Michael's+Literature+Review


 * Chapter 2: The Literature Review**

CBAM AND THE DIGITAL NATIVE STUDENTS’ INFLUENCE ON THE TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION DEVELOPMENT: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE by   Michael William Peck Liberty University A Research Literature Review Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for EDUC 639 Liberty University July 2012

= ABSTRACT  = Michael William Peck. CBAM AND THE DIGITAL NATIVE STUDENTS’ INFLUENCE ON THE TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION DEVELOPMENT: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (under the direction of Dr. Jennifer Courduff) School of Education, Liberty University, July 2012.

Teachers face changes everyday from a wide array of sources. Questions of a digital native/digital immigrant divide have not been fully answered, but teachers face the challenge of implementing the innovation of technology into their instructional practices. This literature review examines two crucial pieces to the puzzle. The idea of building digital wisdom as a means of enhancing education is presented along with a concerns-based change process theory known as Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). A brief history of the model and its dimensions of Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and Innovation Configurations will be discussed.

Descriptors: Concerns Based Adoption Model, CBAM, Concerns, Change, Digital natives, Digital immigrants, Digital wisdom, Technologies

** Introduction ** Content and curriculum standards change. Teaching methods and administrative mandates change. Personal and professional experiences change teachers. Students are the one constant in every classroom environment for teachers. In every classroom, teachers will have any number of students to teach. That fact has not changed for the traditional classroom teacher with any evidence that the fact will change any time soon. What has and continues to change for teachers and the traditional American classroom now has created the need for teachers make fundamental changes in how they approach teaching and learning. The primary reason for this need to change rests with the type of student entering their classroom. In a growing number of cases, this new type of student knows more than the teacher. Matter of fact, it tends to include the vast majority of students and not just a small number of them. This type of student is a digital native (Prensky, 2001). The digital native is an individual who expects information will be easily accessible and their educational experience will be technology-laden (Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarno, & Waycott, 2010). This type of student brings to the learning environment their technology integrated life, and they expect school to be a continuation of their non-school life filled with technology integration. According to Sanchez, Salinas, Contreras, and Meyer (2011), greater participation and greater comfort with customized, collaborative, interactive learning are common traits for these students. For the digital native, in many ways it is reasonable to say that their entire learning life has involved technology. As a result, many teachers are experiencing a first day of with their new students knowing more than they know about technology and, more importantly, how to integrate it seamlessly into their life of learning. When aware of this phenomenon, teacher concerns elevate and eventually a moment of conflict manifest itself. Change or avoidance becomes the teacher’s two inescapable options. This literature review will look at the phenomenon through several lenses with the intent of informing the research and providing readers with a foundational knowledge base to make informed action plans to aid and assist teachers. Whether a teacher reads this review or an administrator, a staff developer, a school of education course developer or professor, or an educational researcher, this paper represents a knowledge base for the reader to give everyone, teachers and students, the 21st Century skills needed to be successful in their role in the global world. According to Prensky (2009), the work done here to create and improve the future by giving teachers and students the 21st Century skills needed to build digital wisdom. ** Digital Wisdom and Digital Learners ** At the turn of this century Marc Prensky (2001a) coined the terms “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” to differentiate the students of who have grown up in a technology world to those who came before them in a different era. Much research and debate has followed (Salajan, Schonwetter, & Cleghorn, 2010; Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Sanchez, Salinas, Contreras, & Meyer, 2011). Sanchez, Salinas, Contreras, and Meyer (2011) found this generation of students on the whole made better use of technology than in previous generations but that no definitive evidence existed to prove a shared set of practices among the whole generation. Essentially, like other topics were generalizations are made to lump an entire generation together, the generalization is flawed. Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) questioned the generalization as well in their conclusions stating that finding of emerging research shows greater complexity than making a characterization to fit an entire new generation. They note “while technology is embedded in their lives, young people’s use and skills are not uniform” (pg. 783) and do argue for the notion that we live in a “highly technologized world” (pg. 783) with young people doing things differently. These realizations, according to their conclusions, may mean education needs to change in some aspects. Prensky (2001b) concludes the second part of his “digital natives/digital immigrants” presentation by challenging the digital immigrant educators to choose the route for educating their digital native students because in his opinion “suddenly-much-less-effective traditional methods” (pg. 5) are not reaching students as they have in the past. Salajan, Schonwetter, and Cleghorn (2010) find making this type of argument to be damaging and divisive. Instead, they propose fostering a constructive learning environment that is mutually beneficial. This proposal seems to be where Prensky (2009) is hoping to go with his call for “digital wisdom”. Digital wisdom assumes the understanding that it is not the technology that makes us wiser on its own. Rather, Prensky (2009) posits it is time for the student and the teacher to take hold of technology and to encourage the other to do the same. He is clear it does not mean that our society should stop using and improving our natural mind. What he is arguing for is enhancing the human mind with digital technology, which will lead to the development of a “digital wisdom” for the 21st Century. If this route is to be chosen by educators, then fundamental changes will need to enacted by educators. The question is: what or who will spur that change process. If it is the teacher him/herself, then the concerns and change process will likely appear different than if the digital natives must force the issue. The next portion of the literature review will discuss a key theoretical idea on the change process. The body of literature that exists is extensive, so this review seeks to summarize the knowledge that has been developed rather than divulge every piece that has been presented. ** Theoretical Framework for Change ** Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a framework to describe changes people undergo because of new programs and experiences and how to effectively and efficiently help those undergoing the changes (Loucks, 1983). At the heart of the model is the understanding that the approach emphasizes knowing the attitudes and skills of the teacher is paramount to providing the support activities that relate directly to what the teacher perceives is his/her needs to make the change successfully (Hall & Hord, 1987). Hall and Hord (1987) also note it is important to understand change as a process and not an event and that the process requires time with its own phases and steps to be navigated. CBAM was the creation of Wallace, Dossett, and Hall after the three began thinking about a change model that would emphasized the personal side of change. These thinking sessions occurred in 1971 and 1972 (Hall and Hord, 1987). Two central assumptions came out of this time. The first was noted above but is worth repeating. Change is a process, not an event. This assumption contradicted existing theories on change. The idea of immediate change appears to remain entrenched in the practices of some who put technology in schools and assume teachers will use it effectively. This notion is supported by Morsink, Hagerman, Heintz, Boyer, Harris, Kereluik, and Hartman (2011) who highlight the past 20 years of technologies move into schools but question why so many teachers are not prepared to use it properly in their curriculum and instructional practices. A technocentric approach that emphasizes technology placement in school as the means for revolutionizing education contradicts the first assumption and does not consider the second one entirely. Their second assumption was that it is crucial to consider the individual’s point of view when seeking to understand change. Similarly, the technocentric approach inherently focuses attention on bringing technology to the teacher and neglects the individual’s point of view on integrating into their existing practice. Essentially, for change to be effective the order must be reversed mirroring the thinking of Loucks (1983) who argued that the change is a personal process and the plans others make “must be developed with individuals in mind” (pg. 2). Hard and Hord (2011) repeat this notion of the personal side of change needing to be considered because failure to do so leads to resistance and rejection. Perhaps this lack of consideration is why the push education has experienced has failed to produce the change the change agents intended (Dirksen & Tharp, 1997). From the thinking sessions of the early 1970s to today, CBAM has evolved in many respects. Most importantly, the theory is now accepted among the research community, practitioners, and policymakers as a viable conceptual framework to studying change (Hall & Hord, 1987) and has served as the foundational framework for many research studies (Dirksen & Tharp, 1997; Kapustka & Damore, 2009; van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel, & Vandenberghe, 2000; Tunks & Weller, 2009; Ming-Puu, 1999; Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010; Donovan, Hartley, & Strudler, 2007; Giordano, 2007; and Newhouse, 2001). Following the closing of the University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the primary proponents of the budding change theory scattered to other academic institutions and research centers. This period of time was marked by active work to disseminate the model within their new locations. Publications, conferences, and an array of other mediums were utilized to present the model to others interested in the topic. This spread eventually made its way to Australia, Europe, and Canada (Anderson, 1997). Eventually, modifications to the model began to be advanced. The work of van den Berg and Vandenberghe in Belgium and the Netherlands was the first major modification to appear in research communities. Unlike the American version, van den Berg and Vandenberghe applied the model to study change on a larger scale. Government-initiated and large-scale organization studies with multidimensional objectives tended to be the focus of their work, (Anderson, 1997; van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel, & Vandenberghe, 2000). Their work led to the development of support programs with an emphasis on professional cooperation amongst the teachers. Research using this model of innovation yielded promising results for employment of professional support programs (van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel, & Vandenberghe, 2000). About the same time as the dispersal of researchers out from the University of Texas-based research center, Hall and Hord published their landmark book //Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process// in 1987. Written with the intent of developing “effective change facilitators” (pg. 6), the book expounded upon the change process theory with a complete set of diagnostics techniques, intervention procedures, and monitoring procedures for researcher and practitioners to have at their disposal. The book’s authors hoped that researchers and practitioners would find it informative and applicable to their particular niches within the whole educational field. As noted above, their hope appears to have been realized with its wide usage in many parts of the world and within many strands of educational research. ** Assumptions/Assertions of CBAM about Change and Innovations ** In presenting an overview of the model, Hall and Hord presented seven assumptions and assertions believed to serve as a crucial component to foundation to the model. It is important to recognize these when considering the model conceptually. Below is a table spelling out these assumptions and assertions. ||  7 Assumption and Assertions of the Concerns Based Adoption Model Table 1: (Hall & Hord, 1987) ** THREE DIMENSIONS OF CBAM CHANGE PROCESS ** In addition to the seven assumptions and assertion, Hall and Hord (1987) outline three dimensions that had been identified by the research Hall, Hord, and associates had conducted to date. These dimensions include: Stages of Concern (SoC), Levels of Use (LoU), and Innovation Configurations (IC). The authors argue that these dimensions help inform the change process. Each of these dimensions will be discussed below. This dimension of the model is comprised of seven different stages addressing how teachers perceive an innovation, as well as how they feel toward it (Hall & Hord, 1987). This affective portion of change does not want to neglect the emotional aspect of the individual. Hall (2009) appreciates that “feelings, perceptions, frustrations, and moments of joy” are all part of concern (pg. 243), and the SoCQ Questionnaire, open-ended interviews, and one-legged interviews have been designed to capture the person within the person. Table 2: Stages of Concern (SoC) about the Innovation: || ** 6 Refocusing **
 * Central Assumptions of CBAM **
 * Evolution of CBAM **
 * Understanding the point of view of the participants in the change process in critical. ||
 * Change is a process, not an event. ||
 * It is possible to anticipate much that will occur during a change process. ||
 * Innovations come in all sizes and shapes. ||
 * Innovation and implementation are two side of the change process coin. ||
 * To change something, someone has to change first. ||
 * Everyone can be a change facilitator. ||
 * Everyone can be a change facilitator. ||
 * Stages of Concern **
 * The focus is on the exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation, including the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideas about alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the innovation. ||
 * ** 5 Collaboration ** || The focus is on coordination and cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation. ||
 * ** 4 Consequence ** || Attention focuses on the impact of the innovation on students in his/her immediate sphere of influence. ||
 * ** 3 Management ** || Attention is focused on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information and resources. Issues related to efficiency, organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are utmost. ||
 * ** 2 Personal ** || Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands, and his/her role with the innovation. This includes analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward structure of the organization, decision making, and consideration of the potential conflicts with existing structures or personal commitment. Financial or status implications of the program for self and colleagues may also be reflected. ||
 * ** 1 Informational ** || A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated. The person seems to be unworried about himself/herself in relation to the innovation. She/he is interested in substantive aspects of the innovation, such as general characteristics, effects, and requirements for use, in a selfless manner. ||
 * ** 0 Unconcerned ** || Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is indicated. ||

George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer (2006); Hall & Hord (2011) Individuals likely experience a progressive pattern of subsiding and intensifying concerns as they move through the Stages of Change process, but it is important to note the resolving of early stage concerns does not equate to the arousal of later stage concerns in all individuals (Anderson, 1997). Within the seven stages there are four areas where concern have been identified in research studies. These areas are: self, task, impact, and unconcerned (Hall, 2009) with each area representing where the individual’s focus of concern lies. “Self” concerns have an egocentric property to them. These concerns may be voiced as feelings of inadequacy or uncertainty of one’s ability or knowledge level to do the innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). “Task” concerns relate to the individual’s ability to manage the innovation, which a study by Dirksen & Tharp (1997) with student teachers moved into the role of teachers, their concerns about the logistics of teaching and classroom management suddenly became significant concerns. “Impact” concerns focus on how the individual feels their actions are affecting others, particularly teachers concerned about their students’ outcomes as a result of their teaching (Hall & Hord, 1987). These concerns express themselves primary as the teacher’s own rating of their own teacher effectiveness using the perceived outcomes of others as the measuring stick. In terms of implementing an innovation, the teacher may rate their outcomes their students demonstrate to determine their own effectiveness. Lastly, the unconcerned area says that other things are of greater concern right now than implementing the innovation (Hall, 2009). When support and time are afforded to the individual, more likely than not, the individual has been able to make the progression across the continuum of stages. According to Hall (2009) this notion has rang true across the various research studies that have been done on the Stages of Concern, though there are never any guarantees (Hall & Hord, 2011). Implementation of innovations are typically thought of as falling into one of two categories: used or not used. The CBAM researchers challenged this theory resulting in the creation of the Levels of Use (LoU) dimension. Unlike the dichotomous “yes/no” change is an event model of other change theories, the new model established eight distinct levels of use. Three of the eight levels applied to non-users, while the other five pertained to users of the innovation (Hall, 2010). The chart below shows the LoU along with the Indicators.
 * Levels of Use **

Table 3: Levels of Use (LoU) of Innovation: Indicators ||  ||   Use
 * ** VI Renewal ** || The user is seeking more effective alternatives to the established use of the innovation ||
 * ** V Integration ** || The user is making deliberate efforts to coordinate with others in using the innovation. ||
 * ** IV-B Refinement ** || The user is making changes to increase outcomes. ||
 * ** IV-A Routine ** || The user is making few or no changes and has an established pattern of use. ||
 * ** III Mechanical Use ** || The user is using the innovation in a poorly coordinated manner and is making user-oriented changes. ||
 * ||  Nonuse   ||
 * ** II Preparation ** || The person is preparing to use the innovation for the first time. ||
 * ** I Orientation ** || The person is seeking out information about the innovation. ||
 * ** 0 Nonuse ** || No action is being taken with respect to the innovation. ||
 * ** 0 Nonuse ** || No action is being taken with respect to the innovation. ||

Hall & Hord (2011) The purpose for this dimension is to address with the teacher is doing or not doing. The change facilitator or researcher wants to understand at what level is the teacher using the innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). Again, understanding change to be a process and not an event, there is the knowledge that a teacher will progress through the levels of use over time. Hall and Hord (1987) suggest that “decision points” exist to the point of transition from one level to the next. As one moves forward in implementing the innovation, the individual is seen as more committed to the innovative (Roach, Kratochwill, and Frank, 2009). Measuring the Levels of Use is possible utilizing the Levels of Use Interview Protocol developed by CBAM researchers. Additional data from observations can also be applied in determining the teacher’s LoU (Tunks & Weller, 2009). The Innovation Configurations (IC) addressed the issue of how closely the intent of the innovation’s creator is matched with the actual practices of the implementer (Hall, 2010). It is generally accepted that variation between the intent and actual practice may exist. What IC mapping is after is fidelity of the implementation. The work of creating a map is extensive. The researcher must understand the in’s and out’s of the materials and resources associated with the innovation. Interviewing the developer and observation on top of that requires a great deal of work. A well-constructed IC map will enable the observer clear descriptions of what the implementation can look like (Hall, 2009). This dimension requires observations to be the primary source of data for measuring the implementation of the innovation. ** Conclusion ** A careful review of the literature demonstrates that the Concern Based Adoption Model is a viable and relevant conceptual framework to employ when one seeks to understand change. Its vast appeal is noteworthy when one looks at the body of research studies and theoretical examinations are stacked up. Additionally, its place in educational reform appears quite logical as the two ideas focus on understanding where an individual or a system is at and moving to where the individual or system seeks to go. In today’s schools the push to change is very real and the role technology plays in that push must be understood if the push is to be collaborative and productive. Repeating the initial underpinning of the thinking sessions of Wallace, Dossett, and Hall that change is a process and must engage consideration from perspective of the individuals involved in the change is crucial because these two central ideas should refocus everything educators, policymakers, and educational researchers do around and with education. If Prensky’s “digital wisdom” is to be realized, then it is inherent that young people and adults will have to make some degree of change in how they go about the work of enhancing the human mind with digital technology. Whether or not, a digital divide of natives and immigrants does exist is not as important in answering as it is in answering the call to create and improve our collective future. Yes, a process will need to occur absent from any notion that a singular event can bring about the change. Equally so, failure to understand the personal nature of change and thus neglecting to consider the concerns of each individual will counteract the change. Loucks (1983) was correct in saying, “There is no better way to lose people than to give them information they don’t need while real and pressing questions are left unanswered” (pg. 3). It is the duty of all stakeholders to see the process and consider the individual through the process. Yes, education is a system and it will require systemic changes to become truly technology-driven as much of our society is today. But understanding the system is in essence a collection of individuals will need to be developed and acted upon appropriately. Only then will education, and society, be reformed properly. Only then will educators and students be digital wise together, ever building on their digital wisdom.
 * Innovation Configurations **

** References ** Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. //Curriculum Inquiry, 27//(3), 331-367. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. //British Journal of Educational Technology. 39//(5), 775-786. Dirksen, D. J. & Tharp, D. D. (1997). Utilizing the concerns-based adoption model to facilitate systemic change. //Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997//, 1064-1067. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: does increased access bring about increased student engagement?. //Journal Of Educational Computing Research//, //42//(4), 423-441. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39//(3), 263-286. Giordano, V. A. (2007). A professional development model to promote internet integration in p-12 teachers’ practice: A mixed methods study. //Computers in the Schools, 24//(3/4), 111-123. Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology's achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. //Journal Of Research On Technology In Education//, //42//(3), 231-263. Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (2011). //Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (3rd ed.)//. Boston, MA: Pearson. Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987) //Change in schools: Facilitating the process//. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementation: Learning builds the bridge between research and practice. //Journal Of Staff Development//, //32//(4), 52-57. Kapustka, K. M., & Damore, S. J. (2009). Processes of change in professional development schools as viewed through the lens of the concerns-based adoption model. //School-University Partnerships//, //3//(2), 116-131. Kennedy, G., Juff, T. Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning//. 26, 332-343. Loucks, S. F. (1983). The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Series paper (number 2). Chapel Hall: North Carolina University. Ming-Puu, C. (1999). Prescribing interventions for internet novices based on stages of concern. //Educational Media International//, //36//(4), 295. Morsink, P. M., Hagerman, M., Heintz, A., Boyer, D., Harris, R., Kereluik, K., Hartman, D. K. (2011). Professional development to support tpack technology integration: The initial learning trajectories of thirteen fifth- and sixth-grade educators. // Journal Of Education //, // 191 // (2), 3-16. Newhouse, C. (2001). Applying the concerns-based adoption model to research on computers in classrooms. //Journal Of Research On Computing In Education//, //33//(5), 1-21. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part I. //On the Horizon//. 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? //On the Horizon. 9//(6), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. //Innovate// 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705. Roach, A. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Frank, J. L. (2009). School-based consultants as change facilitators: Adaptation of the concerns-based adoption model (cbam) to support the implementation of research-based practices. //Journal Of Educational & Psychological Consultation//, //19//(4), 300-320. doi:10.1080/10474410802463304 Salajan, F. D., Schonwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? //Computer & Education. 55,// 1393-1403. Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D. & Meyer, E. (2011). Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. //British Journal of Educational Technology//. 42(4), 543-556. Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: An application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). //Educational Studies In Mathematics//, //72//(2), 161-183. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9189-x