© Please note: Shirley Freed owns the copyright for the dissertation below. You may download and print one copy for educational purposes only. These pages may not be duplicated, distributed, redistributed or republished in any manner without express permission from the author.
This review of the literature discusses three aspects important to the study: reading instruction, change in education, and the teacher as the focal point in change. Documenting the lack of change in reading instruction in spite of vast amounts of research of new strategies, this review reveals how researchers are beginning to look more closely at teachers rather than methods. In looking at teachers, they find effective teachers using some form of direct instruction. The review of literature on change in education shows that historically educators have moved from preoccupations with the innovation itself to various change agents and finally are trying to understand change in reference to the teacher. By showing that researchers in reading and in change processes are becoming more interested in the teacher, the literature review supports the significance of this study.
Although many methods, strategies, and approaches have been devised for teaching children to read, no consensus exists among educators as to definitions and categories for such devices. For example, Miller and McKenna (1989) contend that using basal readers is not an approach but rather "a collection of tools allowing for many different instructional approaches to reading" (p. 336); whereas Ekwall and Shanker (1985) view the use of basal readers as one of three commonly used approaches, along with the language experience approach and individualized reading approach (p. 21). Another approach example is direct instruction. Garcia and Pearson (1990) suggest that direct instruction is an approach which should be considered along with whole language experience as a possible delivery model. Ekwall and Shanker (1985) treat direct instruction as a management and organizational strategy.
Reading methods textbooks have fairly consistently reserved large sections of the book for comparing different approaches (Burns & Roe, 1980; Ekwall & Shanker, 1985; Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 1986; Spache & Spache, 1986; Stoodt, 1981). Along with the comparison of different approaches, there has been a tendency to have an either/or attitude towards instruction. This was indicated recently in an Educational Leadership exchange between Heymsfeld (1989) and Goodman (1989). To Heymsfeld's article, "Filling the Hole in Whole Language," Goodman responded, "Whole Language Is Whole."
A growing movement now in progress is away from simplistic `one-best-way' arguments for methods towards versatility in instruction where a teacher chooses from many different approaches or strategies; using one method one day and easily changing into a different mode on another day (Joyce & Weil, 1986). Stanovich (1990) quoted one anonymous reviewer of his paper who said:
The longstanding either/or, black white of reading may spark lively debate on an intellectual level; but when we consider the more pragmatic aspects of our field, that is, teaching reading to children or adults, dualism becomes dangerous. We stand to hurt innocent bystanders. (p. 222)
In more recent reading methods textbooks, Miller and McKenna (1989) and Leu and Kinzer (1987) diffuse some of the tension between specific approaches by focusing more on effective teaching. They address the issue of basal readers at length because of the prevalence of their use 80-90% of the children in the United States learn to read by using a basal reader. Therefore, they show many different ways the readers can be used effectively.
Garcia and Pearson (1990) seek to develop a consensus model which integrates features from direct instruction, cognitive apprenticeships, and whole language. While this may be better than either/or arguments, it does not address the reality that some types of instruction are better than others in one situation but may be less appropriate at another time.
Because this study traces the process by which teachers learn a direct instruction approach, in this section I show how this `approach' has gained acceptance. I have intentionally chosen not to compare direct instruction with other `approaches' because I believe it is only one of many strategies which effective teachers use.
In the Classroom
What typically happens during a reading lesson? Miller and McKenna (1989) cite several studies which indicate that 80-90% of all classrooms use basal reader materials. Shannon (1982) found that teachers use basals because they believe the commercial materials can teach reading, they want to satisfy their administrator's expectations, or they believe the materials are based on scientific knowledge. However, Durkin (1978-79, 1981, and 1984) has repeatedly shown deficiencies in instructional techniques for comprehension. In her well-publicized 1978-79 study, Durkin found only 45 minutes of direct comprehension instruction during 17,997 minutes of observations in 39 classrooms. The usual procedure was for students to spend the majority of their time with workbooks. In her 1984 study, Durkin observed that of 16 teachers, not one attempted to build on prior knowledge, as was suggested in the basal teachers' manual.
Direct instruction has been highlighted as an effective classroom practice in Becoming a Nation of Readers and What Works, both published by the United States Department of Education. A survey of reading methods textbooks indicates a new emphasis on direct instruction. Recent reading methods textbooks (Ekwall & Shanker, 1985; Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 1986; Leu & Kinzer, 1987; Miller & McKenna, 1989) all address the issue of direct instruction and point to its importance in student achievement. Earlier textbooks (Burns & Roe, 1980; Flood & Lapp, 1981; Spache & Spache, 1986; Stoodt, 1981) did not even mention direct instruction suggesting that the principles stated in these more recent textbooks are slowly finding their way into the classrooms of America.
In Research Some Specific
In the last few years, the field of reading research has focused largely on the effectiveness of certain strategies. These strategies have come from an interactive view of reading which focuses on three parts of the reading process: the reader, the text, and the context. The nomenclatures of the new methods include prior knowledge, graphic organizers, and predicting, to mention only a few.
A survey of recent research gives an idea of what researchers are finding. Many (Alvermann & Hague, 1989; Kardash, Royer, & Green, 1988; Pritchard, 1988; Recht & Leslie, 1988; Reutzel & Morgan, 1990; Roberts, 1988; Schneider, Körkel, & Weinert 1989; Spiers & Gallini, 1988; Steinley, 1989; Wilhite, 1989; Zabrucky & Moore, 1989) have shown positive effects of accessing prior knowledge. Graphic organizers such as tree diagrams and maps have been found by Alvermann (1988), Guri-Rozenblit (1988, 1989), Horton, Lovitt, and Bergerud (1990), Lovitt et al. (1990), and Prater and Terry (1988) to improve comprehension. Various types of prediction strategies were found effective by Cross (1988), Edler (1988), Palincsar, Ransom, and Derber (1988-1989), Peters and Sindelar (1987), and Simpson, Stahl, and Hayes (1989).
However, Corkill, Glover, Bruning, and Krug (1988), Kloster and Philip (1989), Neuman (1988), and Simmons, Griffin, and Kameenui (1988) have found advance organizers or previewing to be no more effective than traditional instruction. Ediger (1989) explains these discrepancies are a result of poor research designs: little random sampling, experimental and control groups not equated, lack of adequate numbers, controls on teachers of experimental and control groups not adequate, etc. Seufert (1988) calls for more research on the teacher and not on methods and materials. Studies indicate that the strategy itself may not determine positive or negative effects but rather the way the teacher uses the strategy. Ekwall and Shanker (1985) contend that one of the reasons researchers have difficulty deciding which approach is best is that "differences between teachers are greater than differences between methods" (pp. 21, 22).
Regardless, Manning (1988), the chief executive officer of the International Reading Foundation, believes that all this research on different strategies has had little effect on classroom comprehension instruction and pupil practice. He is not alone in his belief. Alvermann and Hayes (1989) found no lasting effects to change in teacher behavior after training in higher level questioning skills, and Wendler et al. (1988) found no significant difference in time spent on pre-reading activities or comprehension instructions between Award Winning Teachers, Master's Degree Teachers, or Non-Master's Degree Teachers. Otto (1988, 1989) claims that reading research and reading instruction have come no closer to each other than they ever were. He observes that "mature judgment and mature perspective seem to be lacking from much of what's done in the area of reading research and much of what's said in the area of reading education" (1989, p. 449).
Frager and Hahn (1988) suggest that
The past era of reading research, which focused on more global aspects of instruction such as the effectiveness of the general approach the teacher used or the books the children read, might be likened to viewing reading instruction with a low-powered objective of a microscope. . . . Contemporary reading research, as through the microscope's more high-power objective, sheds light on finer aspects of reading instruction, . . . Two of these "finer" aspects, modelling and direct teacher explanation, seem to be the key mediators of research and practise. (p. 263)
Direct instruction may be a partial explanation for some of the variance within methodologies. For example, two teachers may use the basal approach to teach reading, however, one may use much more direct instruction of skills than the other. Or, two teachers may use the whole language approach to teach reading but one may use direct instruction more extensively than the other. Or, two teachers may teach prediction strategies, but one may use more direct instruction than the other. The results would be very different and may account for some of the problems in trying to find the `best' method or strategy.
Although direct instruction has many shades of meaning, most educators would agree that it involves a systematic presentation of small steps, checking for understanding, and active learning on the students' part. Three main orientations toward direct instruction are found in the literature. The University of Oregon Direct Instruction Follow Through program has been cited by Baumann (1988) as "perhaps the classic example of the original instruction/assessment conception of direct instruction" (p. 713). Clearly, this first example of direct instruction is based on the philosophy of behaviorism (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966). In small groups, children are taught symbol-action activities, blending tasks, and rhyming tasks using preplanned, prepared materials with a written dialogue for the teacher. In a study which compared the Follow Through model with eight different approaches, it was found that the direct instruction model resulted in more effective teaching and learning of reading. Students ranked highest in both subject-matter learning and in measures of self-esteem (Leu & Kinzer, 1987, p. 540). The highly structured, scripted Follow Through lessons later became commercially available as the Distar program.
Rosenshine (1986) uses the term "direct instruction" in relationship to behaviors of effective teachers as summarized in the effectiveness research. He found that effective teachers use six strategies: review, presentation of new material, guided practice, feedback and corrections, independent practice, and weekly and monthly reviews. In the presentation of new materials, effective teachers give a short behavioral objective, proceed step by step with many examples, model behaviors, and ask questions to check comprehension. Used in this context the term "direct instruction" places more emphasis on the teacher than did the Follow Through programs. Others have verified the close relationship between direct instruction and teacher effectiveness research (Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy, 1979; Baumann, 1983; Berliner, 1981; Duffy & Roehler, 1982; Good, 1979; Rupley & Blair, 1978).
Lehr (1986) suggests a third use of the term "direct instruction." It may be used to refer "simply to the deliberate teaching of something (vocabulary, for example) as opposed to indirect or no teaching" (p. 707). In defining "direct instruction," Baumann (1983) has said:
In direct instruction, the teacher, in a face-to-face, reasonably formal manner, tells, shows, models, demonstrates, teaches the skill to be learned. The key word here is teacher, for it is the teacher who is in command of the learning situation and leads the lesson, as opposed to having instruction "directed" by a worksheet, kit, learning center, or workbook. (p. 287)
Pearson (1985) said, "I would like to replace the metaphor
of teacher as manager with a metaphor of the teacher as teacher"
In an effort to define "direct instruction" in a way which suits their own philosophy, and the content which they are teaching, others have focused on different aspects of direct instruction. Anderson, Hiebert, Scott and Wilkinson (1985) say that
direct instruction in comprehension means explaining the steps in a thought process that gives birth to comprehension. It may mean that the teacher models a strategy by thinking aloud about how he or she is going about understanding a passage. The instruction includes information on why and when to use the strategy. (p. 72)
Good (1979) pictures direct instruction as when
a teacher sets and articulates the learning goals, actively
assesses student progress, and frequently makes class presentations
illustrating how to do assigned work. Direct instruction does
not occur when teachers do not actively present the process or
concept under study, when they fail to supervise student seatwork
actively, or if they do not hold students accountable for their
work. (p. 55)
Gersten and Carnine (1986, p. 71) give the following components of a direct instruction model: step-by-step instruction or modeling, mastery of each step, correction of errors, gradual fading from teacher-directed activities, practice, review, and teaching formats that anticipate potential errors. They have added the concept of mastery to the direct instruction formula, and have prepared materials which use a direct instruction model.
The original research on direct instruction involved children in the primary grades and from low socioeconomic populations. The Follow Through Program was developed to help "at-risk" children. Direct instruction is often believed to be most beneficial for teaching basic skills. Several authors point out that teachers must consider what is to be taught and who is to be taught. Peterson (1979) showed that high achieving, task-oriented students did worse in direct instruction. Ross and Kyle (1987) believe that "during low level primary skill lessons, direct instruction seems applicable and effective. During reading comprehension and writing sessions, direct instruction seems less applicable" (p. 41).
In a review of studies, however, Carnine and Gersten (1983) found direct instruction beneficial in meta-cognitive strategies including schema and generative learning, study skills for content area material, and reading for meaning. They also found direct instruction helpful for specific comprehension skills such as learning vocabulary from context, critical reading, rule-based deductions, character motives, syntax, and vocabulary drill.
While "direct instruction" may lack a professionally agreed upon operational definition as Blanton, Moorman, and Wood (1986) assert, one cannot deny the voluminous support for direct instruction in reading comprehension. For specific strategies, several authors (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Aulls, 1985; Hare & Borchardt, 1984; Ritchie, 1985) have found direct instruction of main ideas beneficial, while others (Baumann, 1986; Judy, Alexander, Kulikowich, & Willson, 1988; Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Readence, Baldwin, & Head, 1986; White & Alexander, 1984) have found direct instruction helpful in teaching/learning analogies, metaphors, and anaphoric relationships. Critical reading skills have been taught by Darch and Kameenui (1987) and Patching, Kameenui, Carnine, Gersten, and Colvin (1983) using direct instruction. Many authors (Branwhite, 1983; Darch & Kameenui, 1987; Erickson, 1987; Gaskins et al., 1988; Somerville & Leach, 1988; Stallings, 1987) have noted general reading comprehension and vocabulary improvements following direct instruction.
Lehr (1986) concludes his review of direct instruction by stating that
direct instruction is currently in fashion, and supported by a large body of research. Its permanent place in teaching reading and reading comprehension will depend, however, not only on impressive research but on whether teachers feel that it is best for their classrooms and their students. (p. 708)
A picture of traditional reading instruction can be painted with several bold strokes. First, the use of basal readers is common throughout America. Second, even though research has pointed out several effective strategies, classroom instruction has not changed much. Third, there is a consensus that what the teacher does affects achievement more than the method or strategy he/she uses, and finally, direct instruction of reading enjoys popularity and can be viewed as one of several effective teaching models.
Qualitative Research in Reading
In the field of reading, criticism of the quantitative approach (Ediger, 1989; Krenz & Sax, 1986; Robinson, 1986; Shannon, 1989) is building and there is a call for a different type of research. Smith (1982) concludes, "Reading research must use a wider range of research methodology, including video recordings, field notes, participant observations, elicitation tasks, informal interviews, introspection and retrospection, audio tapes, recordings, diaries, and informal observation of cognitive tasks" (p. 26). Guthrie and Hall (1984) say that "unfortunately, much of the experimental research done today in the area of reading has little or no relationship to reality. . . . What we are calling for here is the grounding of reading research in an ethnographic base" (pp. 106, 107). They believe that very few ethnographic studies of reading have been conducted and at that time most of the ethnographic studies had been on minority populations. The studies of McDermott (1976) and Au(1980) show how qualitative methods can strengthen reading programs.
Change in Education
Serious research on educational change has occurred for only about 20 years. During that time several individuals, Havelock, Fullan, Showers and Joyce, Berman and McLaughlin, and Hall and associates have made remarkable contributions and completed extensive literature reviews. Their work is described in detail below. Other major studies (Crandall & Associates, 1982; Goodlad, 1984; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Little, 1982; and Sarason, 1982) and hundreds of smaller studies have provided insights into the change process. This section of the review shows how the literature on school change and staff development has converged on the local school and teachers.
Havelock's Summary of Three Models of Change
During the 1960s a large number of studies and reports focused on various aspects of change. Havelock (1971) reviewed approximately 4,000 of them in an effort to construct a model which would demonstrate `the state of the art' in change up to that time. The studies were in several different fields with 17% of them in the field of education. Over 50% of the studies were quantitative, 25% were theoretical, 7% were case studies, and the rest were reviews on popular articles.
Havelock and Havelock (1973) grouped observations and statements concerning change around three different orientations. The first perspective which Havelock and Havelock discuss is "change as a problem-solving process" (p. 8). Advocates of this orientation usually stress the following five points: felt need, diagnosis of the problem, search for an appropriate innovation, using and adapting the innovations, and, finally, evaluating its effectiveness. The emphasis is on the user.
The second model is "change as a research-development-and-diffusion process" (p. 12). This orientation is based on the following assumptions: (1) The steps in the process, research, development, and testing of the innovation, mass production, and mass dissemination are a rational sequence in the evolution of an innovation. There has been massive planning over a long time span. (2) The consumer is the passive recipient of the innovation. This orientation is similar to the current proponents of theory into practice where it is assumed that researched innovations easily find their way into the classroom. (3) Little focus is on users and the needs which they may have.
The third model which Havelock and Havelock (1973) discuss is "change as a process of social interaction" (p. 18). Here the emphasis is on the social network to which the user belongs, and it is assumed the innovation will diffuse through the social system beginning at a rather slow rate, followed by a period of very rapid diffusion, and, finally, by a long late-adopter period.
While each of the three models has certain strengths, they also have weaknesses which could be partially resolved by combining the three models. In 1970, Havelock suggested such a fourth model "change as a linkage process" (p. 23) to those in attendance at a conference on change-agent training. The majority in attendance preferred this model which is a merger of the three previous perspectives. The user as a problem-solver finds him or herself in a society which is also problem-solving. The emphases of all three models are combined: the user, the innovation, and the social system. In this model one sees the first hints of a comprehensive staff-development approach.
The three models are based on the assumption that change would take place if a problem is defined and solutions discovered, if research showed positive results, and if ideas are diffused through the system by awareness. The preoccupation with all three models is with innovations and the way in which they are adopted.
The Rand Study and an Expanded Model
Following the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the National Defense Education Act (1958), the federal government became actively involved in educational initiatives by providing large-scale financial support for various innovations in education. In 1973, the United States Office of Education asked the Rand Corporation to conduct an exploratory study to help it understand the innovative process and to help improve federal policies. The study which Rand conducted over a four-year period and which was reported by Berman and McLaughlin (1978) showed that "the net return to the federal investment was the adoption of many innovations, the successful implementation of few, and the long-run continuation of still fewer" (p. 10). What was the process whereby an innovation became an operating reality within a school district? The Rand study discovered three distinct phases: mobilization (adoption), implementation, and institutionalization. Previous to the Rand Study, attention had focused on adoption to the neglect of implementation. To have a clear picture of change, it was found that the process of implementation needed clarification.
The study found that in contrast to the previous three models mentioned, decisions to adopt an innovation were made due to a "complex interplay among organizational forces, political pressures, personal motivations, and educational concerns" (p. 14). The study concluded that two important points need to be kept in view: (1) the motivations for choosing an innovation have profound effects, and (2) the activities before and after adoption are significant. Once adopted, however, the next step is implementation.
The major factor in implementation is adaptation. The significant users have to adapt and personalize the innovation. The following elements have positive effects on program continuation:
1. Concrete, teacher-specific, and on-going training.
2. Classroom assistance from project or district staff.
3. Observation of the project in other classrooms or districts.
4. Regular project meetings.
5. Teacher participation in project decisions.
6. Local materials development.
7. Principal participation in training. (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978, pp. 29, 30)
Finally, continuation depended on support at the local as well as district levels. The study also found that the school's organizational climate affected implementation. Good working relationship among teachers and active support of principals and project directors had positive effects on implementation. Concerning characteristics of teachers, the study found that the teacher's sense of efficacy had positive effects on implementation, while a teacher's verbal ability only affected student achievement but did not affect project implementation, reform, or continuation. The number of years taught had a negative correlation, with those who had taught longer being less likely to implement. Demanding innovations promoted teacher change and continuation because they appealed to the teacher's professionalism.
The Rand study defined successful implementation in terms of (1) student achievement, (2) success of reaching project goals, and (3) the type and extent of teacher change. Berman and McLaughlin believed that long-range changes in improved student outcomes could not be attained without teacher change.
The contribution which the Rand study made to the change literature was: (1) a focus on three aspects of change: (a) mobilization, (b) implementation, and (c) continuation, and (2) their evaluation of factors in implementation which contribute to continuation.
CBAM Concerns-Based Adoption Model
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model was developed over a period of 10-15 years at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education in Austin, Texas. Research began in the early 1970s and culminated in the 1980s with a model of four distinct components: Innovation configurations (IC), Stages of Concern (SoC), Levels of Use (LoU), and Intervention Taxonomy. In the 1970s implementation had been brought into focus by the Rand Change Agent Study, a synthesis of research by Fullan and Pomfret (1977), and the Levels of Use work (Hall & Loucks, 1977). In considering implementation, the researchers at the Institute made several assumptions (Hall & Hord, 1987, pp. 8-10). First, "change is a process, not an event." This phrase was articulated by this group in 1972 and is a commonly used catch-phrase by people currently interested in change. Second, "understanding the point of view of the participants in the change process is critical." The viewpoint of the teacher became a significant factor in this model. The Texas-based group suggests that change is a highly personal experience involving developmental growth and accomplished by individuals. Because change cannot take place unless teachers change, the focus of implementation should be on the human component. Third, "it is possible to anticipate much that will occur during a change process." The change facilitator can be thus prepared for some of the occurrences during the change process. Fourth, "innovations come in all sizes and shapes." The term innovation may refer to product or process. The product orientation would be concerned with curriculum materials, whereas process would refer to different approaches to instructional procedures. Fifth, "innovation and implementation are two sides of the change process coin." While there are specific steps in the development of an innovation, there are also corresponding steps in implementation, and successful change takes both into consideration. Sixth, "to change something, someone has to change first." The assumption here is that teachers have to change in order to incorporate the new practice. Therefore, it is imperative that the change process be understood from the viewpoint of the individual teacher. And, finally, "everyone can be a change facilitator." In order for change to take place, it must be a shared responsibility with many different people and activities involved.
In the CBAM model, the "change facilitator" is the key. He/she is linked to a resource system and uses formal and informal ways to understand the people involved in the change process. The informal ways are probing and interviewing, while the formal ways include three of the main components of the CBAM model: innovation configuration, stages on concern, and levels of use.
In the early work on change, it became evident that different teachers used the same innovation in different ways. In fact, Berman and McLaughlin (1978) suggested that adaptation was an imperative in the change process. And yet when evaluators were confronted with the task of deciding whether an innovation had been implemented, they were in a quandary to know what to look for. Should they consider goals, attributes, or implementation requirements of the innovation? The concept of Innovation Configuration (IC) (Hall & Loucks, 1981) emerged as the change process was studied. The configuration of an innovation, or the way it looked in actual practice, was dependent on which components were used. Different components or parts of an innovation could be designated as critical or nonessential. The group (Heck, Stiegelbauer, Hall, & Loucks, 1981) developed a tool whereby users of innovations and those evaluating the use of the innovation would have a clear idea of the components of the innovation. Users of the IC developed a checklist which brings into focus the following issues about the innovation: what the teacher and students will be doing, what someone will observe in a classroom, and what the key components are.
Stages of Concern
It is not coincidental that the CBAM Model is called the Concerns-Based Adoption Model because central to the model is the viewpoint of the individual teacher and the concerns which he/she may have going through the process of change. Through their research, Hall and his associates were able to identify seven kinds of concerns which users of an innovation may have. Since it was theorized that change takes place over a period of time, the idea of stages was accepted even though this was not meant to imply a one-way progression.
The first stage is `awareness.' At this level there is little involvement with the innovation and therefore little concern about it. The second stage is `informational.' The person is aware of the innovation and is interested in receiving more information about it. One wants to know what the general characteristics of the innovation are. What are its effects and the requirements for its use? When those concerns are in relationship to oneself, then one is at the third stage `personal concerns.' The individual is considering how this innovation will affect personal time, finances, and status. One is concerned about one's own ability to meet the demands of the innovation.
Usually when the time for implementation gets close, an individual has `management' concerns. Interest is high in relationship to materials, scheduling, organizing, and the tasks of using the innovation. When the teacher has intense concerns about the effects of an innovation, he/she has reached the `consequence' stage of concern. The teacher wants to know the impact of the innovation on the students. How will they be evaluated? How will the innovation affect the students' performance? Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall (1987) suggest that many teachers will not have intense concerns at the final two stages: `collaboration' and `refocusing.' In `collaboration,' the focus is on sharing and working with others in the use of the innovation. And, finally, in `refocusing,' the individual may have used the innovation with efficiency for some time and is interested in adapting it or replacing it with methods which he/she considers better.
Three techniques measure the Stages of Concern: (1) one-legged conferencing, (2) open-ended concerns statements, and (3) the Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Each procedure has positive and negative aspects and the change facilitator can choose the methodology which best suits the purposes at hand.
Levels of Use
It was recognized early that individuals used an innovation at different levels. Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, and Newlove (1975) developed an assessment instrument which identifies eight different Levels of Use. These levels have been identified and operationally defined.
The first three levels typically occur before an individual begins to use an innovation: nonuse, orientation, and preparation. These terms are somewhat self-explanatory. The first use of an innovation is marked by mechanical use. At this level the individual is getting by on a day-to-day basis. For example, the teacher does not have a clear picture of the total plan and is tenaciously following the directions as given in guidebooks, etc. After a rather extended period of time, the user moves to Level IVA Routine. The use of the innovation has stabilized and little thought is needed to care for the day-to-day activities. When the teacher begins to make adaptations to suit a personal situation, she/he has reached Level IVB Refinement. At Level V Integration, the user is working with other colleagues to achieve a collective impact. And, finally, a Level VI user is in a state of Renewal. Major modifications are made in the innovation in an effort to try to improve it.
Levels of Use are assessed with a personal interview and observations.
The last component of the CBAM Model involves the planning of strategies that aid in the change process. Hord et al. (1987) have identified six categories of interventions that may be used by the change facilitator:
1. developing supportive organizational arrangements
3. consultation and reinforcement
5. external communication and
6. dissemination. (p. 75)
These interventions are a part of an overall "game plan" which makes the management of change effective and efficient.
Taken together, these four components Innovation Configuration, Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and Intervention Taxonomy have been established to facilitate the change process. They should place a change facilitator in a position where he/she has a greater understanding of what is happening in the process of making changes at the school-building level.
The Fullan Model
Michael Fullan has had a large influence on the knowledge base of educational change by continually analyzing and synthesizing the literature on change. In 1977, he and Pomfret published a review of a number of studies focused on implementation. Their purpose was "to examine implementation in order to determine if in fact any change has happened, and in order to understand why change occurs or fails to occur" (p. 340). This study was published at approximately the same time as two other important works: the Rand Study and Hall and Loucks' work (1977). Fullan and Pomfret addressed several questions: "What are the characteristics of adopting units that have effective implementation?" (p. 382). "What organizational process characteristics were found to be related to implementation?" (p. 383) and finally, what are the characteristics of individual staff members who implement? They concluded that
a great deal of work remains to be done on conceptualizing
the meaning and processes of implementation, on gathering and
analyzing data on different aspects of the process, on assessing
the consequences of different strategies, and on deriving specific
policy recommendations at all levels of the political and educational
system. (p. 393)
Fullan's next large synthesis and analysis of the literature on change (1982) resulted in an overview of change that is comprehensive. By this time some answers had surfaced to the questions raised by the previous analysis. Fullan (1982) suggested that change is composed of four processes: initiation, implementation, continuation, and outcome (p. 40). Compiling the available literature, Fullan shows how various factors affect each of the processes. He demonstrates how teachers, principals, students, district administrators, consultants, parents, and governments all need an understanding of the meaning of educational change. Fullan contends that
one of the most fundamental problems in education today is that people do not have a clear, coherent sense of meaning about what
educational change is for, what it is, and how it proceeds. . . . What we need is a more coherent picture that people who are involved in or affected by educational change can use to make
sense of what they and others are doing. (p. 4)
That is what Fullan endeavors to accomplish in his book. He wants educators to understand that in order for change to take place, there must be a deep understanding of the process of change and of the innovation itself.
Later Fullan (1985) adapted the factors needed for implementation to include eight organizational factors:
(1) instructionally focused leadership at the school level, (2) district support, (3) emphasis on curriculum and instruction (e.g., maximizing academic learning), (4) clear goals and high expectation for students, (5) a system for monitoring performance and achievement, (6) ongoing staff development, (7) parental involvement and support, and (8) orderly and secure climate (p. 400).
He suggested that four process factors add meaning to the above eight. They are: "(1) a feel for the improvement process on the part of leadership, (2) a guiding value system, (3) intense interaction and communication, and (4) collaborative planning and implementation" (p. 400). He concludes this statement with strategies that local school districts need to use when implementing change and a challenge that similar strategies be developed for everyone involved in the change process.
In 1990, Fullan's revised framework included an integration of aspects of classroom improvement and school improvement with the teacher as the centerpiece of the two. Leadership and student engagement are the forces that drive this model. The teacher as learner has four aspects: technical skills, reflective practices, collaboration, and teacher as inquirer. Fullan suggests that while this model may be idealistic, it still requires radical rethinking of the role of the individual, the school, and the district before a powerful change can take place.
Fullan has consistently synthesized current research and kept the broad viewpoint of change in perspective. He has helped educators realize the importance of each component in the change process and yet has provided a model with the teacher at center stage.
Joyce-Showers Model for Staff Development
While other orientations have tended to define the necessary factors for successful school change, Joyce and Showers (1988) along with other investigators, Joyce, Murphy, Showers, and Murphy (1989), have "adopted an organic approach to school renewal" (p. 71). They believe the structure of the workplace needs to be changed to allow for more cooperative study and decision making. Through the process of coaching, communities of teachers will be established "who continuously engage in the study of their craft" (Showers, 1985, p. 43). As a result of coaching there will develop "the shared language and set of common understandings necessary for the collegial study of new knowledge and skills" and "coaching provides a structure for the follow up to training that is essential for acquiring new teaching skills and strategies" (p. 44). One of the factors which affects implementation is school climate. Teachers need support and collegiality, and coaching helps break the isolation found in most school situations.
Another area of investigation has been that of training. In their analysis of about 200 research studies, Showers, Joyce, and Bennett (1987) found four components in successful training theory, demonstration, practice, and feedback that result in high levels of implementation and skill development. It is important to note that Joyce and Showers (1988) view the purpose of training to be the increase in student achievement.
Qualitative Research on Change
Several qualitative studies have addressed the issue of teacher change. An early ethnography, Wolcott's (1977) study, showed the involvement of teachers and their administrators in the implementation of educational innovation. Huberman (in Fullan, 1985), conducted a case study of one school district's use of the ECRI program. While his study linked the success of implementation to strong support from principals and helpers during an initial six months of high teacher anxiety, he did not focus as directly on the teacher and the process of change as the present study does. Valencia and Killion (1989) reported on overcoming obstacles to teacher change in three case studies which implemented research-based reading and writing programs. They identify the following as obstacles to teacher change: short-term inservice attempts, teacher isolation, status quo, learning needs of teachers, and strict fidelity to a new method. Sirotnik (1989) purports that "major adjustments in epistemology are required to realize the potential for improvement and change in today's schools. . . . Inquiry in the phenomenological tradition offers one of the necessary adjustments. Phenomenology puts the knower back in touch with what might be known" (p. 94). As if in answer to Sirotnik's (1989) charge, many recent doctoral dissertations (Corbitt, 1988; Costello, 1988; Davenport, 1990; Hamilton, 1989; Holt, 1989; Jones, 1989; Madsen-Nason, 1988; Moss, 1988; Wilson, 1988) have studied teacher change using an ethnographic approach.
The Teacher as Focal Point in Change
In 1982, Fullan maintained
that the crux of change involves the development of meaning in relation to a new idea, program, or set of activities. But it is individuals who have to develop new meaning, and these individuals are insignificant parts of a gigantic, loosely organized, complex, messy social system which contains myriad different subjective worlds. . . . Single-factor theories of change are doomed to failure. Arguments that product quality is more important than teacher attitude, or that external factors are more important than internal ones, or that teachers are more central than administrators, are pointless. (p. 79)
Fullan stated that effective implementation depends on a
combination of factors: characteristics of the change, the school
district, the local school, and external factors. These statements
are interesting in light of Fullan's 1990 assertion that "the
centerpiece, or bridge, linking and overlapping classroom and
school improvement . . . is the teacher as learner" (p. 18).
This change in emphasis is really an indication of the trend
that research on the process of change (implementation) has taken
over the previous 15-20 years.
While early attempts at understanding the use of new strategies were focused on the innovation or adoption of the innovation, later studies elucidated the process as including implementation, continuation, and the factors necessary for both. Later attempts (models) tended to be holistic with emphasis on all the different individuals and agencies involved in change. Much emphasis was placed on the change agent and characteristics which facilitated change (Fullan, 1982; Hall & Hord, 1987).
Fullan and Pomfret (1977, p. 385) note several studies which attempted to identify characteristics of individual teachers who are able to implement change. However, they conclude that this field of study remains to be developed. The CBAM model focuses on the teachers' concerns and levels of use of an innovation so that change facilitators may be guided for making significant interventions.
Hunt (1978) contends that "the major reason for the failure of large-scale innovative programs [was that] they ignored the teacher, the most critical feature of any program" (p. 240). He believes that "inservice activities should give more attention to how teachers learn, and how teachers' learning styles are related to their teaching styles" (p. 244). Cuban (1988) believes that reformers have asked the wrong question. Rather than asking, "How should teachers teach?" they should have been asking, "How do teachers teach? . . . Why do they teach as they do?" (pp. 343, 344). Mager, Myers, Maresca, Rupp, and Armstrong (1986) suggest that the education reform movement "itself cites teachers and their work as key to the school improvement effort. The changes that are made will be made by teachers" (p. 345). The Carnegie Forum Task Force claims "that real reform cannot be accomplished despite teachers. It will only come with their active participation" (p. 26). Finally, Fullan (1990) concludes that "those involved in staff development must think and act more holistically about the personal and professional lives of teachers as individuals" (p. 22).
Current Knowledge of Teachers and Change
What does one know about teachers and their change process?
1. Several researchers (McKibbin & Joyce, 1980; Hopkins, 1990) have shown that there is a high correlation between teacher's psychological state, as defined by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the levels of use of new strategies.
2. Hopkins (1990) has found high correlations between school climate and degree of implementation.
3. Guskey (1986) suggests that "significant change in teachers' beliefs and attitudes is likely to take place only after changes in student learning outcome are evidenced" (p. 7). Therefore, the change in a teacher's classroom practices comes before change in student outcomes which would then be followed by changes in the teacher's beliefs and attitudes.
4. Teacher efficacy has been shown to affect the degree of implementation by Berman and McLaughlin (1978) and Smylie (1988).
5. Showers (1984) has found that teachers with high conceptual levels as defined by Hunt (1975) implement and continue innovations to a greater degree than those with low conceptual levels.
Response to Current Knowledge
How does one relate to these factors? Does one give up on the teachers who do not have the right mix of the factors correlated with successful implementation? Or does one endeavor to change the characteristics for example, increase a teacher's sense of efficacy or conceptual level? There may be another alternative that of taking the factors and seeking to understand how they "operate in a particular context rather than merely listing factors" (Fullan, 1985, p. 398). Fullan uses this phrase in reference to factors associated with student achievement; however, it may be aptly app-lied to factors affecting teacher implementation. Butt (1984) has said, "What is really needed by outsiders, . . . is a backdrop of knowledge which truly reflects the teachers [sic] perspective the teachers [sic] voice concerning their own realities and dreams" (p. 19). What is the reality of a high efficacy teacher in his/her efforts to implement change? What is the reality of a teacher who tries to implement a new strategy in a school with a positive (nega-tive) climate? What is the reality of a low conceptual person who tries to implement change? If they are able to implement a teaching innovation, does one know what strategies they have used? What aspects of the change were particularly easy or difficult? Only as these factors are understood in relationship to the change process does one understand the teachers who are trying to change.
As Fullan (1985) suggests, one needs an "understanding of the process, a way of thinking that cannot be captured in any list of steps or phases to be followed." Further, "the main problem
. . . is that such a list of organization variables indicates neither how the factors operate nor how to implement them in a particular school. They represent the tip of the iceberg" (pp. 399, 400). In commenting on Barnett's work, du Toit (1984) said, "Barnett causes us to focus upon the single individual, and deals with this individual as perceiving, thinking awareness operating within a particular world-view. An innovation is seen as a particular kind of perceptual operation which takes place within the individual" (p. 10). This has been neglected so far to get inside the individual teacher and discover how his/her particular subjective reality is affected by the factors which influence change.
Chapter 2 reviewed the literature on reading instruction and school change and showed that the teacher is becoming the focal point of interest. The first section noted that it has been difficult for researchers to find a one-best-method for teaching reading because the difference between teachers is greater than the difference between methods. Research on reading methods has been slow in finding its way into the classroom, but today, direct instruction is being advocated as one of several successful strategies used by effective teachers. The next section reviewed the literature on change and showed how educators have focused on adoption of the innovation and later realized the importance of implementation. Subsequently, attempts (models) tended to be holistic with emphasis on all the different individuals and agencies involved in change. Finally, the last section made plain that the reform movement and the literature on change are currently focusing on the teacher. This review of the literature supports the significance of this study which is to provide an expanded picture of how teachers experience change. If a greater understanding of the process of change can be gained from the teacher's viewpoint, explanations may emerge which elucidate reasons why teacher change is not very widespread.