This paper discusses the stages of concern that teachers pass through as they engage in the process of innovation adoption and implementation. A 24-item questionnaire was constructed to assess teachers' concerns on five sequential stages: (1) indifference, (2) informational-personal, (3) management, (4) consequence-collaboration, and (5) refocusing. Using the questionnaire, 290 Hong Kong teachers' concerns about school-based assessment as a component of the public examination system were surveyed. Results supported the 5-stage model of teacher concerns. However data collected from another sample of 53 teachers through an open-ended survey indicated that an additional stage of evaluation concerns should be inserted between the indifference and informational-personal stages. Teachers' evaluation concerns focused on the worth and necessity of school-based assessment, as well as support from the Hong Kong Examinations Authority. The revised 6-stage model can provide a more comprehensive framework for analysing teachers' concerns regarding innovations.
AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K.WoodsB. S. (1996). Of squalls and fathoms: Navigating the seas of educational innovation. Educational Researcher, 25 (3), 31–36, 39.
2.
AndersonA. E.RolheiserC.BennettB. (1995). Confronting the challenge of implementing cooperative learning. Journal of Staff Development, 16 (1), 32–38.
3.
AnekeN. O.FinchC. R. (1997). Teachers' stages of concern about a school-wide reform. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22, 55–70.
4.
BaileyB. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. In BasciaN.HargreavesA. (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform (pp. 112–128). London: Routledge Falmer.
5.
CheungD.HattieJ.NgD. (2001). Reexamining the stages of concern questionnaire: A test of alternative models. Journal of Educational Research, 94 (4), 226–236.
6.
CheungD.NgD. (2000). Teachers' stages of concern about the target-oriented curriculum. Education Journal, 28(1), 109–122.
CunninghamD. L.HillisonJ.HomeR. (1985). Adoption of an innovation: Monitoring the concerns of vocational teachers. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 10 (1), 15–28.
9.
FungA. (1998). Review of public examination system in Hong Kong. Final report submitted to the Hong Kong Examinations Authority.
10.
HallG. E.GeorgeA. A.RutherfordW. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
11.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
HavelockR. G. (1995). The change agent's guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
13.
HillP. W.BrownT.RoweK. J.TurnerR. (1997). Establishing comparability of Year 12 school-based assessments. Australian Journal of Education, 41 (1), 27–47.
14.
Hong Kong Examinations Authority. (2000). HKALE examination report. Hong Kong: Author.
15.
HordS. M.RutherfordW. L.Huling-AustinL.HallG. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16.
HouseE. R. (1979). Technology versus craft: A ten year perspective on innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11 (1), 1–15.
17.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.
18.
JenkinsE. W. (1995). When is a policy not a policy? School-based assessment of practical science at 16+. International Journal of Science Education, 17 (5), 555–563.
19.
JoreskogK. G. (1970). Estimation and testing of simplex models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23, 121–145.
20.
KemberD.MezgerR. (1990). The instructional designer as a staff developer: A course team approach consistent with the concerns-based adoption model. Distance Education, 11, 50–70.
21.
KimpstonR. D.AndersonD. H. (1988). Factors affecting teachers' and principals' stages of concern over carrying out benchmark testing. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3 (4), 321–334.
22.
KlonglanG. E.CowardE. W.Jr. (1970). The concept of symbolic adoption: A suggested interpretation. Rural Sociology, 35 (1), 77–83.
23.
LathamG. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations. Principal, 68 (1), 41–43.
24.
MarshC. J. (1984). Implementation of a curriculum innovation in Australian schools. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 6 (1), 37–58.
25.
McCullochG. (1998). Curriculum reform, educational change, and school improvement. In HargreavesA.LiebermanA.FullanM.HopkinsD. (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 1203–1215). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26.
McKinneyM.SextonT.MeyersonM. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471–485.
27.
NewloveB. W.HallG. E. (1976). A manual for assessing open-ended statements of concern about an innovation. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
28.
RogersE. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
29.
SaxlE. R.MilesM. B.LiebermanA. (1989). Assisting change in education: A training program for school improvement facilitators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
StromquistN. P.BasileM. L. (Eds.)., (1999). Politics of educational innovations in developing countries. New York: Falmer Press.
31.
TaylorJ.WallaceG. (1990). Some dilemmas in implementing the criteria for continuous assessment in GCSE English. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11 (1), 49–64.
32.
TorranceH. (1986). Expanding school-based assessment: Issues, problems and future possibilities. Research Papers in Education, 1 (1), 48–59.
33.
Van de VenA. H.AngleH. L.PoolM. S. (2000). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Van den BergR.RosA. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: A concerns-based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36 (4), 879–906.
35.
Van den BergR.SleegersP.GeijselF. (2001). Teachers' concerns about adaptive teaching: Evaluation of a support program. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16 (3), 245–258.
