CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

‘By approaching adoption through the eyes of the adoptees, the CBAM provides a
developmental perspective on how an individual’s concerns
influence his or her integration of an innovation’
(Straub, 2009:632).

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The theoretical framework selected for understanding secondary school teachers’

conceptualisation and implementation of the AIDS Action Programme for Schools
(AAPS) is Hall and Hord’s (1987:2001) Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM).
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model provides a different perspective on facilitating
adoption of change or an innovation. It is about the parallel process of change that
teachers go through whenever they engage on something new or different (Horsely &
Loucks-Horsley, 1998:1). The theoretical framework assumes that teachers have
concerns that need to be addressed in order for them to proceed to higher levels of
curriculum implementation, during which process they may ignore, resist, adopt and
adapt change depending on the support given to them (Sweeny, 2003; 2008:3). In
this study, the concerns which were investigated were related to the
concepualisation, teaching and adoption of the AAPS in classrooms at secondary
school level as an education innovation.

3.2 CONCERNS-BASED ADOPTION MODEL

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model is a theory specifically developed for teachers.

CBAM is primarily used in reference to the teaching profession, although it can be
used outside academic settings (Straub, 2009:634). The theory is largely concerned
with describing, measuring, explaining and understanding the process of change
experienced by teachers attempting to implement the curriculum material and
instructional practices (Bellah & Dyer, 2007:68; Sweeny, 2003:1; Anderson,

— 76 —
1997:331). The model describes how people develop as they learn about an
innovation in curriculum change and implementation (Sweeny, 2008:3). The
Concerns-Based Adoption Model views the teacher as the focal point in school
curriculum change and implementation efforts, and simultaneously acknowledges
and attends to the social and organisational influences (Loucks-Horsley, 1996:1).
While other models treat curriculum change and implementation as an event, the
CBAM treats curriculum change and implementation as a process. Actually, the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model is a complex, multi-part system, of which the
Stages of Concern, Levels of Use and Innovation Configurations are the three parts.
The Stages of Concern describe feelings that individuals experience during
implementing an innovation, while Levels of Use describe individuals’ behaviours as
they experience and implement curriculum change. The third component – Innovation
Configurations – spells out what the new programme or practice will look like when it
is in operation (Hall & Hord, 2001).

Designed as a diagnostic but not prescriptive tool, the three components of the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model inform the facilitator as to how to best facilitate the
adoption of an innovation (Straub, 2009:634). The CBAM does not describe the whys
of an innovation adoption but, rather, it deals with how understanding concerns of a
population (of teachers) can facilitate innovation adoption.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model also focuses on innovations. Straub

(2009:626) says that at its broadest sense, an innovation is any idea new to a
population. Rogers (1995:11) defines an innovation as an idea, a practice or an
object perceived as new by an individual adopting it. According to Straub (2009:626)
it does not matter if the idea, practice or object is objectively new; rather it is the
perception of novelty that is experienced. In addition, an innovation also does not
necessarily mean that something is better or that the new idea is more beneficial to
an individual. Whereas innovation can refer to something abstract, like an idea it can
also mean something concrete (Straub, 2009). This study focuses specifically on
implementation of the AAPS at secondary school level as a particular type of
innovation of interest.

Scholars (Hall & Hord, 1987; 2001) writing from the perspective of the Concern-
Based Adoption Model proceed from the assumption that teachers, as the relatively

— 77 —
autonomous practitioners of education at the level where it really happens are key
adopters of concern. Hence, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model is an exceptionally
powerful tool for diagnosing teachers’ implementation efforts by tracking the
progression of adopters’ concerns and their behaviours related to innovation use.
Policy makers have historically tended to design policy, curriculum implementation
and professional development activities based on skills and knowledge they assume
teachers have and/or need, rather than allowing teachers to identify their needs and
concerns when designing new policy and programmes (Vaughan, 2010:1).

Research suggest that successful implementation of programmes depends on

teachers’ participation and comfort level of the initiative. The Concerns-Based
Adoption Model reveals that at the early stages of an innovation (such as the AAPS),
teachers’ concerns tend to be more personal. As personal concerns are resolved,
teachers tend to be more concerned about the application, task and impact of the
programme (Vaughan, 2010). Precisely the CBAM assumes that change is a process
that follows a seven-stage developmental sequence regarding the concerns that
teachers have when an innovation (such as AAPS) is adopted. Based on these
premises, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model emphasises the teacher and the
innovation as the focus (Hall & Hord, 2001).

Hall and Hord (1987:11; 2001) characterise teachers and principals in an education
system as change facilitators. A change facilitator might also be a developer involved
in introducing a particular educational reform. As innovation users and non-users,
teachers need to be probed using two diagnostic tools. The tools relate to user
Stages of Concern and Levels of Use, as measures to match resources with the
needs of the teachers who are the frontline implementers of change (Bellah & Dyer,
2007; Sweeny, 2003). Within the context of the CBAM, teachers need guidance for
them to understand, adopt and adapt change. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model
focuses on two facets of an individual’s developmental growth in relation to an
innovation (such as the AAPS in the case of this study).

Hall and Hord (2001) and Joerger (2002) clearly point to the inequality of investment
in people, time, and resources as they pertain to development and implementation of
educational innovations. Inasmuch as policy makers and curriculum developers are
eager to get an innovation in the hands of teachers, most resources are allocated to

— 78 —
development (Bellah & Dyer, 2007:69). Fewer resources and care are provided to the
implementation and monitoring of change, often relegating the change to failure
status when formative and summative evaluations are performed, and teachers
report non-use of the innovation (Bellah & Dyer, 2007:69). According to Loucks-
Horsley (1996), without ongoing resources, facilitator support and continuous
professional development, sustained use or implementation of the innovation is
questionable. I agree with the observations by Bellah and Dyer (2007:6) and Loucks-
Horsley (1996) that implementation of innovations require conducive environments,
care and on-going support. The reason being that in the Zimbabwean context the
gains of once off professional development, support and care can be easily eroded
by the exodus of teachers through retirement and the search for better conditions of
service (greener pastures) as well as moving in of new teachers who do not have
requisite knowledge of the policy and curriculum requirements of the AAPS from
Teachers’ Colleges.

3.2.1 CONCERNS-BASED ADOPTION MODEL’S BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

The goal of Hall and Hord’s (1987, 2001) Concerns-Based Adoption Model is to ease
the problems as well as diagnose group and individual needs during the policy and
curriculum adoption process so that the innovation would be more easily facilitated.
By addressing affective and cognitive concerns of teachers, the CBAM can ease the
change process (Straub, 2009:633). The CBAM sets forth several assumptions and
assertions based upon the implementation of innovations in school settings. These
assumptions form the basis of the three components of the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model already mentioned in paragraph 3.2: Stages of Concern (SoC),
Levels of Use (LoU) and Innovation Configurations (IC).

The following six explicit assumptions form the basis of the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model established for observing and facilitating the process of policy and
curriculum change and implementation (Straub, 2009:633; Dirksen & Tharp,
1997:1065; Hall & Hord, 1987):
1. Change is a process, not an event and it takes time to institute change;
2. Individuals accomplish change. The individuals must be the focus if change
is to be facilitated and institutions (such as schools) will not change until
their members change;

— 79 —
3. The change process is extremely personal experience and how it is
perceived by the individual will strongly influence the outcome;
4. Change involves developmental growth. That is, individuals experiencing
new practice progress through various stages regarding their emotions and
capabilities resulting to the innovation;
5. Change is best understood in operational terms. The availability of a
teacher-centred diagnostic approach can enhance the individual’s
facilitation during curriculum implementation or/ and staff development; and
6. The focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations and context. In
addition, people responsible for the change process need to be monitored
constantly.

Consistently, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model addresses three basic

assumptions. First, the theory focuses on the individual’s concerns about the
innovation or change. In the case of this study, it refers to the teacher’s concerns
about the AAPS as a subject area. Second, it addresses the particular manner in
which the innovation is delivered or implemented (how the AAPS) is implemented by
teachers. Lastly, the CBAM looks at the adaptation of the innovation to the individual
teacher (Hall & Hord, 2001). Figure 3.1 shows the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
as a road map to policy and curriculum implementation. In the case of this study, it
acts as a basis in understating the teachers’ conceptualisation and implementation of
the AIDS Action Programme for Schools.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model Road Map indicated in Figure 3.1 clearly
shows that since curriculum change and implementation is process-oriented,
individual teachers respond differently. Regarding this study, the teachers do
implement the AIDS Action Programme for Schools at different paces, stages and
levels. Some teachers move fast to adopt and adapt curriculum implementation at
higher stages and levels of the CBAM while others trail behind at low stages and
levels. Those teachers operating at high levels act as facilitators in encouraging
others to emulate effective practice. Like travellers on a road, as the teachers’
concerns are resolved through support by policy makers, school management,
professional development and in-service training, they move on to higher Levels of
Use and attainment of effective implementation of the subject area in their classes.
The situation is visualised as people travelling on a road towards a common

— 80 —
destination, who are at different points on the journey, with some well advanced,
some in the middle while others are at the starting point as indicated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Concerns-Based Adoption Model Road Map (Adapted from WestEd
2000:11)

An analysis of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model’s assumptions implies that since

change is a process and not an event, it is a highly personal experience. Hence,
interventions (such as the AAPS) must be related to the teachers first and the
innovation second. In Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture,
and school management’s (facilitator) role is to clarify what is expected of the
teachers, assess and pay attention to teachers’ concerns during implementation of
the subject area. The facilitators should also match support and resources to
teacher’s subject implementation needs in the stage of change. As indicated in figure
3.1 above, there in need for a clear vision of an innovation so that it acts as a road
map to successful implementation of the innovation. Teachers have to be motivated
by school management and knowledgeable colleagues in order for them to embrace

— 81 —
an innovation such as the AIDS Action Programme for Schools and implement it in
their classrooms.

Designed as a diagnostic but not prescriptive tool, the Concerns-Based Adoption

Model helps inform the change facilitator (school management) as to how to best
facilitate the adoption of an innovation. The Stages of Concerns address the intensity
of the feelings and perceptions that the individual teachers adopting policy and
curriculum implementation express. The Levels of Use measure addresses
behaviours related to how the individual implement or use the innovation such as the
AIDS Action Programme for Schools in the case of this study. Lastly, Innovation
Configurations requires the development of word maps that describe the operational
components of an innovation and how each can be adapted, re-invented, or in some
cases mutated (Dirksen & Tharp, 1997:1065; Hall & Hord, 1987).

3.2.2 STAGES OF CONCERN (SOC)

The Stages of Concern is a framework that focuses on individual characteristics and

pertains to teacher attitudes about curriculum change and implementation (Straub,
2009:634; Anderson, 1997:335). SoC focus on the affective dimension, how teachers
feel about doing something new or different, and their concerns as they engage with
a new programme or practice (Horsely & Loucks-Horsely, 1998:1). It describes the
feelings and motivations a teacher might have about a change in curriculum and/or
instructional practice at different points in its implementation (Anderson, 1997:334).
Stages of Concern involve the concerns teachers have as they progress through the
adoption process. According to Anderson (1997), Stages of Concern represent a
developmental progression in implementing an innovation (such as the AAPS). Hall
and Hord (2001) suggest that the stages are not mutually exclusive – teachers may
show concerns of all stages at any given point during the innovation implementation
process. In fact, many teachers do not reach the highest Stages of Concern. The
Stages of Concerns are also not hierarchical, and as a teacher moves out of one
stage, he or she still may have concerns consistent with previous stages (Straub
2009:634) The concept of ‘concerns’ is defined as the composite representation of
the feelings, preoccupation, thought and consideration given to a particular issue or
task (Hall & Hord, 2001). The process of change can be more successful if the

— 82 —
‘concerns’ of the individual teacher as identified in the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model, are considered.

In this study, the Stages of Concern of the CBAM relate directly to how secondary
school teachers feel about the educational innovation the AIDS Action Programme
for Schools, which they are tasked to implement (Hall & Hord, 2001). The SoC are
seven stages of feelings and perceptions experienced in a change process
(Anderson, 1997:334). Stages of Concern have three phases. The three phases are:
self-concerns, task concerns and impact concerns. These three stages are expanded
into seven dimensions of concerns that can vary in intensity. Self-concerns consist of
three stages: Stage 0 – Unconcerned/Awareness; Stage 1 – Informational; and
Stage 2 – Personal. Task concerns are Stage 3 – Management; and Impact concerns
are in Stage 4 – Consequence; Stage 5 – Collaboration; and Stage 6 – Refocusing.
Table 3.1 below clearly shows the three phases and seven Stages of Concern.

Table 3.1: CBAM Phases and Stages of Concern (Adapted from Hall & Hord,
1987:63)

Phases and Stages of Concern

Stages of Concern Expressions of Concern
Stage 6: Refocusing I have some ideas about something that
would work even better.
IMPACT

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 clients?

TASK Stage 3: Management I seem to be spending all of my time

getting materials ready.
Stage 2: Personal How will using it affect me?
SELF

Stage 1: Informational I would like to know more about it.

Stage 0: Awareness I am not concerned about it.

— 83 —
The Unconcerned or Awareness stage looks at teacher involvement with the
innovation. The Informational stage focuses on gaining more information about the
innovation such as general characteristics, effects, components and requirements for
(AAPS) use. The Personal stage deals with how the innovation relates to the
individual teacher (that is, role, decision making, consideration of potential conflict or
lack of success). The Management stage involves the mechanics of
using/implementing or integrating the innovation. The Consequence stage focuses
on the effects or impact of the innovation on learners. The Collaboration stage
involves coordinating efforts in using the innovation with others. Lastly, the
Refocusing stage emphasises the exploration of other ways to utilise the innovation
in a more effective and efficient way (Hall & Hord, 2001).

The stages span the areas of little concern, knowledge, or involvement in an

innovation to a teacher’s focus on further exploration of more universal benefits or
alternative forms of the innovation (Bellah & Dryer 2007:69; Hall & Hord, 2001).
Sweeny (2003:1) says that the Stages of Concern range from early concerns about
self (What is it, and how does it affect me?), to concerns about task (How can I best
manage the innovation?) and finally concerns about impact (How does the innovation
affect my students and me). These three are landmarks or critical stages of concern.
According to Wills (1992:82) the CBAM recognises that while a person’s focus of
concern may shift from one stage to another, it does not indicate that the previous
stage of concern is alleviated.

The Stages of Concern profile graphically represents the relative intensities of each
of the seven stages of concern. The profile pattern, taking note of the highest peaks,
characterises the concerns of a nonuser, inexperienced user, or a renewing user.
The shape of the concerns profile typically changes as the user moves through the
innovation implementation process shifting from an emphasis on self-concerns, to
task, to impact concerns (Vaughan, 2010).

The Stages of Concern have major implications for teachers’ practice. They point out
the importance of identifying where teachers are and addressing their concerns at the
time, they indicate them (Hall & Hord, 1987; 2001). Policy makers and school
management tend to focus on student learning and outcomes before teachers are
comfortable with an innovation and its components, such as objectives, content and

— 84 —
strategies (Loucks-Horsley, 1996:1). It implies that they focus on how-to-do-it before
addressing teacher self-concerns. Monitoring of teacher concerns and professional
development should be seen as key to effective policy or curriculum implementation.

Further, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model emphasises the importance of paying

attention to a sufficient period during implementation of an innovation, in order for
teacher concerns or challenges to be addressed (Newhouse, 2001; Loucks-Horsley,
1996). This is because it takes time for teacher concerns to be resolved, especially
when teachers are implementing a new curriculum for the whole year where new
approaches to teaching are expected and when each topic in the innovation brings
new surprises (Sweeny, 2008; Hall & Hord, 2001).

Figure 3.2 illustrates the stages and typical expressions of concerns, which teachers
experience about a curriculum innovation ranging from the lowest stage
Unconcerned28 or Awareness to the highest stage Refocusing. Through the seven
Stages of Concern, teachers go through the process of ignoring, resisting, adopting
and adapting change based on their understanding of the innovation and support
given (Hall & Hord, 2001).

In the three lower stages, which focus on oneself, a teacher uses ‘I’ and ‘me’, as in ‘I
am frustrated’ (Sweeny, 2003). During these stages, a teacher experiencing the
change may lack awareness about the innovation and seek information. If the
teachers fail to acquire sufficient information about the innovation, they may ignore or
resist adopting it. The middle stage – Management – that is task-oriented focuses on
mastery of the tasks. The teacher may use ‘it’ or a reference to the activity and not
the self. For example, a person struggling at the management stage could use a
statement like ‘Prioritising my use of time and managing paper work is killing me’
(Sweeny, 2003; 2008:3). At the management stage, the teacher has some
understanding of the innovation and has adopted it, but is still facing some
implementation challenges. In the upper Stages of Concern, which focus on result
and impact of the innovation, a clue is that the teacher might make statements, which
refer to clients, protégés or participants who receive the benefits of the innovation.
For example, the teacher might say, ‘The students are really learning and showing

28
Unconcerned and Awareness are terms used to describe the lowest stage on the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model. The two terms are used interchangeably in this thesis.

— 85 —
positive attitudes and behaviour change since I started teaching HIV, AIDS and Life
Skills education in my class.’

FIGURE 3.2: Stages and Expressions of Concern (Adapted from Hall & Hord, 2001)

As indicated in Figure 3.2, during the Unconcerned or Awareness stage teachers

have little concern and knowledge about or interest in the AAPS – the innovation
(Anderson, 1997:334). The AIDS Action Programme for Schools is seen not to be
affecting the teachers at this stage. Hence, little involvement with the innovation
AAPS is indicated. In the second stage, Informational, teachers have general or
vague awareness of the AIDS Action Programme for Schools and its components.
Teachers may begin some information seeking to gain additional knowledge about
the subject area. The teacher is interested in learning more about the AAPS and the
implications of its implementation. The person seems to be unworried about self in
relation to AAPS – the innovation or change (Straub, 2009:635). Hall and Hord
(2001) poses that in implementing an innovation, the teacher is interested in

— 86 —
substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfish manner such as general
characteristics, effects and requirements for use. The Personal stage typically
reflects strong anxieties about the teacher’s ability to implement the AIDS Action
Programme for Schools, the appropriateness of the curriculum, and the personal cost
of getting involved (Anderson, 1997:334). Teachers focus on how a particular
innovation, the AIDS Action Programme for Schools, will change the demands or
conflict with existing understanding of what they do (Straub, 2009). An individual is
uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his inadequacy to meet those
demands and his role with the innovation.

The Management stage is reached when the teacher begin to experiment with
implementation of the AAPS. At this stage, teacher concerns intensify around the
logistics and new behaviours associated with putting the change into practice
(Straub, 2009:635; Anderson, 1997:334). Issues related to efficiency, organising,
managing, scheduling and time demands are utmost important to the teacher. At the
Consequence stage, teachers’ concerns focus predominantly on the impact of the
AAPS on students in their classrooms and on the possibilities for modifying the
innovation or their use of it to improve its effects. Hall and Hord (2001) contend that
at this stage attention focuses on relevance of the AAPS for students and changes
needed to increase student outcomes. The high stage – Collaboration, reflects
teacher interest in working with other teachers in the school to jointly improve the
benefits of the AAPS implementation for learners.

At some point in the change process, teachers may reach the highest stage –
Refocusing. At this stage, the teacher is thinking about making major modifications in
the use of the innovation, or perhaps replacing it with something else (Anderson,
1997:334). It enables teachers to begin to have concerns about how they compare to
their peers and how they can work with their fellow teachers on an innovation – the
AAPS. The focus is on partnership, coordination and cooperation with others
regarding use of the innovation. In the last stage – Refocusing, teachers’ concerns
focus on how to improve implementation of the AAPS – the innovation (Straub,
2009:635). Teachers explore more universal benefits from the innovation, including
the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative for
effective curriculum implementation. The second major dimension of the Concerns-
Based Adoption Model is the Levels of Use of an innovation.

— 87 —
3.2.3 LEVELS OF USE (LOU)

The CBAM’s Levels of Use focus on general patterns of teacher behaviour as they
prepare to use, begin to use, and gain experience implementing a classroom change
(such as AAPS). LoU describes the behavioural dimensions of change, for example,
what teachers actually do in the classroom when making the transition from teaching
one way to teaching differently (Horsley, & Loucks-Horsley, 1998:2). Progression
from one level to the next is marked by key decision points and corresponding
behaviours in several domains: acquiring information, assessing, sharing, planning,
status reporting, performance and knowledge (Anderson, 1997:335). Levels of Use
illustrate how performance changes as an individual becomes more familiar with an
innovation and more skilful in using it. That is, Levels of Use or practice corresponds
with teacher behaviour in relation to the educational change in question. Hall and
Hord (2001) outline eight levels as indicated in Table 3.2 at which a teacher is
positioned in terms of the extent to which the innovation is used or implemented. The
Levels of Use are: Non-use (0), Orientation (1), Preparation (2), Mechanical use (3),
Routine (4a), Refinement (4b), Integration (5), and Renewal (6). Newhouse (2001)
argues that these levels are the sequence through which a teacher passes during the
change process, as he or she gains confidence in adopting educational change. Hall
and Hord (1987) posit that the eight levels show how a teacher adapts to
implementing an innovation starting from a low level of adoption, Mechanical use to
the highest level Renewal.

The Level 0 – Non-use reflects a state in which the teacher has little knowledge of
the change and no plans for its implementation. A teacher enters Level 1,
Orientation, when he made a decision to implement it (Anderson, 1997:335). At level
2, Preparation, a teacher is actively preparing to put the change into practice, but has
not actually begun to implement it in the classroom. At Level 3, Mechanical, the
teacher begins adopting and implementing the change (such as AAPS). At this level,
the teacher is struggling with the logistics of implementation and the acquisition of
requisite information, new content and teaching skills. At this level, teacher decision
making is oriented towards making the innovation more manageable and easy to
implement (Anderson, 1997:335). In other words, changes in innovation use are
teacher-centred. Hall and Hord (1987) possess that a teacher who establishes a
pattern of regular use, and who makes few changes and adaptations in use of the

— 88 —
innovation, is said to have attained Level 4a – Routine use. According to Hall and
Hord (2001), most teachers settle in at a Routine level of use. Some, however, may
actively assess the impact of the innovation on their students and initiate changes in
the innovation or their use of it on this basis and reach Level 4b – Refinement
(Straub, 2009). At Level 4b a teacher’s adoption to changes in innovation use are
student-centred. Level 5 – Integration, describes a state in which teachers
collaborate with other teachers to make changes in implementation for the benefit of
their students (Hall & Hord, 2001). As viewed by Anderson (1997:335) during
integration, teacher actions now extend to the impact of implementation beyond their
own individual classrooms. Eventually, at Level 6, some teachers begin to explore
alternative practices to the innovation.

Anderson (1997:335) espouses that in line with the Stages of Concern, the CBAM’s
Levels of Use schema represents a possible, not a necessary, developmental
progression in teacher behaviours and classroom practice. It focuses on the
implementation of a specific change in practice. According to Anderson (1997),
teachers often engage in Orientation behaviours to learn about promising
innovations, but do not implement everything that they are tasked to do. Teachers
may decide to abandon new policies, curricula or practices while still at a Mechanical
level of use, due to reasons such as lack of assistance, poor curriculum and lack of
resources. Hall and Hord (2001) observe that teachers who attain a Routine level of
use in implementing new practices often continue using those practices without
active modifications in implementation for the benefit of the teacher and students.
Consequently, what level of use a teacher progresses to in implementing change is
depended on the interaction between a number of factors such as: teacher norms,
innovation characteristics, implementation assistance, resources, time, experience
with implementation and administrative pressure and support.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model shows that individuals first adopt and use an
innovation at Mechanical level (Level 3) and Management stage (Stage 4). During
this time, the teachers’ planning is short-term and their organisation and coordination
of the innovation are disjointed. Experience and familiarity with the innovation move
the teacher to Routine level of use and Refinement where changes are made based
on the needs of students. This is where a teacher is able to adapt the innovation in
the implementation process. The CBAM shows that when change is well planned,

— 89 —
experienced users develop more concerns at the Consequence, Collaboration and
Refocusing stages (Loucks-Horsley, 1996; Sweeny, 2003). According to Sweeny
(2003) once teachers attain the collaboration level, they know the value of the
innovation, and given the opportunity and time, will continue to give collaborative
support to their colleagues in change agendas. These behaviours are consistent with
a positive response to policy and curriculum implementation. In addition, the practice
that teachers who are the agencies of change, continue to develop to effectiveness
over time, ensures success in reforms.

According to Hall and Hord (1987; 2001), Levels of Use of an innovation also change
in predictable ways. Generally, individuals develop from Level zero, Non-use, through
to Routine use at Level 4a up to Renewal, which is Level 6. At that point, individuals
may move to any of the higher levels, back to Level 3, Mechanical uses, or may
remain at the Routine level indefinitely. The knowledge about how concerns and
levels of use of teachers involved in an implementation effort are likely to develop
over time can equip policy drivers and school management with a guiding framework.
The framework enables the policy and programme initiators to plan and support
interventions.

Lastly, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model acknowledges that it is often the case
that once teachers’ practice becomes routine, they do not progress to higher levels.
This could be due to lack of time and space, which will limit them to reflect whether
their pedagogical practice is congruent with policy expectation and reform objectives
(Hope, 1997:147; Kember & Mezger, 1990:50). According to Hope (1997), there are
psychological factors to consider when an educational innovation (such as AAPS) is
introduced to teachers, specifically the effects of learning to use the innovation.
Additionally, Hall and Hord (2001) observed that teachers face the situation of having
to implement innovations with limited usage instruction, and without a clear
understanding of the innovation’s purpose or their role in what they are asked to do.
As a result, teachers motivated to move from an Awareness stage of concern and
Orientation level may return to the classroom and implement the innovation in a
manner that is not in line with what the developers of the change originally
envisioned (Bellah & Dyer, 2007:69; Hall & Hord, 2001).

— 90 —
Table 3.1 shows eight levels of how a person adapts to implement an innovation
starting from a low level to the highest level.

TABLE 3.2: Teacher Levels of Use of an Innovation and Typical Behaviours

(Adapted from Hall & Hord, 1987:84)

Levels of Use Behavioural Indicators

6. Renewal The user seeks more effective alternatives to the established use of
the innovation.
5. Integration The user makes deliberate efforts to coordinate (collaborate) with
others in using the innovation.
4b. Reinforcement The user makes changes to increase outcomes.
4a. Routine User makes few or no changes and has an established pattern of
use.
3. Mechanical The user makes changes to better organise use of the innovation.
2. Preparation The user has definite plans to begin using the innovation.
1. Orientation User takes the initiative to learn more about the innovation.
0. Non-Use No action is being taken with respect to the innovation.

Burgess et al. (2010:56) observe that lower levels (Mechanical and Routine) indicate
a day-to-day adoption or adaptation of an initiative at a surface level of change. The
upper levels indicate teachers whose behaviours of reflection and collaboration show
a more meaningful engagement with the subject area (Kember & Mezger, 1990:50).
The risk of teachers practicing at Mechanical level is one of superficial
implementation (Hall and Hord, 1987; 2001), where the innovation (such as AAPS), is
directly adopted into practice with limited absorption of the underlying principles,
contextualisation or integration (Burgess et al., 2010:56). This practice seems to be
aligned with the pattern of implementation by teachers in school contexts.

Lastly, according to the Concerns-Based Adoption Model, it is observed that if

resources for introduction, implementation, and sustained adoption of such
innovations are inadequate teacher implementation challenges may increase. When
there are insufficient, resources and lack of support, teachers frequently find
themselves struggling to understand and use newly introduced educational
innovations (Hall & Hord, 2001). Consequently, Bellah and Dyer (2007) observed that
in most cases, evaluation measures, when implemented, serve simply to assess if a
teacher is using an innovation, and they do not consider whether there are

— 91 —
appropriate and adequate resources. If results show non-use, the innovation is
deemed a failure. If the evaluation results indicate teacher use regardless of
availability of adequate resources, the innovation is viewed as a success. In this
study, the Stages of Concern and Levels of Use are appropriate analytical tools to
explore how secondary school teachers understand, respond to and implement the
AIDS Action Programme for Schools.

3.2.4 INNOVATION CONFIGURATIONS (IC)

As a component of the CBAM, Innovation Configurations allows the teacher to

communicate what effective innovation use in the intended setting such as the
classroom actually looks like and even to specify what adaptations can be made to
reduce strangeness or complexity without rendering the innovation ineffective. In
addition, Innovation Configurations represent the pattern of use that result when
different teachers implement change in their classrooms (Hall and Hord, 2001). This
enables school management and evaluators to make sure that the teachers are
implementing an innovation in an appropriate manner.

In a way, Hall and Hord (2001) point out that Innovation Configurations help to define
what the new programme or practice is that is to be implemented in the classroom.
What is needed is to try and identify the main components of a new programme.
Innovation Configurations help the school management to know what the behaviours
are that are occurring in the classroom. According to Hall and Hord (2001) Innovation
Configurations data can be used to measure the progress of an implementation and
to identify and address problems associated with the implementation of an
innovation. What the CBAM does through Innovation Configurations is to learn more
about innovations and to figure out more effective ways to support teachers engaged
in implementation, by studying what is going on with them. Innovation Configurations
find out what is going on in a naturalistic way so that the change process can be
tracked. According to Hall and Hord (1987) at its core, the Innovation Configurations
construct helps to ensure that every teacher is on the same page. This third part of
the CBAM – Innovation Configurations, is not used as an analysis tool in this
research because it would change the focus of the study. The Concerns-Based
Adoption Model’s two parts, which are most relevant to this study and employed as a
data analysis tool, are the Stages of Concern and Levels of Use.

— 92 —
Figure 3.3 shows the visual representation of implementation of the AAPS using the
CBAM’s Stages of Concern and Levels of Use dimensions as the foundation. The
main elements in Figure 3.3 are that the subject area AAPS comes first. The next
element in the figure is the teachers who are the agents of change and users of the
AAPS in their classrooms. Thirdly, there is need for probing and intervening by the
policy makers, curriculum developers, school management and knowledgeable
colleagues to facilitate implementation of the curriculum and change process. The
teachers engage into Stages of Concern and Levels of Use. The end result is that
there are users and non users of the subject area AAPS depending on the teacher’s
Stage of Concern and Level of Use.

Users
Stages of and Non-
AIDS Action Concern Users of
Programme the AIDS
Probing Action
for Teachers and Program-
Schools Intervening Levels of me for
Use Schools

Figure 3.3: The Concerns-Based Adoption Model applied to the AAPS (Adapted
from WestEd 2000:10)

The teachers’ Stages of Concern and the Levels of Use influence effective
implementation of the AIDS Action Programme for Schools. The probing and
intervention by the school management enhance the teachers’ motivation and
performance through influencing their understanding of the AAPS policy, curriculum
components and requirements. As indicated in Figure 3.3, depending on their Stage

— 93 —
of Concern and Level of Use, teachers can be either users or non-users of the
innovation (AAPS) in their classrooms (Hall & Hord, 2001). An innovation
implementation support system has to be created by the facilitators where probing
and intervening takes place for change to be realised. Intervention could be in the
form of in-service training workshops and provision of resources. Probing can be
done during monitoring the subject area’s implementation process.

3.3 CONCLUSION

In the current chapter it has been discussed that the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model provides an elaborate framework and methodology for describing key
dimensions of the process, content and support for teacher implementation of
changes in policy, curriculum and instruction. Various schemas for classifying teacher
implementation attitudes and behaviours, change management approaches and
change-facilitation interventions and roles were explored. The theory is made up of
three major components namely: Stages of Concern, Levels of Use and Innovation
Configurations, with the first two being relevant to this study. The CBAM does not
predict what interventions work best in resolving which concerns in particular
circumstances. The model does, however, include a framework for describing
interventions to facilitate policy and curriculum change and implementation. The
concept of change facilitator is a critical element of the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model framework. It was noted that teachers’ progress in implementing an innovation
can vary in different schools, regardless of whether they received the same initial
staff development. This led to this study employing the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model framework in investigating of secondary school teachers’ conceptualisation
and implementation of the AIDS Action Programme for Schools. The upcoming
Chapter 4 discusses the methodology and approaches used in this study.

---oOo---

— 94 —