the results
obtained.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 39
9/1/02
Figure 6
Stages of Concern Profile for Levels of Use
90
80
Relative Intensity
Percentile
70
60
50
40
Nonuser
30
Novice
20
Intermediate
10
Old Hand
0
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stages of Concern
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 40
9/1/02
Figure 7
Stages of Concerns and Levels of Use
90
82.5
73.8
75.6
80
62.6
70
60
47.1
42.9
50
28.5
40
30
20
10
0
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Nonuser
Stage 3
Novice
Stage 4
Intermediate
Stage 5
Stage 6
Old Hand
Table 9
Stages of Concern Group Profile and Levels of Use
Levels of Use
N
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Nonuser
35
80.2
75.9
75.2
61.8
28.4
52.1
51.0
Novice
311
82.5
75.6
73.8
62.6
28.5
42.9
47.1
Intermediate
440
82.6
78.3
76.9
65.8
31.4
44.4
48.2
Old hand
129
81.8
77.9
76.5
62.2
33.4
44.0
50.1
Total
915
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 9, the Stages of Concern profiles for the four groups were very
similar. That is, Stages 0, 1, 2, and 3 were higher, while Stages 4, 5, and 6 were lower for “nonusers,”
“novices,” “intermediates,” and “old hands.”
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 41
9/1/02
CONCLUSIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The basis of this study was teachers’ concerns due to the state of NH mandating the integration of
technology and consequently curriculum and instructional delivery change. My study sought to describe the
stages of concern and the levels of use of teachers with regard to technology integration; and thus examine the
change in the teaching-learning environment at the onset of professional development.
The review of literature for this study clearly identifies the complexity of the educational change
process (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992; and Hall and Loucks, 1978), including the need for today’s schools to
provide the future work force with the necessary knowledge and skills due to the rapidly changing technology
in business and industry (Bissett, 1996). The State of New Hampshire DOE is spending millions of dollars on
the implementation of educational reform to enable students to meet the challenges of the work force in the
new millennium.
 Students (changing learners) are challenged by ever increasing job demands of problem solving
and collaborative skills created by the new technologically intensive work environment. These
changing learners are the products of increased diversity that have emerged from a transforming
demographic society. This emergence of a diverse changing learner and concurrent increasing
job demands will require a new learning process. These students will be the future work force
and need to develop adequate knowledge and skills to cope with the challenges of the new
technology and reinforce the bridge between school and the current work force.
 Teachers responsible for this new learning process must encourage students to be “active”
participants rather than “passive” observers of information in the classroom. As more active
participants they will develop critical thinking, problem solving, and negotiating skills.
 Teachers are being challenged to provide the changing learner appropriate educational
instruction necessary to fulfill the requirement brought about by the paradigm shift in corporate
America. These advancements in technology create a different work force environment.
Appropriate educational instruction needs to provide the work force with “doers and thinkers”.
Teachers have developed concerns due to the rapid rate of technology changes in business and
industry; the pressure of business and industry for a more qualified work force; the diversification of the
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 42
9/1/02
learner; and the changes in education as a result of state mandated educational reforms. The curriculum
restructuring involving technology will create concerns for the teachers responsible for its implementation.
The results of this study conclude teachers in the early state of the implementation of educational
reform will develop personal concerns surrounding themselves and how the implementation will affect them.
These results are compatible with research reviewed that indicates teachers involved in an educational
innovation such as technology integration will progress through various stages of concerns, depending on the
individual, as they encounter an innovation (Greene, 1993; Johnson, 1984; and Long, 1995). Teachers’
acceptance and participation in the innovation will depend largely on the degree to which they are
comfortable with the innovation as they progress through these stages (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992). Hall,
George, and Rutherford (1986) have identified the various stages that teachers progress through as they
encounter change in education. This progression begins with the developmental stages of Stage 0 Awareness,
Stage 1 Informational, and Stage 2 Personal. Teachers continue progressing through Stage 3 Management,
Stage 4 Consequences, Stage 5 Collaboration, and finally reaching Stage 6 Refocusing.
Therefore, teachers’ concerns need to be identified and resolved in order to have effective
implementation. Fuller (1973) states, “concerns resolution is important not only so students (teachers) can
develop more mature concerns, but to prevent slipping back to less mature concerns" (page 11).
Facilitators/administrators involved with the implementation of educational reform need to understand the
concerns that are created for teachers as a result of the changes, and if an effective implementation is to be
accomplished, they need to provide support for teachers to resolve these concerns (Hall, George, and
Rutherford, 1986).
To obtain conclusions and interpretations of the results of the participant’s responses to the
statements on the survey, a profile of the NH teachers was developed. This profile described
(a) the stages of concerns and the levels of intensity which the respondents were experiencing due
to the integration of technology,
(b) demographic profile of the respondents,
(c) and levels of use of technology.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 43
9/1/02
From the conclusions and interpretation of the results obtained, implications for practice are
discussed, recommendations of appropriate programs and policies are provided, and recommendations for
future research on the implementation process are suggested.
Conclusions and Interpretations
Research Question One
The first research question asked: What are the expressed concerns of teachers regarding the
integration of technology?
As shown in the NH Teachers CBAM Profile Stages of Concern presented in Figure 1 (page 34) the
results reflect a profile describing a teacher with high intensity levels of concerns in the early stages,
“informational” and “personal,” low intensity levels of concerns in “collaboration” and “cooperation,” with
an increase or tailing up in the “refocusing” stage. The tailing up result indicates that the respondents in this
study may not understand fully or may not even be aware of technology integration and the implications
surrounding the implementation but are interested in learning more about it and understanding the personal
requirements that are expected. They demonstrate a strong will to refocus or to have a better way of
accomplishing the results expected.
Additionally, this pattern reveals that during the initial phase of the implementation, teachers
reported their greatest concerns were for themselves personally (or self-orientated concerns) and the need for
gaining more information about the innovation of technology. Consequently, they reported their least
concerns were in their involvement in or task/impact concerns of the innovation of technology integration.
The results of this study indicate the innovation is still in the developmental stages of implementation.
For the most part, the Stages of Concern patterns found for the subgroups were similar to those
found for the total group, i.e., “awareness,” “informational,” and “personal” were the highest levels of
concern and “management,” “consequences,” and “refocusing” were the lowest levels of concern.
Research Question Two
As shown in the Respondents’ Levels of Use taken as a whole, the subgroup profiles were similar to
the profile found for the total group in that there were high levels of concerns in the early stages of
informational and personal and low levels of concern in collaboration and cooperation with a increase or
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 44
9/1/02
tailing up in the refocusing stage.
The results obtained regarding the level of use of technology by the teachers as it relates to the
implementation of technology integration in the education program suggest that the following interpretation is
warranted: A majority of the respondents felt that they were “novice” users or “intermediate” users with
regard to technology integration while one-third of the respondents felt that they were “nonusers” and
“novice” level. Again, this result is anticipated for the early stages of the implementation of an innovation.
Discussion of the Conclusions and Interpretations
According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), “Our past history, personality dynamics,
motivations, needs, feelings, education, roles, status, our entire social-psycho being in relation to our
experiences and knowledge shape how we perceive and, in our minds, contend with the issues, objects, or
problem at hand” (page 5). The observations of Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) were consistent with the
results obtained from my study and appear to be consistent with other studies that have examined the
concerns of teachers regarding the implementation of educational reform (Johnson, 1984; Long, 1995;
Rogers, 1993; and Savage, 1993). The conclusions of each of the studies reviewed, as well as the conclusions
achieved in my study, revolve around the teachers being allotted sufficient time to progress through the
developmental stages of the implementation process.
The total group profile obtained in this study depicted at the onset of the integration of technology is
indicative of a “typical nonuser negative one/two split” profile (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986, page
36). According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), a “typical” nonuser negative one/two profile with a
tailing up indicates a nonuser with a relatively more intense Stage 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, and
Stage 2 Personal with all stages relatively equal in intensity levels and a decrease of intensity levels at Stage 3
Management, Stage 4 Consequence, followed by a tailing up (6 percent-10 percent) or increase in intensity
from the lowest intensity at Stage 4 to a higher intensity at Stage 6 Refocusing. According to Hall, George,
and Rutherford (1986), this profile of a nonuser “negative one/two split” suggests that the respondents will
not, at this time, respond effectively to educational reform unless their concerns are anticipated and
addressed. Further, Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) describe these stages of concern with the following
profile:
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 45
9/1/02
 A high intensity percentile score in Stage 0 Awareness suggests a teacher who may be
uninformed or who has little concern about or little involvement with the innovation.
 A high intensity percentile score in Stage 1 Informational suggests a teacher who may be
generally aware of and interested in learning more detail, knowing available resources, and
understanding necessary requirements for using the innovation.
 A high intensity percentile score in Stage 2 Personal suggests that a teacher may be uncertain
about the demands of the innovation in relation to his or her self-efficacy (professional status,
role, and teaching). A teacher may be concerned about decision-making, as well as the personal
time and energy needed for implementing the innovation. A high level of intensity regarding
“personal” concerns may also be indicative of a teacher having intense concerns about the
innovation and resistance to the innovation.
 A low intensity percentile score in Stage 3 Management suggests that a teacher may not at this
time be concerned about the processes and/or tasks of using the innovation.
 A low intensity percentile score in Stage 4 Consequence suggests that a teacher may not at this
time be concerned about the impact of the innovation on students.
 A low intensity percentile score in Stage 5 Collaboration suggests that a teacher may not at this
time be focused on coordination and cooperation with colleagues and administration.
 The tailing up on Stage 6 Refocusing is depicted when the lowest intensity at Stage 4
Consequences increases to Stage 6 Refocusing and suggests that a teacher may be exploring
other possible benefits from the innovation including the possibility of major changes or
replacement with a better alternative (Hall, George, and Rutherford, 1986, page 36).
This demographic profile coupled with the Stages of Concern total group profile displays high selforientated concerns (Stages 0, 1, and 2) with a definite interest in restructuring (Stage 6) the innovation. The
results also align with the “typical nonuser negative one/two split” in the following areas:
(a) the highest mean score was found in Stage 0 Awareness;
(b) highest level of intensities were in Stage 0 Awareness, Stage 1 Informational, and Stage 2
Personal; and
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 46
9/1/02
(c) the highest and second highest Stages of Concern scores were adjacent to one another indicating
a close alignment of the concerns.
This type of “typical” profile of high levels of concerns in the early developmental stages and low
levels of concerns in later stages with an increase or tailing up in the last stage indicates that the respondents
in this study may not understand fully or may not even be aware of technology integration but are interested
in learning more about it and understanding the requirements. More significantly, however, the respondents
are concerned about how the change to technology integration will affect them personally and the demands
imposed on them because of technology integration. These personal concerns include their own acceptance
and understanding of technology integration as well as the amount of support and time they will be given for
the implementation.
On average, the respondents appear to have little involvement in technology integration, yet great
concern about the rewards technology integration will offer, the accountability technology integration places
on them, as well as the commitments required by technology integration. The tailing-up of Stage 6 indicates
teachers possess a strong will to restructure the innovation or have a better way to accomplish the task. The
teachers in this study appear to indicate a significant concern about technology integration and its
implementation. Research reported by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) suggest that the profile of the
teachers’ personal concerns will have to be reduced before he or she is able to continue to progress towards
understanding the change and look positively at the innovation.
While the concerns of the teachers in this study may be correct or incorrect, it can be argued that
these results do provide a strong indication to program administrators that they need to address the concerns
of teachers by preparing and educating them regarding technology integration in order for the innovation to
be effectively implemented. According to Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), such resistance as mentioned
above has shadowed the educational profession, not allowing educational reform to be effectively
implemented.
Clearly, the study revealed that the respondents were not in the “comfort zone” needed for effective
implementation of an innovation. This finding received support from the results obtained regarding the “level
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 47
9/1/02
of use” indicated by the respondents. Only 14 percent identified themselves as “old hands” while the
remainder 86 percent identified themselves as being “nonusers,” “novices,” or “intermediate users.”
Implications for Practice
Research suggests that staff development which is designed to address teachers’ specific concerns
and is delivered in a logical progression may result in reducing teacher resistance to implementing curricular
innovation such as technology integration. A study by Cicchelli and Baecher in 1985 supported this view as it
found that staff development programs frequently failed to align in-service activities with teacher concerns
and, consequently, were ineffective.
Three significant findings were derived from this study that contribute to the implications for practice
and include
 Business and industry technology has been changing at such a rapid rate that an effective
implementation of the reconstructed curriculum and instructional methodology is necessary to
teach workplace competencies like interpersonal, intrapersonal, and thinking skills, including
problem solving, decision making, and discovery learning to the changing learners of the
twenty-first century. This understanding has lead to the changes in curriculum content and
instructional methodology.
 The profile of the teachers involved in this study indicates that the teachers’ personal and
informational concerns will have to be reduced before he or she is able to progress to higher
stages and look positively at innovation. Sagor (1997) comments that to build up teachers’ selfefficacy, they must be presented with the consequences of their actions; however, Sagor
suggests that those who are low on self-efficacy will not readily provide information that will
allow proper assessment of the teacher. Consequently, teachers must be made aware of the
requirements and immersed in the assessment of their actions regarding this implementation.
 Expect the teachers to continue through all the CBAM Stages of Concerns. It will take a while for
the change process.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 48
9/1/02
 Expect the teachers to have numerous questions. Each answer to questions a teacher might have is
essential to understand at each level….what are we trying to do to resolve the concerns the
teachers may have.
In an effort to effectively gain the teachers’ buy-in to this implementation, a suggestion by Sagor is
appropriate when he states, “By creating an atmosphere where people were willing to take risks and examine
the results, a new openness to untried possibilities and potential emerges” (1997, page 190). Fullan (1997)
further supports the buy-in approach to the change in the teaching and learning environment when he states,
“By examining emotions and change from a different perspective, we not only gain insights about the
dynamics of change, but we also find new understandings of how to make change work more constructively.
The moral and the technical begin to fuse, instead of being two ships passing in the night” (pages 216-217).
“Certainly there is a need for teachers to become more knowledgeable regarding technology
integration, but staff development must also focus on the affective needs of those teachers. Such
staff development activities will help optimize teacher strengths while minimizing teacher
frustration, confusion, and anxiety during the development, implementation, and evaluation stages
of technology integration (Aldeman and Walking-Eagle, 1997, p14).”
Recommendations for State Programs and Policy
This study provides information to state administrators regarding concerns of New Hampshire
teachers responsible for implementing a change in the teaching and learning environment. The following are
specific state programs that should be developed for those responsible for the integration of technology.
 An instructional “change process” module should be designed, developed, and evaluated to
assure teachers understand the change process as it relates to the implementation of technology.
 Design and develop a program that includes a series of technology professional development
activities based on insights gained from the CBAM/SOCQ assessment, addressing the various
“stages of concerns” for those teachers and administrators who are integrating technology. This
program should be designed, developed, and implemented in a timely manner to help them in
this change process. (According to the review of literature, staff development must include skill
development, attitude change, knowledge acquisition, and altering the norms of the culture.)
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 49
9/1/02
Additionally, consider what information teachers will need at each level. A major focus is on
elevation of comfort in technology over proficiency. The initial focus of these activities should
be on the personal and self-orientated concerns of the teachers; subsequently, the focus of these
activities should be on the task and impact concerns of the teachers. The staff development
activities should incorporate evaluation procedures at specific time frames that assess the extent
to which teacher concerns are impacted by the activities they have experienced. According to
Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986), teachers would be expected to move from personal and
internal (self) concerns to external (task and impact) concerns over the life of the staff
development activities.
 Plan a program that expects and supports teachers who will be at different levels compared to
each other and will move from level to level at different rates.
 Design and develop a support system using information databases such as an electronic network.
This should be developed to facilitate dialogue and information exchange among teachers. (This
electronic network should include on-line teaching sessions with a “teach the teacher” program,
a chat room forum, and a central control system to provide a clearinghouse of resource materials
developed using various forms of media. This support system (network) would facilitate the
sharing of successful resources and enhance problem solving for teachers as well as an
instructional distance education capability to enhance the teachers’ knowledge and skills.)
 Assign knowledgeable and well trained mentor teachers at the local level to coordinate and
supervise the implementation of technology, including a support system to meet the ongoing
needs of teachers during the implementation. These selected teachers should also serve as
teacher liaisons between local and state administrators and task forces that are convened for
future educational enhancements.
The initial phase of the implementation of technology will directly affect hundreds and thousands of
teachers and students. These teachers are accountable for the implementation of this educational reform.
The following state policy should be developed as a result of this study to facilitate the effective
implementation of Technology integration:
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 50
9/1/02
o Provide an additional state grant utilizing the CBAM/SoCQ to continue assessment and
evaluation of the self-efficacy of NH teachers as they continue to integrate technology in their
classrooms.
o Increase professional staff development training and funds supporting the school districts for the
appropriate staff development to provide an effective implementation of technology. The funds
should be concentrated on staff development that will address teacher concerns, more
specifically, funding for
(a) instructional modules,
(b) professional development activities,
(c) teacher assignment to specific task forces for effective follow-up and dissemination of
current information,
(d) electronic network data base support system, and
(e) knowledge acquisition, and teachers as coordinators.
Linnell (1994) suggests that a technology curriculum has been implemented successfully when
the affective concerns of teachers have been given preference. This suggestion echoes the conclusions
developed in this study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study is a snapshot taken at the beginning of an innovation. As change is a process completed
over time, Hall, George, and Rutherford (1986) suggest future studies on the concerns of the teacher involved
in the implementation of an innovation during the implementation process. The recommendation for future
research suggests a longitudinal study be conducted over the next year after the initial integration of
technology and beginning next year using CBAM/SoCQ to describe the teachers’ progress in the change
process with regard to the integration of technology in the NH schools. The studies should give particular
attention to shifts or changes with regard to teacher concerns based on the amount and type of in-service or
training accomplished and the length of time after the implementation process began. This approach to
longitudinal studies would capture teacher concerns at various stages of the innovation. The success or failure
of the selected staff development can also be assessed by evaluating the stages of concerns that the teachers
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 51
9/1/02
express and whether or not those concerns are in the later stages. Additionally, the LoTi technology
assessment of teacher’s skills should be correlated with the CBAM/SoCQ.
Summary
Recommendations include professional development programs and policies for addressing teacher
concerns and suggestions for future teacher self-efficacy studies that will further support teachers’ concerns.
1. Increased sharing and collaboration with other teachers.
2. Assessments utilized to develop priorities for school wide planning and assessment efforts.
3. Develop skills for teachers to become teacher-researchers to assume responsibility for their own
professional growth.
“There is little disagreement that teachers who engage in self-directed inquiry into their own
classrooms find the process intellectually satisfying, they testify to the power of their own research to help
them better understand and ultimately to transform their teaching practices.” (Chochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993,
pp. 18-19)
The results of this study indicate that teachers involved in an educational innovation such as
technology integration will progress through various stages of concerns, depending on the individual, as they
encounter an innovation. Based on the demographics of the typical respondent involved in this study, the
implementation of new teaching content and methodology often creates insecurities and discouragement, thus
decreasing one’s confidence and sense of self-efficacy. The implementation of technology integration must be
undertaken in a non-judgmental learning environment with administrative support and adequate allotment of
time to effectively implement this or any educational reform. If there is to be full and effective technology
integration, staff development activities that provide teachers with the knowledge they need and that will shift
their concerns from internal (self) to external (task and impact) need to be designed, developed, and
implemented. There should be periodical monitoring of the expressed concerns of the teachers to assist them
in coping with and resolving any inherent behavioral problems or concerns with implementing technology
integration by providing ongoing in-service instruction and research. Staff development that ignores teacher
concerns is not likely to bring about the outcomes desired and may result in a teacher that closes the
classroom door and continues with what has been previously practiced. This situation would jeopardize the
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 52
9/1/02
objective of business and industry seeking students trained in appropriate knowledge and skills to provide a
work force capable of successfully entering the global economies of the twenty-first century.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 53
9/1/02
References
Adleman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997). Teachers, time, and school reform. In C, Dede
(Ed.) Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Abrahamson, E. (2000). “Change Without Pain.” Harvard Business Review. July-August 2000, 7579.
Adelman, N.E, Walking-Eagle, K.P. (1997). “Teachers, Time, and School Reform.” In
A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bailey, G.D., Lumpley, D. (1997). “Staff Development in Technology.” National Educational
Service Indiana.
Baker, J. (1992). Future Edge: Discovering the New Paradigms of Success. New York: William
Morrow.
Becker, H.J., Riel, M.M. (1999). “Teacher Professionalism and the Emergence of ConstructivistCompatible Pedagogies.” Irvine, CA: University of California.
http://crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/special_report2/index.htm
Beer, et. al. (2000). “Cracking the Code of Change.” Harvard Business Review. May-June 2000,
133-141.
Bernauer, J. (1996). “The Power of Partnering.” T.H.E Journal. 24(3).
Bolman ,L. G. and Deal, T. E.(1997) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bradshaw, L.K. (2002). “Technology for Teaching and Learning: Strategies for Staff Development
and Follow-up Support.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(1) 131-150.
Brush, T.A. (1998). “Teaching Preservice Teachers to Use Technology in the Classroom.” Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education. 6(4) 243-258.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Barth, R. S. (1972). Open education and the American school. New York: Agathan Press.
Bernardo, A. S. (1997, May 12). School reform: A critical summary. [Online] Available:
http://pwl.netcom.com/-efny/esteem/critical.html
[1998, February 20].
Bingham, A. (1995). Exploring the multiage classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Bridges, W. (1986). Managing organizational transition. Organizational Dynamics, 15. 25-26.
Broyles, I., & Tillman, M. (1985). Relationships of inservice training components and changes in
teacher concerns regarding innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 364.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Charp, S. (2002). “Educators’ Acceptance of Computer Technology.” T.H.E. Journal. April, 1012.
Christensen, C., Overdorf, M. (2000). “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change.” Harvard
Business Review.
Cicchelli, T., & Beacher, R. (1989). Microcomputers in the classroom: Focusing on teacher
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 54
9/1/02
concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 13, 32-44.
Cooley, V. (2001). “Implementing Technology Using the Teachers as Trainers Staff Development
Model.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 269-284.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). What matters most: 21st century teaching. The Education Digest, 63,
3-7.
Diamond, L. (1994, Spring). School reform, accountability, and charter schools: Making charters
work- Strategies for charter school developers. Institute for Education Reform. [Online] Available:
http://www.csus.edu/ier/ charter/charteraccount.html [1998, February 20].
Dede, C. (2002). “Effective Use of Learning Technologies.” In L. Holland, ed., Education
Connection. University of Massachusetts/Amherst School of Education. Spring 2002.
Drucker, P. (1994). New Realities in Government and Politics/In Economics and Business/In
Society and World View. New York: Harper Collins.
Fabry, D.L., Higgs, J.R. (1997). “Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology in Education: Current
Status.” Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17(4) 385-395.
Fullan, M. G. (1997). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In A.
Hargreaves, (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind - 1997 ACSD Year Book. Alexandra,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 216-217.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. Bristol,
PA: The Farmer Press.
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
Gallos, J. V. (1997) Using Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New
York: Basic Books.
Gilbraith, J. K. (1977). Age of uncertainty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gillingham, M.G., Topper, A. (1999). “Technology in Teacher Preparation: Preparing Teachers for
the Future.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 7(4) 303-321.
Girod, M., Cavanaugh, S. (2001). “Technology as an Agent of Change in Teacher Practice.” T.H.E
Journal. 28(9) 40.
Girod, M. (1998). “Riding the Dinosaur Wave.” Educational Leadership. 56(1) 72-76.
Goldsby, D., Fazal, M. (2001). “Now That Your Students Have Created Web-Based Digital
Portfolios, How Do You Evaluate Them?” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(4) 607-616.
Gordon, J. (2002). Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. The Journal of
Education Research, 81, 41-47.
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: Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education, The University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facility and personnel staff
development. Teachers College Record, 80, 36-53.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 55
9/1/02
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D., Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973) A developmental conceptualization of the
adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, the University of Texas.
Hargreaves, A. (ed). (1997). Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). “Rethinking Educational Change: Going Deeper and Wider in the Quest for
Success.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Hawkes, M., Romiszowski, A. (2001). “Examining the Reflective Outcomes of Asynchronous
Computer-Mediated Communication on Inservice Teacher Development.” Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education. 9(2) 28-308.
Herr, P. (2000). “The Changing Role of the Teacher.” T.H.E Journal. 28(4) 28 32.
Hirsh, S. & Moffett, C. (1994). A reflective dialog about the change process. Journal of Staff
Development, 15, 43.
Holland, L. (ed.) (2002). Education Connection. University of Massachusetts/Amherst School of
Education.
Holland, P. (2001). “Professional Development in Technology: Catalysts for School Reform.”
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 245-267.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Hurling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change.
Borne, TX: Southwest Education Enterprises.
Kalmbacher, S., Maxson, D. (2000). “Instructional Technology Academy: Empowering Teachers to
Lead Instructional Change.” NASSP Bulletin. 84(616) 42-48.
Kariuki, M., Turner, S. (2001). “Creating Electronic Portfolios Using Laptops: A Learning
Experience for Preservice Teachers, Elementary School Pupils, and Elementary School Teachers.” Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education. 9(4) 567-589.
Kegan, R., Lahey, L.L. (2001). “The Real Reason People Won’t Change.” Harvard Business
Review. 79(10) 84-92.
Kinnaman, D.,Dyrl, O. (1995). “Part 2: Developing a technology powered curriculum.” Technology
and Learning. 15(5).
Kozma, R., & Shank, P. (1998). Connection with the 21st Century: Technology in support of
educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.) Learning with technology - 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandra, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 10-12.
Leron, W., Hazzan, O. (2000). “IT in Higher Education: Why Is IT so Hard and Why There Is Still
Hope After All?” British Journal of Educational Technology. 31(3) 243-246.
Lever, J. C. (1997, October). Technology-assisted facilitated learning: Teaching for the information
age. A paper presented at the League of Innovation Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harpers & Row.
Lieberman, A., Gronlick, M. (1997). “Networks, Reform, and the Professional Development of
Teachers.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Lieux, E. M. (1996 Spring). A comparative study of learning in lecture vs. problem-based format. A
Newsletter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, [Online] Available: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96nutr.html [1997, February 20].
Linnell, C. C. (1991). Determining the stages of concern of North Carolina technology education
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 56
9/1/02
teachers with curriculum change from industrial arts to technology education (change concerns). (Doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University 1991). Dissertation Abstract International, 52/06, (ProQuestDissertation Abstract No. ACC 9123373).
Linnell, C. C. (1994). Facilitating curriculum change: Teacher concerns as a factor. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 31, 93-94.
Long, B. D. (1995). Stages of concern in the implementation of tech prep programs in Virginia.
(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/03, (ProQuestDissertation Abstract No. AAC 9520746).
McCombs, B. L. (1992) Learning centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign
and reform. Washington, DC: American Physiological Association and The Mid-Continent Regional
Education Laboratory.
Menlo, A. (1985). A reconceptualization of resistance to change and its application to the
institutionalization process. A paper presented at the Institutional School Improvement Project Seminar on
Institutionalization, Luzern, Switzerland.
Morimoto, K., with Gregory, J., & Butler, P. (1973). Notes on the content for learning. Harvard
Education Review, 43, 245-257.
Meyerson, D. (2001). “Radical Change the Quick Way.” Harvard Business Review. October 92100.
Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. (1995). “Types of Organizational Change: From Incremental
Improvement to Discontinuous Transformation.” In Nadler, D.A., et. al. Discontinuous Change: Leading
Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Negroni, P. J. (1994). The transformation of America’s public schools. Equity and Excellence in
Education 27, 25-26.
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).
Nicaise, M., Barnes, D. (1999). “The Union of Technology, Constructivism and Teacher
Education.” Journal of Teacher Education. 47(3) 205-212.
Northrup, P., Little, W. (1999). “Establishing Instructional Technology Benchmarks for Teacher
Preparation Programs.” Journal of Teacher Education. 47(3) 213-222.
Parker, R. (1996). “Integrating Faculty Use of Technology in Teaching and Teacher Education.” A
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Mid-South Educational research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL.
Parker, E. W., & Griffin, T. H. (1979). A quick scoring device for the stages of concern
questionnaire (Report No. 3079). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas at Austin.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rice, M.L., Wilson, E.K., Bagley, W. (2001). “Transforming Learning with Technology: Lesson
from the Field.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 211-230.
Richardson, V. (1995). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading
instructions. Journal of Staff Development, 15 80-81.
Riel, M., Fultin, K. (2001). “The Role of Technology in Supporting Learning Communities.” Phi
Delta Kappan. 82(7) 518-524.
Riley, R. W. (1994, March 11). Quality education: School reform for the new American economy. A
speech presented by U. S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley in Baltimore, MD: U. S. Department of
Education.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 57
9/1/02
Roberts, K. M. (1993). A tri-dimensional description of collaboration: Effective change for school
improvement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/06,
(ProQuest-Dissertation Abstract No. AAC 9329520).
Rogan, J. M., Borich, G. D., & Taylor, H. P. (1992). Validation of the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire. Action in Teacher Education, 14, 43.
Rosenholtz, S. J, Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Bassler, O. C. (1985). Teacher opinion questionnaire.
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee (Grant No. NIE-G830 041).
Roueche J. (1998, February 18). Future of community colleges. University of Texas at Austin. A
speech at North Harris Montgomery County Community College Inservice. Houston, TX.
Rutherford, W. L. (1977, April). An investigation of how teachers’ concerns influence innovation
adoption. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New
York.
Rutherford, W. L. (1986, April). Teachers’ contributions to school improvement: Reflections on
fifteen years of research. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, San Francisco.
Rutherford, W. L. (1987). Educational secretaries and support staff training programs. Austin, TX:
Texas Education Agency.
Rutherford, W. L. (1988). Summary report of the effective schools support services pilot. Austin,
TX: Texas Education Agency.
Rutherford, W. L. (1989a). Summary report of the administrator / teacher effective schools modelPharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
Rutherford, W. L. (1989b). Summary report of the administrator effective schools model-Sheldon
ISD. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
Rutherford, W. L. (1989, November). The concerns-based adaptation model: Evolution and
utilization. A paper presented at the Conference of Members of the Flemish and Dutch CBAM Network at
Den Bosch, Netherlands.
Sagor, R. (1997). Collaborative action research for educational change. In A. Hargreave (Ed.),
Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 169-174.
Savage, D. J. (1992). An examination of teacher use of curricula innovation (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston (1992). Dissertation Abstract International, 53/07, (ProQuest-Disretation Abstract No.
AAC 9236681).
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools: A
SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Schmoker, M. (1997). “Setting Goals in Turbulent Times.” In A. Hargreaves, ed., Rethinking
Educational Change with Mind and Heart. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sologuk, S., Stammer, R., Vetter, R. (2001). “A Collaborative Approach for Creating Curriculum
and Instructional Materials.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2) 199-210.
Sparks, D. (1997). Reforming teaching and reforming staff development: Interview with Susan
Loucks-Horsley. Journal of Staff Development, 18, 20-21.
Stuhlmann, J. Taylor, H. (1999). “Preparing Technically Competent Student Teachers: A Three
Years Study of Interventions and Experiences.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 7(4) 333350.
Thomas, G. (1992). Learning for the 21 st century. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 22, 8-12.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 58
9/1/02
Time for teachers. (No Date). Teachers and goals 2000. [Online] Available:
http://www.ed.gov/G2K/teachers/time.html [1996, March 27].
Uchinda, D., Cetron, M., & McKenzie, F. (1996). Times have changed: Backdrop of concerns for
our nation’s children. Preparing Students for the 21st Century. Arlington, VA: American Association of
School Administrators. pp. 4-5.
Udall, D., & Rugend, A. (1997). From inside out: The expeditionary learning process of teacher
change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 404.
United States Department of Education. (1994) Goals 2000: Educate America: Supporting
community efforts to reach challenging goals and high standards. Washington, DC. Author.
United States Department of Labor. (1995, March). Nation’s voluntary skills standard: Orientation
guide for members of the national skills standard board. Washington, DC. Author.
Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B. (2000). “Facilitating a Constructivist Vision of Technology Integration
Among Education Faculty and Preservice Teachers.” Journal of Research on Computing in Education.
33(2).
Whetzel, D. (1992). The Secretary of labor’s commission on achieving necessary skills. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Assessment and Skills. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. ED 339 749).
Williams, W. W., & Smith, J. A. (1994). Technology for the information age: Moving out of the
complacency paralysis. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 42.
Willis, S. (1997). National standards: Standards for performance, where do they stand? Educational
Update, 39, 1, 6-8.
Wirt, F. W., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). Schools in conflict: The politics of education. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan Publication Corp.
Dr. Jane Legacy
Project New TEACHERS II: Research Report
Self Efficacy of New Hampshire Teachers -Pre-service, In-service and IHE Faculty with Integration of Technology
Page 59
9/1/02