From professional development to practice: Factors in the implementation of standards-based curriculum and instruction.

摘要

This study determines (a) the intensity levels of concerns of secondary English language arts, mathematics, science, fine arts, business education, and physical education teachers towards implementing performance-based curriculum and instruction, (b) the levels of use in implementing performance-based curriculum and instruction, and (c) the contributing factors to use or nonuse of the innovation.; The study population consisted of participants from a cluster of four secondary (9–12) schools in the Marlborough (pseudonym), Rhode Island Public School District.; This study of implementation of performance-based instruction was guided by a dual approach: a quantitative approach to determining intensity levels of concern and levels of use and a qualitative approach to determine the factors which contributed to teacher use or nonuse of the innovation. Questionnaires and focused interviews were used to collect the data from secondary teacher participants in Marlborough. The data of the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) were analyzed using procedures outlined in the trainers manual for the Stages of Concern Questionnaire, the Innovation Configuration component checklist and the Levels of Use of an Innovation Interview. The data from the focused interviews were analyzed through simple descriptive statistics.; The questionnaire results showed that over the 3-month early implementation period Marlborough secondary teachers continued to have relatively intense concerns about consequence and collaboration in their efforts to implement the standards-based curriculum. Additionally, they needed further practical rather than theoretical information about how to carry out the innovation. The interview findings revealed that one third of the teachers were actively attempting to implement the standards-based curriculum unit in their classrooms. Those teachers who indicated the most success with the innovation were the elective teachers in both the vocational education and the academic education elective programs. However, they and their colleagues who were not yet involved in implementation continued to face a number of workplace hindrances to implementation. Collectively, the questionnaires and interviews reveal a complex picture of a teaching community in the midst of educational change. The results of the study have major implications not only for building-level administrators but for those in charge of the change process within the district and the state.