CBAM- in an Elementary School

As part of our course, we were asked to examine the CBAM model.  We were then asked to describe one instance or example of how this model could be used to analyse a change within your own workplace using a technological education example.

Here is my proposal:)

________________________________________________ 

Background:

Elementary school (K-6)

– Student Population 70 students

– Teaching staff: 5 full time, 2 part-time

– Support staff: 1 Child and Youth Care worker, 1 Educational assistant, 1 Early Childhood Education worker

– Technology use in special education has already been identified as an area of concern by staff

– Estimated timeline – three years to five years to allow for addressing of staff needs, professional development and other parts of the CBAM process to develop

Target: – Effective use of Assistive technology by students throughout the day to improve student understanding and daily performance in keeping with IEPs.

YEAR One: September

Stage 1:  Stage of Concern

a) Identify and address teacher and support staff (Child and Youth Care Worker or Educational Assistant) concerns and feelings about assistive technology use.  Generate a profile of concerns from computer-based questionnaires given to teachers and administrator to determine where everyone is.. from unconcerned to feeling like they are able to rework things to help students with the assistive technology.  Provide time for teachers to do this.

b) examine and analyze results to see how staff can be supported both as individuals and the group as a whole.  This could be in the form of mentorship, instruction, modeling or other ideas generated.  Look at funding available to make this possible.

 Stage 2: Level of Use

Determine the level of use of the technology in the classroom – from non- use to renewal phase of behaviour by the teachers/support staff.  Interviews and time in the classes would be the most effective to look at how the technology was being used to further help the staff with using the software.

Stage 3: Innovation Configuration

– In PLC (Professional Learning Committee of school), discuss with all teachers and principal ,ideas of what we would like to see with respect to practices of students and their use of assistive technology in the classroom – for example: Premier Tools – Talking word processor.  Create the Innovation Configuration (IC) an IC Map.

 Determine ideal, acceptable and unacceptable configurations with this model as a staff. Determine possible variations and assessments of the set.

Example IC Map – major components of this process

Ideal

Acceptable

Unacceptable

– Daily use of TWP in Language Classes

– teachers would plan lessons with TWP in mind

– technology would work consistently and would be available as needed

– materials for the TWP would be readily available for staff to use with students

– support staff member able to scan materials or photocopier set to scan to text

–  teacher and fellow students would be able to support student in using this software

– regular use of TWP in Language Classes

– teachers would plan most lessons with TWP in mind

– technology would work consistently and would be available as needed

– a number of materials for the TWP would be available for staff to use with students with a support staff member able to scan materials or photocopier set to scan to text

– teacher and fellow students would be able to support student in using this software

– no or intermittent use of TWP in classes

– no planning with TWP or assistive technology in mind

– technology not always working or available

– no pre-done materials or support/technology to scan materials into computer

– teacher unable to help student with TWP

 

 Set goals as to where we want to be at the end of June on the IC Map.

 Post EQAO (end of June)–

Every June students in Grades 3 and 6 are required to complete the EQAO standardized test.  Those with IEPs that stipulate assistive technology use, are able to access software this to help them in reading (Language and Math booklets), and writing activities (Language only) as appropriate.  Unfortunately, elementary teachers are not able to use this test as an assessment piece – however, being able to use the technology well does help the student.  At this stage, students should be at their peak for the year to use the technology.  It is at this point that we would re-administer questionnaires from the Stage of Concern stage to see if these have changed for staff members, and to see what could be implemented at the beginning of September.  Interviews and observation of practice could also be done at this point to determine if there is change.

YEARS TWO to FIVE:

September:

Offer Stage of Concern questionnaires to new staff at school and to all others.  This would be done in case staff had taken extra courses or opportunities that may have altered their stage of concern.  The Level of Use would also be determined for these individuals.

PLC Technology Discussions:

–       re-examine the purpose of the IC Map

–       Set goals as a staff as to where we want to be at the end of June on the IC Map.

–       re-examine how to support staff, and to determine if opportunities that have already been set up need to be changed or tweaked to get the “ideal” situation occurring

 Post EQAO (end of June)– re-administer questionnaires from the Stage of Concern stage to see if these have changed for staff members, and to see what could be implemented at the beginning of September.  Interviews and observation of practice could also be done at this point to determine if there is change.

 As a PLC – Examine each year what has been helpful and what has not.  Determine new problems and where we need to go next to meet the goals.

 END OF FIVE YEARS

In a PLC – Determine if this model was effective to having this process work.  Discuss other possibilities of a Project the following year.

Note about the technology:  It is quite possible that the technology would change so much that the assistive technology in the classroom would look quite different that it does now… and might be more intuitive, and easy to use for the learning disabled student.  Ideally, school software would be designed more to meet the needs of all users (universal design).   This would of course be not only an element of the technology but also the affordability of the software for the schools (i.e. Kurzweil is currently superior to Premier tools, but it very costly and is only given to eligible students).  Should the technology change, then the Innovation Model would have to be changed to reflect this new technology.  Until that time, teachers need to be able to use the assistive technology in their classrooms and to support students in their use of it each day.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Resources examined

a) The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals. Reprinted with permission from the chapter entitled ” Professional Development for Science Education: A Critical and Immediate Challenge,” by Susan Loucks-Horsley. National Standards & the Science Curriculum, edited by Rodger Bybee of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1996. For more information call 1-800-KH-BOOKS (542-6657). http://www.mdecgateway.org/olms/data/resource/3712/CBAM.pdf

B) The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals – http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm

 C) Introduction to the Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (February 24, 2011) Series of four Videos by SEDL – http://www.youtube.com/user/sedl?feature=watch

 d) “Hall and Hord’s (1987) Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a notable example of a Macro (Systemic Change) theory of diffusion that is instrumentalist, rather than determinist, in philosophy. Hall and Hord describe a process in which change facilitators understand change from the point of view of the people who will be affected by change. The idea of CBAM is to bring about systemic restructuring by understanding the social, political, and interpersonal aspects of the school.” 

Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1), 24-36.

 e) Hamel, C., Turcotte, S. S., & Laferrière, T. (2013). Evolution of the Conditions for Successful Innovation in Remote Networked Schools. International Education Studies, 6(3), p1.

http://journal.ccsenet.org/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/23974/15232

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to CBAM- in an Elementary School

  1. sashagoel says:

    Wow! You have done an AMAZING job of proposing how the CBAM could be used inside a school environment. Have you ever had any past experience in implementing CBAM in a learning environment? It sure seems that way! FANTASTIC job, I look forward to reading more about the learning that we’ll be doing this term on your blog.

    Sasha

  2. Colin says:

    That’s a thorough breakdown of implementing Concern-based Adoption Model at your school. It would be interesting to me to see how CBAM would impact the rate of adoption of the technology. Just by having the people involved have a clearer understanding of how CBAM is applied to their adoption of technology and how they compare to others.

    Also, when you brought up the point about the changes in the assistive technology, it got me wondering about how the rate of change of technology that is being adopted would impact CBAM, and whether or needs to be incorporated into the model. As the rate of change in technology is speeds up, this will likely become a bigger and bigger issue. It’s almost like trying to hit a moving target. I’d be interested to get anyone else’s thoughts on this.

  3. I really think that using CBAM through the PLC is a great idea. I think that maintaining transparency of this process is so important and that integration of the PLC is a brilliant way to ensure that. In reading your blog and considering the use of assistive technology in classrooms, I began to wonder about the applicability of CBAM to students whom are at time asked to adopt a new technology to support their learning. I wonder if we need to be applying this type of thinking regarding change not only to professionals in education but also to the students who are also experiencing the adoption of a new innovation as they too can be resistant at times to new technologies, particularly when they are perceived as different. Thank you for opening up this thinking!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s