Copyright 2012, Bynum Blake Hightower

Response to Mandated Change in Schools: Stages of Concern for Teachers in the First

and Second Year of CSCOPE Curriculum Implementation

by

Bynum Blake Hightower, B.S., M.Ed.

A Dissertation

In

Educational Leadership

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of

the requirements for

the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Approved

Dr. Clint Carpenter

Chair of Committee

Dr. Fernando Valle

Committee Member

Dr. Eugene Wang

Committee Member

Peggy Gordon Miller

Dean of the Graduate School

August, 2012

Copyright 2012, Bynum Blake Hightower

Texas Tech University, Bynum Blake Hightower, May 2012

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge some very special contributors without whom I

would not have been able to finish this dissertation. My wife, Janie, has been supportive,

understanding, and long-suffering throughout the entire process of researching and

writing. Without her patience and encouragement, attaining this goal would have been

impossible. My love and adoration is expressed in the effort displayed in this

dissertation.

I would like to thank the principals who helped me in collecting surveys and their

faculty members who donated their time to further the scholarly understanding of the

impact curricular innovations have on elementary public school teachers.

I would also like to thank Doctoral Cohort 3. Bruce, Gionet, John, Kathy, and

Tracy you have all been great encouragers and wonderful friends. The arguments we

shared were stimulating, the conversations were rich, and the mutual encouragement

received and given was the perfect elixir for tired eyes on those late nights of reading and

writing. Thank you, my friends; you will forever hold a special place in my heart.

The Educational Leadership faculty at Texas Tech has been nothing short of

inspirational as they masterfully provoked my curiosity through their teaching. My

committee chair, Dr. Clint Carpenter provided encouragement and guidance at vital

stages throughout the writing and researching process. My committee members Dr.

Fernando Valle and Dr. Eugene Wang provided critical feedback in a timely manner,

which enabled me to stay focused on the critical attributes of this research. Additionally,

Dr. Alyx Shultz has provided excellent assistance with editing and formatting this work.


iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. ii

Abstract .................................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ vii

Table of Figures ................................................................................................... viii

I. Introduction .........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................9

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................10

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................11

Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................12

Research Question .............................................................................................12

Delimitations of the Study .................................................................................13

Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................13

Assumptions .......................................................................................................14

Definition of Terms ...........................................................................................15

Overview of the Study .......................................................................................16

II. Review of Literature.........................................................................................18

Systems Theory ..................................................................................................18

School Reform ...................................................................................................21

CSCOPE Curriculum Development ..................................................................28

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model and Stages of Concern .........................33

Issues Surrounding Implementation Curricular Innovations .............................36

Theoretical Explanation .....................................................................................38

Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................42

III. Methodology ...................................................................................................45

Introduction ........................................................................................................45

Population and Sample ......................................................................................46

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................48

Research Design ................................................................................................50

Objectives. .........................................................................................................52


iv

Research Question .............................................................................................53

Hypotheses .........................................................................................................53

Data Collection ..................................................................................................55

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................55

IV. Results.............................................................................................................57

Descriptive statistics for predictor variables .....................................................57

Descriptive statistics for outcome variables. .....................................................59

Bivariate correlations between variables. ..........................................................62

Assumptions for regression analysis. ................................................................64

Homoscedasticity and Linearity plots. ...........................................................65

Assumption of independent errors. ................................................................67

Plots of normally distributed errors. ...............................................................68

Regression analysis. ..........................................................................................69

Summary ...........................................................................................................78

V. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................81

Introduction ........................................................................................................81

Stages of Concern ..............................................................................................82

Conclusions and Recommendations by Stage of Concern ................................84

Stage 0 ...............................................................................................................84

Stage 1 ...............................................................................................................85

Stage 2 ...............................................................................................................86

Stage 3 ...............................................................................................................88

Stage 4 ...............................................................................................................89

Stage 5 ...............................................................................................................90

Stage 6 ...............................................................................................................91

Appendices ...........................................................................................................105

A. 5E Model of Instruction .............................................................................105

B. Superintendent and Principal Recruitment Letter ......................................109

C. Participant Recruitment Letter ...................................................................110

D. Stages of Concern Questionnaire ...............................................................111

E. Predictor Variable Campus Conditions ......................................................113


v

F. Administrator Training ..............................................................................114


vi

Abstract

This study examined the level of concern responses as measured by the Stages of

Concern Questionnaire of elementary school teachers relative to mandated curricular

change in West Texas. A recent curricular innovation known as CSCOPE was

implemented in the majority of K-12 public schools in Texas. Six public elementary

campuses participated in this study. Multiple linear regression was used to predict

teacher responses on the (SOcQ). This instrument was used to collect data on each

campus in order to determine the relationship between predictor variables and teacher

responses on the survey. Predictor variables included AYP status (federal

accountability), AEIS status (state campus rating), teacher years of service, and content

area taught, the year of implementation, and the level of CSCOPE implementation.

Results indicated that teachers were more resistant to the CSCOPE innovation in the first

year of implementation than in the second. Teachers also demonstrated less resistance to

the innovation when mandated to use the entire CSCOPE curriculum. Statistical

significance was demonstrated by the regression models for each stage of concern beyond

Stage 0.


vii

List of Tables

4.1 Summary and Descriptive Results for Years of Teaching Experience

by School .....................................................................................................................58

4.2 Summary and Descriptive Results for Dichotomous Predictor

Variables ......................................................................................................................58

4.3 Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores within Stage of Concern 0, 1,

2 and 3 by School .........................................................................................................60

4.4 Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores within Stage of Concern 4, 5

and 6 by School ............................................................................................................60

4.5 Summary of Outcome Variables ..................................................................................62

4.6 Correlation Matrix for Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables ...........................63

4.7 Preliminary Data Analysis for Variables within Regression Models ..........................64

4.8 Independent Errors - Durbin-Watson Test Values between 1 and 3 ..........................67

4.9 Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 0 (Awareness) of Stages

of Concern ....................................................................................................................70

4.10 Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage 0

(Awareness) of the Stages of Concern Model .............................................................70

4.11 Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 1 of Stages of Concern ......................71


of the Stages of Concern Model...................................................................................72


4.14 Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model or Stage2









4.20 Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage5






viii

Table of Figures

2.1. Stages of Concern Model ............................................................................................35

2.2. Organization systems independence ...........................................................................39

3.1. Stages of Concern for Implementation of an Innovation ............................................49

3.2. Stages of Concern Instrument .....................................................................................51

4.1. Mean Scores within each Stage of Concern by School. .............................................61

4.3. Homoscedasticity and linearity ...................................................................................65

4.3. Normally distributed errors .........................................................................................68


1

Chapter I

Introduction

This study centered upon a major curricular innovation within school districts

throughout the state of Texas known as CSCOPE. According to CSCOPE developers,

“CSCOPE is a comprehensive, customizable, user-friendly curriculum management

system built on the most current research-based practices in the field” (The Texas

Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, 2012a, para. 1). CSCOPE was

developed by The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative to address

current challenges for educators such as mobility rates and ineffective instructional

practices, while providing a guaranteed and viable curriculum for students based on

established standards (B. Gibson, personal communication, April 18, 2012).

Implementation of an innovation such as CSCOPE however, is a complex task that

involves systemic change for the school organization undertaking the process. This study

explores critical variables associated with innovation and systemic change, which include

the level of concern teachers exhibit via the SOcQ to mandated innovations.

The theoretical connections between Systems Theory, Concerns Theory, and

Management Theory are viewed through the lens of campus leadership as they relate to

effective innovation and change within organizations. The intent of the study is to add to

the current research-base and inform educational leaders of the effect the CSCOPE

innovation has upon the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of teachers as they encounter

this change process. The application of this study informs the practice of campus and


2

district leaders relative to the best implementation practices associated with the CSCOPE

curriculum.

Educational leaders, and specifically principals, face a remarkable challenge: to

produce better and more equitable outcomes for students at-large and for the varying

student sub-populations across the nation as specified by state law, as stipulated by Texas

law, “The principal of a school is the instructional leader of the school” (Texas

Education Code, 1995). Many school districts are developing or acquiring new curricula,

which are developed based upon measureable performance standards to enhance student

achievement Lemons, Luschei, and Siskin (2003) state, “[w]hile details of the particular

policies vary, almost every state has now established a centralized curriculum and/or

performance standards, assessments to measure student learning” (p. 99).

This challenge to improve student performance has always been implicit for

conscientious educators however, despite the best efforts of teachers and administrators,

effective implementation of curricular programs has not consistently produced the desired

outcome of significantly improved student achievement among measureable sub-

populations. Jencks and Phillips (1998) found, “Black and Hispanic students still obtain

lower scores on standardized tests of reading, math, and science.” These results were in

direct contrast with the results of school improvement researchers in Cleveland Scott and

Bagaka’s (2004) who found that efforts were demonstrating significant school

improvement, "[f]indings show that teachers' perceptions of the success of reform

significantly predict improvement in student passage rates in both mathematics and

reading tests."

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108631682


3

For years, various educational theorists and researchers have claimed to have

answers to the questions relative to improving student achievement due to enumerable

educational conditions. These curricular and instructional mandates have failed to yield

results for many reasons. Dewey (1916) summarized this phenomenon nearly a century

ago in the following words:

Formal instruction, on the contrary, easily becomes remote and dead -- abstract

and bookish, to use the ordinary words of depreciation. What accumulated

knowledge exists in low grade societies is at least put into practice; it is

transmuted into character; it exists with the depth of meaning that attaches to its

coming within urgent daily interests (p. 10).

The practical application of the knowledge teachers try to impart to learners does

not resonate with them because there is no practical application for the knowledge apart

from the institutionalized setting of formal education. Again, Dewey’s assertions

concerning “low grade societies” are documented in Willis’ ethnography, Learning to

Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. “The rejection of school work

by 'the lads' and the omnipresent feeling that they know better is also paralleled by a

massive feeling on the shop floor, and in the working class generally, that practice is

more important than theory” (Willis, 1981, p. 56).

When John Dewey wrote about reforming education, he did so through the lens of

changing pedagogical practices by increasing educators’ awareness of the differences in

background of the students who educators are charged to educate. No doubt, he was

hoping that teachers would make standard their understanding of the importance of



4

student context in the formal setting of institutional education. Dewey (1916) hoped for

refinement and tailoring of well informed instructional practice for the common good of

the progeny, stating, "What they must have in common in order to form a community or

society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge -- a common understanding -- like-

mindedness as the sociologists say" (p. 5).

Dewey’s claim concerning the importance of communication and shared

understanding between teacher-and-teacher and teacher-and-learner poses a more

daunting task today than it did in 1916. If one adds to the vast differences in background

of the 21st century learners the increasing diversity within the ranks of current educators,

the difficulty of attaining a shared vision and a sense of community has exponentially

increased. Further, Dewey (1916) acknowledged that sharing the same physical

proximity with others of the same species does not automatically indicate the existence of

a community, but may simply indicate a symbiotic relationship, "[t]he parts of a machine

work with a maximum of cooperativeness for a common result, but they do not form a

community" ( p. 5). Community and culture are critical in establishing a flourishing

learning environment for students.

Other researchers claim that the answers for reform already exist. Ron Edmunds

(1981) made the following provocative statement:

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose

schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that.

Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we

haven’t so far. (p. 53)

http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77608468



5

One can hardly argue with Edmunds assertion, as Dewey was aware of the problem and

hinting at a solution 70 years before Edmunds made the statement.

Many obstacles exist for school administrators across Texas as they attempt to

reform curriculum and instruction to facilitate increased student achievement within the

context of the K-12 public schools. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) identified and

studied 21 categories or responsibilities of school leaders in their research and stated,

“[c]onsequently, we examined the 69 studies in our meta-analysis looking for specific

behaviors related to principal leadership. We identified 21 categories of behaviors that

we refer to as responsibilities” (p. 41).

Although organizational contexts related to K-12 education vary considerably

across Texas, many of the variables affecting student achievement are quantifiable.

Marzano (2003) in his meta-analysis of research on school effectiveness further stated

that “guaranteed and viable curriculum is the most important aspect influencing student

achievement” (p. 10). Marzano defines this central tenet of effective schools by

enumerating three elements that must exist for a curriculum to be viable and guaranteed.

First, students must have the opportunity to learn the content. Second, the scope of the

curriculum must address the appropriate standards and third, the time must be afforded

the teacher to adequately address the content with the students (Marzano, 2003).

As our country becomes progressively more diverse, the gap in socioeconomic

status continues to widen (Bryan and Martinez, 2008). School administrators face

pressure to facilitate the implementation of programs to improve student achievement

(Texas Administrative Code, 2009) for an increasingly dissimilar student population.


6

Implementation of new curriculum and instructional methodologies are plagued

by a myriad of problems, which are strongly associated with socio-economic status. Low

SES students experience an increased mobility rate as compared to students who are not

economically disadvantaged. Ream (2005) found that "[t]he incidence of mobility is

particularly high within large, predominantly minority, urban school districts with high

concentrations of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds" High mobility further

destructs low SES students’ ability to maintain familial, institutional, and community

networks. The absence of these social networks consistently demonstrates a correlation

to student underachievement (Putnam, 2000). Adding merit to his findings, Ream (2005)

enumerated the disruption of the social system of low SES students saying,

Like the frequent repotting of plants, mobility tends to disrupt social root systems,

limiting the capacity of students and their interlocutors to develop and maintain

social capital by (a) disrupting family cohesion, (b) inhibiting students' efforts to

make new friends and adjust socially to a new school situation, and (c) impinging

on the development of reciprocal relations between students and institutional

agents within the broader community (Jason et al., 1992; Pribesh and Downey,

1999; Putnam, 2000; Ream, 2003). (p. 12)

One significant problem is the learning gaps related to the transient nature of

many students within the state of Texas and it has stymied educators for decades. Many

highly mobile students across the state developed gaps in their learning because curricula

varied drastically from district to district, campus to campus, or even classroom to

classroom. Instructional standards also varied greatly. In an effort to deliver quality



7

instruction aligned to state standards, a majority of Texas schools have implemented a

new curriculum called CSCOPE. CSCOPE stands for curriculum-scope. The Texas

Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) developed it. This

curriculum has been widely adopted by school districts across the state and is currently in

use by 810 districts and 4,631 campuses across Texas (J. Thomas, personal

communication, January 3, 2012).

CSCOPE is a web-based curriculum designed to meet the state performance

measures for all core-content areas in kindergarten through 12th

grade. CSCOPE is

comprised of four basic elements for every content area. The first element of CSCOPE is

the Vertical Alignment Document (VAD), which allows teachers and administrators to

compare the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for each grade level in a side-by-side

format. This document ensures that the curriculum is vertically and horizontally aligned.

It also informs teachers of the possible gaps in learning that any student may exhibit. The

second element of the curriculum is the Year at a Glance document (YAG), which is a

calendar-based graphic that establishes the timeline for content delivery within content

areas. The third element of the curriculum is the Instructional Focus Document (IFD),

which establishes the cognitive level to which the content must be taught, the necessary

vocabulary to be acquired, the common misconception associated with the performance

measures, and a general explanation of the lesson and how it relates to future and

previous learning. The fourth element is the Exemplar Lessons (EL), which provides

teachers with a scripted lesson plan that includes research-based instructional strategies.

These four elements within the CSCOPE curriculum ensure a guaranteed and viable


8

curriculum for all learners according the Education Service Centers (ESC) who markets

this curriculum (The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, 2012b).

When CSCOPE is introduced to a new district, ESC personnel ask district leaders

several questions. After showing the district leaders the Vertical Alignment Document,

they ask, “Do you feel that your district needs a vertically and horizontally aligned

curriculum?” The resounding response was affirmative in no fewer than 810 cases.

“Then your district must establish that the VAD is a non-negotiable for the faculty,” and

the gavel drops and policy is made at that moment. This process continues in the same

manner as the sales team show the district leadership the Year at a Glance, and then the

Instructional Focus Document. However, when the ESC team engages conversation

around the Exemplar Lessons, the recommendation is that it this element of CSCOPE

should not be a non-negotiable. Teachers may choose to use the provided lessons or

simply retool their existing lessons to fit the rigor and content established in the IFD (see

Appendix E).

Using research-based curriculum should result in improved student achievement.

However, despite the use of CSCOPE, student achievement does not always improve.

Change initiatives are generally not well received by school organizations as documented

by Elliott, Kratochwill, and Roach (2003). They found that "[r]esistance to change is a

typical response among stakeholders in any organization" (p. 322). Research on

organizational behavior suggests educators who interpret the high-stakes accountability

systems as a threat may gravitate toward "rigidity of action rather than an expansion of

strategies and adaptation" (O'Day, 2002, p. 313).


9

Researchers at the Southeastern Educational Developmental Laboratories

(SEDL) have identified problems typically encountered by school organizations as they

adopt new curricular and instructional innovations associated with change processes

(Elliott, Kratochwill, and Roach, 2003). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

provides an analysis tool to measure how individuals within an organization feel about

the innovation or change process. The CBAM was developed at the University of Texas

at Austin within the Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education

(Faircloth, Smith, and Hall, 2001). Stages of Concern (SoCQ) measures seven levels or

stages of concern for individuals within an organization as they encounter change

initiatives, or innovations. Primary among the organizational roadblocks encountered by

any school organization is the emotional response to the innovation on the part of faculty

members. The CBAM model is the most prolific model found in the literature

surrounding organizational change and it has been used in hundreds of studies since

1977.

Statement of the Problem

CSCOPE is an educational innovation being implemented to varying degrees

across the state of Texas. This study identified the difference in teachers’ stages of

concern during the 1st and 2

nd year of CSCOPE implementation. This study also

examined other aspects of influence associated with the degree to which the innovation is

required to be implemented as well as the possible relationship between teachers’ stages

of concern relative to CSCOPE and their level of experience.


10

Even though many reform initiatives are research-based and founded upon

scientifically sound pedagogical practices, educational bureaucracy fails to acknowledge

varying contexts that are inherently unique within our greatly varied institutions. Cheung

(2002) found

There are numerous factors that negatively impact educational innovation

however, chief among those reasons is the change facilitators lack of attention to

teachers' concerns in relation to the innovation are not considered as an integral

elements in the change process. (p. 1)

The distinctive context of every campus on which innovations are implemented

demands unique solutions and adaptations of the programs being instituted, or perhaps an

entirely different strategy needs to be used. Sergiovanni (2001) states, "[i]mplementation

decisions lead to the creation of policies in use. Good implementing decisions are able to

respond to local contexts and needs by resembling the handed down mandates while

being different" (p. 33).

Significance of the Study

The CSCOPE curriculum has been widely adopted by school districts across

Texas and is currently in use by 810 districts and 4,631 campuses in Texas (J. Thomas,

personal communication, January 3, 2012). The results of this study are relevant and

significant to the majority of educators across the state of Texas. CSCOPE is a unique

curriculum, which requires teachers to implement not only curricular change, but also

prescribes how teachers will instruct a given skill (when Exemplar Lessons are mandated)

and this unique feature has not been previously studied.



11

Theoretical Framework

This study is based upon Systems Theory as it relates to the interdependent nature

of subsystems. The top-down change initiative, which is clearly associated with school

reform, does not routinely consider the effect such mandates have upon subsystems

within an organization. Beach and Lindahl (2004) found that “[t]his conceptual

background helps the leadership team to envision the school as embedded within the

overall district and environment and to understand how various sub-systems of the school

affect and are affected by the organizational improvement effort” (p. 8-9).

Also connected to this body of research is Management Theory, which is

inexorably intertwined with Systems Theory and organizational change as it relates to

school reform. As quantitative, data-driven leadership is increasingly in use due to high-

stakes testing, Taylorism looms as the management theory of choice for schools. As

Batagiannis notes in her research concerning NCLB, "The demand for instantaneous

perfection and the focus on simplistic, technical solutions also reflect the scientific

management theory and Taylorism of the early 1900s" (Batagiannis, 2007, p. 1).

Concerns Theory is a critical piece in this study as well. Concerns Theory as it

relates to school change is pertinent to all change initiatives because faculty levels of

concern often dictate resistance to change initiatives being undertaken.

There is an array of feelings, perceptions, worries, preoccupations, and moments

of satisfaction for those engaged with implementing new approaches. This

personal side of change is important to understand because failing to address

concerns can lead to resistance and even rejection of the new way. (Hall, Hord,



12

Aguilera, Zepeda, and Frank, 2011, p. 1)

Purpose of the Study

School leaders must be cognizant of the impact program implementation and

innovations leading to change have upon their faculty, since program success depends

upon faculty response to the innovation, “[t]he transformational leadership model brings

attention to the leader's role in raising followers' understanding of, and commitment to,

specific organizational goals or values, even beyond their own idiographic needs” (Beach

and Lindahl, 2004, p. 1). Change initiatives are generally not well received by school

organizations (Elliott, Kratochwill, and Roach, 2003, p. 322). Research on organizational

behavior suggests educators who interpret the high-stakes accountability systems as a

threat may gravitate toward "rigidity of action rather than an expansion of strategies and

adaptation" (O'Day, 2002, p. 313).

The purpose of this study is to add to the knowledge base of educational leaders

as it relates to mandatory educational innovations and the influence of faculty concern on

the success of the innovation. This study focuses upon the CSCOPE curriculum and the

elemental level to which district and campus leaders choose to implement the curriculum

and the subsequent stages of concern, or attitudes, demonstrated by the faculty affected

by such change.

Research Question

The study was guided by the following research question:

Can researchers predict the Stages of Concern outcome (stages 0-6) for

teachers using the CSCOPE curriculum based on the following predictors?


13

- Year of implementation (first, or second)

- Required Exemplar Lessons (yes or no)

- Years of experience teaching

- AEIS Rating of Academically Unacceptable

- AYP Rating of Missed AYP

- Content Area (Math, or other content area)

Delimitations of the Study

Parameters for this study include six West-Texas public elementary schools.

Three of which have fully mandated the implementation of CSCOPE to include all

CSCOPE elements including the Exemplar Lessons. The remaining three campuses have

implemented the CSCOPE curriculum without requiring Exemplar Lessons. Using the

Stages of Concern survey contained within the Concerns-based Adoption Model

developed by the University of Texas, faculty members will identify the effect that the

change initiative has evoked relative to their emotional response using an eight point

Likert scale. Data analysis will be conducted and will include the following variables:

years of experience, year of implementation, AEIS rating, AYP rating, level of

implementation of CSCOPE, and the content area of the teacher.

Limitations of the Study

This study is will focus only upon the Stages of Concern model for measuring the

affective response of the teachers utilizing the CSCOPE curricular change initiative in six

West Texas elementary schools. The researcher is aware that many variables outside the

implementation of this curriculum are not considered in the study. The researcher also


14

acknowledges the varied level of administrative support and training made available to

the various schools being studied.

Assumptions

1. It is assumed during this study that participants will answer the survey openly

and honestly.

2. It is assumed during this study that the sample population will accurately

reflect the experiences and attitudes of the population from which it has been

selected.


15

Definition of Terms

Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a scientific research model used to measure

and inform the organizational leadership of the degree to which an organizational

innovation has been accepted and implemented.

CSCOPE is a comprehensive web-based curriculum management system, which is

vertically and horizontally aligned across grade levels as described by the Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills.

Exemplar Lessons are the individual learning objective content to be taught on a day-by-

day basis. It includes high-yield, research-based instructional strategies and activities

along with suggested materials for each lesson.

Instructional Focus Documents (IFD) is a document that provides teachers with common

misconceptions associated with given TEKS, the academic vocabulary associated with a

unit of instruction, and the level of cognition to which the content must be covered.

Stages of Concern (SoC) is the continuum of personal attitudinal responses to a given

innovation within an organization.

Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) is the 35-question survey developed by the

Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at

Austin. It has been in use since 1974 and is a well documented scientific instrument

found in the majority of literature surrounding educational change and innovation.


16

Vertical Alignment Documents (VAD) demonstrates the vertical alignment associated

with the acquisition of essential learning objectives by content area and grade level. It is

graphically organized so that side-by-side comparisons between grade level TEKS are

easily observable.

Year at a Glance (YAG) is a graphical representation of the timeline for teaching the

stated curriculum.

Overview of the Study

The organization of this study is divided into five chapters. The first chapter

introduces the study and identifies the problem statements as well as delineating the

context in which the study will take place. The significance of the study is identified and

the theoretical framework associated with the topic is described. Definitions of key

terminology are provided and limitations and delimitations are acknowledged within

Chapter I.

Chapter II provides a review of the current literature surrounding the topic of

organizational change. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model is a focus within the

Stages of Concern survey instrument. Educational and curricular reform efforts are

explored and framed within the context of teachers’ response to change initiatives.

Lastly, four elements of the CSCOPE curriculum are discussed and the CSCOPE

implementation model is described.

Chapter III, Methodology, describes the research methods used to conduct this

work. The researcher used a web-based proprietary survey instrument to assess reaction


17

to the implementation of the CSCOPE at six different Texas elementary schools.

Researchers downloaded the tab delineated results file into SPSS to analyze the results.

Descriptive statistics and regression analysis was completed on the data.

Chapter IV, Results, describes the data outcomes of the survey. Researchers used

both descriptive and correlation/regression data analysis to analyze the results. Results

are presented in tabular and paragraph form.

Within Chapter V, Conclusions, researchers discuss the results of this research.

The research variables are discussed and generalizations concerning the research

questions are enumerated. Recommendations for further study related to the results are

proposed.


18

Chapter II

Review of Literature

This review of literature was framed within the context of organizational/school

management as it relates to educational innovations in the form of a particular curricular

and instructional innovation (CSCOPE). Systems Theory also impacted the study as it

relates power structures present within school organizations and the interdependent

nature of schools as systems. The role of campus principals as organizational change

facilitators was explored in this literature review through the lens of Systems Theory,

Management Theory, and Concern Theory relative to innovation within school

organizations. The literature review also explored the history of school reform efforts,

issues surrounding implementation strategies used by administrators to include the

concerns of teachers during innovation implementation, and current theoretical

perspectives associated with the CSCOPE curricular mandate being used in a majority of

Texas schools.

Systems Theory

Successful organizations are organic; they are able to metamorphose and recreate

themselves to suit the needs of their constituency and produce a final output consistent

with their goals, "[t]he phrase ‘continuous change’ is used to group together

organizational changes that tend to be ongoing, evolving, and cumulative" (Weick and

Quinn, 1999, p. 375). Schools, being organizations, must contend with change

initiatives. However, change initiatives within organizations, be they schools or not, are

many times fruitless and do not yield the desired outcome. One may cite enumerable


19

reasons for failed change initiatives, but the current body of literature generally supports

the notion that management teams are not cognizant of the fact that change initiatives are

influenced by a vast array of variables. Hedge and Pulakos (2002) cite “the vested

interests of organizational members, fear of uncertainty, misunderstandings, social

disruption, inconvenience, organizational incompatibility, lack of top-level support and

commitment, and rejection of outsiders” (p. 3) as reasons for resistance to change.

Traditional management theories associated with efficiency in organizations are

imbedded in Systems Thinking. Doherty and Horne (2002) define human users as parts of

a system, "[i]n systems thinking, human activity systems are assumed to be part of a

universal hierarchy of wider systems and subsystems" (p. 34). This is closely associated

with the work of Frederick Taylor who developed his Scientific Management Theory in

the early 1900’s in order to maximize productivity and efficiency, "Taylorism is the

belief that both the preordained natural order and the maximization of profits dictate that

the fittest should manage as benevolent dictators and that the rest should work" (Gray,

1993, p. 21).

Throughout the 20th

century, Taylorism was the de facto management practice in

most organizations. Waring (1991) summarized his historical documentation saying,

Although managers repudiated parts of Taylor's prescriptions, his fundamental

premises met their philosophical and technical needs and by mid-century had

come to dominate managerial theory and practice. Even in the second half of the

century, moreover, many in the management community have continued to

believe that successful management and Taylor's scientific management were one


20

and the same. (p. 9)

Schools like other large organizations assimilated themselves within the context of

Taylor’s framework. Indeed, archaic management practices continue to work against the

effectiveness of principals as they persist in top-down management styles. Which is

documented by previous research:

Clearly, educational leadership is challenging in today's volatile climate of policy

makers' endless blame and constant attacks on public education, including the

hidden dimension of a seeming determination to substitute technical management

for thoughtful leadership. (Bracey, 2002; Giroux, 2009a, 2009b; Goodlad, 2007)

(Batagiannis, 2011 p. 1304-1305)

Educational theorist John Dewey recognized the need for clearly defined direction

for subordinates, in the early 20th

century. In his opinion schools were not staffed with

teachers who had a great insight into methodology. He saw a dictatorial management

style as necessary, "‘Methods’ have then to be authoritatively recommended to teachers,

instead of being an expression of their own intelligent observations" (Dewey, 1921, p.

251).

Douglas McGregor, a professor at MIT, engineered a new vision for

organizational management based upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs.

McGregor developed Theory X/Y in 1960. Theory Y postulates that humans are not lazy,

are capable of self-direction, and have much to offer relative to problem-solving within

the context of any organization. This theory was in direct contrast to the existing

Tayloristic management style, which was the standard in organizational structures in both



21

the public and private sector throughout much of the 20th

century. Some organizations

began migrating into the McGregor postulates; however, school organizations have been

slow to adopt the Theory Y management philosophy:

The first wave of restructuring efforts to increase the quality and effectiveness of

the educational enterprise was comprised of public policy mandates and

inducements. This wave was characterized by adherence to the Industrial Age

model of management (Taylor, 1947). It was authoritarian, teacher centered,

competitive, stressed uniform minimum standards, accountability and was single

pathed and linear (Sergiovanni, 1993). (Enderlin-Lampe, 2002, p. 139)

School organizations have struggled to overcome the dynamics of Taylorism

despite the directives given in law to involve stakeholders in site-based management

activities. “This process must involve professional staff of the district, parents and

community members in establishing and reviewing the district’s and campuses’

educational plans, goals, performance objectives and major classroom instructional

programs” (Texas Education Code, 2011, para. b).

School Reform

The first efforts at curricular and instructional reform began in earnest with the

passage of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. Stringfield alludes to

its historical importance stating:

It has provided our nation with our most accurate, most historically deep data set

on, among other issues, the depth of disadvantage that many of our students have

suffered. It has also provided some of our most stable data for hope about equity


22

in our long-term future (Stringfield, 2007, p. 308).

Multiple studies advanced from the National Assessment of Educational Progress

measures have demonstrated a lack of improved achievement on the part of African

American students. Baltimore is cited in multiple studies as a community that introduced

curricular and instructional change efforts to no avail:

A series of reports from both White business groups and Black community

leaders between the late 1980s and mid-1990s-each calling for the combination of

increased funding, multiple reforms, and increased accountability-failed to bring

significant change to the system on any of these dimensions (Bowler, 1997;

Cibulka, 2003a, 2003b; Orr, 1999). (Stringfield and Yakimowski-Srebnick, 2005,

p. 47)

Curricular reform was again the focus in 1983 when the federal report entitled A

Nation at Risk was published. The report found that our schools were (at best) inefficient

mechanisms for delivering quality curriculum to students. The following excerpt is taken

from the report and reflects the research team’s concern with adequate preparation for

students in the core content areas:

We recommend that state and local high school graduation requirements be

strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to

lay the foundations in the Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum

during their 4 years of high school: (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years of

mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e) one-half

year of computer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language in


23

high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier. (National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, Recommendation A)

States and local education agencies across the nation reacted by legislating and

mandating strict adherence to curriculum standards. Within the parameters of high-

stakes, accountability-based assessment, administrators face a daunting challenge to

increase achievement levels of the measureable sub-populations identified by state and

federal education entities. African American students, Hispanic students, Limited

English Proficiency students, special education students, and economically disadvantaged

students are all measured independently within our accountability system (Academic

Excellence Indicator System Reports, 2012).

Many of the curricular mandates exist due to a disparity in achievement between

the afore-mentioned sub-populations and their Caucasian counterparts. Good (2003),

found that a significant gap was still apparent between Black and White students and that

the gap increased in 2002 (The College Board, 2002), and Black students still obtain

lower scores on standardized tests of reading, math, and science (Jencks and Phillips,

1998). Again, Stringfield (2007) stated:

The longitudinal NAEP has provided very clear data that the racial achievement

gap between Blacks (and, in other analyses, Hispanics) and Whites has been

reduced by nearly half since the early 1970s … These narrowing gaps have been

true at all three NAEP ages (9, 13, and 17) and in both Reading and Mathematics.

(p. 308)

Since The National Commission on Educational Excellence produced the report,



24

A Nation at Risk (1983), educational leaders across the nation have been called upon to

improve instructional practices and increase the rigor of curriculum standards. However,

the task was not left to individual districts or campuses and the end result was an endless

series of top-down initiatives designed to meet the demand for increased student

achievement. Hunt, 2008, commented, "Many of these excellence initiatives came from

state legislatures and state departments of education. The movement was clearly

perceived to be top-down" (p. 580).

Efforts relative to mandated school reform subsequent to the A Nation at Risk

report have increased accountability measure even further. Federal and state

governments flood school campuses across the nation with new curricular initiatives.

Addressing the achievement gaps for varying sub-populations was again the focus for

legislators with the passage of No Child Left Behind Act:

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 mandated that teachers of core

subjects be highly qualified, provided federal money to educate low achieving

students, and required that programs using federal money be based on scientific

research. (Hodge and Krumm, 2009, p. 20)

Implementation on the part of teachers and campus leaders is mandatory as

educators are assimilated into an expanding bureaucracy. Autonomy in decision-making

at the district and campus level is compromised due to the increasing numbers of

mandates associated with federal legislation. As stated by Bloomfield and Cooper

(2003), “[t]he trend toward the macro-authority of state and federal mandates, and away

from the relatively micro-authority of local governance, has moved much decision-



25

making to the state level under strict federal guidelines that demand institutional

solutions” (p. 6).

Indeed, the need for curricular reform leading to improved student achievement

targets closing the achievement gap relative to sub-population achievement. In Texas

and around the nation, the increased rigor associated with curricular reform appears to

widen the achievement gap between white students and varying sub-populations.

In the "Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education," Haney contends that Texas'

method of accounting for dropouts does not accurately reflect the number of students

who leave the system after failing to pass the graduation test. According to Haney's

analysis, only some 70% of African-American and Hispanic students persist from grade

six through graduation (Patterson, 2000). However, opposing studies suggest that

progress in closing the achievement gap has been made, “[a]fter just one year of

heterogeneous grouping, the passing rate for African American and Hispanic students

increased from 48% to 77%, while the passing rate for white and Asian American

students increased from 85% to 94%” (Burris and Welner, 2005, p. 597).

In January of 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind

Act into law. The legislation was designed to combat the achievement gap between

white students and their sub-population counterparts. While the objectives of NCLB

were ultimately designed to meet the goal of increasing student achievement and closing

achievement gaps between groups of students, as with many previous federal education

initiatives, NCLB has been met with varying levels of support due to the directive nature

of the legislation (White, Loker, March, and Sockslager, 2009).



26

The design of NCLB is unequivocally seen as a mandate to cause achievement

reform via curricular change. However, some studies demonstrate the net result of

NCLB has been detrimental to student achievement, "in fact, the slope of this

encouraging decrease became less steep from 2003 to 2005. This would indicate that

NCLB slowed down the rate at which the gap was closing" (White, Loker, March, and

Sockslager, 2009, p. 1).

Robert Marzano has demonstrated through research that the establishment of a

guaranteed and viable curriculum is of preeminent importance, "[t]he first school-level

factor is a guaranteed and viable curriculum. I rank this as the first factor, having the

most impact on student achievement" (Marzano, 2003, p. 22). Another program,

“Response to Intervention, or RtI” was designed to reduce the number of misidentified

students funneled into special education classes. Each of these changes are heralded to

be the answer for our educational woes, and consequently many of the ideas find support

in legislative bureaucracies and ultimately become mandates which, if implemented,

should lead to systemic school reform. Many questions remain regarding the state of

education in the United States and our failure to achieve substantial reform of our K-12

learning institutions.

Even though many reform initiatives are research-based and founded upon

scientifically sound pedagogical practices, our educational bureaucracy fails to

acknowledge varying contexts that are inherently unique within our greatly varied

institutions. The distinctive context of every campus on which these programs are

implemented demands unique solutions and adaptations of the programs being instituted,



27

or perhaps an entirely different strategy needs to be used, "[i]mplementation decisions

lead to the creation of policies in use. Good implementing decisions are able to respond

to local contexts and needs by resembling the handed down mandates while being

different" (Sergiovanni, 2001, p. 11).

Principals need to have the autonomy to create solutions, or alter mandated

programs based on the individual campus needs.

That is, the state and local authorities have a responsibility to articulate clearly the

goals and priorities of the schools and what they will accept as evidence of

progress toward those goals. Beyond that, each school unit should be given as

much discretion as is possible regarding how the available resources will be

deployed to achieve those intended outcomes. (Lezotte, 1993, p. 37)

Increasingly, the role of campus level administrator is becoming that of

messenger rather than innovator. Receiving mandates and dictates from superiors within

school district hierarchies leaves principals powerless to improve instruction based on

individual campus contexts. The non-negotiables associated with campus reform

initiatives prescribe timelines and strategies that demand strict implementation of these

one size fits all programs. Bracey (2008) studied the impact upon teacher efficacy, "[t]he

changes in teachers' lives can be summarized as more and faster, with less autonomy" (p.

781).

Principals across the nation dutifully carry out their tasks as assigned by

superintendents; they deliver program mandates to overwhelmed and underpaid teachers

all the while falling victim to bounded awareness (the failure to take into account




28

pertinent or pivotal information when making a decision), “…using evidence about

focalism to illustrate how people over focus on some information and fail to use other

easily available information” (Chugh and Bazerman, 2007, p. 4). Principals buy into the

program without full knowledge of best practices relative to change innovation.

Consequently, our nation’s school systems find themselves failing to produce the reform

our students so desperately need.

CSCOPE Curriculum Development

Amid the increasing demands of federal and state accountability standards, a new

curriculum has been developed in Texas know as CSCOPE. This curriculum differs from

all previous curricular change efforts because it provides not only what is to be taught

and when it is to be taught, but also how curriculum is to be taught. This curricular

migration to tighter control may contain the missing element, which all other curricular

models failed to consider, fidelity, “…schools should implement a systematic procedure

to insure that assessments are aligned with curriculum (their IEPs) and instruction. Such

alignment should be designed to insure that assessments not only support accountability,

but also they should specifically support learning” (Thornton, Hill, and Usinger, 2006, p.

115). Although CSCOPE is a relatively new curriculum, evidence is materializing that

supports a narrowing of the achievement gap in some schools using the product.

CSCOPE is a comprehensive web-based curriculum management system that

includes components for establishing a vertically and horizontally aligned curriculum and

standards for instruction based upon Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Over 30

grounded theories inform the CSCOPE curriculum with regard to best practices for


29

curriculum and instruction. The four core elements of the curriculum do need to be

explained as they will be referred to throughout this study. System components of

CSCOPE include the following:

Vertical Alignment Documents (VAD) - The (VAD) graphically organizes the

TEKS in a side-by-side format from one grade to the next so that teachers can see the

relationship of the curriculum they are teaching to subsequent and previous grade levels.

The research and grounded theory to support the (VAD) is largely derived from the meta-

analysis of school reform literature compiled by Marzano in which researchers gathered

data on 69 studies between 1978 and 2001 (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005). In

particular, the guaranteed and viable curriculum is the premise on which the entire

CSCOPE product is based. Viability addresses to the concept that enough time must be

provided instructional personnel to teach a given curriculum. They found that, "[v]iability

refers to whether the stated curriculum can be adequately taught in the instructional time

available to teachers" (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005, p. 14). The guaranteed

nature of the curriculum is viewed as the requirement that all teachers cover the essential

portions of the curriculum, "this means that a school imposes the constraint that

classroom teachers must address specific content in specific courses at specific grade

levels" (Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005, p. 15).

Year at a Glance (YAG) - The YAG organizes the scope of when each element of

the curriculum will be taught so that all tested portions of the curriculum will be covered

prior to the yearly testing date. Built into this system are approximately five flex days for

each six week period to allow for reteaching, or curricular interruptions that invariably


30

take place in the course of day-to-day school operations. This portion of the CSCOPE

product is based largely upon the research of Jacobs (2004) who analyzed the number of

standards to be taught in various states and school districts. She found that the standards

could not be taught independently due to the fact that so many standards existed, "[i]n the

7th and 8th grades alone, more than 1,000 standards existed in the core subject areas”

(Truesdale, Thompson, and Lucas, 2004, p. 13).

Chunking the standards together in order to connect the curriculum by linking the

standards conceptually is a necessity. Vertical and horizontal elements of the curriculum

must be considered when building and effective map, "[t]he lack of horizontal

consistency across schools and vertical continuity within schools created a major barrier

to quality" (Jacobs, 2004, p. 1). When using the CSCOPE (VAD), teachers can easily

make the conceptual connections between grade level standards as it is graphically

represented.

Instructional Focus Documents (IFD) - The IFD explains the level of rigor, or

Bloom’s level to which each part of the curriculum must be taught. The level of rigor is

informed by Marzano (2003), Wiggin and McTighe (2005), and Erickson (2001).

This document also details the required vocabulary associated with each

curricular unit. Marzano’s 2003 research on the acquisition of the appropriate academic

vocabulary forms the basis for the IFD. The structures for ensuring vocabulary

acquisition are presented in the IFD, "[a]s Stahl (1999) notes, ‘the goal of vocabulary

learning is to have students store the meanings of the words in their long-term memory’”

(Marzano, 2004, p. 6).


31

The IFD also provides teachers with a list of common misconceptions associated

with the curricular unit. The research behind this particular element in the CSCOPE

curriculum is based upon the research of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, which applies

the principle of reverse engineering to educational theory, "[t]he process of backward

design is a deliberate approach to help designers avoid these all-too-common mistakes”

(Wiggins and McTighe, 2005, p. 1). The common mistake to which Wiggin and

McTighe (2005) refer is random instruction that does not consider the performance

measure that students must meet.

Exemplar Lessons (EL) – The ELs are a practical application of the daily lesson as

described within each of the previous documents. Much of the EL is based upon the

learning theory of Lev Vygotsky and his postulates concerning social language and

cognition, “[t]he concept of cognition as a phenomenon that extends beyond the

individual, that arises in shared activity, owes a clear debt to the original Vygotskian

understanding that the interpersonal precedes the intrapersonal” (Daniels, 2001, p. 1).

Most of the EL’s include cooperative learning strategies through which students

articulate to one another concerning the learning objective. The acknowledgement that

learning is active, and linguistic discourse is a relevant and necessary for learning, is a

motif seen throughout the CSCOPE literature.

Constructivism is a central tenet of CSCOPE. The EL considers the assimilation

of new knowledge as a process related to long-term memory. “The effectiveness of this

approach to teaching, known as constructivism, has been extensively documented

(Carpenter, Zenger, Tolhurst, Day, Barron and Dozier, 1999; Chang and Barufaldi, 1999;


32

Chang, Hua and Barufaldi, 1999)” (Clark and James, 2004,p. 1). Of note, is the fact that

EL’s are based upon the 5-E model of instruction and each lesson provides guiding

questions that ensure that the appropriate level of rigor is addressed during the lesson

presentation (See Appendix A).

CSCOPE is typically sold to districts by a visiting team from the Region

Education Service Center. The team brings with it manipulatives to describe the issues

that have prevented previous programs and curriculum initiatives from being successful.

Also discussed is the lack of teacher adherence to the Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills. The presentation centers around the required curriculum (TEKS), the

implemented curriculum (TEKS), and the curriculum that is taught, but not required by

state standards. The team presents to a group of district leadership personnel, which

generally does not include teachers.

The first element discussed is the VAD. The VAD is explained in detail and a

question is then posed to the district leadership team. “Do you need a vertically and

horizontally aligned curriculum?” The district leadership team replies in the affirmative

and so the CSCOPE sales team then affirms the decision by confirming that the VAD

will be a non-negotiable for teachers to follow. The Region Service Center sales team

then asks the same question concerning the YAG, “Is covering the required curriculum a

non-negotiable for this district?” The district affirms they are agreeable to the non-

negotiable standard. The same process takes place with the IFD, however, when the EL

is presented, the team suggests that the district not establish a non-negotiable status for

the EL. The team states that it allows for a degree of teacher autonomy to exist so that



33

the curriculum is not a complete mandate. The suggestion is that this degree of teacher

autonomy allows teachers to more readily accept the change innovation of the CSCOPE

curriculum.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model and Stages of Concern

In 1974 a team from the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education

proposed the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The theoretical underpinnings

of which are directly related to systems thinking, scientific management theory, and

organizational change initiatives, “[t]he CBAM begins with viewing the adopting

institution as a USER system composed of individuals each of whom has his own

concerns, problems, skills, agendas, and needs” (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, Newlove,

1975, p. 65).

Although the model contains three distinct diagnostic tools, the overarching

purpose of CBAM is to measure and inform the organizational leadership of the degree to

which an innovation has been accepted and implemented. First, CBAM measures the

attitudinal response of the individuals involved in the organizational change. Second,

CBAM measures the corresponding level of implementation concerning the innovation.

Third, CBAM informs the leadership within the organization of the needed configuration

of the innovation (Hall, Hord, Aguilera, Zepeda, and Frank, 2011).

Stages of Concern (SoC) are associated with the initial, individual response to the

organizational innovations. "Recently van den Berg and Ros (1999) conceptualized

concern as `the questions, uncertainties, and possible resistance that teachers may have in

response to new situations and/or changing demands'" (Cheung, 2002, p. 306). Each



34

person will have a unique perspective relative to the innovation however; response to

change is predictable and can be viewed as a process:

There is an array of feelings, perceptions, worries, preoccupations, and moments

of satisfaction for those engaged with implementing new approaches. This

personal side of change is important to understand because failing to address

concerns can lead to resistance and even rejection of the new way. (Hall, Hord,

Aguilera, Zepeda, and Frank, 2011, p. 1)

Pigge and Marso (1990) found that the pattern of teacher concern was systemic

and predictable, "[i]n related cross-sectional studies, teaching task concerns have been

found to increase, self concerns have been found to decrease, and impact concerns have

been found to remain high" (Pigge and Marso, 1990, p. 287). The SoC model for

measuring teacher concern is consistent with the theoretical framework of both, systems

thinking as it relates to scientific management theory and organizational change as it

relates to school reform innovations.

Within the SoC there are seven progressive stages into which individuals affected

by the innovation may fall: Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management,

Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing. Figure 2.1 below, illustrates the Stages of

Concern using concentric circles, which illuminates the egocentric nature of the response

at the outset and the gradual broadening of perspective of those affected by the

innovation. Cheung (2002) stated that, “The seven SoC can be categorized into three

groups: self-concerns (Stages 1-3); task concerns about the innovation (Stage 4); and

impact concerns regarding students (Stages 5-7)" (p. 1).


35

Figure 2.1. Stages of Concern Model. Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a Stage Model for

Studying Teacher Concerns about Educational Innovations. Australian Journal of

Education, 46(3), 305-322. Retrieved from


The first three SoC stages center upon the self of the teacher (Stages 0-3). The

SoC Awareness stage is characterized by little concern relative to the innovation

implementation and the apathetic nature of this response dictates that self is the primary

focus. The SoC Informational stage demonstrates an interest in learning more about the

innovation and they prepare to investigate without implementation. The SoC Personal

Refocusing

Collaboration

Consequence

Management

Personal

Informational

Awareness


36

stage exhibits the egocentric mindset as the teacher queries how the innovation will

benefit them personally.

The fourth stage of the SoC is Management as the teacher begins to use the

innovation, but struggles to grasp how to manage the resources and tasks associated with

the innovation. Although, this stage is of great importance to the individual teacher, it is

obvious that the individual has moved to a less egocentric position relative to the

innovation and they are engaging in implementation. It is important to note that each of

the stages will require that the change facilitator respond to the individual based upon

their stage of concern.

The final three Stages of Concern are centered around effective implementation of

the innovation. Stage five of the SoC is Consequence the concern of the teacher is based

upon how the innovation is impacting students. The sixth stage of the SoC is

Collaboration and it centers upon the concern of peer teachers and how they are

implementing the innovation. The seventh stage of the SoC is Refocusing and at this

point the teacher is concerned about how to use the innovation for increased student

benefit (Cheung, 2002).

Issues Surrounding Implementation Curricular Innovations

K-12 educational leaders continue to struggle in their attempts to reform

instruction on campuses across the United States. The dynamics affecting their struggles

are as numerous, varied, and as unique as the number of contexts in which these

administrators find themselves. The biggest issue for most administrators is the problem


37

of successfully implementing top-down mandates and curricular innovation handed down

by the hierarchies within the state and federal government. Current research clearly

demonstrates that top-down mandates negatively affect teacher morale and in fact may

ultimately lower student achievement due to the disenfranchisement of teachers,

"[c]oercion breeds hostility and defiance. If the coercer is strong enough, we will give as

much compliance as necessary to avoid harm, but we will not commit ourselves to the

goal of the coercion" (Kelly, 1999, p. 543). Teachers across our nation grudgingly turn in

paperwork in mock compliance with state mandates; however, administrators continue to

struggle with authentic implementation of programs and policies.

The simple repetition of reform initiatives, Elementary and Secondary Education

Act, 1965; A Nation at Risk,1983; No Child Left Behind, 2002, intended to close the

achievement gap demonstrates that change initiatives have not met their intention. By

studying Figure 2.1 one may conclude that in the majority of school districts, district

administrators implement change innovations with intent of fidelity, but district and

campus leaders have the smallest sphere of influence related to the outcome. The

literature is clear concerning the successful facilitation of innovations in schools. The

principal must cultivate relationships and construct a shared vision for what is possible.

Will the teachers respond to the change innovation in such a way as to impact student

performance? At the highest levels of authority, legislators and district level

administrator must carefully weigh the effectiveness of top-down mandates.



38

Theoretical Explanation

System Thinking dictates a theoretical and literal interdependence related to the

interaction of leadership and the subordinate structures that exist within the school

district. The innovation of curriculum is profoundly influenced by levels of

implementation at the principal-level and teacher- level of the school organization. The

application of Systems Theory and organizational change principles to schools has been

explored with increasing frequency in the literature in recent years, and what we know

about essential elements in effective change efforts has grown as well (Fullan, 2001;

Senge, 1990). The illustration below (Figure 2.2) demonstrates a simplified perspective

the interdependence of the organizational system and subsystems associated with

curriculum interventions such as CSCOPE . The size of the cogs is proportional with the

direct influence upon students, which predicates the success or failure of reform

implementation. However, it should be noted that the traditional power structure within

the organization is inversely proportional to the size of each cog. District administrators

wield the most power, the principal is under their authority and the teachers in turn are

subject to principal authority under the traditional model of a district hierarchy. The

hegemonic structure then suggests that the most power relative to decision-making

resides within the smallest cog.


39

Figure 2.2. Organization systems interdependence.

Curricular mandates are top-down directives, which are closely associated with

the management theory known as Theory X. Theory X states that management personnel

must assume that workers are lazy and they will avoid work if possible. Taylorism

acknowledges Theory X and prescribes activities, which lead to maximum worker output.

Among those activities are the hegemonic practices associated with monitoring the work

of subordinates. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) identified Theory X associated

behaviors as beneficial:

Specific behaviors and characteristics associated with this responsibility

and identified in our meta-analysis are the following:

- Continually monitoring the effectiveness of the school's curricular,

instructional, and assessment practices

- Being continually aware of the impact of the school's practices on

student achievement. (p. 56)

However, this position contradicts the contemporary literature regarding teacher behavior

Teacher-level

Principal- Level

District- Level



40

associated with the implementation of change initiatives, “[i]n the panoply of rewards

and sanctions that attach to accountability systems, the most powerful incentives reside in

the face-to-face relationships among people in the organization, not in external systems”

(Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005, p. 59). How teachers feel about impending

change must be a consideration. Sunbul (2003) found in his study on self-efficacy:

People's work-related satisfaction consists of achieving change and improvement,

and promoting their growth, which have important implications on teachers'

behaviors at work and affect their desire to continue their work and their

involvement in the job, and relationship with other staff. (p. 1)

There are moral and ethical implications to consider on the part of campus leaders

when the hierarchy demands adhesion to programs. Yet, in the face of all the detractors

that indicate reform would be impossible, some administrators have been successfully

initiating change. The decision-making of these administrators somehow elicits a

positive response to the implementation of programs and innovations. The decision-

making practice of successful administrators with regard to implementation of the

standardized mandates incites compliance and authentic engagement on the part of their

instructional faculty. "A more moral and rational strategy for school improvement would

be to use a theory that fits human nature better in the first place" (Sergiovanni, 2001, p.

15). The emotion and passion associated with teaching survive in tandem with data-

driven rationality dictating a positive impact on teacher motivation, "mood has an

important influence on the degree of cognitive flexibility the leader is able to exercise

during problem solving" (Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach, 1999, p. 107).






41

Concerns Theory was first postulated in 1969 as Frances Fuller studied the concerns of

pre-service teachers concerning their preparation to enter the field of education. The

study discovered that student teachers appeared to be more concerned with themselves

during their first few weeks of student teaching as compared with the more concern for

students and pedagogy as they gained more experience. A second study confirmed the

results from the initial study. Fuller then conducted a meta-analysis of research focused

upon teacher concerns spanning three decades. The result was a concerns theory that

demonstrated three distinct phases of concern: pre-teaching (primarily concerned with

self), early teaching (still self-oriented, but associated with management of task), and late

teaching (concern with students) (Pigge and Marso, 1990).

Resolution of the early concerns appeared to be a critical factor in teacher

education. Later, the research of Hall (1975) appended the phases of teacher concern

three basic abstractions: concerns focused on self, concerns focused on task, and concerns

focused upon impact. Subsequent studies confirmed the concern phenomenon and

substantiated the existence of a predictable pattern. "The findings derived from the

concerns scales are consistent with Fuller's stages of concerns teacher development

model established by Fuller" (Pigge and Marso, 1990, p. 287).

In subsequent studies, the stages of concern were documented in teachers during

times of organizational change, or when innovations were undertaken. It was found that

the concerns-based theory could be used to measure emotional response to innovation

and change within organizational settings:

The Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is based on concern-based theory.

CBAM is based on the theory that change is a developmental progression of

events, many of which may be predictable (Merz, 1996). According to Hord,

Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall (1987), "A central and major premise of


42

CBAM is that the single most important factor in any change process is the people

who will be most affected by the change (the user system). (Srivastava, 2007, p.

1)

Campus leaders at public schools must be mindful of the moral quandary that is

always present when making a decision “whenever there is an unequal distribution of

power between two people, the relationship becomes a moral one" (Sergiovanni, 2001, p.

36). When new initiatives (innovations) or programs are implemented on a campus, they

are often accompanied by strict guidelines for implementation. Knowledgeable leaders

employ a variety of decision-making strategies to ensure success. Successful leaders

might consider manipulation of subordinates by convincing a faculty that compliance will

be good for students while others resort to directives and coercion. Coercive practices

yield few results when new strategies are compulsory, "[t]he power of calculated

involvement pales when compared with the power of moral involvement" (Sergiovanni,

2001, p. 9). As campus administrators face the challenge of improving our schools, they

must make decisions rife with moral ramifications. Most consider the “ends”

justification for the “means” however; the process employed by school leaders must

ultimately be based upon the tenets of ethical leadership. Community theory as explained

by Sergiovanni (2001) is a practical and expedient method upon which campus leaders

may build change initiatives.

Chapter Summary

This review of literature first explores the dynamics of organizational change and

Scientific Management Theory as it relates to Systems Theory. The idea of evolving






43

organization into change-centric entities rather than static, tradition-based entities is the

focus lens for the literature surrounding innovation.

The literature review then focuses upon legislation, school reform initiatives, and

the repetition of both are cited as evidence that the initiatives have not produced the

desired changes in student achievement, "[t]he number of schools engaged in school

reform for improving student outcomes continues to grow. However, few schools seem

able to sustain efforts long enough to produce lasting change (Fullan, 2003)" (Stollar,

Poth, Curtis, and Cohen, 2006, p. 1).

Research also reveals that recently achievement gaps continue to exist among

sub-populations. In spite of repeated attempts to mandate change at the state and federal

levels, meaningful educational innovations have eluded the most well intentioned

legislation.

CSCOPE is the most recent innovation in Texas’ public schools. CSCOPE’s

research base associated with this innovation is explored in depth, “[t]he concept of

cognition as a phenomenon that extends beyond the individual, that arises in shared

activity, owes a clear debt to the original Vygotskian understanding that the interpersonal

precedes the intrapersonal” (Daniels, 2001, p. 1). Definitions within the CSCOPE

curriculum are explained and defined. The process of selling CSCOPE is illuminated and

the elements contained within the program are elaborated upon.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model is discussed and the Stages of Concern

measurement instrument is documented and explored as a valid means to assess the

attitudinal response of teachers to change and innovation. The link to systems theory and




44

management theory is apparent from the literature. The elements of the Stages of

Concern are discussed in detail and varying studies are cited as evidence of the

instrument’s validity and reliability.

The theoretical frameworks implicitly linked to this study are also addressed

within the review of literature. Systems Theory acknowledges the interdependence of

systems and subsystems relative to innovation implementation. Scientific Management

Theory is also explored to include Theory X and Theory Y behaviors associated with

effective innovation implementation by leadership personnel. Concerns Theory is also

explored as it relates to systemic change processes and its reliability and validity is

substantiated. The amalgamation of theoretical knowledge is necessary to advance the

practice of school administrators as innovation is a constant for school organizations.

Finally, the issues surrounding implementation of innovations are discussed. The

role of innovation facilitator falls upon the campus principal and once again, systems

theory emerges as the theoretical connection between the innovation facilitator and the

classroom teacher. Scientific management theory (Taylorism) is once again addressed as

a critical piece in the change facilitator’s role, however it conflicts a multitude of

research, which cites relationship cultivation as a chief predictor of innovation success.


45

Chapter III

Methodology

Introduction

CSCOPE is a recent curricular innovation, which is being used in 810 of Texas’

1265 school districts. The innovation is multi-faceted in that a district may require the

implementation of this innovation to varying levels. This curriculum innovation is

unique when implemented to the level of exemplar lessons because this element of the

curriculum dictates how a teacher will deliver instruction to students. It is vital that

school administrators understand the reaction of teachers to the CSCOPE innovation.

Hall et al. (2011) found, "How leaders address the potential arousal of impact concerns

can make all the difference in ultimate implementation success and effectiveness" (p. 1).

The research base for this study covers a timeline, which encompasses nearly 100

years and surrounds the impetus for curricular and instructional change in American

schools. Beginning with John Dewey’s seminal work, Democracy and Education (1916),

the need for curricular and instructional change is explored as it progresses through

legislative initiatives to include the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965); A

Nation at Risk (1983); and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Also explored in the

literature are the specific challenges of providing quality instructional models for low

SES students and students with high mobility rates. This is critical information as it

illuminates the rationale for the advent of CSCOPE. Additionally, the validity and

reliability of the survey instrument chosen for this study, The Stages of Concern



46

Questionnaire is substantiated through the review of scholarly writing which cites its use

as a valid and reliable instrument for study throughout the last 35 years (George, Hall,

Stiegelbauer, 2008).

This relational study is designed as a multiple linear regression analysis. Field

stated, “[m]ultiple regression is a logical extension of simple linear regression when there

are several predictors” (p. 210). Because this study proposes the use of six predictor

variables it is logical to use a multiple regression model to establish a linear relationship.

This chapter will provide a detailed description of the research methodology,

which was chosen to answer the proposed research question. First, the participants,

research question, and the predictors are enumerated. Next, the quantitative research

design is explained. Finally, a synopsis of the inference process is presented.

Population and Sample

The population being studied consists of the teachers who are currently using the

CSCOPE curriculum in 810 (65%) of the 1,265 school districts within the state of Texas.

The population selected for this study work in a variety of content areas and implements

the elements of the curriculum to varying levels. CSCOPE is currently being

implemented in both urban and rural school districts across the state.

The sample for this study was purposefully selected from six elementary

campuses in west-Texas in either the first or the second year of CSCOPE

implementation. The sample represented both rural and urban schools that are

implementing the CSCOPE curriculum to varying elemental levels. The number of


47

content area teachers on each of the sample campuses ranged from 30 to 45 teachers. The

selection of the sample population is based upon each campus meeting the following

conditions required for the study.

The first condition for a campus to participate in the study is that each campus

must be in either year one of implementation of the CSCOPE curriculum, or year two of

CSCOPE implementation. Three schools (Burnet, Sudderth, and Travis) met the

condition of Year One of Implementation, and three schools met the condition of Year

Two of Implementation (Greenwood, Kermit, and Tatom). The second condition is the

establishment of the non-negotiable standard for exemplar lessons (EL’s). Three of the

campuses will require adherence to EL’s and the remaining three campuses will be

implementing CSCOPE, but without the non-negotiable standard for implementation of

EL’s. The three schools meeting the condition of Mandated EL’s were Tatom, Travis

and Kermit elementary schools. The three schools meeting the condition of non-

mandated EL were Burnet, Greenwood, and Sudderth elementary schools. The schools

meeting the predictor variable associated with state campus academic rating of

Academically Unacceptable were Kermit Elementary and Greenwood Elementary. The

predictor variable associated with federal accountability AYP was not a consideration in

the selection of participants. The remaining conditions associated with the predictor

variable criteria being studied are enumerated in the research question and no effort was

made to ensure equal frequency distributions of Years of Service, or Content Area

Math/Other (See Appendix E).


48

Instrumentation

This survey instrument is called the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ), and

was developed by the Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,

University of Texas at Austin. The questionnaire will be used to determine if teachers

demonstrate a stage of concern, which falls into one of three progressive measures. The

first stage is awareness and simply indicates if a teacher is aware of the innovation being

studied. The second two stages, informational, and personal, describe actual levels of

concern relative to the innovation and are considered egocentric levels associated with

the SoCQ model. These two stages predict levels of resistance to the innovation

implementation. The fourth stage, which is Stage 3 of the SocQ instrument describes the

level to which the teacher is concerned with management of the innovation. This is a

critical measure where a low score can indicate a progression away from the egocentric

level of concern toward greater acceptance of the innovation. Higher scores in Stages 4-6

indicate progressively less personal resistance to the innovation as the teacher becomes

more concerned about the effect of the innovation on students.

The instrument consists of 35 statements, which are answered on a 7-point Likert

scale. Answering 0 indicates the statement is irrelevant while answering with a 7

indicates the statement is very true of me now. The questionnaire yields a quantitative

measure based upon a progression of the 7 Stages of Concern, which reflects a

progression of teacher disposition and attitude toward acceptance and implementation of

the innovation. Each of the 7 stages falls into a broad category of description which can

be seen in Figure 3.1.


49

Impac

t

Stages of Concern Expressions of Concern

Stage 6: Refocusing I have some ideas about something that

would work even better.

Stage 5: Collaboration I am concerned about relating what I am

doing with what my co-workers are doing.

Stage 4: Consequence How is my use affecting students?

Tas

k

Stage 3: Management I seem to be spending all of my time

getting materials ready.

Sel

f

Stage 2: Personal How will using it affect me?

Stage 1: Informational I would like to know more about it.

Stage 0: Awareness I am not concerned about it.

Figure 3.1. Stages of Concern for Implementation of an Innovation. Adapted from

George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring Implementation in

Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, Texas, Southwestern Educational

Development Laboratories. Copyright 2006 by the Southwestern Education

Development Laboratories.


50

Validity and reliability of the data-gathering instrument are well established via

the documentation found in the review of literature. Upon completion of the survey each

respondents’ answers are made available for the respondent to review. Also, the Primary

Investigator (Dr. Clint Carpenter) and the Co-Primary Investigator (Blake Hightower)

piloted the online survey in order to ensure that questions were formatted correctly.

Research Design

The research design of this study incorporated the use of a data gathering tool

know as the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ). The SoCQ may be found at the

Southeastern Education Developmental Laboratories (SEDL) website. Data was

collected electronically via the SoCQ from six different elementary schools in West-

Texas. The raw data was collected with the online SoCQ instrument, which was

purchased from the SEDL. The data was analyzed using a multiple linear-regression

analysis in order to determine if a linear relationship exists between the predictors (quasi-

independent variables) and the outcome (dependent variable) as demonstrated by each

stage score (0-6) on the SoCQ. The 35 items that make up the SoCQ are shown in Figure

3.2.


51

1. I am concerned about students' attitudes toward the innovation.

2. I now know of some other approaches that might work better.

3. I am more concerned about another innovation.

4. I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day.

5. I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.

6. I have a very limited knowledge of the innovation.

7. I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status.

8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my responsibilities.

9. I am concerned about revising my use of the innovation.

10. I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside faculty using this

innovation.

11 I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.

12 I am not concerned about the innovation at this time.

13 I would like to know who will make the decisions in the new system.

14 I would like to discuss the possibility of using the innovation.

15 I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt the innovation

16. I am concerned about my inability to manage all that the innovation requires.

17 I would like to know how my teaching or administration is supposed to change.

18. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress of this new approach.

19. I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.

20. I would like to revise the innovation's approach.

21. I am preoccupied with things other than the innovation.

22. I would like to modify our use of the innovation based on the experiences of our students.

23. I spend little time thinking about the innovation.

24. I would like to excite my students about their part in this approach.

25. I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems related to the innovation.

26. I would like to know what the use of the innovation will require in the immediate future.

27. I would like to coordinate my efforts with others to maximize the innovation's effects.

28. I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by the innovation.

29. I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.

30. Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my attention on the innovation.

31. I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the innovation.

32. I would like to use feedback from students to change the program.

33. I would like to know how my role will change when I am using the innovation.

34. Coordination of tasks and people is taking too much of my time.

35. I would like to know how the innovation is better than what we have now.

Figure 3.2. Stages of Concern Instrument Items. Adapted from George, A. A., Hall, G.

E., & Stiegelbauer , S. M. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Stages of

Concern Questionnaire. Austin, Texas, Southwestern Educational Development

Laboratories. Copyright 2006 by the Southwestern Education Development

Laboratories.


52

This study will analyze predictors and outcomes to determine if teachers differ

from one another via the SoCQ as it relates to the year of CSCOPE implementation (first

or second). The second predictor to be studied is the level of implementation, which is a

yes/no question. Do teachers on campuses requiring exemplar lessons demonstrate lower

levels of resistance to the CSCOPE curriculum? The third predictor investigates the

linear relationship between years of experience and resistance to the CSCOPE

curriculum. The fourth predictor is the campus’ score on the Academic Excellence

Indicator System (AEIS). Is there a linear relationship between campus rating of

academically unacceptable and teacher levels of resistance to the CSCOPE curriculum?

The fifth predictor is the campus’ Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating. Is there a

linear relationship between missing AYP and teacher levels of resistance to the CSCOPE

curriculum? The sixth predictor being investigated is also a yes/no question relative to

the content area of mathematics. Is there a linear relationship between teacher levels of

resistance and teachers implementing the CSCOPE Mathematics curriculum?

Objectives

This work was guided by the following objectives:

1) Describe the year of implementation, required exemplar lessons, years of

experience teaching, AEIS rating, AYP rating, and content area (math or

other) of elementary school teachers in Texas who are using the CSCOPE

curriculum.


53

2) Describe the Stages of Concern regarding the use of CSCOPE curriculum of

elementary public school teachers in Texas.

3) Predict the Stage of Concern regarding CSCOPE of elementary school

teachers in Texas based on year of implementation (first, or second), required

exemplar lessons (Yes or No), years of experience teaching, AEIS rating of

academically unacceptable, AYP rating of missed AYP, and content area

(math, or other content area)

Research Question

RQ1: Can researchers predict the Stages of Concern outcome (level 0-6) for teachers

using the CSCOPE curriculum based on the following predictors?


- Required Exemplar Lessons (Yes or No)





Hypotheses

The null hypothesis for this study states that there will be no linear relationship

between the predictor variables and the dependent variable (outcome) for each stage of

concern within the SOCQ based upon the CSCOPE curricular innovation. The multiple


54

linear regression equation may be understood as follows: The terms Y0 , Y1,…Y6

represent the dependent variable (each stage of concern 0-6). The subsequent term b0

represents the intercept point for each predictor variable . The line of gradient fitted to the

data, is represented by the associated X term in the equation. It is worth noting that the

mean values represented are raw data aggregates and not percentages. The equations

representing the null hypotheses are:

Y0 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y1 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y2 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y3 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y4 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y5 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y6 ≠ b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6.

Conversely, the alternative hypothesis states that a linear relationship exists

between the predictor variables and the dependent variable (outcome) for each stage of

concern within the SOCQ based upon the CSCOPE curricular innovation. The reciprocal

equations related to the alternative hypothesis are:

Y0 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y1 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y2 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y3 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y4 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6


55

Y5 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6

Y6 = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6.

Data Collection

Data was obtained through an online data collection instrument purchased from

SEDL that is available at the following website:

https://www.sedl.org/concerns/index.cgi?sc=qc5wz2

Data collection took place over a 14-day period of time, from March 22, 2012 to

April 4, 2012. Principals from participating campuses forwarded the SoCQ survey link

contained in the Superintendent and Principal Recruitment Letter (See Appendix B) to

their faculty members along with the survey instructions and the Participant Information

Letter (see Appendix C). On March 28, 2012, reminder emails were sent to building

principals concerning the survey closing date. One elementary campus did not respond

and the researcher spoke with the principal by phone. The principal explained that he had

forgotten to send the survey out and stated that he would send the survey link to teachers

immediately. Subsequent to the phone call, 17 surveys were submitted on April 4, 2012.

Data Analysis

Data was downloaded as a tab-delineated file into SPSS Version 19 for Windows.

The data was inspected for, and cleaned of, outliers and invalid responses. Descriptive

measures were completed. The data was checked for adherence to the assumptions for


56

correlational/regression research, and upon finding satisfactory results, the

correlational/regression measures were completed.

The descriptive statistics were assimilated into tables and figures in Chapter 4.

The data was inspected and determination of statistical significance in relation to the

established alpha level (α = 0.05) was made for each of the Stages of Concern within the

model. Statistical significance was first determined for each predictor variable

independently to determine linearity/predictability relative to the SoCQ. Next, the

predictor variables were analyzed in combination with one another to determine if some

of the variables produced greater significance/higher predictability relative to the SoCQ

together. Finally, in Chapter 5, inferences were made by matching the group data to the

model suggested by George, Hall, and Stieglebauer (2006) who are the authors of the

Stages of Concern instrument.


57

Chapter IV

Results

Descriptive statistics for predictor variables. Objective 1 was to describe the

year of implementation, required exemplar lessons, years of experience teaching, AEIS

rating, AYP rating, and content area (math or other) of elementary public school teachers

in Texas who are using the CSCOPE curriculum.

As shown in Table 4.1, the total number of respondents was 168. On average,

teachers in the sample had 12.0 years of teaching experience, with a median of 11.0, and

a standard deviation of 8.03 years.

The individual campus sample sizes ranged from 17 to 42 faculty responses with

most campuses being close to 30. Median and mean scores were generally close to one

another with Travis demonstrating the greatest difference (2.3) between the median and

the mean. The campus with the most tenured faculty was Greenwood with an average

mean of 16.0 years of experience, and a median of 16.0. The campus demonstrating the

lowest years of experience per teacher was Kermit, with a mean of 10.0 years and a

median of 12.0.


58

Table 4.1

Summary and Descriptive Results for Years of Teaching Experience by School

School n Min Max Mean SD Mdn

Burnet 25 1 29 14.5 8.35 15.0

Greenwood 17 3 30 16.0 7.08 16.0

Kermit 29 1 30 10.0 7.23 12.0

Sudderth 42 1 27 10.9 7.58 10.5

Tatom 29 1 30 12.5 9.05 12.0

Travis 26 1 30 10.3 7.77 8.0

Total 168 1 30 12.0 8.03 11.0

The results for the dichotomous variables are shown in Table 4.2. As shown by

the Year of Implementation variable, 56.5% of the 168 teachers were in the first year of

CSCOPE implementation and 43.5% were in the second year of implementation. There

was an exact split of responses for the predictor variable of Optional vs. Mandated

Exemplar Lessons with a frequency of 84 or 50% for either option. See Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Summary and Descriptive Results for Dichotomous Predictor Variables (n = 168)

Levels Level 1 Level 2

Predictor Variable 1 2 Freq % Freq %

Year of

Implementation First Second 95 56.5 73 43.5

Required Exemplar

Lessons Optional Mandated 84 50.0 84 50.0

Academic Excellence

Rating Unacceptable Acceptable 44 26.2 124 73.8

Adequate Yearly

Progress Rating Met Missed 128 76.2 40 23.8

Content Area Math Other 120 71.4 48 28.6


59

Descriptive statistics for outcome variables. Objective 2 was to describe the

Stages of Concern regarding the use of CSCOPE curriculum of elementary public school

teachers teaching core curriculum in Texas.

Table 4.3, Table 4.4, and Figure 4.1 describe the results of the SoCQ for the

sample population as an aggregate mean and by campus displayed by raw mean scores.

Stage 0 (Unconcerned) had an overall mean of 44.1 with the lowest campus (Burnet)

scoring 34.5 and the highest campus (Travis) scoring 51.3. Stage 1 (Informational) had a

mean of 59.2 with the low campus (Kermit) scoring 41.0 and the high campus (Burnet)

scoring 75.1. The Stage 2 (Personal) mean was 62.4 with a low campus (Tatom) score of

46.6 and a high campus (Burnet) score of 92.9. The mean for Stage 3 (Management) was

62.7. It was the highest total mean score for any of the Stages of Concern. The highest

campus score for Stage 3 (Management) was 98.1 (Burnet) and the lowest campus score

was 46.6 (Tatom). Stage 4 (Consequence) had a mean of 36.1. The highest campus

mean for Stage 4 was 49.8 (Burnet) and the lowest campus mean was 23.6 (Kermit). The

Stage 5 (Collaboration) mean was 37.9 with the highest campus mean 54.4 (Tatom) and

the lowest campus mean being 24 (Burnet). Stage 6 (Refocusing) had a mean of 57.9.

The highest campus mean was 78 (Burnet) and the lowest campus mean was 38.9

(Kermit).


60

Table 4.3

Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores within Stage of Concern 0, 1, 2 and 3 by School

Stage 0

(Awareness)

Stage 1

(Informational)

Stage 2

(Personal)

Stage 3

(Management)

School (n) M SD M SD M SD M SD

Burnet (25) 34.5 24.40 75.1 9.52 92.9 4.46 98.1 2.85

Greenwood (17) 39.9 31.75 61.6 19.46 66.5 25.96 80.4 21.21

Kermit (29) 46.6 26.97 41.0 19.51 50.3 24.53 48.6 30.73

Sudderth (42) 42.8 31.28 63.7 24.27 61.9 28.73 58.1 36.16

Tatom (29) 42.1 27.71 50.9 14.35 46.6 25.33 43.9 30.89

Travis (26) 51.4 22.92 68.0 18.21 77.1 18.28 78.6 22.21

Total (186) 44.2 28.04 59.0 21.87 62.4 27.46 62.7 33.22

Table 4.4

Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores within Stage of Concern 4, 5 and 6 by School

Stage 4

(Consequence)

Stage 5

(Collaboration)

Stage 6

(Refocusing)

School (n) M SD M SD M SD

Burnet (25) 49.9 15.44 24.0 28.75 78.0 15.82

Greenwood (17) 32.5 21.93 24.7 16.93 67.4 32.34

Kermit (29) 23.6 23.84 33.2 28.91 38.9 29.33

Sudderth (42) 45.9 29.90 35.0 28.06 58.5 34.63

Tatom (29) 28.1 20.25 54.4 34.99 51.8 27.55

Travis (26) 40.8 24.29 42.5 19.48 68.6 25.64

Total (186) 36.1 25.87 38.0 28.52 58.0 31.41


61

Figure 4.1. Mean Scores within each Stage of Concern by School.

Descriptive results for the outcome variables are shown in Table 4.5. This table

displays the minimum and maximum scores that can be achieved within each stage of the

instrument. The mean score of Stage 0 (Unconcerned) was 44.1 with a standard

deviation of 28.2 and a median of 40.0. Stage 1 (Informational) displayed the closest

mean (59.0) and median (58.5) scores and the lowest standard deviation (21.82). Stage 3

(Management) and Stage 6 (Refocusing) had the highest standard deviations (32.83) and

(31.46) respectively.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

Stages of Concern

Burnet

Greenwood

Kermit

Sudderth

Tatom

Travis

Total


62

Table 4.5

Summary of Outcome Variables (N = 168)

Outcome Variable Min Max Mean SD Mdn

Stage 0 (Unconcerned) 0 99 44.1 28.20 40.0

Stage 1 (Informational) 5 99 59.0 21.82 58.5

Stage 2 (Personal) 5 99 62.3 27.46 67.0

Stage 3 (Management) 2 99 62.7 32.83 71.0

Stage 4 (Consequence) 1 96 36.1 25.75 30.0

Stage 5 (Collaboration) 1 98 37.9 28.08 33.5

Stage 6 (Refocusing) 1 99 57.9 31.46 60.0

Bivariate correlations between variables.

Table 4.6 shows the bivariate correlations for the predictor and outcome variables.

63

Table 4.6

Correlation Matrix for Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables (N = 168)

Predictor/Outcome 1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. Years of implementation - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Years teaching .10 - - - - - - - - - - -

3. Man. exemplar -.44* .13 - - - - - - - - - -

4. State AR -.57* .01 .24* - - - - - - - - -

5. AYP .07 -.05 -.28* -.30* - - - - - - - -

6. Math -.16* .04 .32* -.10 .14 - - - - - - -

7. Stage 0 -.04 .01 -.08 -.09 -.01 .06 - - - - - -

8. Stage 1 -.32* .03 .29* .30* -.16* -.12 .15 - - - - -

9. Stage 2 -.28* .11 .18* .14 -.05 -.14 .30* .71* - - - -

10. Stage 3 -.21* .22* .20* .08 -.05 -.12 .31* .59* .80* - - -

11. Stage 4 -.24* .04 .22* .20* -.03 -.02 .10 .55* .57* .50* - -

12. Stage 5 .10 -.06 -.19* .12 .05 -.11 .05 .34* .18* .01 .25* -

13. Stage 6 -.21* .14 .17* .20* -.10 -.11 .17* .61* .62* .71* .65* .21*

Note. *p < .05

63


64

Assumptions for regression analysis. As shown in Table 4.7 and the following

tables and figures, all variables met the assumptions for regression analysis.

Table 4.7

Preliminary Data Analysis for Variables within Regression Models

Assumption Criteria Check

Type

All predictor variables must be

quantitative, or categorical with

two categories

Survey design.

Variance For regression analysis, all

predictors must have variance > 0 Descriptive analysis of the data.

Independence All values for the outcome should

come from a difference case. Survey design.

Multicollinearity

Values below .80 or .90 for the

correlation between any two

variables within a regression

model are considered acceptable

All correlations between

independent variables were less

than .9. (Table 4.6)

Homoscedasticity Residuals at each level have

approximately the same variance.

Visual inspection of plots of

predicted values and residual

values have approximately the

same variance. (Figure 4.2)

Independent Errors Residual terms are uncorrelated. Durbin-Watson values are

between 1 and 3. (Table 4.8)

Linearity The relationship modeled by the

multiple regression was linear.

Visual inspection of plots of

predicted values and residual

values display linearity. (Figure

4.2)

Normally

distributed errors

The error for the outcome

variable must be roughly

normally distributed.

Visual inspection of histograms

of standardized residuals of

dependent variable show

normally distributed residuals.

(Figure 4.3)


65

Homoscedasticity and Linearity plots.

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Figure 4.2. Homoscedasticity and linearity- visual inspection of plots of predicted values

and residual values for the Stages of Concern 0 through 6.


66

Stage 4

Stage 5

Stage 6

Figure 4.2 (continued). Homoscedasticity and linearity- visual inspection of plots of

predicted values and residual values for the Stages of Concern 0 through 6.


67

Assumption of independent errors.

Table 4.8

Independent Errors - Durbin-Watson Test Values between 1 and 3

Stage of Concern Durbin Watson Value

0 1.9

1 2.1

2 1.7

3 1.8

4 1.9

5 1.9

6 1.9


68

Plots of normally distributed errors.

Figure 4.3. Normally distributed errors - visual inspection of histogram of standardized residuals

of dependent variable


69

Figure 4.3. Normally distributed errors - visual inspection of histogram of standardized residuals

of dependent variable

Regression analysis. Objective 3 was to predict the Stage of Concern regarding

CSCOPE of elementary school teachers teaching core content in Texas based on year of

implementation (first or second), required exemplar lessons (yes or no), years of

experience teaching, AEIS rating of academically unacceptable, AYP rating of missed

AYP, and content area (math or other content area).

The researcher used seven regression models to complete this objective.


70

Stage 0 (Awareness). The regression model for Stage 0 was not statistically

significant (p = .206). Model results for this test are shown in Table 4.9 and 4.10.

Table 4.9

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 0 (Awareness) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.225 .051 .015 167 1.432 .206

Table 4.10

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage 0 (Awareness) of the

Stages of Concern Model (N = 168)

Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficient

Standardized

Coefficient r r2

Years of implementation -12.78 -.23* -0.04 0.00

Years teaching .17 .05 0.01 0.00

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons 11.31 .20*

0.08 0.01

State Academic Rating -12.80 -.20* -0.09 0.01

Adequate Yearly Progress -8.01 -.12 -0.01 0.00

CSCOPE Math 5.15 .08 0.06 0.00

Note. *p < .05

Stage 1 (Information Concerns). The regression model for Stage 1 was

statistically significant (p < .001). As shown in Table 4.11, the variables entered were

able to predict roughly 16% of the variance within Stage 1 of the Stages of Concern

Model.


71

Table 4.11

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 1 (Informational) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.434 .188 .158 167 6.217 p < .001

Regarding the independent variables, refer to Table 4.12 for unstandardized

coefficients, standardized coefficients, correlation with the dependent variable, effect size

(r2), and significance for each variable.

As shown in Table 4.12, the variable that predicted the most variance in the

dependent variable, in combination with the other variables as shown by the standardized

coefficient, was mandated exemplar lessons, ( = 0.23). Within SPSS, the variable “Are

Exemplar Lessons a non-negotiable on your campus?” was coded 1 = yes, 2 = no. As

such, a positive standardized coefficient illustrates that teachers required to implement

exemplar lessons demonstrate lower levels of concern within Stage 1 than teachers not

required to use exemplar lessons.


72

Table 4.12

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage 1(Informational) of

the Stages of Concern Model (N = 168)

Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficient

Standardized

Coefficient r r2

Years of

implementation -8.45 -0.19 -.32* 0.10

Years teaching 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons -10.20 -0.23* -.23* 0.08

State Academic

Rating 4.97 0.10 .30* 0.09

Adequate Yearly

Progress -1.14 -0.02 -.16* 0.03

CSCOPE Math -10.15 -0.21* -0.12 0.01

Note. *p < .05

Stage 2 (Personal Concerns). The regression model for Stage 2 was statistically

significant probability of p < .001. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to

predict roughly 12% of the variance of the dependent variable. See Table 4.13 for

complete model results.

Table 4.13

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 2 (Personal ) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.394 .156 .124 167 4.945 p < .001


73

Within the model, the variable that predicted the most variance as shown by

standardized regression coefficient was Year of Implementation (β = -.34). See Table

4.14.

Table 4.14

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage2 (Personal) of the

Stages of Concern Model (N = 168)

Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients r r2

Years of

implementation -18.81* -0.34* -0.28* 0.08

Years teaching 0.48 0.14 0.11 0.01

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons 7.02 0.13 0.18* 0.03

State Academic

Rating -6.59 -0.11 0.14 0.02

Adequate Yearly

Progress 1.39 0.02 -0.05 0.00

CSCOPE Math -15.54* -0.26* -0.14 0.02

Note. *p < .05

Stage 3 (Management Concerns). The regression model for Stage 3 was

statistically significant (p < .001). Within the model, the predictor variables were able to




74

Table 4.15

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 3(Management) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.401 .161 .129 167 5.131 < .001

Within the model, the variable that predicted the most variance as shown by the

standardized regression coefficient was Year of Implementation (β = -.28). See Table

4.16.

Table 4.16

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage 3 (Management) of


Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients r r2

Years of

implementation -18.56* -.28 -.21* .04

Years teaching .98* .24 .22* .05

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons -10.56 -.16 -.20* .04

State Academic

Rating -10.63 -.14 .08 .01

Adequate Yearly

Progress 1.83 .02 -.05 .00

CSCOPE Math -17.87* -.25 -.13 .02

Note. *p < .05


75

Stage 4 (Consequence concerns). The regression model for Stage 4 was

statistically significant (p = .015). Within the model, the predictor variables were able to



Table 4.17

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 4 (Consequence) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.303 .092 .058 167 2.716 .015


standardized regression coefficient was Mandated Exemplar Lessons (β = 0.19). See

Table 4.18 for complete results regarding the predictor variables.


76

Table 4.18

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage 4 (Consequence) of


Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients r r2

Year of

implementation -7.14 -0.14 -0.24* 0.06

Years teaching 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.00

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons -9.61* -0.19 -0.22* 0.05

State Academic

Rating 4.82 0.08 0.20* 0.04

Adequate Yearly

Progress 4.32 0.07 -0.03 0.00

CSCOPE Math -5.96 -0.10 -0.02 0.00

Note. *p < .05

Stage 5 (Collaboration concerns). The regression model for Stage 5 was

statistically significant (p = .011). Within the model, the predictor variables were able to



Table 4.19

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 5 (Collaboration) of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.310 .096 .063 167 2.859 .011


77


standardized regression coefficient was State Academic Rating (β = 0.30). See Table

4.20 for complete results regarding the predictor variables.

Table 4.20

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage5(Collaboration) of


Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients r r2

Years of

implementation 12.22* 0.22 0.10 0.01

Years teaching -0.23 -0.07 -0.06 0.00

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons 7.59 0.14 0.19* 0.04

State Academic

Rating 19.41* 0.30 0.12 0.01

Adequate Yearly

Progress 5.91 0.09 0.05 0.00

CSCOPE Math -0.70 -0.01 -0.11 0.01

Note. *p < .05

Stage 6 (Refocusing). The regression model for Stage 6 was statistically

significant (p = .004). Within the model, the predictor variables were able to predict

roughly 8% of the variance of the dependent variable. See Table 4.21 for complete

model results.

Table 4.21

Summary of the Regression Model for Stage 6 of Stages of Concern

R R2

Adjusted R2

df F p

.332 .110 .077 167 3.322 .004


78


standardized regression coefficient was CSCOPE Math (β = -0.18). See Table 4.22 for

complete results regarding the predictor variables.

Table 4.22

Predictor Variable Statistics within the Regression Model for Stage6 of the Stages of

Concern Model (N = 168)

Predictor Variables

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients r r2

Years of

implementation -10.75 -0.17 -0.21* 0.05

Years teaching 0.60* 0.15 0.14 0.02

Mandated Exemplar

Lessons -7.51 -0.12 -0.17* 0.03

State Academic

Rating 4.14 0.06 0.20* 0.04

Adequate Yearly

Progress 0.05 0.00 -0.10 0.01

CSCOPE Math -12.23 -0.18 -0.11 0.01

Note. *p < .05

Summary

The descriptive statistics demonstrate a generally well-balanced sample, with

adequate variance to proceed with regression analysis. As the results of the multiple

linear regression were analyzed, many predictor variables demonstrated statistical

significance. The most revealing results included the predictor variables of Year of

Implementation, Mandated Exemplar Lessons, State Academic Rating, and Content Area.


79

The regression model for Stage 0 (Awareness Concerns) of the SoCQ did not

prove to be statistically significant.

Stage 1 (Informational) demonstrated statistical significance related to three

predictor variables, which were able to predict over 50% the predicted variance within

Stage 1 scores. Year of Implementation, Mandated Exemplar Lessons, and State

Academic Rating were predictor variables of note within Stage 1.

The regression model for Stage 2 (Personal Concerns) of the SoCQ proved to be

statistically significant. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to predict

roughly 12% of the variance of the dependent variable. Predictor variables

demonstrating statistical significance for Stage 2 were Year of Implementation,

Mandated Exemplar Lessons, State Academic Rating, and CSCOPE Math.

The regression model for Stage 3 (Management Concerns) of the SoCQ proved to

be statistically significant. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to predict

roughly 13% of the variance of the dependent variable. The predictor variables

demonstrating statistical significance for Stage 3 were Year of Implementation, Years of

Experience, Mandated Exemplar Lessons, and CSCOPE Math.

Stage 4 (Consequence Concerns) of the SoCQ regression model proved to be

statistically significant. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to predict


demonstrating statistical significance for Stage 4 were Year of Implementation, Mandated

Exemplar, and State Academic Ratings.


80

The regression model for Stage 5 (Collaboration Concerns) of the SoCQ proved

to be statistically significant. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to

predict roughly 6% of the variance of the dependent variable. The predictor variables

demonstrating statistical significance for Stage 5 were Year of Implementation, Mandated

Exemplar, and State Academic Ratings.

The regression model for Stage 6 (Refocusing Concerns) of the SoCQ proved to

be statistically significant. Within the model, the predictor variables were able to predict


demonstrating statistical significance for Stage 5 were Year of Implementation, CSCOPE

Math, Mandated Exemplar Lessons, Years of Experience, and State Academic Ratings.


81

Chapter V

Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

This study centered upon a major curricular innovation within school districts

throughout the state of Texas known as CSCOPE. It was developed by The Texas

Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative to address current challenges for

educators such as mobility rates and ineffective instructional practices, while providing a

guaranteed and viable curriculum for students based on established standards (B. Gibson,

personal communication, April 18, 2012). Implementation of an innovation such as

CSCOPE however, is a complex task that involves systemic change for the school

organization undertaking the process. This study explored critical variables associated

with innovation and systemic change, which include the emotional response of teachers

to mandated innovations.

The theoretical connections between Systems Theory, Concerns Theory, and

Management Theory are viewed through the lens of campus leadership as they relate to

effective innovation and change within organizations. Of particular interest to the

researcher is the unique aspect of the CSCOPE curriculum innovation. CSCOPE is a

unique curriculum, which requires teachers to implement not only curricular change, but

also prescribes how teachers will instruct a given skill (when Exemplar Lessons are

mandated) and this unique feature of the curriculum has not been previously studied. The

application of this study will potentially inform campus and district leaders relative to


82

best implementation practices associated with the CSCOPE curriculum. This curriculum

has been widely adopted by school districts across the state and is currently in use by 810

districts and 4,631 campuses in Texas (J. Thomas, personal communication, January 3,

2012). The potential results of this study are relevant and significant to the majority of

educators across the state of Texas.

The research question was relative to the methodology used to explore the

relationship between predictor variables and the dependent/outcome variable (Stages of

Concern Questionnaire). Can researchers predict the Stages of Concern outcome (level

0-6) for teachers using the CSCOPE curriculum based on the following predictors?


- Required Exemplar Lessons (Yes or No)





Stages of Concern

The outcome variable (SoC scoring) was measured by analyzing the means of the

raw data collected. It is recommended in the SoC scoring guide that group data be

analyzed by evaluating the two highest Stages of Concern relative to the raw data in order

to determine the levels of concern, which may also be interpreted as resistance to the

innovation. Observing the data represented in Table 4.3 and in Figure 4.1, the research

demonstrates the highest levels of concern in Stage 3 and Stage 2 respectively, with a


83

mean score of 62.71 by elementary teachers in Stage 3 (Management Concerns). Stage 2

(Personal Concerns), demonstrates only a slightly smaller average mean score at 62.38

and closely mirrors the Stage 3 responses.

The most illuminating finding from the study relative to raw data is associated

with the predictor variable of Mandated Exemplar Lessons and the associated stage of

concern. When considering the entire CSCOPE curriculum Mandated Exemplar Lessons

represent the most prescriptive mandate to teachers. This level of implementation

dictates not only the content to be taught, the date on which the content must be taught,

the materials with which the content must be taught, and also the methodology by which

the content must be taught. According to the current body of research surrounding top-

down mandates, one would expect that the level of teacher concern would be greatest

when implementing CSCOPE at this level. However, the results of this study revealed

that teachers’ concerns were significantly lower when implementing Exemplar lessons

than their counterparts who were not required to implement the innovation to its most

prescriptive level. This statistic is interesting because it demonstrates that the body of

literature relative to top-down mandates does not hold true with the sample measured in

this study. For example, Kelly (1999) stated, "Coercion breeds hostility and defiance. If

the coercer is strong enough, we will give as much compliance as necessary to avoid

harm, but we will not commit ourselves to the goal of the coercion" (p. 543).



84

Conclusions and Recommendations by Stage of Concern

Researchers were able to predict Stage of Concern scores using the predictor variables in

all but one stage. Conclusions and recommendations specific to each stage are discussed

below.

Stage 0 (Awareness Concerns). Stage 0 was the only stage to not have a

statistically significant regression model with the selected predictor variables. This may

be due to any number of external factors not addressed within the breadth of this

research. As explained by Weick and Quinn (1999) continuous change processes within

organizations are complex. As the initial stage in the adoption assimilation process,

Stage 0 may be impacted by such an array of external, internal, intrapersonal, and

interpersonal factors that patterns fail to develop and a cohesive model is not able to be

distilled. Evidence of this is contained in the correlation matrix for this stage (Table 4.7).

Additional research is needed to discover, distill, and describe variables that are

able to mathematically predict scores within this stage. However, the researcher

exploring the phenomenon associated with this stage of concern should consider a

methodology employing mixed methods in order to account for contextual differences

that must be considered individually by campus.

This research underscores the importance for elementary school administration

practitioners to be cognizant of their constituents’ concerns as they implement curricular

change within the district. There are potentially infinite factors that influence a teacher’s

perception of this innovation. In order to successful implement the innovation,

practitioners must be aware of this dynamic environment; be sympathetic (and perhaps


85

empathetic) to teacher’s concerns; and be able to act and react accordingly without undo

preconceived expectations. Sergiovanni (2001) suggests that flexibility in

implementation is considered best practice, "[i]mplementation decisions lead to the

creation of policies in use. Good implementing decisions are able to respond to local

contexts and needs by resembling the handed down mandates while being different"

(p.11).

Stage 1 (Informational Concerns). The regression model for Stage 1 was

statistically significant and predicted more of the outcome variable than did any other

model within this research (16%). This is in stark contrast for the results of the

regression model for Stage 0. Seemingly, as teachers’ understanding of CSCOPE

matures, the factors that influence their Informational Concern become more distilled.

Other factors (predictor variables) contributing to this distillation process indicate that

Mandated Exemplar Lessons and State Academic Rating play a significant role in

lessening informational concerns of teachers implementing the CSCOPE innovation.

Considering the predictor variables that demonstrate statistical significance, the

researcher concludes that the results for Stage 1 are logical. It makes sense that

informational concerns about the innovation would lessen as teachers become better

acquainted with the curriculum over time. The same holds true when the administration

mandates the exemplar lessons, which require use of the curriculum thereby requiring

teachers to become better informed of the innovation. The role of the State Academic

Rating also appears to be important as teachers working at campuses with low academic



86

ratings demonstrate lower informational concern scores than the higher achieving

campuses. Lower ratings appear to provide additional impetus for teachers to acquire a

working knowledge of the CSCOPE curriculum in order to raise achievement scores.

Interestingly, the predictor variable Years of Experience did not demonstrate

statistical significance when considering informational concerns. Further research should

be devoted to looking at the role of experience levels in innovation adoption models.

Practitioners should keep these factors associated with the statistically significant

predictor variables in mind as they develop and implementation plan for curricular

change. School administrators should be cognizant of the limited role that teacher

experience plays in the adoption process. As years of experience did not significantly

contribute to this model, strong teachers should not be overlooked for leadership roles

strictly on the basis of years of experience (or lack of years of experience).

Stage 2 (Personal Concerns). The regression model for Stage 2 was statistically

significant and predicted 12% of the outcome variable. Within the model, the predictor

variables demonstrating statistical significance included Year of Implementation,

Mandated Exemplar Lessons, State Academic Rating, and CSCOPE Math. Personal

concerns relative to CSCOPE implementation were lower in the second year of

implementation. Administrators that mandate exemplar lessons at the elementary school

level also appear to positively influence the personal concerns of their teachers as this

predictor variable indicates less concern over how the CSCOPE innovation impacts their


87

personal life. Likewise, teachers working on campuses with low academic ratings appear

to have less personal concern related to the innovation.

Recommendations for further research are based upon the predictor variable of

CSCOPE Math. The results surrounding this predictor variable were surprising.

Teachers implementing the curricular innovation in the content area of Mathematics

demonstrated a high level of personal concern. This could be attributed to a unique

circumstance occurring in 2011-2012 school year associated with the availability of the

Math content. The Mathematics curriculum was being rewritten this year and teachers

were required to search out the materials, which were not readily available in the typical

online format. However, the researcher recommends this area for further research to

determine if this is a consistent phenomenon.

Practitioners should be aware that staying the course with implementation will

yield lower levels of personal concerns for teachers as the campus transitions to the

subsequent years of implementation. More required familiarity with the curriculum as

demonstrated by the mandate of exemplar lessons also aids in the adoption process.

Once again, lower achievement ratings appear to serve as a catalyst for acceptance of the

change process associated with CSCOPE implementation. District and campus leaders

should be aware that high achieving campuses may view the innovation as change for

changes sake and those teachers will experience higher levels of personal concern when

adopting CSCOPE.


88

Stage 3 (Management Concerns). The regression model for Stage 3 was

statistically significant and predicted 13% of the outcome variable. Within the model, the

predictor variables demonstrating statistical significance included Year of

Implementation, Mandated Exemplar Lessons, Years of Experience, and CSCOPE Math.

Management concerns relative to CSCOPE implementation lower in the second year of

implementation again demonstrating that being familiar with the curricular innovation is

critical to lowering teacher concern levels. Exemplar lessons are also correlated to the

lowering of management concerns based on the scenario that teachers are forced to be

more familiar with the innovation.

Recommendations for further research regarding Stage 3 are based upon the

predictor variable of Years of Teaching. The results surrounding this predictor variable

demonstrate that teachers with low-levels of experience appear to have fewer

management concerns than teachers with higher levels of experience. This could be due

to a variety of factors, which may include familiarity with technology, established

teaching protocols, or perhaps that more experienced teachers are relied upon more

heavily to lead the implementation process and therefore feel more pressure to manage

the innovation for their colleagues. Only further research will illuminate this

phenomenon.

Practitioners should consider the data revealed concerning Stage 3 in order to

establish implementation protocols. The protocols might include establishing teachers

with middle levels of experience to mentor teachers with lower and higher experience

levels. Again, it is apparent that a lessening of management concerns is associated with


89

the second year of implementation. Mandated exemplar lessons are also significant in

Stage 3 and district leaders should note that ensuring familiarity with the CSCOPE

innovation aids in lowering teacher levels of concern for Stage 3.

Stage 4 (Consequence Concerns). The regression model for Stage 4 was

statistically significant and predicted 6% of the outcome. Stage 4 represents a significant

statistical change in the amount of the model the regression was able to predict.

According to the SoCQ scoring information our sample is demonstrating an expected

outcome. The authors of the survey suggest that when the stage of concern is much

lower, this represents the process of moving through the stages of concern. Most teachers

have not progressed through the earlier stages of concern. However, the following

predictor variables did demonstrate statistical significance within Stage 4. State

Academic rating indicates that teachers may bring a prejudice to new innovations if their

campus is already performing well. They are concerned that changing the curriculum

may not yield increased student achievement and their previous curriculum has proven

merit. Contrasting this result, campuses with lower State Academic Ratings demonstrate

lower levels of concern and believe that change is necessary for student achievement to

improve.

Recommendations for further research relative to Stage 4 include an identical

study involving the same campuses for next year. If the information in the scoring

booklet is accurate, the subsequent study should show higher levels of concern for Stage

4 next year as teachers progress through the Stages of Concern model. Interestingly, the


90

raw data indicates that although the levels of concern are lower in the second year of

implementation, teachers still display higher levels of concern in Stages 2 and 3. The

shape of the data in this study does not completely agree with the Stages of Concern

scoring booklet. A subsequent study would answer existing questions regarding this

phenomenon.

Practitioners should be aware of developing concerns as teachers move through

the Stages of Concern model and implement measure to alleviate teacher concerns so that

complete adoption can be achieved. Monitoring current concern levels for teachers will

allow district leaders to address the varying needs of the teachers as they implement the

innovation.

Stage 5 (Collaboration Concerns). The regression model for Stage 5 was

statistically significant and predicted 6% of the outcome. Statistically significant

predictor variables included Mandated Exemplar Lessons, State Academic Rating, and

Year of Implementation. Mandating exemplar lessons and being in the second year of

implementation seem to have a positive correlation relative to raising the levels of

concern in Stage 5. This is the first time these predictor variables appear to raise levels of

teacher concern rather than lowering them in the model for this study. State academic

ratings also demonstrate some departure from the previous statistical variations

associated with Stage 5. Academically Acceptable campuses have a higher level of

concern in stage 5 than do higher or lower performing campuses.


91

Recommendation for further research involve the predictor variable of Mandated

Exemplar Lessons. With concerns being higher in this stage for teachers experiencing

this mandate the researcher might conclude that mandated lessons have moved teachers

further through the Stages of Concern model. A qualitative study involving this predictor

variable could establish this as a positive or a negative aspect of establishing non-

negotiable standards associated with the CSCOPE innovation.

Recommendations for practitioners concerning Stage 5 involve district leaders

promoting as much use of the CSCOPE innovation as possible. Mandating the Exemplar

lessons appears to demonstrate that teachers move through the stages of concern more

quickly. Additionally, the campuses implementing the innovation in the second year are

demonstrating more concern in Stage 5 lending additional evidence that more experience

with CSCOPE moves students through the process of change more quickly.

Stage 6 (Refocusing Concerns). The regression model for Stage 6 was

statistically significant and predicted 8% of the outcome variable. Statistically significant

predictor variables included Mandated Exemplar Lessons, State Academic Rating,

CSCOPE Math, and Year of Implementation. Once again exemplar lessons are

demonstrating a higher level of concern rather than a lowering of the level of concern and

this may indicate a positive rather than a negative relationship in that the progression

through the stages of concern could be expedited by establishing a non-negotiable

standard for this variable. Teachers involved in teaching CSCOPE Mathematics also

demonstrated high levels of concern Although the teachers in the second year of


92

implementation did demonstrate a lowering in levels of concern for Stage 6 and this is

problematic based upon earlier assertions that this variable may expedite teacher

progression through the stages of concern.

Recommendations for further research center on the anomalous predictor

variables of Mandated Exemplar Lessons and Year of implementation. Stage 6

represents a divergence between these two predictor variables not previously seen in the

regression model. In other words these two variables have a positive correlation in

Stages 1-5 in the SocQ. A qualitative study exploring the “why’s” of this divergence is

in order.

Recommendations for practitioners relative to Stage 6 are associated once again

with mandating exemplar lessons when implementing the CSCOPE intervention. This

predictor variable demonstrated statistical significance in all stages of concern associated

with the SoCQ with the exception of Stage 0. This is compelling evidence that the

practice of mandating strict adherence to the curriculum creates a dynamic which

precipitates lowering levels of concern within the egocentric stages of concern and a

more rapid progression through the stages of concern as a whole. The researcher also

recommends that district and campus leaders employ the use of the Stages of Concern

questionnaire to aid in the determination of strengths and weaknesses of faculty members

relative to their SOcQ response to the CSCOPE innovation. By understanding what

teachers’ concerns are, administrators can better equip teachers to succeed and teachers

can better anticipate and communicate their needs and concerns.


93

Limitations

The results of the multiple linear regression model used in this study proved to be

statistically significant for each stage of concern except Stage 0 (Unconcerned). The

predictor variables used reveal a small degree of predictability within the sample. In

generalizing these results to the population being studied, it should be noted that the

largest variance able to be predicted within any of the stages of concern was 16%. This

being said, practitioners must be cognizant that the variability of scores must be due to

other factors within the school context.

Summary

Educative processes are in flux around the globe and it is now more important

than ever to ensure that school leaders establish protocols to implement innovations in the

most efficient manner. Being aware of the emotional response of teachers regarding

systemic change is critical aspect to the successful adoption of new innovations. This

study adds new rhetoric to the body of literature which surrounds effective leadership

practices within this framework. Concerns Theory, Systems Theory, and Scientific

Management Theory are convergent factors which administrators must consider when

engaging any educational innovation in the context of public education.

Many of the survey responses to the predictor variables of our sample group

within the Stages of Concern model were validations of current research. However, the

most important revelations were centered upon mandated change and levels of teacher

experience. This study demonstrates that there are times when top-down mandates have


94

a positive influence in lowering teachers’ level of concern relative the CSCOPE

curricular innovation. The implications for the convergence of Systems Theory,

Management Theory, and Concerns Theory reveal that individual subsystems, which

involve the dynamics of school change processes dictate much about the SOcQ response

to top-down mandates.

This study demonstrated that the most restrictive top-down mandate of employing

the exemplar lessons associated with CSCOPE actually facilitated more familiarity with

the curriculum, which played a part in lowering levels of concern among teachers. In

addition, teachers participating in this survey who were required to use exemplar lessons

demonstrated a more rapid progression through the stages of concern when compared to

teachers who were not required to use the most restrictive form of the CSCOPE

curriculum. It seems that the perspective of Dewey (1921) and Marzano (2005) is the

correct relative to improving teacher performance. Taylorism must ultimately be

considered a positive force in facilitating campus reform. This is in stark contrast to the

current body of research, which indicated that top-down mandates had been previously

ineffective at producing acceptance of curricular innovations by school faculty members

“…including the hidden dimension of a seeming determination to substitute technical

management for thoughtful leadership” (Bracey, 2002; Giroux, 2009a, 2009b; Goodlad,

2007) (Batagiannis, 2011, p. 1304-1305).

Ultimately, this study demonstrates that the administrative approach to school

innovation must be customized to fit the context of the campus. The one-size fits all

approach will often create a higher level of concern for teachers relative to the


95

innovation. District and campus leaders must approach change and innovation with a

sincere degree of information gathering in order to establish the most appropriate

protocols to enhance and expedite the adoption process. This study mirrors the current

research findings relative to allowing each principal the flexibility to respond and adjust

to varying contexts on individual campuses when implementing the adoption of any

innovation. Again, Sergiovanni (2001) found, “[i]mplementation decisions lead to the

creation of policies in use. Good implementing decisions are able to respond to local

contexts and needs by resembling the handed down mandates while being different" (p.

33).




96

References

Batagiannis, S. C. (2007). Leadership guided by courage: A challenge to instantaneous

perfection. The Journal of Educational Thought, 41(2), 145-157. Retrieved from:


Batagiannis, S. C. (2011). Promise and possibility for aspiring principals: An emerging

leadership identity through learning to do action research. The Qualitative Report,

16(5), 1304-1329. Retrieved from


Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. (2004). Identifying the knowledge base for school

improvement. Planning and Changing, 35(1/2), 2-33. Retrieved from


Bloomfield, D. C., & Cooper, B. S. (2003). NCLB: A new role for the federal

government: An overview of the most sweeping federal education law since 1965.

T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 30(10), 6- 9. Retrieved

from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001965193

Bracey, G. W. (2008). Assessing NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 781- 782. Retrieved

from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5027823616

Bryan, K. A., & Martinez, L. (2008). On the evolution of income inequality in the United

States. Economic Quarterly - Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 94(2), 97-120.

Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5045030974


97

Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). A special section on the achievement gap -

Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 594-598.


Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a Stage Model for Studying Teacher Concerns about

Educational Innovations. Australian Journal of Education, 46(3), 305-322.


Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M.H. (2007). Bounded awareness: What you fail to see can hurt

you. Mind and Society, 6(1), 1-18.

Clark, I. F., & James, P. R. (2004). Using Concept Maps to Plan an Introductory

Structural Geology Course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(3), 224-236.

Retrieved from: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037552304

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer. Retrieved from


development. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Research Development

Center for Teacher Education.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Education. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved from


Dewey, J. (1921). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Doherty, T., & Horne, T. (2002). Managing public services. Implementing changes.

London, UK: Routledge.


98

Edmunds, R. (1981). Making public schools effective. Social Policy, 12, 53-60.

Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Roach, A. T. (2003). Implementing social-emotional

and academic innovations: Reflections, reactions, and research. School

Psychology Review, 32, 320-326.

Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: Teacher perceptions, aspirations and

efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139-146 . Retrieved from


Erickson, L. (2001, pg 35). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining curriculum and

instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

Faircloth, E.G., Smith, B.P, Hall, H.C. (2001) FCS teachers' stages of concern regarding

national standards. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences: From Research to

Practice, 93(4), 29-32.

Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd

ed. London: Sage Publications

Limited.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change Forces with a Vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer.


George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer , S. M. (2006). Measuring Implementation in

Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, Texas, Southwestern

Educational Development Laboratories.

Gray, K. (1993). Why we will lose: Taylorism in America's high schools. Phi Delta

Kappan, 74(5), 370-374.

Hall, E. (1978). The study of teachers’ concerns and consequent implications for staff


99

Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., Aguilera, R., Zepeda, O., & Frank, V. V. (2011, August).

Implementation: Learning Builds the Bridge between Research and Practice.

Journal of Staff Development, 32, 52- 57. Retrieved from


Hall, G.E, Loucks, S.F, Rutherford, W.L., Newlove, B.W. (1975). Levels of use of the

innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher

Education XXVI, 1, 52-56.

Hedge, J., & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.) (2002). Implementing organizational interventions:

Steps, processes, and best practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hodge, C.L., & Krumm, B.L. (2009). NCLB: A study of its effect on rural schools. Rural

Special Education Quarterly, 28(1), 20-27.

Hunt, J.W. (2008). A nation at risk and No Child Left Behind: Déjà vu for

administrators? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 580-585.

in Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

Jacobs, H.H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, Virginia:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. In C.

Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press.

Kelly, T. F. (1999). Why state mandates don't work. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 543-

544,546. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001242323




100

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing

Times. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from


Lemons, R., Luschei, T. F., & Siskin, L. S. (2003). Leadership and the demands of

standards based accountability. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, and L. Siskin (Eds.),

The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 99-127). New

York: Routledge

Lezotte, L. W. (1993). We can't use yesterday's standards anymore creating effective

schools today and tomorrow. Journal for Quality and Participation, 16(1), 22-30.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk -

Recommendations. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html

O'Day, J.A. (2002). Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement. Harvard

Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.

Patterson, J. C. (2000). Texas' TAAS Miracle or Mirage?. Curriculum Administrator, 36,

30. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001077673


101

Pigge, F. L., & Marso, R. N. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of

preservice training on prospective teachers. Journal of Experimental Education,

58(4), 283-289. Retrieved from:


Ream, R. K. (2005). Uprooting children: Mobility, social capital, and Mexican American

underachievement. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from


Scott, C., & Bagaka’s, J. G. (2006). Teacher efficacy, school reform, and state tests.

Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(3), 178-182.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. United States: Doubleday

Sergiovanni, T. (2001) Leadership: What’s in it for schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Srivastava, D. K. (2007). Measuring stages of concern of management academia about

information technology based education. Advances in Competitiveness Research,

15(1/2), 116-132. Retrieved from:


Stella C. Batagiannis (2007). Leadership guided by courage: A challenge to instantaneous

perfection. Journal of Educational Thought.41 (2), 145-164.

Stollar, S. A., Poth, R. L., Curtis, M. J., & Cohen, R. M. (2006). Collaborative strategic

planning as illustration of the principles of systems change. School Psychology

Review, 35(2), 181-195. Retrieved from:






102

Stringfield, S. (2007). Improvements in academic achievement among african american

students over time: National data and an urban case study. The Journal of Negro

Education, 76(3), 306-315. Retrieved from


Stringfield, S. C. & Yakimowski-Srebnick, M.E. (2005). Promise, progress, problems,

and paradoxes of three phases of accountability: A longitudinal case study of the

Baltimore City public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1),

43-75

Sunbul, A. M. (2003). An Analysis of Relations among Locus of Control, Burnout and

Job Satisfaction in Turkish High School Teachers. Australian Journal of

Education, 47(1), 58-70. Retrieved from:


Texas Administrative Code, Standards required for the Principal Certificate 19.7§241.15

(2009) Retrieved from

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_r

loc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=241&rl=15

Texas Education Code, Principals §11.202(a) (1995). Retrieved from

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.11.htm#11.202

Texas Education Code, Sub Chapter F. District-Level and Site-Based Decision-Making

§11.251(b) (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.11.htm#11.251






103

The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC), (2012a).

Welcome. Retreived from http://www.cscope.us/index.html

The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC), (2012b).

Delivering a guaranteed, viable curriculum. Retrieved from

http://www.cscope.us/docs/cscope_components_%204.1.10.pdf

Thornton, B., Hill, G., & Usinger, J. (2006). An examination of a fissure within the

implementation of the nclb accountability process. Education, 127(1), 115- 120.


Truesdale, V., Thompson, C., & Lucas, M. (2004). Use of curriculum mapping to build a

learning community. In H. Jacobs (ED.), Getting results with curriculum mapping

(pp.10-24). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Vega, T. & Travis, B. (2011). An investigation of the effectiveness of reform

mathematics curricula analyzed by ethnicity, socio-economic status and limited

english proficiency. Mathematics and Computer Education, 45(1), 10 - 22.


Waring, S.P. (1991). Taylorism transformed: Scientific Management Theory since 1945.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.

Weick, K. E. & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual

Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.





104

White, T., Loker, T., March, A., & Sockslager, K. (2009). Is NCLB closing the minority-

majority achievement gap?. National Association of School Psychologists.

Communique, 37(8), 1,16-17. Retrieved from


Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Willis, P. (1981). Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.

New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from



105

Appendix A

5-E Model of Instruction


106


107


108


109

Appendix B

Superintendent and Principal Recruitment Letter

Dear Administrator:

I am a doctoral candidate at Texas Tech University and I am conducting a study to

determine the concerns of elementary teachers who are using CSCOPE in either the first

or the second year of implementation. Therefore, only elementary school campuses will

be targeted for this research. This research can aid administrators by illuminating which

implementation level leads teachers to most readily progress through the stages of

concern associated with the CSCOPE curricular innovation.

Administrators who are interested in having their faculty participate in this study should

forward this letter to their faculty.


No personally identifiable information will be required from your faculty members and

their anonymity will be maintained.

Although there will be no financial compensation for participation in this study, I will

make the results of the study available to your campuses and district at no charge.

If you have any questions, you can call my professor Dr. Clint Carpenter at 806.742.1997

extension 367 or me on my cell phone: 432-528-1908.

Thank you so much for your help and participation in this study,

Blake Hightower

Doctoral Candidate

Texas Tech University



110

Appendix C

Participant Recruitment Letter

Participant Information Letter

What is this project studying?

The study is called; The Affective Response to Mandated Change in Schools: Stages of

Concern for Teachers in the First and Second Year of CSCOPE Curriculum

Implementation This study will help explore how teachers feel about mandated

innovations and changes affecting their professional lives.

What should I expect during this study?

Teachers will participate in a 35 question online survey. Aggregation and analysis of

anonymous responses will then be studied and provided to administrators to inform them

of the affective response of teachers relative to the implementation of CSCOPE.

Am I required to participate in this survey?

No teacher, campus administrator, or district should feel pressure to participate in the

study. This study is designed to inform leadership of how teachers feel and think about

changes relative to top-down mandates. You may quit the online survey at any time by

closing your browser window. You may skip questions, or omit any information

requested as part of the survey.

How long will the online survey take?

The survey will take approximately 30 minutes of your time.

How is privacy protected?

No, personally identifiable information will be collected during the study, so teachers can

feel free to respond openly. In addition, district and campus leadership will only receive

averages from content area teacher responses.

To whom should I address questions regarding this study?

The study is being supervised by Dr. Clint Carpenter from the Educational Leadership

Department at Texas Tech University. If you have any questions, you can call Dr.

Carpenter at 806.742.1997 extension 273. TTU has a Board that protects the rights of

people who participate in research. You can ask questions at 806-742-2064. You can also

mail them at Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of

the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.

How will I benefit from participating?

District and campus leaders will have access to the quantitative data provided through the

study. This will inform the leadership of the affective response of teachers to not only

CSCOPE curriculum, but to any other innovation affecting the campus and district

organization.


111

Appendix D

Stages of Concern Questionnaire

Stages of Concern Questionnaire Introduction

The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine what people who are using or thinking

about using various programs are concerned about at various times during the adoption

process.

The items were developed from typical responses of school and college teachers who

ranged from no knowledge at all about various programs to many years' experience using

them.

Therefore, many of the items on this questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or

irrelevant to you at this time. For the completely irrelevant items, please circle "0" on the

scale. Other items will represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of

intensity, and should be marked higher on the scale.

For example: This statement is very true of me at this time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This statement is somewhat true of me now. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This statement is not at all true of me at this time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This statement seems irrelevant to me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel about

your involvement with the CSCOPE innovation. We do not hold to any one definition of

the innovation so please think of CSCOPE in terms of your own perception of what it

involves. Phrases such as "this approach" and "the new system" all refer to the same

innovation. Remember to respond to each item in terms of your present concerns about

your involvement or potential involvement with the innovation.

Thank you for taking time to complete this task.


112

Appendix E

Table of Campuses and Predictor Status

Campus YOI EL’s

AEIS

Rating

AYP

CSCOPE

Math/Other

YOE

Burnett 1 No AR Met - -

Greenwood 2 No AU Missed - -

Kermit 2 Yes AU Missed - -

Sudderth 1 No AA Met - -

Tatom 2 Yes AA Met - -

Travis 1 Yes AA Met - -


113

Appendix F

Administrator Training


114


115


116


117


118


119


120


121


122


123


124


125


126


127


128


129


130


131


132


133


134


135


136


137


138


139


140


141


142


143