0.4 Discussion  (Page 9/23)

The concerns based adoption model

The Concerns Based Adoption Model ( Anderson, 1997 ) is a widely applied theory and method for studying the process of teachers integrating a new innovation. It is concerned with measuring and describing the process of change experienced by teachers involved in attempts to implement new curriculum materials and instructional practices. This study will be using the Level of Use dimension to examine how the participants incorporated the Online Day course materials. Initially there were only six levels of use in this tool, but over time it has been revised and expanded to eight levels:

• Level 0--Non-use.
• Level 1--Orientation; seeking information about the innovation but not yet decided to adopt.
• Level 2—Preparation; actively preparing to use the innovation, but not yet used it in class.
• Level 3—Mechanical; beginning to implement change and struggling with logistics; teacher centered.
• Level 4a--Routine Use; establishing a pattern of regular use.
• Level 4b--Refinement; changing innovation to be more student centered.
• Level 5--Integration; collaborating with other teachers to benefit students.
• Level 6—Renewal; needing to make major changes in the innovation or explore alternative practices.

Although these categories are general, they are clearly defined. However, CBAM was created in 1976 for use in evaluating K-12 teachers' learning to adopt technology. The assumption at that time was that all the teachers were just starting to use technology, so a linear progression from a very basic level of use made sense in that context.

In this study, the participants were experienced college instructors who had been using computers for as many as 18 years in daily life and in teaching. In attempting to place the instructors on the chart at the appropriate levels, it became clear that the categories of CBAM, beginning with such early stages of linear progression of learning, did not accommodate the sophistication the participants experience with technology. Researchers Leithwood and Montgomery (1987) identified the linearity of the CBAM’s level of use tool as a shortcoming, and this criticism applies to this study. For example, there was great variation in the levels of implementation within the category of routine use. Of the five participants at the routine level, Miller, Ed and Ken implemented the videos, the online quizzes, and the discussion board, whereas Neal and Lyle used only online quiz component.

Category Five, collaborating with other instructors to make the innovation more student-centered, did not fit the participants. The nine instructors worked alone, in the sense that no one else on campus was using the online course package. This differs significantly from the K-12 environment in which teachers adopted the innovation as a group by grade, thereby having a discreet, identifiable cohort.