Summary of “Teacher Concerns during Initial Implementation of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative at the Middle School level.”

Introduction

One-to-one laptop programs are being initiated increasingly all over the United States and abroad. For this implementation to be successful it is imperative that teachers concerns are addressed. Teachers today are facing challenges as they prepare to teach in classrooms where every student has a computer. The purpose of this study was to examine the one-to-one laptop initiative in a middle school setting and analyze the concerns of the teachers, who were the ones being asked to change in order to accommodate this initiative. This article summarizes the concerns that teachers have in the early stages of the implementation of one-on-one laptops.

The question guiding this study was: “What are teacher

concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level?”

Theoretical Framework

Hall and Associates developed a model that addresses the question posed above. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was the theoretical framework for the study. (Hall & Hord, 2001) Using this model the examiners were able to focus on the teachers, who were the key players in the implementation of the laptop initiative. This study is unique because the focus is on those going through the change rather than the change itself. So the focus is on the concerns and reactions of the teachers in the changing educational context.

The Method

Participants:

17 Seventh grade teachers and 2 building- level administrators. 

Setting:

An urban middle school in the Southwestern United States.

Research Tools

“The CBAM is a change model in which relationships between users and the source system of an innovation can be examined.” This model allowed examiners to evaluate the teachers concerns during the early stages of the implementation of the laptops.

There are four main stages in the CBAM that address teacher’s concern with the new innovation. Following are the four stages and a brief description of each.

1) Unrelated Awareness.

Just beginning to think about the innovation but not concerned about it at all.

2) Self

a) Informational

Interested, but not concerned beyond curiosity.

            b) Personal

Concerned about own role in innovation adoption and how It will impact them as an individual

3) Task Management

Concerned about how they are using the innovation,

how best to find and use resources and how much

time and effort is being put into the innovation

4) Impact

a) Consequence

Concerned about how the innovation is impacting

others (e.g., students and community)

b) Collaboration

Concerned about sharing impact of innovation with

 others in local and global community.

            c) Re-focusing

Concerned about modifying or replacing the innovation

Procedure:

Three tools were used to identify concerns during this study;

1) Stages of Concern Questionnaire

2) Open-Ended Questions

3) One-Legged Interviews

Results:

The results of the study showed that teachers fell into one of two distinctive categories in terms of the concerns they had with this initiative. The categories were;

1)                          Teachers who have genuine concerns that this initiative will impact them personally. A majority of teachers fit into this category.

2)                          Teachers who have concerns about how they will use the laptops to meet the needs of their students.

Teachers in this study were primarily at Self or Task level

Self concerns were at the personal stage and Task concerns were at the management stage. (See 2 & 3 above.)

Self concerns were observed when teachers felt uncomfortable using the laptops and hesitated in allowing researchers to observe them using the laptops. They also had a difficult time incorporating the laptops into their teaching routines.

Discussion:

In summary, teachers concerns about the laptop initiatives were consumed with them as individuals. Their primary concerns were how the laptops would affect their time, planning and instructional practices. 

A lesser percentage of teachers were concerned with how to use the laptops effectively, routinely and how to collaborate with others.

Generally, teachers seemed uncomfortable blending the new innovation with their more traditional teaching methods. As with any new innovation, it would likely take time to get used to.

Recommendations:

Three recommendations were offered as a result of the outcomes of the study.

1)Alignment of Professional Development and Teacher Concerns

2) Give Teachers a Voice in Innovation Adoption

3) Understanding that Change Is a Process

            Training and professional development should be focused around concerns teachers have. The development should follow the level of concern. All professional development should be relevant and useful to the concerns of the teachers. Differentiated professional development was suggested as a recommendation.

Teachers need to be consulted about new innovations and their usefulness. They need to feel like they are a part of the planning and development of the implementation, especially considering they are the primary users. 

Teachers need to understand the changes that are taking place in the ever-changing education system they are a part of. Administrators should not get frustrated by the initial concerns of the teachers as this is natural. The concerns must continually be addressed so that teachers feel they understand all changes taking place.

How does this study relate to Dunleavy’s article?

Prior research into innovation implementation suggests that its success is dependant on the understanding and concerns of the people using it. Donovan, Hartley and Strudler’s article addresses these concerns on a deep level. If education systems worldwide are planning to implement these 1:1 student laptop initiatives, they need to be certain that the teachers concerns are addressed in order for the implementation to be successful. 

Dunleavy’s article addresses the added value and challenges of 1:1 students to laptop ratios in teaching and learning. He observes how the new computers are used by teachers and students and in what capacity. He attempts to compare the added value of the implementation to the challenges it presents.    Although Dunleavy does address teacher’s concerns and their role in this implementation, he does not focus directly on the importance of these concerns in the success of the final implementation. 

Dunleavy does suggest the need to “provide teachers with high-quality professional development to ensure effective teaching.”   He argues that because of the high costs of implementing the computers, this professional development is set on a back burner. As a result, Dunleavy suggests that an “effective learning environment” would not be created. He obviously understands the importance of professional development in making this implementation successful. This is in accordance to Donovan’s article in that this was one of Donovan’s final recommendations. One thing Donovan realized after his study was that it was mandatory to have professional development that focused on teacher’s concerns throughout the entire implementation process. Both authors obviously realized the importance of professional development. 

Dunleavy’s article presents the basic premise of the effects that these laptops have on students and teachers, but Donovan’s article dives much deeper into the teacher’s real concerns.