1 / 16

Implementing Reform in Teacher Preparation

Implementing Reform in Teacher Preparation. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Patsy Ann Johnson, Ph. D. Department of Secondary Education/Foundations of Education Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania Slippery Rock, PA, 16057-1326, USA patsy.johnson@sru.edu.

capucine
Download Presentation

Implementing Reform in Teacher Preparation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing Reform in Teacher Preparation The Concerns-Based Adoption Model

  2. Patsy Ann Johnson, Ph. D. Department of Secondary Education/Foundations of Education Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania Slippery Rock, PA, 16057-1326, USA patsy.johnson@sru.edu

  3. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) • Change is a process, not an event. • The understanding of the change process in organizations requires an understanding of what happens to individuals as they are involved in change. • For the individual, change is a highly personal experience. • For the individual, change entails developmental growth in terms of feelings about and skill in using the innovation.

  4. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) • Information about the change process collected on an ongoing basis can be used to facilitate the management and implementation of the change process. • Change is accomplished by individuals first, then institutions. • The single most important factor in any change process is the people who will be most affected by the change.

  5. Innovation Configurations (IC) • Specifying the Innovation Configurations helps to clarify and communicate expectations. • Recording use of components helps facilitators identify areas that need attention and then intervene appropriately.

  6. Stages of Concern (SoC) • concern about self • Awareness (0) • Informational (1) • Personal (2) • concern about task • Management (3) • concern about impact • Consequence (4) • Collaboration (5) • Refocusing (6)

  7. Levels of Use (LoU) • Non-use (0) • Orientation (I) • Preparation (II) • Mechanical Use (III) • Routine (IVA) Refinement (IVB) • Integration (V) • Renewal (VI)

  8. Functions (Actionsof Change Facilitators) • Developing, Articulating, and Communicating a Shared Vision of the Intended Change • Planning and Providing Resources (also called Developing Supportive Organizational Arrangements) • Investing in Professional Learning (also called Training) • Checking on Progress (also called Monitoring and Evaluation)

  9. Functions (Actionsof Change Facilitators) • Providing Continuous Assistance (also called Consultation and Reinforcement) • Creating a Context Supportive of Change • Communicating Externally (also called External Communication) • Disseminating Information (also called Dissemination)

  10. Everett Rodgers’ theory of adopter categories • 2.5% “Innovators” (or venturesome) • 13.5% “Early Adopters” (or respectable) • 34.0% “Early Majority” (or deliberate) • 34.0% “Late Majority” (or skeptical) • 16.0% “Laggards” (or traditional)

  11. Styles of Change Facilitators • Initiator • Manager • Responder “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.” W. Bennis and B. Nanus

  12. Styles of Change Facilitators • Concern for People (Cluster I) • Social/Informal dimension • Formal/Meaningful dimension • Organizational Efficiency (Cluster II) • Trust in Others dimension • Administrative Efficiency dimension • Strategic Sense (Cluster III) • Day-to-Day dimension • Vision and Planning dimension.

  13. Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation in Pennsylvania (CETP-PA) • National Science Foundation funding for more than $5,000,000 from 2000 to 2005 • 13 universities out of 14 in the State System of Higher Education • 85,797 undergraduate students and 12,381 graduate students (28,916 of whom are education majors) • 5,559 faculty • 65 CETP-PA courses with an enrollment of 7,252

  14. Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation in Pennsylvania (CETP-PA) • K-16 faculty involved in making local and state-wide plans for CETP-PA • 379 team members (65% university faculty, 22% K-12 teachers, 5% community college faculty, 3% university students, 2% business employees, 3% other types) • 13 Mathematics/Science/Technology Center Directors • 73 members of six State-wide Workgroups • 22 Team Leaders • 10 Advisory Committee members • 49 Steering Committee members • 6 National Visiting Committee members plus a NSF Representative

  15. Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation in Pennsylvania (CETP-PA) • an Evaluation Liaison from each of the thirteen universities trained by the National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE) evaluators or the CETP-PA Eastern and Western Coordinators • data collection including the use of questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations

  16. Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation in Pennsylvania (CETP-PA) • State System requirement that all bachelor degree programs would require no more and no less than 120 semester hours • State System performance indicators including productivity • reorganization of colleges and departments at Slippery Rock University • decreasing support for faculty work other than teaching at Slippery Rock University

More Related