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...... 3031

Conclusions, Interpretations, and Recommendations...... 43

References...... 55

List of Tables

Page

1Stages of Concern Model...... 254

2Stages of Concern Total Group Profile-IHE, IN-SERVICE, PRE-SERVICE.....310

3Highest Stage of Concern...... 332

4Stages of Concern Profile by Years of Classroom Experience...... 354

5Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training...... 376

6 Respondent’s Levels of Use...... 387

7Respondent’s Years of Classroom Experience and Levels of Use...... 398

8Importance of Follow-up Training and Respondent’s Levels of Use ………………4039

9Stages of Concern Group Profile and Levels of Use ………………….……………..421

List of Figures

Page

1NH Teachers CBAM Profile-Stages of Concern ...... 301

2Highest Stage of Concern...... 332

3Stages of Concern Profile and by Years of Classroom Experience...... 354

4Stages of Concern Profile by Importance of Follow up Training...... 365

5Respondent’s Levels of Use...... 387

6Stages of Concern Profiles for Levels of Use...... 410

7Stages of Concern and Levels of Use...... 421

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 “self-efficacy”. 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 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 industryinitiatives 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, NETS, 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 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’ self-efficacy 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 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 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 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:

  • 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 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 SouthwesternUniversity 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:

  • 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 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 self-efficacy 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 learner is experiencing as they become the increasingly diversified learner (changing learner) of the twenty-first 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.