<%BANNER%>

Agriscience Teachers Concerns Regarding Content Area Reading Strategies

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024487/00001

Material Information

Title: Agriscience Teachers Concerns Regarding Content Area Reading Strategies
Physical Description: 1 online resource (152 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Warner, Anna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adoption, agriscience, area, cars, cbam, concern, content, florida, implementation, innovation, literacy, model, reading, stages, strategies
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Millions of students across America struggle to read and comprehend text. Research has supported the ability of content area reading strategies (CARS) to increase students ability to read and comprehend text. The purpose of this research was to assess the relationship between CARS professional development and implementation of CARS in the agriscience classrooms. A descriptive, census survey of 371 Florida agriscience was completed using a tailored-design web-based questionnaire. Overall, agriscience teachers Stages of Concern profiles were non-user profiles. The researcher concluded CARS professional development programs are not meeting the needs agriscience of teachers; thus, these teachers are not progressing through the Stages of Concern and are not implementing CARS at a high level. Research should be conducted to identify the barriers which prevent teachers from transferring the knowledge and skills they learn in professional development into the classroom setting. Practitioners should develop and provide a consistent, in-depth professional development program should be implemented to provide ongoing training and support of the innovation throughout a several year process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Anna Warner.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024487:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024487/00001

Material Information

Title: Agriscience Teachers Concerns Regarding Content Area Reading Strategies
Physical Description: 1 online resource (152 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Warner, Anna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adoption, agriscience, area, cars, cbam, concern, content, florida, implementation, innovation, literacy, model, reading, stages, strategies
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Millions of students across America struggle to read and comprehend text. Research has supported the ability of content area reading strategies (CARS) to increase students ability to read and comprehend text. The purpose of this research was to assess the relationship between CARS professional development and implementation of CARS in the agriscience classrooms. A descriptive, census survey of 371 Florida agriscience was completed using a tailored-design web-based questionnaire. Overall, agriscience teachers Stages of Concern profiles were non-user profiles. The researcher concluded CARS professional development programs are not meeting the needs agriscience of teachers; thus, these teachers are not progressing through the Stages of Concern and are not implementing CARS at a high level. Research should be conducted to identify the barriers which prevent teachers from transferring the knowledge and skills they learn in professional development into the classroom setting. Practitioners should develop and provide a consistent, in-depth professional development program should be implemented to provide ongoing training and support of the innovation throughout a several year process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Anna Warner.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024487:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS CONCERNS REGARDING CONTENT AREA READING STRATEGIES By ANNA J. WARNER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Anna J. Warner 2

PAGE 3

To the Glory of God and my Savior Jesus Christ 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerous people have contri buted to my success as a graduate student and in the completion of my thesis. I would like to thank them for their support a nd direction, for without them, I would not have been accomplished these milestones. First, I would like to thank God for bringing me to Gaines ville and surrounding me with loving and supporting people. He ha s truly blessed me with the va rious gifts I have used through this process. When I felt overwhe lmed, I knew that I would be able to do all things through him. I know that without Dr. Brian Myers, my committee chair and advisor here at the University of Florida, I would not have had near ly the high quality of experience that I have had. I would like to thank Dr. Myers for welcoming to Gainesville and offering his advice, knowledge and support and for providing me with some amazing opportunities. I would also like to thank Dr. Ed Osborne, my other committee member. Dr. Osborne would always challenge me to think harder and deeper. He pr ovided me with some valuable resources, knowledge and opportunities. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Washburn and the rest of the faculty and staff in the department sharing their knowledge and a dvice through my time in the department. My fellow graduate students have been an awesome source of support and fun. I would like to thank Ann Delay for welcoming me to Ga inesville and making me feel at home; Audrey (Vail) Sinn for leading by example; Christy Windham for being my thesis buddy and keeping me on track, and Katie (Chodil) Abrams for always providing sound advice. I al so want to thank: Lauri Baker, Matt Benge, Roslynn Brain, Kare n Cannon, Lauren Dillard, Allison Eckhardt, Sabastian Galindo-Gonzalez, Lisa Hightower, Diane Mashburn, Crystal Mathews, Mark Mauldin, Lucas Maxwell, Courtney Myers, Char lie Nealis, Rochelle Strickland, Robert Strong, Olekae Thakadu, Andrew Thoron, Angelina Toome y, Marlene von Stein, Katelyn Crow, Rachel 4

PAGE 5

Divine, Tre Easterly, Lex Lamm, Angie Lindsey, Mary Rodriguez, Sallie Ann Sims, and Melissa Metcalfe (and anyone I may have missed) fo r being a sounding board, sharing this awesome experience, and making Gainesville fun. I would also like to thank my friends and fam ily. My family has always been supportive of me and my time in Florida has been no different Although we may have been almost a thousand miles apart, they offered their love and support in a variety of ways. My dad, Allen, has always been an excellent model of hard work and dedica tion. Additionally he is always making me take a realistic perspective on current situations. Kate, my mom, was always a phone call away offering her wisdom and advice. She also provided excellent pr oofreading services. Katie Rae, my sister, has been a sounding board for ideas an d is always good for a pick me up laugh or a get over it and focus on the important stuff reminder. Bill and Wanda, my grandparents keep me updated on the news of the little town of Lineboro and our farm and business. Grandma has also donated her proofr eading skills. Matthew has been supportive of me from my first thoughts of graduate school. Although we were separate by a thousand miles, he has sh ared each moment with me. Whether he offered a sweet, much needed distraction, a pep talk, or a focus check, he always reassured me that I was where I needed to be and that I would always successfully complete the work that sometimes felt overwhelming. I have also been blessed with a wonde rful Florida family. Although only God can understand how we all came together, I am so thankf ul that I was able to create my own family support system during this proce ss. Mia, my dog, was the first person to come home to and a great stress reliever. Jennifer has been an excellent friend and has a way to always make me feel good about my capabilities. Jazmyne makes me smile everyday and reminds me, only the way a 5

PAGE 6

six-year old can, of what is re ally important in life. Stephanie, Ken, Joseph, and Peter, have always brightened my day with a kind favor, hug, or smile. Mr. Jim always provides me with an interesting perspective and chal lenges me to think outside of my comfort box. Mr. Milan and Okito America has filled spare time with enco uragement and action. My Destiny Church family has supported me in my spiritual growth and development on top of my school work. I have wonderful friends from home who ha ve also been supportive and offered never ending encouragement. For that I would like to thank, Nona, D eanna, Herbie, Amy, members of Lazarus Church, and Miss Sue and the crew of the Dutch Corner. I am truly thankful to everyone who has offe red me support, direction, and encouragement throughout this awesome experience! 6

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................11LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................12ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............14CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..15 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........15Research Problem ...................................................................................................................21Purpose and Objectives ...........................................................................................................22Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................22Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................24Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........24Assumptions ................................................................................................................... ........25Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................252 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................27Content Area Reading Strategies Research ............................................................................27Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................29Concerns-Based Adoption Model ...........................................................................................29Environment ................................................................................................................... .30User System Culture ........................................................................................................31Resource System .............................................................................................................31Change Facilitator Team .................................................................................................32Interventions ................................................................................................................. ...32Mushroom Interventions ...............................................................................................32Diagnostic Instruments ....................................................................................................33Innovation Configurations (IC) ................................................................................33Levels of Use (LoU) .................................................................................................34Stages of Concern (SoC) ..........................................................................................35Stages of Concern ............................................................................................................. ......36Concern ....................................................................................................................... .....36Defining Stages of Concern .............................................................................................36Using Stages of Concern .................................................................................................38Assessing Stages of Concern ...........................................................................................39One-legged interviews .....................................................................................................39Open-ended concern statement ................................................................................39Stages of Concern Questionnaire .............................................................................40 7

PAGE 8

Principles of Change ...............................................................................................................40Change Principle 1: Change Is A Process, Not An Event. ..............................................41Change Principle 2: There Are Significant Differences In What Is Entailed In Development And Implementation Of An Innovation. ...............................................42Change Principle 3: An Organization Does Not Change Until The People Within It Change. ........................................................................................................................42Change Principle 4: Innovations Come In Different Sizes. ............................................42Change Principle 5: Interventions Are Th e Actions And Events That Are Key To The Success Of The Change Process. ..........................................................................43Change Principle 6: There Will Be No Change In Outcomes Until New Practices Are Implemented. ........................................................................................................43Change Principle 7: Administrator Leader ship Is Essential To Long-Term Change Success. ...................................................................................................................... ..43Change Principle 8: Mandates Can Work. ......................................................................44Change Principle 9: The School Is The Primary Unit For Change. ................................44Change Principle 10: Facilitating Change Is A Team Effort. .........................................44Change Principle 11: Appr opriate Interventions Reduce Resistance To Change. ..........45Change Principle 12: The Context Of The School Influences The Process Of Change. ........................................................................................................................45Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... .45Conceptual Model ...........................................................................................................46Internal Variables ............................................................................................................47Teacher attitudes ......................................................................................................47Confidence ...............................................................................................................47Knowledge and experience ......................................................................................48Motivation ................................................................................................................49Perceptions and conceptions ....................................................................................50Teaching philosophy ................................................................................................50External factors ................................................................................................................51Discipline .................................................................................................................52Mandates ..................................................................................................................52Professional development ................................................................................................53Social context ...........................................................................................................56Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................573 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 59Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........59Research Design .....................................................................................................................59Population .................................................................................................................... ...........60Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... ........60Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................................... .....61Procedure ..................................................................................................................... ...........63Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................65Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........66 8

PAGE 9

4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... ..........67Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........67Response Rate, Nonrespondents, and Reliability ...................................................................67Demographics .................................................................................................................. .......71Gender and Age ...............................................................................................................7 1Teaching Experience .......................................................................................................71Involvement in the Innovation .........................................................................................72Results by Objective .......................................................................................................... .....79Objective 1 .......................................................................................................................79Objective 2 .......................................................................................................................81Objective 3 .......................................................................................................................88Objective 4 .......................................................................................................................90Primary Stage of Concern .....................................................................................................1 04Frequencies ................................................................................................................... .105Correlations .................................................................................................................. .105Summary ....................................................................................................................... ........1075 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENTATIONS ...............................................................110Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........110Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................................110Methodology ..................................................................................................................1 10Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................................111Demographics ................................................................................................................11 1Gender and Age .............................................................................................................111Teaching Experience .....................................................................................................111Involvement in Innovation ............................................................................................111Objective 1 .....................................................................................................................113Objective 2 .....................................................................................................................113Objective 3 .....................................................................................................................114Objective 4 .....................................................................................................................114Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................114Discussion and Implications .................................................................................................11 5Recommendations ............................................................................................................... ..131Practitioner Recommendations ......................................................................................131Future Research Recommendations ..............................................................................132National Research Agenda ...................................................................................................133APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT .................................................................................................................. ...135B IRB LETTER OF APPROVAL ............................................................................................142C PRE-SURVEY NOTICE LETTER ......................................................................................143 9

PAGE 10

D INITIAL CONTACT LETTER ............................................................................................144E THANK YOU LETTER WITH ADDITIONAL LINK .......................................................145F NON-RESPONDENTS LETTER ........................................................................................146G FINAL CONTACT LETTER ...............................................................................................147LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................148BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................152 10

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Policy-to-Practice Continuum .........................................................................................453-1 Coefficient of internal reliabi lity for the Stages of Concern ..............................................623-2 Test-retest correlations for the Stages of Concern ............................................................624-1 Post hoc reliability scores for each stage of concern .........................................................704-3 Ages of participants ...........................................................................................................714-4 General subject areas agrisc ience teachers have taught .....................................................724-5 Teacher areas of certification ............................................................................................ .724-6 Participants length of involvement in the innovation (not counting current year) ...........734-7 Teachers perceptions of their expertise with CARS ..........................................................734-8 Frequency teachers incorporat e CARS into their lessons ..................................................744-9 Agriscience teachers relations hip with their reading coach .............................................774.10 Teacher perceived barriers to school-wide CARS implementation ...................................784-11 Teacher participation in CA RS professional development ................................................804-12 Number of hours teacher devoted to CARS professional development ............................804-13 Primary Stage of Concern frequencies ............................................................................1054-14 Spearmans rho correlation coefficient between demographic variables and primary Stage of Concern ..............................................................................................................1065-1 Statements on the Stages of Con cern Questionnaire aligned to Stage 0 ..........................121 11

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Concerns Based Adoption Model ......................................................................................302-2 Levels of Use of the innovation. ........................................................................................352-3 Stages of Concern and comm on expression of the concern ..............................................372-4 Conceptual model .......................................................................................................... ....464-3 Concerns profile for teac her incorporating CARS into lessons on a weekly basis ...........754-4 Concerns profile for teac her incorporating CARS into lessons on a monthly basis ..........764-5 Concerns profile for teac her incorporating CARS into lessons on a seldom to never basis....................................................................................................................................764-6 Overall CARS concerns profile .........................................................................................794-7 Group concern profile for teachers with CARS professional development experience ....824-8 Group concerns profile for teachers without CARS professional development experience .................................................................................................................... ......894-9 Concerns profile for teachers with 110 hours of CARS professional development .........914-10 Concerns profile for teachers with 11-20 hours of CARS professional development .......924-11 Concerns profile for teachers with 21-30 hours of CARS professional development .......934-12 Concerns profile for teachers with 31-40 hours of CARS professional development .......944-13 Concerns profile for teachers with 41-50 hours of CARS professional development .......954-14 Concerns profile for teachers with 51-60 hours of CARS professional development .......964-15 Concerns profile for teachers with 61-70 hours of CARS professional development .......974-16 Concerns profile for teachers with 71-80 hours of CARS professional development .......984-17 Concerns profile for teachers with 81-90 hours of CARS professional development .......994-18 Concerns profile for teachers with 91 -100 hours of CARS professional development ...1004-19 Concerns profile for teachers w ith 101-110 hours of CARS professional development ................................................................................................................... ..101 12

PAGE 13

4-20 Concerns profile for teachers w ith 111-120 hours of CARS professional development ................................................................................................................... ..1024-21 Concerns profile for teachers w ith 121-130 hours of CARS professional development ................................................................................................................... ..1034-22 Concerns profile for teachers with >1 30 hours of CARS professional development ......1045-1 Hypothesized development of Stages of Concern. ..........................................................124 13

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS CONCERNS REGARDING CONTENET AREA READING STRATEGIES By Anna J. Warner May 2009 Chair: Brian E Myers Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication Millions of students across America struggle to read and comprehend text. Research has supported the ability of content area reading strategies (CARS) to increase student s ability to read and comprehend text. The purpose of this re search was to assess the relationship between CARS professional development and implementati on of CARS in the agri science classrooms. A descriptive, census surv ey of 371 Florida agriscience was completed using a tailored-design web-based questionnaire. Overa ll, agriscience teachers Stag es of Concern profiles were nonuser profiles. The researcher concluded CARS professional development programs are not meeting the needs agriscience of teachers; t hus, these teachers are not progressing through the Stages of Concern and are not implementing CA RS at a high level. Research should be conducted to identify the barriers which prev ent teachers from transferring the knowledge and skills they learn in professiona l development into the classr oom setting. Practitioners should develop and provide a consistent, in-depth professional development program should be implemented to provide ongoing training and support of the innovation th roughout a several year process.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction The College Board (2002) sta tistics show a 23 point increase in mathematics on the SAT over a 20 year period. During the same period, th e verbal scores remained the same. Since 2000, national math achievement scores have stea dily increased while reading scores have remained steady or slightly declined (U.S. De partment of Education [USDE], 2008). With more than eight million struggling readers in the Un ited States between f ourth and twelfth grade (USDE, 2003), U.S. students have ranked toward the bottom of an international comparison of reading proficiency, even below students fr om developing countries (Snow, 2002). These statistics have prompted a number of state and national read ing initiatives. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has mandated a major change across the nation in education, and a large section of the NCLB Act has focused on im proving student literacy. In a statement by then U.S. Secretary of Education Paige (2001) commended the Senate for the bipartisan support of the No Child Left Behind Act. He noted the ability of this legislation to help meet the needs of Americas students and to provide a quality educat ion to all students. In addition, the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI) has been widely seen as a reform effort which provides a whole school approach, profe ssional development, continuous assessment, follow-up support, and evaluation in order to achieve one hundred percent literacy among all school aged children (North East Florida Edu cation Consortium [NEFEC], 2008, para. 2). One of FRIs major teacher professional development co mponents has included content area reading strategies. This program started in the northeast portion of th e state and is expanding to new schools each year (NEFEC, 2008). 15

PAGE 16

Mapping Americas Educational Progress 2008, a report published by the USDE to measure the accountability of NCLB, highlighted the continuing literacy problems. Only about 30% of fourth and eighth grade students perfor med at the proficient reading level. Those numbers decreased significantly for students of low socioeconomic st atus and different ethnicities. Two percent of the same students performed below basic levels. Since 2002 these students have made steady improvements in ma th scores. However, fourth graders have improved their reading scores mi nimally and eighth graders r eading scores have slightly declined. The Mapping Floridas Progress 2008 repor t shows that Floridas students rank below the national average for reading achievement. Scherer (2002) stated educators must take a long-range view in balancing student needs as they implement the much needed national initiatives (p.5). She referred to The College Boards (2002) report on the ten-year trend of SAT scor es. She noted an emphasis on mathematics and science aided in increasing math scores; however, the narrow focu s limited the improvement of verbal scores. Allington (2002) and observed the focus of reading programs on early literacy with little attention given to reading co mprehension beyond primary grades. Researchers underscored the importance reading comprehension and reading in the content area play in communication, education, employment, and citizenship (Meltzer, 2001; Vacca, 2002a). Students will need to be taught new literacy sk ills so they can learn how to comprehend reading materials Reading and writing play a crucial role in the abilit y to learn for understanding (Meltzer, p. 1). The idea of reading in the content area is not new. William S. Gray was one of the first prominent reading educators and researchers (V acca, 2002b). He conceptualized content area 16

PAGE 17

reading in the Twenty Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part One (Whipple, 1925 as cited in Vacca, 2002b) Gray maintained that reading: Is essential in every content subject. In fact rapid progress in these subjects depends in a large degree on the ability of pupils to read independently and intelligently. It follows that good teaching must provide for the improvement and refinement of the reading attitudes, habits, and skills that are needed in all school activities involving reading (p. 1-2 as cited in Vacca, 2002b, p.186). Gray underscored content area reading instructio n as a characteristic of good teaching regardless of subject. Today, the issue of adolescent literacy continues to dema nd attention. The Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the In ternational Reading Association emphasizes the importance of adolescent literacy: Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more than any other time in human history. They will need a dvanced levels of literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed thei r imaginations so they can creat e the world of the future. In a complex and sometimes even dangerous world, their ability to read will be crucial. Continual instruction beyond the early grades is needed (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999, p. 3). Around fourth grade, students have begun to en counter difficulties with reading, especially in content area reading (Allington, 2002). As students have starte d reading in the content area, they have encountered new structure and orga nization (DArcangelo, 2002) and a need to activate previous background knowledge (Vacca, 2002a). They also have met more challenging and unfamiliar vocabulary and syntax. As stude nts have encountered these more complex structures, they have been required to use higher level thinking (Allington, 2002; Meltzer, 2001). Students who had been considered fluent readers begin to struggle when confronted with the new demands of reading for comprehension (Vacca) The point in school when students have 17

PAGE 18

encountered the unfamiliar and increased difficulty understanding texts has been the same time they have stopped receiving reading instru ction (Allington; Scherer, 2002; Vacca). DArcangelo (2002) stated, Students are novice learners (p. 13) She recommended teachers instruct students how to learn within th e specific discipline. Scherer (2002) underscored the importance of mee ting the middle school and high school students needs to meet the demands of different reading abilities fo r reading comprehension. Vacca (2002a) noted competent readers went beyond simply reading material; they utilized appropr iate readings skills to develop a comprehension of the topic. When st udents read in the content area, they needed to interact with reading material before, dur ing, and after reading (Literacy Matters, 2008). Comprehension of text also requi red students to understand the literal meani ng of the text, make inferences, and evaluate the material. DArcangelo (2002) argued that students need to be taught to learn from text sources and suggested helping student realize strategies which would aid them in becoming effective learners. Vacca (2002b) noted the res ponsibility of reading instruction generally falls on English/ language arts teachers or reading specialists. Students who have encountered the increased demands of content area reading have needed instruction which surpasses that of only the English/language arts teacher (DArcangelo; Va cca, 2002a). All content area teachers could help meet the comprehension needs of students by in corporating CARS inst ruction throughout all content areas (Fisher & Ivey, 2005; Literacy Matters 2002; Schere r, 2002). Every content area teacher has a responsibility to help students su ccessfully and productively access, read, and understand texts (Literacy Matters, para. 6). This statement supports the id eals of Gray (as cited in Vacca, 2002b). Vacca (2002b) states The responsibility for teaching reading is a shared one, belonging to all teachers in all subjects (p.187). 18

PAGE 19

Teachers who provide their students with approp riate reading level material and instruct students in reading strategies have more successful students (A llington, 2002; Literacy Matters, 2002). Teachers have been able to embed instru ction and model reading strategies into their curriculum to help fluent readers become stra tegic readers (Bryant, Ugel, Thompson, &Hamff, 1999; Vacca, 2002). DArcangelo noted embedding CA RS can be completed easily. Fisher and Ivey (2005) have stated l iteracy [is] a way to engage students in the content (para. 14). Bryant et al. (1999) have highlighted th e increased effectiveness in cont ent area instruc tion when it has been integrated through the whole school. DArca ngelo (2002) also unde rscored the importance of a school-wide effort and sustai ned approach. Meltzer (2001) id entified three as pects which led to successful support of CARS: ( 1) careful attention to the so cial and motivational issues attendant to adolescent learners, (2) explic it teaching and use of cognitive strategies, (3) integration of literacy instruction with conten t-area learning in ways that support teaching and learning in that discipline (p. 6). Student performance data and corresponding initiatives have also led to major research efforts in disciplinary literacy. S now (2002) noted that reading skill s can be learned regardless of age. Forget and Bottoms (2000) indicated th at embedding content area reading strategies (CARS) into lessons can help students learn how to read; however, conten t area teachers have often overlooked the importance of incorporating CARS into cont ent instruction (DArcangelo, 2002). In the early period of emphasis on content area reading instruction, OBrien and Stewart (1990) found that of the pre-se rvice content area teachers incl uded in their study, agricultural educators were the most resist ant to classroom reading implem entation. Eighty-five percent of the pre-service agricultural e ducators rejected content area re ading (OBrien & Stewart, 1990). Meltzer (2001) emphasized the importance of implementing discipline-specific CARS. However, 19

PAGE 20

Park and Osbornes (2006b) study on content area reading strategies and textbook use in agricultural education concluded that agriscie nce teachers cannot identify specific CARS to implement in their curricula. Park and Osborne (2006a) identified teachers lack of knowledge and confidence in CARS implementation as the ma in obstacles to incorp orating reading into agricultural educat ion programs. Park (2008), in notes from a roundtable disc ussion at the National Agricultural Education In-service regarding literacy in agricultural education, emphasized the unique ability agriscience teachers possess to facilitate c ontent area reading: the students have voluntarily enrolled in agriscience courses and have a motivation to learn the content. If agriscience teachers have purposefully introduced reading strategies into instruction, these teachers have the ability to increase student reading motivation and comp rehension. These experiences have provided students with opportunities to le arn lifelong literacy skills. Fisher and Ivey (2005) also highlighted the benefit teaching content area lite racy provides to content area teachers. Literacy [is] a way to engage students in the content at hand (Fisher & Ivey, p. 6). Research has noted the importance of conti nuing professional development and support for teachers in order to successfully implement and sustain CARS instruction. Vacca (2002a) stated supports for content-area teachers are crucial (p. 11). He recommended that schools provide reading specialists, resources, and research to teachers along with continuing development programs. Vacca (2002b) praised the requirement of content area reading courses for teacher certification; however, he realized the importa nce of providing teachers with long term support in order to sustain the implementation of CARS. Meltzer (2001) highlighted th e importance of a school-wide effort for CARS professional development, which relied on proper organization, leadership, scheduling, and development. She 20

PAGE 21

acknowledged that lack of l eadership and organization stru cture has caused short-term implementation of innovations and has initiated t eacher frustration, stress, and burnout (p. 7). Meltzer indicated the need for c ontinuing cycles of (1) examini ng the outcomes, (2), reviewing and improving program components, (3) seeki ng practical feedback, and (4) implementing improvements to ensure successful profe ssional development support for CARS (p.7). In response to government mandate and the curr ent research, school systems have invested time and money in teacher professional development and reading initiatives in order to help teachers incorporate reading strategies into their classrooms. Park and Osborne (2006b) underscored the need to research the effectiven ess of CARS professional development programs and the utilization of CARS in agriscience. An objective evaluation of the success of teacher professional development programs in content area reading in agriscience is needed to validate the continuation of these programs. In orde r to evaluate the su ccess of an innovation, documentation of implementation must be achieved (Hall & Hord, 2006). Research Problem Educators, politicians, and parents have b een investigating how to improve student performance in all areas of education. Through government mandates, parent choice of qualified schools, and professional development for teachers with research-based teaching strategies, all parties have been attempting to improve student s academic achievement. The primary impetus behind national and state readi ng initiatives has been the larg e population of U.S. students who struggle to read and comprehend. School systems have made large investments in professional development programs which train teachers to utili ze CARS. To determine if the investment in these programs has been worthw hile and if these programs have helped to improve students achievement, implementation of CARS must be documented. Have teachers who have completed CARS professional development programs implemente d CARS into the classrooms? In the past 21

PAGE 22

agriscience teachers have struggle d more than other content areas to incorporate CARS into the classroom (OBrien & Stewart, 1990). Have these CARS professional development programs met the needs of agriscience teachers? The probl em under investigation in this study was, are agriscience teachers implementing CARS into instruction in orde r to address the low reading performance of students? Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this research was to assess the relationship between CARS professional development and implementation of CARS in the ag riscience classrooms. This research aimed to determine if CARS professional development programs have effectively increased agriscience teachers Stages of Concern in order to faci litate the implementati on of CARS within the classroom. In order to guide the purpose of this study, the following objectives were investigated: Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional deve lopment history. Determine the Stages of Concern of agri science teachers who have completed CARS professional development program. Determine the Stages of Concern of agrisc ience teachers who have not completed CARS professional development program. Determine the relationship between CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. Significance of the Study Americas students have been struggling to read during a time when the demand for literacy has been increasing. Students who have been unable to read and comprehend written material have faced challenges receiving inform ation. These students will struggle to learn content, find employment, communicate ideas, an d compete with students and employees from 22

PAGE 23

other countries. Additionally, they will have an increased reliance on others in order to compensate and obtain the informati on they cannot gather through reading. Content area reading strategies have been a na tionally emerging area of research across all educational disciplines to addre ss the reading deficienci es of students. In response to the large amount of research that has shown the benefits of incorporating CARS in order to improve students reading abilities (Allington, 2002; Brya nt et al., 1999; DArcangelo, 2002; Forget & Bottoms, 2000; Literacy Matters, 2002; Vacca, 2002a), school systems across the country have made a large investment in professional deve lopment programs to train teachers to properly utilize CARS. In order for the research in CARS in agricultural educati on to progress, research needs to ascertain if teachers are implementing change in their classes based upon their training received in CARS professional development programs. A common practice used by area school districts to determine if teachers are implemen ting CARS is classroom walk-throughs in which an administrator will observe a class for four minutes. These walkthroughs cannot provide a complete understanding of th e strategies implemented. This research indicated the lack of success of CARS professional de velopment programs in helpings teachers to implement CARS. Researcher s need to determine the reasons that teachers have not adopted the skills they have been trained to use. The change f acilitator teams will need to address these obstacles so that in tended changes may be implemented. After researchers have documented the impl ementation of CARS by agriscience teachers, they may test for the effectiveness of the inco rporation of CARS on reading scores and content area achievement. Also, professionals can utili ze the professional deve lopment programs which those teachers completed as a model program from which future training and professional development programs can be modeled. Researcher can use a similar series of studies to evaluate 23

PAGE 24

comparable programs. Researchers may also pursue further investigation into interventions which support the implementation of CARS. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined: Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) teaching approaches employed by content area teachers which actively engage students in order to develop a comprehension of reading material and make students responsible for learning from textual material (Bryant, Ugel, Thompson, & Hamff, 1999; Forget & Bottoms, 2000). Content (disciplinary) literacy the level of reading and writing skills that learners need in an academic subject to comprehend and respond to ideas in texts used for instructional purposes (Vacca, 2002, p. 10). Implementation initiating the utilization of an innovation (Ha ll & Hord, 2006). In this study, Stages of Concern (Hall & Hord, 2006) were used to measure teacher implementation of CARS. Stages of Concern (SoC) classifications of pe oples perception of a sp ecific innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006) for this study Stages of Concern will be measured by the Stages of Concern Questionnaire developed by Hall and Hord (2006). Limitations This study has only examined one of the thr ee measures of implementation based on the Concerns Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord 2006). In order to achieve a thorough understanding of the implementa tion of CARS an examination of the Levels of Use and Innovation Configurations will also be needed. In addition, the change facilitator team, resource system, system culture, and other interventions were additional vari ables which were not factored into this study. The survey design of this study presented limita tions in the validity a nd reliability of the findings and conclusions. These limitations st emmed from self-reported information and the non-respondents. These limitations have been ad dressed further in the methodology section of this study. 24

PAGE 25

Results from this census study will not be able to be generalized beyond the state of Florida. This study can only id entify correlational relationshi ps and cannot determine causeeffect relationships. Assumptions The research will be based on the following assumptions: 1. The participants will have a thorough knowledge of CARS. 2. Participants will answer the survey truthfully. Chapter Summary This chapter introduced this study and addr essed the need for research on teacher implementation of CARS upon completion of a professional development program. This study stemmed from a need to validate the large investment in CARS professional development training following the start of national and lo cal reading initiatives. This study intended to determine if agricultural educators have implemen ted the CARS they have been trained to use through a professional development program. To do s o, the research reviewed current literature of student reading abilities and CARS. In a ddition the study was designed around theoretical framework of teacher change. The chapter identified the research problem: how can agriscience teachers help address the needs of struggling readers? The purpose of this research was to assess agricultural educators implementation of content area r eading strategies in their clas srooms. The following objectives were outlined in pursuit of this purpose: (1) ascertain agriscie nce teachers CARS professional development history, (2) determine the Stages of Concern of agriscie nce teachers who have completed a CARS professional development progr am, (3) determine the Stages of Concern of agriscience teachers who have not completed a CARS professional development program, and (4) determine the relationship between CARS pr ofessional development and Stages of Concern. 25

PAGE 26

26 The chapter highlighted the significance of this research in validating CARS professional development programs and providing needed gr oundwork for future research. This chapter defined important terms and noted limita tions and assumptions of the study.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Content Area Reading Strategies Research Vacca (2002b) identified three paradigms which have emerged from content area reading instruction and research: (1) t he reading and study skills para digm, (2) the cognition and learning paradigm, and (3) the social constructivist paradigm (p. 188). During the reading and study skills paradigm, research focused on identi fying reading skills for each content area and the effects that these reading skills had on content area learning. Vacca noted, overall, skills could be used in different subject areas, but the effects of the skills on content achievement varied with the subject area. Additionally, research explored the locus of instruction who should teaching reading skills and in what context s hould they be taught. The cognition and learning paradigm researchers were exploring how r eading strategies desi gned on cognitive and metacognitive activities affected content and reading comprehensi on. This research identified the importance of schemata, text structure, and metacognition to comprehension. The cognition and learning paradigm research led to the d evelopment and validati on of comprehension strategiesand instructional frameworks for comprehension (Vacca, p. 192). The social constructivist paradigm is a newly emerging paradigm ; thus less research exists in this paradigm. The research is examining how students inter act with teachers and text to construct comprehension. Vacca (2002b) compared the visible and invisibl e aspects of content area reading. Visible aspects of content area reading o ccurred when teachers clearly inst ructed students in the use of reading strategies. Invisible aspects occurred when teachers integrated reading strategies into the design of a lesson or activity. Vacca promoted a combination of the two components in order to produce the greatest effect on student comprehension. 27

PAGE 28

After completing a thorough review of lite rature on teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabili ties, Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) discussed the importance that teacher modeli ng of reading strategies plays in student comprehension. In addition, teachers need to prov ide students with extensive feedback while students are learning the strategies Teachers should also demonstrate how the strategies can be transferred to other readings. Th e authors note that since expository text is more complex and less engaging, multiple reading strategies are necessary for comprehension. Bryant, Ugel, Thompson, and Ha mff (1999) discussed some areas of content area reading strategies: word iden tification, vocabulary, a nd comprehension. The authors emphasized the importance of being able to identify the meaning of unfamiliar words to reading fluency and comprehension. Three strategies for word iden tification are: contextu al analysis, phonetic analysis, and structural analysis. Understanding vocabulary is essential for comprehension. Students need to interact with vocabulary in order to fully und erstand the meaning of words. Students should define technical vocabulary and understand its meaning within the content area in more general contexts. Comprehension is the ability to interact with the text and make meaning of it throughout the reading process. The authors identify four comprehension monitoring processes: (a) unders tanding the purpose, (b) distinguishing important information from less important information, (c) engaging in self questioning about what is being read, and (d) recognizing and correcting problems when compre hension is inadequate (Bryant et al., p. 5). Vacca (2002b) and Bryant et al. (1999) highlighted the importance of incorporating CARS into the three stages of reading: pre-readi ng, during reading, and after reading. Students who participate in all three stages of reading build a stronger co mprehension. Prior to reading, students should activate their pr ior knowledge, determine their purpose for reading, review the 28

PAGE 29

text, and make predictions. During reading, st udents should monitor their reading and ask questions, analyze the frameworks and organi zation, and summarize. After reading, students should answer questions, reorganize the text or ideas, relate inform ation to their experiences, and share with others. Theoretical Framework The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2006) (Figure 2-1) was chosen as the theoretical base of this study fo r several reasons. The model has been based on thirty-five years of research which has been fo cused primarily on educational change, but also included research on the change process in bus inesses and government agencies. Furthermore, the research has been continually verified and ex tended to a variety of settings (Hall & Hord). Anderson (1997) stated The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a widely applied theory and methodology for studying the proces s of implementing educational change by teachers and by persons acting in change-facil itator roles (p. 331). He also noted, The Concerns Based Adoption Model is arguabl y the most robust and empirically grounded theoretical model for the implementation of educa tional innovations to come out of educational change research in the 1970s and the 1980s ( p. 331). For these reasons the researcher has chosen this model to examine the implementation of CARS by agricultural ed ucators in Florida. Concerns-Based Adoption Model The Concerns-Based Adoption Model, a rese arch-based model, was designed to help facilitate change and provide diagnostic mean s of measuring implementation of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006). The model consists of the e nvironment, the user system culture, resource system, change facilitator team, interventi ons, users and nonusers, and three diagnostic measures: stages of concern, levels of use, and innovation configurations (Hall & Hord). 29

PAGE 30

Figure 2-1. Concerns Based Adopti on Model (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 252) Environment A dotted line separates the organizational cu lture from the surrounding environment (Hall & Hord, 2006). This broken boundary illustrates that external forces from the environment surrounding the organization can greatly affect ch anges which take place w ithin the organization. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act (N CLB) of 2001 mandated changes within schools throughout the country (Hall & Hord). The impl ementation of CARS was one change which grew from the mandates of NCLB (2001) and state initiatives like th e Florida Reading Initiative. 30

PAGE 31

User System Culture Hall and Hord (2006) defined culture as the individually and socially constructed values, norms, and beliefs about an orga nization and how it should behave that can be measured only by observation and qualitative methods (p. 20). They underscored the influence which culture has on individuals and collective gr oups within the organization and their work. Culture and situational variables join together to create a context whic h influences the change process (Boyd, 1992, as citied in Hall & Hord, 2006). Various intera ctions and combinations of individuals and groups occur within the user sy stem culture (Hall & Hord). Hall and Hord (2006) promoted professional learning communities (PLC) as an ideal culture for implementing change. Hall and Hord (2006) explained PLC as, The norms of collaboration and democratic pa rticipation in decision making, as well as sharing power and authority, contribute to a culture in which the st aff grows in professionalism and efficacy (p. 2526). Hord (1997) identified the five dimensions of professional learni ng communities: (1) supportive shared leadership, (2 ) collective creativity, (3) sh ared values and vision, (4) supportive conditions, and (5) shared personal practice(p.iii). Resource System Hall and Hord (2006) identified the resource system as any external source of resources. Resources may include: innovations, expertise, suppor t, staffing, money, facilities, materials, and equipment. The change facilitator team acts as a vital agent in communicating and mediating between the resource system and the user syst em resource system, ch ange facilitator team, interventions, users and nonusers, and three diagnostic measures: stages of concern, levels of use, and innovation configurations. 31

PAGE 32

Change Facilitator Team The change facilitator team provides leadership for the change process and acts as an agent to interact between the resource system and the user culture system (Hall & Hord, 2006). The change facilitator team needs to take a strategic approach to the facilitation of change. Probing and intervening provide systematic ways to facilitate change. Diffe rent leadership approaches to change have been identified and classified by change facilitator style: the initiator, the manager, and the respondent. (Hall & Hord, p 213). Hall a nd Hord underscored Everyone who is engaged in change has a responsibility to assist in facilitating the proc ess (p. 208). They noted that anyone, regardless of position, has the potential to pl ay a role as a change facilitator. Change facilitators, whether appointed l eaders or emerging leaders, must know how to best work with people from all of the leader ship styles (Hall & Hord). Interventions Hall and Hord (1987) defined an intervention as any action or event that influences the individuals involved or expected to be involved in the proces s (p. 143). Hall and Hord (2006) noted that actions are consciously planned while events are not. Either t ype of intervention can positively or negatively influence the change process. Interventions can range from training workshops to short conversations about the i nnovation called one-leg ged interviews. When positive interventions have been implemented coherently, change has proven to be more successful. Any person who assumes a change faci litator role may administer an intervention (Hall & Hord, 2006). Mushroom Interventions Mushroom interventions are unique because th ey are not purposefully initiated and are unpredictable (Hall & Hord, 2006). The authors used a mushroom analogy to highlight the key characteristics of these interventions. Like a mu shroom these intervention s grow in the shadows 32

PAGE 33

of the change process, can nurture or deter the change process, come in many varieties, grow on individuals interpretation of actions and events, require an expert to sort the good and bad interventions. Mushrooms are dependent upon change facilitator style and Stages of Concern of each participant (Hall & Hord). Diagnostic Instruments The Concerns-Based Adoption Model presented by Hall and Hord (2006) contains three diagnostic instruments to measure implementation of an innovation. Each instrument addresses a different aspect of the change process. I nnovation Configurations (IC) clarify what full implementation should look like. Levels of Use (LoU ) chart an individuals behaviors in regard to the change. Stages of Concerns (SoC) measur e peoples feelings and perceptions of change. These three diagnostic instruments can be used sepa rately or in combinati on with others to assess the status and success of implementation of an innovation (H all & Hord, 2006) Innovation Configurations (IC) Innovation Configurations (IC) describe what the change should look like when it is properly implemented (Hall & Hord, 2006). They note that often two teachers claiming to use an innovation may be engaged in very different activities which also differ from how the developer expected implementation to look. This probl em affects the quality and reach of an implementation as well as hinders the ability of evaluators in determining the effects of a given innovation. IC can be utilized to develop a commo n understanding of what is expected and to measure how an innovation has been implemented. Hall and Hord (2006) noted, The innovati on in action can take on many different operational forms or configuration; in addition, the tendency to adapt, modify, and/or mutate aspects of innovations is a natu ral part of the change proces s (p. 113). To address these naturally occurring aspect s of change, the authors developed IC to help prevent and measure 33

PAGE 34

changes in how the implementation appears. Ha ll and Hord stated, The focus in the IC diagnostic dimensions is on developing and applying word-picture descrip tions of what the use of an innovation can look like (p. 112). The development of IC maps is a very tim e consuming and laborious process (Hall & Hord, 2006). It requires develope rs to develop a clear descrip tion of the appearance of the desired implementation as well as various differi ng configurations which may occur. Developers must decide what the most desirable implementa tion is and how much fidelity to that conception is required for implementation to be satisfact ory. Throughout the process all parties should be able to view and contribute to the IC map. Howeve r, an IC map requires all parties to decide on a consensus and operationally defines an innovatio n. Once the IC map is completed, it provides a valuable tool in identifying what components are being implemented well and which components need additional work. The IC map makes implemen tation more effective and efficient. It also documents the extent and quality of implementation for evaluation studies. Levels of Use (LoU) Levels of Use (LoU) address individual beha viors associated with change (Hall & Hord, 2006). LoU go beyond asking whether individuals are using the innovation and determines how is he or she using it? (Ha ll & Hord, 2006, p. 158). Loucks, Newl ove, and Hall (1975) identified eight categories of LoU (Figur e 2-2) (Hall & Hord, p. 160). The levels of use begin at the nonuser levels of Nonuse, Orientation, and Prepar ation and progress throu gh the user levels of Mechanical Use, Routine, Refinement, Integrati on, and Renewal. Facilitators or evaluators can use the definitions of each level to assign indi viduals in the change process (Hall & Hord). Assessing individuals LoU is a complicated process which requires long-term observation or use of a specific interview protocol and specialized training (G. Hall, pers onal communication, June 34

PAGE 35

19, 2008; Loucks et al., 1975). Hall and Hord noted that LoU can be used to aid in the facilitation of change or to guide evaluation and research on change. Users VI Renewal: State in which the user re-evaluates the quality of use of the innovation, seeks major modifications of or alternatives to present innovation to achieve increased impact on clients, examines new developments in the field, and explores new goals for self and the system. V Integration: State in which the user is combining own efforts to use the innovation with related activities of colleagues to achieve a collective impact on clients within their common sphere of influence. IVB Refinement: State in which the user varies the use of the innovation to increase the impact on clients within their common sphere of influence. IVA Routine: Use of the innovation is stabilized. Few if any changes are being made in ongoing use. Little preparation or thought is being given to improving innovation use of its consequences. III Mechanical Use: State in which the user focuses most effort on the short-term, day-today use of the innovation with little time for reflection. Changes in use are made more to meet user needs than client needs. The u ser is primarily engaged in a stepwise attempt to master the tasks required to use the innovation, often resulting in disjointed and superficial use. Nonusers II Preparation: State in which the user is prepari ng for first use of the innovation. I Orientation: State in which the user has recently acquired or is acquiring information about the innovation and/or has recently explor ed or is exploring its value orientation and it depends upon user and user system. 0 Nonuse: State in which the user has little or no knowledge of the innovation, no involvement with the innovation, and is doing nothing toward becoming involved. Figure 2-2. Levels of Use of the innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 160). Stages of Concern (SoC) Whereas Levels of Use deals with peoples beha viors in connection with change, Stages of Concern (SoC) address the aff ective side of change (Hall & Hord, 2006). The feelings and perceptions of partic ipants are known as concerns Research on the evolution of concerns throughout the change process has led to the deve lopment of the Stages of Concern. The Stages of Concern define a progression of concerns wh ich people move through as they implement an 35

PAGE 36

innovation. A knowledge of SoC can help judge impl ementation of change or facilitate change by addressing concerns of participants more effectively through the development of focused workshops, individual coaching sess ions, and strategic plans. Stages of Concern Concern Fuller (1969) introduced the construct of concerns. Fuller (1969) found that concerns changed with the level of experience of subj ects. Hall and Hord (2006) summarized the four levels of concern which emerged from Fullers re search: unrelated, self task, and impact (p. 135). Unrelated concerns occurred when participan ts had no direct, related experiences; concerns were not focused on the innovation. Self concerns can be identified when students have initial contact with an experience. Participants focus on how the new experience will affect them. Task concerns appear once participants begin using the innovation or new experience. These individuals pondered how they can incorporate the new activity in terms of specific, challenging tasks. Finally, the ultimate goal s hould be impact concerns where pa rticipants are concerned with how the innovation is affecting their clients or students and how they can use the innovation more effectively to better serve their clients. Indi viduals may have concerns at various levels at the same time; however, one level of concern will be overshadowing. Defining Stages of Concern Based on Fullers (1969) identification of con cerns, Hall and Hord (2006) have developed seven Stages of Concern (p. 139) (Figure 2-3) Stage 0, Awareness, is an unrelated concern. Stage 1, Informational, and Stage 2, Personal, ar e self concerns. Stage 3, Management is a task concern. Finally, Stage 4, Consequences; Stage 5, Collaboration; and Stage 6, Refocusing are impact concerns (Hall & Hord, 2006). Anderson (1997) explains, CBAM theory idealizes the Stages of Concern as a developmental progre ssion in which teachers implementing a change 36

PAGE 37

have concerns of varying intens ity across all seven stages at different points in the change process (p. 334). However, teach er concern may not progress thr ough all stages in the suggested order. Figure 2-3. Stages of Concern and common expr ession of the concern (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 139) George et al. (2006) offered th e following definitions for each of the Stages of Concern: 0 Awareness: Little concern about or involvement with the innovati on is indicated. 1 Informational: A general awareness of the innovation and intere st in learning more detail about it is indicated. The person seem s to be unworried about himself/herself in relation to the innovation. She/he is interested in substantiv e aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner, such as general characteri stics, effects, and requirements for use. 2 Personal: [The] individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands, and his/ her role with the innovation. This includes analysis of his/her ro le in relation to the reward stru cture of the orga nization, decisionmaking, and consideration of potential conflic ts with existing structures of personal commitment. Financial or status implications of the program for self and colleagues may also be reflected. 3 Management: Attention is focused on the processe s and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information and resources Issues related to efficiency, organization, managing, scheduling, and time demands are utmost. 37

PAGE 38

4 Consequences: Attention focuses on impact of the innovation on clients in his or her immediate sphere of influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for clients, evaluation of outcome including performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase client outcomes. 5 Collaboration: The focus is on coordination and cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation. 6 Refocusing: The focus is on the exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation, including the possibility of majo r changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative. [The] individual has defi ned alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the innovation (p. 8). Hall and Hord (2006) noted that research has show n there is a quasi-developmental path to the concerns as the change process unfolds (p. 141). Although, they stat ed that neither the flow of concerns nor the direction of the flow is guaranteed. When proper conditions exist (i.e. appropriateness of change, proper involvement from leaders, and e ffective facilitation) participants move from self con cerns to task concerns during the first couple years, and ideally they will move to impact concerns around three to five years into implementation. Undesirable conditions can cause participants to remain stuck in a particular SoC or even progress backwards. Hall and Hord (2006) highlighted, SoC reflect the idealized, developmental approach to change (p. 142). Using Stages of Concern Stages of Concern help mon itor the change process (Hall & Hord, 2006). SoC need to be addressed by change facilitators to encourage mo re effective and efficient implementation of an innovation. Individual teachers may have varying leve ls of concerns at multiple stages at any given time; however, a dominant stage will emer ge. Concerns profiles can be developed to represent a conglomeration or array of concerns of varying intensitie s (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 142). The crucial step is in using it to make concerns-based interventions that will be able to 38

PAGE 39

solve the concern and move the person toward more advanced use of the innovation (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 142). Assessing Stages of Concern Hall and Hord (2006) recommended ongoing asse ssment to establish the SoC for all participants. Three methods for assessing SoC exist: one-legged interview, open-ended concern statement, Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ). Each of these methods has its own strengths, weaknesses, a nd suitable applications. One-legged interviews Although one-legged interviews have been not ed for their importanc e in interventions, they prove effective in asse ssing individuals SoC (Hall & Ho rd, 2006). By asking how the use of a particular innovation is progressing or how the individual f eels about the innovation, trained facilitators can probe for and identify emerging concerns. When using one-legged interviews to assess the concerns of teachers, facilitators should immediately address these concerns during the one-legged interview. The one-legged intervie w provides several advantages. It may occur whenever an opportunity for a brie f conversation exists. This form of assessment is not obtrusive and demonstrates an interest in what the participant is doing. On the other hand, the accuracy of the one-legged interviews is a major disadvantage. Different interpretation can be drawn from the same comments (Hall & Hord, 2006). Open-ended concern statement The original method for assess ing concerns, the open-ended concerns statement requires participants to write a descrip tive paragraph or statement of th eir concerns (Hall & Hord, 2006). An appropriate prompt is, When you think abou t [the innovation] what concerns do you have? Please be frank, and answer in complete sentences (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 146). Open-ended concern statements are beneficial because the con cerns are stated in the participants own words 39

PAGE 40

and they can be completed at any time. However, this assessment has the downfalls of receiving different amounts of information from each particip ant (i.e. some may hand in a bulleted list or a blank sheet of paper which cannot be assessed) and the reliability of the analysis is questionable. Open-ended concerns statements are particularly useful to estimate the concerns of participants before and after professi onal development workshops. Stages of Concern Questionnaire The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) is the most rigorous and reliable form of SoC assessment (Hall & Hord, 2006). A new version of the SoCQ has been developed to address some of the concerns of the prev ious instrument and to reestablis h its validity (G. Hall, personal communication, June 19, 2008). The assessment cons ists of 35 Likert type questions (Hall & Hord, 2006). It is noted for being psychometrica lly sound and easy to take. Hall and Hord (2006) also recommend adding an open-ended concerns statement to the end of the questionnaire to ensure that all possible concerns have been covered. SoC profiles can be developed from the completed SoCQ. The authors identified the strong re liability and validity of the instrument as its greatest strength. They also noted the ability to develop concerns prof iles as another strength. The main disadvantage of the SoCQ is the lack of willingness of participants to complete it. Hall and Hord (2006) encouraged facilita tors and evaluators to use this technique two to three times a year at a maximum. They recommended this assessment for formal evaluation efforts. Principles of Change Hall and Hord (2006) identified twelve principles of change which have emerged from research. These principles ha ve been supported with enough evidence that they can be considered valid in all cases of change. The indi vidual principles are not mutually exclusive and only cover certain aspects of change. Hall and Hord outlined the following principles of change: Change Principle 1: Change is a process, not an event. 40

PAGE 41

Change Principle 2: There are significant diffe rences in what is entailed in development and implementation of an innovation. Change Principle 3: An organization does not change until the people within it change. Change Principle 4: Innovations come in different sizes. Change Principle 5: Interventions are the actions and events that are key to the success of the change process. Change Principle 6: There will be no change in outcomes until new practices are implemented. Change Principle 7: Administra tor leadership is essential to long-term change success. Change Principle 8: Mandates can work. Change Principle 9: The school is the primary unit for change. Change Principle 10: Facilitati ng change is a team effort. Change Principle 11: Appropriate inte rventions reduce resistance to change. Change Principle 12: The context of the school influences the process of change (p. 4-14). These principles must be understood to co mprehend the different components of CBAM (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 1: Change Is A Process, Not An Event. Change requires more than an announcem ent or one time training (Hall & Hord, 2006). Change requires time for participants to unders tand, adjust, and develop skills which will help them successfully implement the change. Hall and Hord note educational change typically takes three to five years to be imple mented at a high level. Each ne w unit adopting a change requires the same three to five year period starting when that particular unit begins the change process. Since change is a process, it requires a strate gic plan which allocates resources and training throughout a three to five year period and requires yearly progress updates. 41

PAGE 42

Change Principle 2: There Are Significant Differences In What Is Entailed In Development And Implementation Of An Innovation. Hall and Hord (2006) emphasize the differe nt yet equally important aspects of development and implementation of innovations Development include s all the steps and actions involved in creating, testing, and p ackaging the innovation, whereas implementation includes all of the steps and actions involved in learning how to use it (Hall & Hord, p. 6). Hall and Hord highlight the common mistake of inve sting large amounts of time, money, and human resources into the development of an innovation only to provide limited resources during the implementation phase. In order for change to be successful and timely, equal amounts of resources should be allotted to th e implementation of an innovation. Change Principle 3: An Organization Does Not Change Until The People Within It Change. Hall and Hord (2006) underscore the individu al aspect of organizational change. All members of an organization must progress throug h the change and do so at different rates and with different needs. Change f acilitators need to consider wa ys to anticipate and facilitate change at the individual level (Hall & Hord, p. 7). Interventions should be completed at the organizational, subgroup, and indivi dual levels to meet the needs of all individuals within the organization (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 4: Innovations Come In Different Sizes. According to Hall and Hord (2006), each innov ation has unique charac teristics and sizes. These unique size and characteristics require di fferent amounts of resources and levels of support. When addressing an innovation, change f acilitators should consider several factors. First, is the innovation a product or process innovation? In other word s, is the final product of the innovation a new product or is it th e use of a new technique? S econdly, the change facilitator should consider if the innovation is a single innovation or a bundle of smaller innovations. 42

PAGE 43

Finally the change facilitator shou ld consider if the innovation is relatively small and simple, or if it is a large scale or a sy stematic reform innovation which will require a greater amount of resources and support (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 5: Interventions Are The Actions And Events That Are Key To The Success Of The Change Process. Hall and Hord (2006) define interventions as various actions and ev ents that they and others take to influence the [c hange] process (p. 8). Interven tions can take many forms from workshops to short conversations about the intervention which Hall and Hord call one-legged interviews Often change facilitators overlook the importance of in terventions in the change process, especially the small ones such as the one-legged interviews. However, research has found the greater the amount of small interventions, the more successful the change process (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 6: There Will Be No Chan ge In Outcomes Until New Practices Are Implemented. Often performance on a change is measured by end results (Hall & Hord, 2006). However, when end results are emphasized, often, little su pport will be provided for the implementation process. Handling a change in th is manner does not teach the part icipants how to implement the innovation, leaving them to make a giant leap from their current practices to the desired outcomes. Instead, the change facilitator team s hould provide participants with the support they require to change their traditional procedures. Without learning how to implement new practices, participants will fail to achiev e new results (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 7: Administrator Leadershi p Is Essential To Long-Term Change Success. Although the people closest to the action may have the necessary knowledge to implement a change, they cannot succeed alone (Hall & Hord, 2006). Administrators at all levels need to provide the necessary support for the change in or der for it to survive long term. In a school 43

PAGE 44

situation, these administrators include: policy makers, school boards, principals, and other administrators. Participants and change facilitators cannot sustai n a change without support (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 8: Mandates Can Work. Many people think that mandated change does not work; however, Hord and Hall (2006) state that mandates can work if utilized properly. Mandates provide clear goa ls and priorities as well as an expectation for implementation. In or der for a mandated change to take place, support must be provided with proper interventions throughout the change process, not just at the beginning. Change Principle 9: The School Is The Primary Unit For Change. Although change of all indivi duals is required for organizational change, the unit for implementing change is the school (Hall & Hord, 2006). School leaders and staff play a vital role in the success of the innovation; however, they need support from the larger systems of the district, state, and federal sc hool systems. The school may make progress on its own, but must also rely on the expertise and resources of external facilitators. If a widespread change is being made, each school, much like individuals, is going to move at a different pace; therefore, observations of and interventions for each school must be made independently (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 10: Facilitati ng Change Is A Team Effort. Hall and Hord (2006) highlight the importa nce of collaboration among all of those involved in the change process. They note that those involved in the change process include all of those in the Policy-to-Practice Continuum (Hall & Hord, p. 13) (Tab le 2-1) ranging from policymakers at the federal level to teachers in the classroom. The principal should not be the only individual providing leadership for the chan ge process; teachers can also provide valuable leadership (Hall & Hord). 44

PAGE 45

Table 2-1. Policy-to-Practice C ontinuum (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 13) Federal State Distri ct School Classroom President Governor Superintendent Principal Teacher Secretary of Education Commissioner of Education Board of Education Site Council Congress Legislature Change Principle 11: Appropriate Interventions Reduce Resistance To Change. Resistance is common in most change effort (Hall & Hord, 2006). The change facilitator must establish the cause of this resistance. Resi stance may stem from dealing with the loss of a previous practice, questioning the quality and worthiness of the change (the questioning may come from limited knowledge or strong reasoning and evidence), and reacti ng to the pain of change. Once a cause has been identified, the change facilitator can address the resistance through personalized interventions which at tend to the cause (Hall & Hord). Change Principle 12: The Context Of The Sc hool Influences The Process Of Change. Hall and Hord (2006) noted that since the schoo l is the unit of change the context of the school affects the change process. Two dimensi ons within the school combine to create this context: physical features and pe ople factors. Physical features include: size, facility layout, resources, schedules, policies, and structures. People factors address: social norms, relationships, attitudes, values, and beliefs of the people i nvolved. Organizational c onditions have been identified to help increase the success of the change process. One of these conditions is the development of professional learning communities in which staff address their needs in order to better meet the needs of students (Hall & Hord). Conceptual Framework Based on a review of literature, the researcher has developed a conceptual model for the study of agriscience teachers concerns for the impl ementation of CARS. Each of the variables in 45

PAGE 46

the conceptual framework and related research has been discussed below. The variables have been categorized as internal variables and external variables Conceptual Model Based on the conceptual framework variable identified through the literature review, the researcher created a conceptual model pictured in Figure 2-4. The conceptual model depicts the internal and external variables related to agriscience teachers c oncerns regarding the implementation of content ar ea reading strategies. Figure 2-4. Conceptual model 46

PAGE 47

Internal Variables The researcher identified the internal variab les of teacher attitudes, confidence, knowledge and experience, motivation, perceptions and conceptions, and teaching philosophy from the literature. Teacher attitudes Park and Osborne (2006a) used long interviews of four participants in order to understand agricultural educators constr uction of reality regarding th e use of CARS (p. 42). They identified motivation, pressures, and barriers re lated to implementation of CARS. Motivation to use CARS stemmed from a need for students to establish baseline information. Pressures included the diversity of students and their reading abilities and the documentation of reading for administrators. Park and Osbornes findings iden tified that although teachers had a fundamental knowledge of CARS, the following barriers: t eachers knowledge on the proper use of these strategies varied; teachers were not confident in their abilities to incorporate CARS; teachers had not received the necessary development or suppo rt; negative attitudes of the teachers and low motivation of the students to use CARS were re flected in students attitudes. However, the researchers found that positive teacher attitudes c ould also be passed to the students. Park and Osborne concluded that the main barriers agriscience teachers faced when implementing CARS and reading were their lack of knowledge a nd confidence. They also recommended that agriscience teachers reali ze the importance of their role in t eaching reading skills and agriscience teachers should attend CARS professional development. Confidence A study on the implementation of inform ation and communication technologies highlighted the role teacher confidence a nd comfort with the innovation played in its 47

PAGE 48

implementation (Granger, Morbey, Lotheri ngton, Owston, & Wideman, 2002) Park (2005) acknowledged agriscience teachers limited confidence in the use of CARS. He noted their lack of practice with CARS made them tentative in their use. In assessing agriscience teachers attitudes towards implementati on of CARS, Park and Osborne (2006a) identified a lack of confidence in incorporation of CARS as a major barrier. Knowledge and experience Park and Osborne (2006a) found that lack of knowledge on the proper use of CARS hindered implementation of content literacy strategies. Baker, Gertsen, Dimino, and Griffiths (2004) studied the sustained use of an innovation in the teaching of mathematics. From this study, the authors were able to identify factor s which led to successful, sustained use of an innovation in the educational setting. The researchers emphasized the importance of developing a balance of procedural and conceptual knowledge of an innovation (p. 20). They recommended meeting this need thr ough ongoing professional development. Although Aneke and Finch (1997) note that le vels of teacher education and years of teaching experience did not affect teachers SoC, they identified reform-related experience and reform-related training as important factors in determining SoC. Teachers without experience with the innovation had higher le vels of concerns at the awareness, information, and personal stages. Teachers with one, two, and three years of experience with the innovation followed behind the teachers with no experience resp ectively. The researchers found no significant difference in the levels of personal concerns of teachers with no expe rience with the innovation and those with one year of experience. However, consequences and collaboration concerns were higher for teacher who had one year of experien ce over teachers with no experience. In addition, teachers with two years of experience with the innovation had higher consequences and collaboration concerns than teachers in their fi rst year of innovation experience. They also 48

PAGE 49

established that no significant difference existed between teacher with two years experience with the innovation and teachers with th ree years experience at the consequence level. The authors generalized that as years of experience with the innovation increased concerns moved from higher levels at stages 1 through 3 (awareness, informational, persona l) to higher levels at stages 4 and 5 (consequences & collaboration). Motivation Park and Osborne (2006a) addressed agricultu ral educators motivation to utilize CARS. They found that none of the te achers consciously implemented reading or CARS (p. 43). The teachers saw the incorporation of reading as a way to establish baseline information. They relied on the assignment of a chapter a nd subsequent questions to stru cture reading and usually used these assignments for substitute plans. Some of the participants did understand the importance of CARS. Teachers in a comparison group of a CARS st udy implemented twice the strategies as teachers in the treatment group because the teache rs knew they were in a reading study (Park 2005). Park concluded with proper motivation, agrisc ience teachers may be w illing to alter their preferred teaching methods and adopt new CARS. Baker et al. (2004) identified two sources of motivation for te achers to sustain use of the Peer Assisted Learning Stra tegies teaching innovation. On e of the motivations was understanding the benefits of th e innovation to the students. Since the innova tion required students to work with their peer s, teachers recognized cognitive and social benefits students gained. A second motivation Baker et al. (2004) reported was the benef it to the teachers. Teachers received ongoing professional development which he lped them develop sophisticated strategies for working with student teams, providing feedback, prompting problem solving, increasing 49

PAGE 50

student engagement and learni ng outcomes, and use of formative assessment. As a result, teachers benefited from enhancing thei r repertoires as teachers (p. 19). Perceptions and conceptions Bryant, Ugel, Thopson, Hamff, and Hougen ( 2001) used pre-and postinterviews to determine the effectiveness of professional development for content area implementation for struggling readers. During the pre-interviews, Br yant et al. identified th e following four themes: 1.) teachers were concerned about the reading and reading related prob lems of the struggling students (p. 256); 2.) teachers felt overwhelmed by issues such as the effects of low socioeconomic status on students learning and the academic needs of English language learners (p. 256); 3.) competing needs and related pressures of teaching struggling readers (particularly students with disabilities), teaching curriculum, and getting students reading for high stakes assessments (p. 256); and 4.) many of them [teachers] found time to provide adaptations for struggling students and acknowledged the importance of doing so (p. 256). Content teachers did not view themselves as reading teachers; however, they noted the importance of teaching comprehension skills for the content area. Teaching philosophy Bean (1997) studied the factor s affecting preservice teachers use of CARS. He concluded that personal teaching and learning philosophies played a major role in the selec tion and use of CARS. Bean noted the role that the cooperating teachers played in this selection as well and suggested that development of a cohesive view of Content Area Literacy between preservice teachers and cooperating teachers could have altere d the results of the research and provided preservice teachers with more c onfidence in selecting and usi ng a larger variety of CARS. Moje (1996) detailed the importance of t eaching philosophy to the implementation of CARS. The teacher she studied in her ethnography used a very personal teaching philosophy to 50

PAGE 51

support her utilization of CARS. The teacher in this study was very committed to helping her students become successful learners. She develope d a close rapport with her students which also helped her deliver important materials to her st udents. Moje noted, Her commitment to success also shaped her literacy practi ces (p. 181). The teacher enthusiast ically incorporated CARS into her classroom practices because the practices matched her teaching philosophy. Moje stated, choices of literacy events were shaped by her [the teacher in the study] philosophy (p. 190). Bryant et al. (2001) noted that content te achers realized the importance of teaching comprehension skills for the specific content ar ea. Park and Osborne (2006b) confirmed this statement in agriscience. They used a survey design to identif y agriscience educators use of CARS and textbooks. They found that agriscience teachers felt that reading was important for learning in agriscience; however they were not in agreement on the amount of time which should be devoted to reading or their ro les in reading instructions. Teach ers use appropriate criteria to select textbooks and allot up to 25% of class time to textbook learning. However, many teachers fail to assign individual texts to students whic h may hinder reading development (p. 11). Park and Osborne recommend using trade journals and electronic texts in the agriscience classroom. Teachers also need to focus more efforts on activ ities during the prea nd during-reading periods, and not just on post-reading period. Finally, Park and Osborne recommended, agriscience teachers should be encouraged to model reading for their students, as well as incorporate CARS in classroom instru ction (p. 10). External factors From the literature, the researcher iden tified discipline, mandates, professional development, and social contex t as external variables. 51

PAGE 52

Discipline When Aneke and Finch (1997) compared SoC based on teaching areas, they found no significant difference. However, they only compar ed vocational and academ ic areas and did not make comparisons with specific disciplines. C onversely, Bean (1997) found that preservice teachers selected CARS based on their judgment of what worked well for the discipline. He noted the views of the preservice teachers cooperating teachers played a role in the selection and the importance of their role in teaching readi ng skills, and agriscience teachers should attend CARS professional development. Park and Osborne (2005) also underscored the importance of all cont ent area teachers to contribute to students academic success. They contend agricultural teachers can impact the reading performance of students (p. 177). Mojes (2006) ethnography supported Park and Osborne. She studied a teacher who believed that literacy was important in her discipline. Because Landy [the teacher in the study] saw scie nce as organization and literacy as a tool for organization, she used literacy as one strategy for helping students be successful learners (p. 181). The teacher believed that li teracy practices were important for students to succeed in science, thus, she willin gly incorporated CARS. Moje (19966) found that students did not transf er CARS to other classrooms. She indicated that these findings supported the notion of teachi ng domain specific content literacy methods in each discipline. If content area teachers addre ss CARS in their discipline, students will develop social practices and knowledge necessary to apply them to that specific domain. Mandates One variable, defined by Baker et al. (2004), a ffecting the sustained us e of an educational innovation was alignmentwith district and st ate mandates (p. 18). From the beginning, the innovation was carefully paralleled with the co re curriculum for the specific discipline, 52

PAGE 53

mathematics. This alignment ensured that as teachers and students devoted time to the innovation, that time was being devoted to the core curriculum and prepara tion for the state test simultaneously. Park (2005) noted that agriscienc e teachers were under pre ssure to utilize CARS. They increased their use of CARS in their cla ssrooms due to pressures from both local and state school administrators and standardized testing. Professional development Bryant et al. (2001) used pr e-and post interviews to dete rmine the effectiveness of professional development for content area impl ementation for struggling readers. Based on the response of teachers, the researchers identifie d the following areas of needed professional development for CARS: word identification, part ner reading, collaborative strategic reading, modeling, supporting meetings, and teams. The re searchers recommended developing a shared understanding of content lite racy goals which will guide professional development. Miller, Stark, and Bergeron (2001) prepared a re port as an outside evaluation of the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI). The st udy focuses on the inputs (training educational professionals) of the FRI. Principal orientation was evaluated ex post facto due to tim ing through structured interviews. Positive responses, 80% or greater, were given in all three categories of program training, reading knowledge, and leadership skills Three methods were used to evaluate the summer reading academy: a pre-and posttest of teachers reading techniques knowledge, a survey of attitudes and feeli ngs of self efficacy, and presenter evaluation surveys assessing instructional effectiveness and participants persp ectives on the knowledge gained. Knowledge gain based on the pre-posttests showed a signific ant gain in scores of 73%. In addition pre-and posttest attitudinal measures from the survey also showed a significant ga in. According to Miller et al. response to the presente r evaluation surveys suggested that the training sessions were well organized, effective, and left participants f eeling competent to use the strategies (p. 23). 53

PAGE 54

However, opinions on whether participants required additional information were mixed. Miller et al. concluded that overall the summer training sessions were effective (p. 25). Masten, Stacks, Priest, Scott, and Vitale (1999) investigated th e effects of reading comprehension strategy training on middle school teachers implementation of these strategies. Teachers in the experimental group completed a three hour training on various CARS, while the control group attended a three hour training on behavioral principles. Teachers who had completed the CARS professional development session utilized significantly more textbook comprehension strategies. Aneke and Finch (1997) found, the intensity a nd stages of the teach ers concern profiles changed when teachers were grouped according to hours of reform-related training (p. 10). They suggested that teachers with minimal trai ning in an innovation be identified and enrolled workshops to gain exposure to the training. They noted, reform-related in-service training has great potential to serve as an effective method of exposing teacher to the reform experience (p. 11-12). The researchers underscore that such training should help move teachers from informational and personal concerns to manage ment, consequences, and collaboration concerns. They highlighted the importance of these development workshops addressing personal concerns of the teachers first. One variable Baker et al. (2004) identified as influential for su stained use of an educational innovation was professional deve lopment and ongoing support. Th e researchers felt that the professional development model used for this innovation provided three key components which led to its success. The first component was an initial training at the un iversity which allowed teachers to develop the big picture, which they note other researcher s have identified as an aspect to maintain teacher satisfaction with an innovation beyond the first year. 54

PAGE 55

The second component Baker et al. (2004) iden tified was the use of graduate student support. During the first five years of the implementation, graduate students who knew the innovation provided on-site support. These students were able to pr ovide teachers with effective knowledge, implementation strategies, and procedures to help the teachers implement the new program. The authors emphasize th e importance of this support dur ing the first year of the innovation. The final component of successful professiona l development which Baker et al. (2004) identified was investment. The school system inve sted its Title I funds to continue support of the innovation. These funds helped to provide logistical support. The researchers credited the initial professional development a level of practice mastery (p. 19). Baker et al. (2004) made several conclusions about professional development and success of an innovation. First, they noted the impor tance of using professional development to [enhance] teaching rather than asking teachers to substitute radically new teaching methods for current ones (p. 20). This approach allows teach ers to maintain autonomy in their teaching and promotes the success of change. The researcher s highlight the importance of providing ongoing professional development to the individual teach ers. Part of the professional development program should be a system to provide logistical support. Finally, both te achers procedural and conceptual knowledge on an innovation must be developed. Park and Osborne (2005) found that agriscie nce teachers wanted further professional development in CARS. Even though teacher ha d some professional development experience which addressed content area read ing, they wanted to know wher e, how and why to use CARS in their agriscience courses (p. 138-139). The teachers wanted to learn how to effectively incorporate CARS. They realized they needed further professional development and time to 55

PAGE 56

adapt. Park recommended that professional de velopment on CARS should provide teachers with the opportunity to practice using the strategies. Social context Moje (1996) presented findings from a tw o-year ethnography of a long-time content teacher regarding teachers beliefs about and ut ilization of literacy. In approaching this study, Moje defined literacy, Literacy is more than reading, writing, speaking, and listening; literacy involves the practices in which these proce sses are embedded (p. 175). She continued to identify reading, writing, speaki ng and listening as tools for e ngaging in and making sense of social practices (p. 175). Thus, Moje believed each act of literacy is embedded in a network of social relations (p. 175). Moje described that the t eacher viewed her job to help her students succeed, and she viewed literacy as a way to he lp students succeed and organize the content matter. At the same time, the st udents viewed literacy as a wa y their teacher, who cared about them, helped them learn and succeed, so they wi llingly participated. Mo je states, In this chemistry classroom, literacy was practiced as a tool for organizing thinking and learning in the context of a relationship built between the teacher and her students (p. 180). The findings from this study reinforce the social context in whic h literacy occurs to help students learn and understand. It also supports the idea that personal teaching and discipline philosophies affect the implementation of various literacy activities. Moje concluded, students hold socially constructed assumptions about the nature of kno wledge and the purpose of literacy in different content areas (p. 190). To address this issue, she suggested that stude nts need to be taught literacy skills in all content areas and taught how to apply these literacy skills to different domains. Bean (1997) examined preservice teachers selection and use of CARS used in a microteaching situation and in subsequent practi cum assignments (5-day or student teaching). 56

PAGE 57

All of the participants were enrolled in a manda tory CARS course in a previous semester. As required, students participated in a 1-day per we ek observation-participation practicum in their respective content areas. Bean conc luded that sociocultu ral context played a major role in the preservice teachers selection a nd use of CARS. Students used a larger variety of CARS during micro teaching when CARS were supported and encouraged. During their extended practicum, they felt certain constraints from their conten t area and classroom ma nagement issues which limited the strategies implementation. For the pres ervice teachers, the view s of their cooperating teachers also played a major role in their decision to select a nd use specific CARS. OBrein, Stewart, & Moje (1995) completed a literature review of curre nt content literacy research. They discuss the paradox which has emerged from the goals of content literacy. In addition they identify and review three complexities of secondary schools: curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. The aut hors offer alternatives to curre nt content literacy practices in both courses and research. They contend conten t literacy has not been fully effective because the research has been conducted outside of the school setting and thus has eliminated the vital role of sociocultural contexts. They recomme nd the involvement of experienced, school-based colleagues in the development of future research and strategies. Chapter Summary This chapter identifies Concerns-Based Adop tion Model as the theoretical framework. All aspects of this model were defined and explained. The researcher gave an explicit description of the Stages of Concerns and the Stages of Con cern Questionnaire since this measure was utilized to assess the implementation of CARS in th is study. A thorough review of literature was completed to identify variables for the concep tual model of this st udy. The following internal variables were explained in de tail: teacher attitudes, confid ence, knowledge and experience, motivation, perceptions and conceptions, teach ing experience, and teaching philosophy. In 57

PAGE 58

58 addition the researcher addre ssed the following external vari ables: discipline, mandates, professional development, and social context. Previ ous research in content literacy and Stages of Concern has identified and supported thes e variables for the conceptual model.

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study was designed to assess agriscience teachers implementation of CARS based on their Stages of Concern for the innovation. Additi onally, agriscience teachers professional development history was to be ascertained. The re searcher intended to determine if a relationship existed between professional development hist ory and the teachers progression through the Stages of Concern. In order to achieve the purpo se of this study, the following objectives were investigated: Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional deve lopment history. Determine the Stages of Concern of agri science teachers who have completed CARS professional development program. Determine the Stages of Concern of agrisc ience teachers who have not completed CARS professional development program. Determine the relationship between CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. This chapter describes the descriptive survey design used to complete this research. The researcher identifies and describes the population. Additionally, the instrumentation is discussed in detail. Factors which affected the validity a nd reliability of the research are identified and addressed. The procedures used for the comple tion of the survey are detailed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of data analysis techniques used for the study. Research Design This study was a descriptive survey census of intangibles. Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, and Sorensen (2006) defined descriptiv e survey research as the use of questionnaires or instruments to collect information which can be used to summarize characteristics or measure attitudes and opinions of a group of subjects (p. 31). A census of intangibles is a study that addresses the 59

PAGE 60

interests of an entire population and measures ope rationally defined constr ucts (Ary et al., 2006). The researcher used a web-based questionnaire to collect the concerns of Florida agriscience teachers towards the implementation of c ontent area reading strategies (CARS). Population The population for this study was Florida agriscience teachers. The researcher obtained a list of current Florida agrisc ience teachers (N= 371) from the 2008 Florida Agricultural Education Directory which served as the population frame (Myers & Warner, 2008). The 2008 Florida Agricultural Education Directory was chosen as the population frame because it functioned as the only updated, comprehensive list of Florida agriscience teachers in the state. Instrumentation The researcher utilized the Stages of Concer n Questionnaire (SoCQ) developed by George, Hall, and Stiegelbauer (2006). This questionnaire was composed of 35 Likert-type questions that assessed the concerns of the indi viduals involved in the educat ional innovation change process the integration of Content Area Reading Stra tegies (CARS). This questionnaire allowed respondents to indicate the relevance and intensit y of their concerns towards CARS. In addition to the Likert questions, a free-res ponse question allowed pa rticipants to express their concerns in their own words, as recommended by Hall and Hord (2006) and G. Hall, personal communication (2008). The SoCQ was chosen for several reasons. Fi rst, the survey was developed and revised through a 35-year research effort focused on educational change (H all & Hord, 2006). The survey was also chosen for its high levels of established reliability and internal consistency. Also, the questionnaire was desi gned to be easily modified for a specific educational innovation. In addition, the SoCQ affords the ability to create SoC profiles. SoC profiles plot the level of 60

PAGE 61

concern for each category of concern and allow res earchers to interpret th ese concerns (Hall and Hord, 2006). In addition to the SoCQ, the researcher incl uded several questions to determine the CARS professional development history of the teachers. Teachers were asked to answer whether they had completed different levels of training, give the numbers of hours spent in each training, and provide a brief description of th e training. Lastly, demographic quest ions were included to better understand the population. The instrument distributed for this st udy can be located in Appendix A. Validity and Reliability George, Hall, and Stiegelbauer (2006) stated that validity te sting of the SoCQ has been performed by testing the relationship of the stat es to one another and to variables from other concerns theories. George et al. utilized correlational matrices a nd factor analysis to determine the seven scales[in the SoCQ] tapped seven independent construc ts that could be identified readily with the seven Stages of Concern proposed by the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (p. 14). George et al. reported coefficients of internal reliability for each of the seven Stages of Concern (Figure 3.1), which ranged betw een an alpha of .64 and .83, for the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (Figure 3.2) Santos (1999) stated an al pha score of .7 or greater is acceptable. George et al. also reported test -retest correlations for the SoCQ, which ranged between r = .65 and r = .86. These reported reliabili ty scores fall within the acceptable range of reliability estimates as stated by Santos with the exception of Stage 0. Stage 0 has been under revision to help improve the reliability (Hall & Hord, 2006; George et al., 2006). 61

PAGE 62

Table 3-1. Coefficient of internal reliability for the Stages of Concern (Hall & Hord, 2006, p.20) Stage Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Alpha .64 .78 .83 .75 .76 .82 .71 Table 3-2. Test-retest correlations for th e Stages of Concern (Hall & Hord, 2006, p.20) Stage Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 r .65 .86 .82 .81 .76 .84 .71 The SoCQ was revised by the original research team to address issues in Stage 0 (George et al., 2006). The original Stage 0 measured lack of knowledge and lack of interest; however, the survey did not differentiate between the lack of interest of nonusers and longtime users who felt they had learned enough about the innovation. Th e Change Facilitator Stages of Concern Questionnaire was utilized as a model and in 2005 an estimated reliability of .66 was determined for Stage 0. George et al. noted that the alpha coefficients varied with different groups which meant reliability estimates depend on the samp le of respondents as much as the items on a scale (p. 22). Dillman (2007) identified four sources of error that commonly affect the quality of survey research. These errors are sampling error, cove rage error, measurement error, and nonresponse error. Since this survey was a population census sampling error was not applicable. Coverage error occurs when the list used for the sample or population frame does not include all members of the population. When this occurs, certain elem ents of a population may not be included in the survey (Dillman). In this study, the researcher addressed coverage error by using the latest available edition of the official directory of Florida Agriscience teachers. This directory was assumed to contain everyone in the population, not contain the names of persons not in the population, be up to date, not include multiple listing for the same person, and provide other useful information as recommended by Dillman. 62

PAGE 63

Dillman (2007) described that measurement error resulted from poorly worded questions and poorly constructed questionnai res. Measurement error can lead to inaccurate or unusable responses. Dillman noted that measurement error is a larger issue for self-administered surveys when respondent feedback is limited. In the study, measurement error was addressed by using an instrument which has been designed, test ed, and updated through 35 years of research. According to Dillman (2007), nonresponse error occurs when a significant number of participants fail to complete the survey and possess different characteristics which affect the study. Thus, these characteristics may not be refl ected in the results. Efforts were made to increase response rate by following the Tailored Design Method of Dillman (2007). This effort included multiple contacts. The procedures the re searcher entailed can be found in detail in the procedures section of this chapter. Ary et al. (2006) outline three methods for addressing nonresponse error: (1) compare respondents to population, (2) comp are early to late respondents, and (3) compare respondents and nonrespondents (p. 438-439). The researcher chose to compare early and late respondents. In order to compare c oncern profiles and the primary Stage of Concern of participants, the re searcher needed the responses from 35 questions. It would have been extremely difficult to ge t enough teachers to agree to answer that many questions over the phone to obtain that inform ation from nonrespondnets, so the researcher compared early and late respondents. Procedure Since the instrument has been tested, and reliability and validity have been determined, no pilot test was performed for this study. A proposal to conduct this study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Boar d (IRB-02) preceding the collection of any data. Appendix B provides a copy of the IRB approval le tter. The researcher developed an informed consent form for participants, which described the purpose of the study, procedures for the study, 63

PAGE 64

and voluntary nature of participati on and also informed participants of any potential risks and/or benefits associated with the study. Survey Monkey, a web-based survey program, was chosen as the method to deliver the questionnaire. Dillman (2007) identified limitations to web-based surveys. These limitations included: (1) respondents potential lack of access to computers, (2) respondents potential lack of access to the Internet, (3) res pondents potential lack of and c onfidence in necessary computer skills, and (4) difficulty in obtaining appropriate e-mail addr esses. However, all Florida agriscience teachers had work assigned e-mail addresses which were listed in the population frame, the researcher assumed that the teachers would possessed the necessary access and skills needed to complete an Internet questionnaire. The researcher chose the web-based survey method for the following benefits: minimized cost ease of distribution, and ease of submission. Upon IRB approval, the researcher proceeded with the survey using Dillmans (2007) Tailored Design Model for survey collection. A brief, pre-notice em ail (Appendix C) was delivered to the population on October 30, 2008 to initiate contact. Th e e-mail notified the participants that a link to a que stionnaire would be e-mailed to them shortly and that their participation would be appreciated. This prenotice was sent to 371 agriscience teachers. On November 3, 2008, a cover letter with a hype rlink to the questionnaire and a personal password was e-mailed to participants. The c over letter explained the study and why the response of the teachers was important. One week, November 10, 2008, after the questionnaire and cover letter were delivered, a thank-you e-mail was sent to all respondents. This e-mail thanked respondents for their participation a nd reminded those who had not completed the survey that their particip ation would be appreciated. 64

PAGE 65

On November 24, 2008, four weeks after the or iginal hyperlink to the questionnaire was sent, another reminder e-mail was sent to participants who had not res ponded with the hyperlink included again. Final contact was made on Dece mber 10, through a final reminder e-mail with hyperlink to the survey. January 20, 2009 was the final day for survey submissions. After this date, the researcher began analyzing data. As recommended by Ary et al. (2006), the res earcher defined two groups to categorized early and late respondents. Early respondents (n= 66) were participants who responded to cover letter with the initial link to the survey before the remi nder e-mail was sent. Late respondents (n=42) were participants who responded after the final contact Based upon the responses of early respondents and late respondents concern pr ofiles were developed compared to account for nonresponse error. Data Analysis In order to analyze the data from this study, th e researcher used Stat istical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0 for Windows. Descriptiv e statistics, including frequencies, central tendencies, and correlations were used to anal yze the concerns of agri science teachers towards CARS and the association between the level of CARS professional development and the teachers Stages of Concerns. In addition to the statistical analysis, Stages of Concern profiles were created for participants. Sub-groups were identified with these profiles. The researcher used frequencies and central tendencies calculated with SPSS to report the demographics of the population. Additionally, th e Microsoft Excel SOCQ-075 Graph and Print program was used to create an overall concerns profile for the group (Scott & Persichitte, 2006). To address objective one, assessing the teachers CARS professional deve lopment history, SPSS was utilized to calculate freque ncies and central tendency statistics. To address objectives two and three, the researcher used the Microsof t Excel SOCQ-075 Graph and Print program to 65

PAGE 66

determine the concern profiles for teachers w ith CARS professional development training and those without training. To address objective 4, th e researcher used the Microsoft Excel SOCQ075 Graph and Print program to create group co ncern profiles based on the number of hours spent in CARS professional development and SPSS to calculate frequencies of participants primary Stage of Concern and correlations between demographic variables and the primary Stage of Concern. Finally, Weft QDA version 1.0.1 was utili zed to analyze the concerns statements and provide more detailed explanation of th e participants concerns (Fenton, 2006). Summary This chapter described the census of intangibles descriptive survey which was completed for this research. The population of Florida agriscience teachers was described. The researcher described the SoCQ which was used of the inst rumentation for the study. This questionnaire has been designed, tested, and modified through 35 y ears of research and was used to assess the concerns of agriscience teacher s in regards to implementing CARS in their classrooms. The internal reliability of each st age of the instrument ranged be tween .66 and .83. The test-retest reliability scores ranged between an alpha of .65 and .86. These reliability scores were within the desirable range. In addition, the research er addressed the threats of covera ge error, measurement error, and nonresponse error; sampling error was not a factor in this census survey. This chapter detailed the procedures followed in conducting this web-based survey from obtaining IRB approval through a series of five contacts with respondents to the collection and comparison of nonrespondents data. The resear cher modeled these procedur es after the Tailored Design Method developed by Dillman (2007). Finally the aut hor discussed the descriptive statistics, the SoC profiles, and concern statements that have been used to analyze the data gathered. 66

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this research was to meas ure implementation of content area reading strategies (CARS) by agriscience teachers. This research aimed to dete rmine if a relationship existed between CARS professional devel opment programs and agriscience teachers progression through the Stages of Concern in regards to implemen tation of CARS. In order to meet the purpose of this study, the fo llowing objectives were investigated: Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional deve lopment history. Determine the Stages of Concern of agri science teachers who have completed CARS professional development program. Determine the Stages of Concern of agrisc ience teachers who have not completed CARS professional development program. Determine the relationship between CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. This chapter presents the findings of the study from the results of the questionnaires. The chapter discusses the response rate and measures taken to address non-response error. Additionally it presents the demographic charact eristics of the population studied. Finally, the chapter addresses the findings in regards to each objective. Response Rate, Nonrespondents, and Reliability A total of 371 online questionnaires were sent to the population via a we b link sent in an email to agriscience teachers in the state of Florida. Two hundred fourt een questionnaires were completed for an overall response rate of 57.7% (n=214). Dillman (2007) recommended addressing nonresponse error in all survey-based research studies because the potential for this type of error exists in all survey resear ch. Since it would be challenging to address the Stag e of Concern variable in a brief phone survey with 67

PAGE 68

nonrespondnets, concern profiles were created for early respondents and late respondents. Ary et al. (2006) stated that research has shown that similarities usually exist between late respondents and nonrespondents. Pace (1939) found that nonre spondnets and respondents are similar. These similarities allow for researchers to estimat e the responses of nonrespondents based upon late respondents. Thus, early and late respondents were compared to addr ess nonresponse error. Early respondents (n=66) were defined as the participants who responded to the cover letter with the first link to the survey, before the reminde r e-mail was sent. Late respondents (n=42) were defined as participants who res ponded after the final contact was ma de. Both of the profiles were non-user profiles. The early responders had higher intensity concerns than the late responders across all stages. The profile of the early responders (Fi gure 4-1) was a non-user profile with a negative onetwo split This profile had higher Stage 2 concerns than Stage 1, which indicates that these responders were more concerned about how CARS would affect their job position and security than about learning more about the innovation. Th ese concerns can cause resistance to the innovation and need to be addressed before this group can learn more about the innovation or consider it objectively (George et al., 2006). Th e Stage 3 score indicated strong management concerns as well. Consequence and co llaboration scores were low. The tailing-up at Stage 6 also indicated that the teachers have different ideas which they view as more worthy than the innovation. It also suggests that these teachers may be resistant to change. 68

PAGE 69

Figure 4-1. Concerns profile for early respondents (n=66) Figure 4-2. Concerns profile for late respondents (n=42) 69

PAGE 70

The high Stage 0 score on the late responde nts profile (Figure 4-2) indicated late respondents were not completely aware of the innovation and focused on other responsibilities. They showed some interest in learning more based on their Stage 1 and 2 scores. Management concerns were not great and they were least concerned about consequence. The tailing-up at Stage 6 indicated that the partic ipants have ideas they think ar e superior to the innovation. Since this was a non-user profile with a tailing-up at Stage 6, it indicated a resistance to change. Post hoc reliability was calculated using SPSS. Cronbachs Alpha tests were run for each Stage of Concern. The reliability results are outli ned in table 4-1. Santos (1999) stated an alpha score of .7 or greater is acceptable. Although the relia bility scores are a lit tle low in Stages 0 and 1, the reliability scores are similar to other studies as illustrated in Table 4-2. Also, Stage 0 has been under revision to help improve the reliab ility (Hall & Hord, 2006; George et al., 2006). Table 4-1. Post hoc reliability scor es for each stage of concern (N=214) Stage Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Alpha .57 .67 .78 .78 .71 .78 .71 Table 4-2. Post hoc reliability scores for each stage of concern (George et al., 2006, p. 20) Stages of Concern Authors n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979 830 .64 .78 .83 .75 .76 .82 .71 Van den Berg, & Vandenberghe, 1981 1585 .77 .79 .86 .80 .84 .80 .76/ 73* Kolb, 1983 718 .75 .87 .72 .84 .79 .81 .82 Barucky, 1984 614 .60 .74 .81 .79 .81 .79 .72 Jordan-Marsh, 1985 214 .50 .78 .77 .82 .77 .81 .65 Martin, 1989 388 .78 .78 .73 .65 .71/ 81 .83 .76 Hall, Newlove, Rutherford, & Hord, 1991 750 .63 .86 .65 .73 .74 .79 .81 Note In these studies, the authors proposed two subscales in place of the original SoC scale. 70

PAGE 71

Demographics The questionnaire contained 11 demographic questions. These demographic questions addressed age and gender, teacher expe rience, and innovation involvement. Gender and Age Of the respondents, 55.6% (n=85) were male and 44.4% (n=68) were female. Respondents were asked to report their age in the follo wing categories: 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and > 60. Table 4-3 illustrates the age breakdown of the population. The age range with the greatest number of participants was 5160 with 29.4 % (n=45). The age ra nge with the least amount of participants was >60 with 5.9% (n=9). Table 4-3. Ages of participants (n=153) Age Range f % 51-60 45 29.4 21-30 38 24.8 41-50 33 21.6 31-40 28 18.3 > 60 9 5.9 Note. f= frequency. Teaching Experience Teachers reported their number of years teaching to be between 0 and 40 with a mean of 15.17 years. When teachers were asked if they have taught any subjects in addition to agriculture, 53.2% (n=82) responded yes, while 46.8% (n=72) responded no. Teachers who had taught other subjects specified th e areas in which they had taught Table 4-4 outlines the general subject areas in which teachers have taught in ad dition to agriculture. Science was the subject area which teachers had taught the most 96.2% (n=77). 71

PAGE 72

Table 4-4. General subject areas agri science teachers have taught (n=80) Subject Area f % Science 77 96.2 Math 14 17.5 Electives 12 15.0 Reading, English, and language arts 12 15.0 Social sciences 10 12.5 Health and physical education 8 10.0 Other 6 7.5 Note. f= frequency. % = > 100 due to teacher teaching in more than one area. Teachers were also asked to id entify the areas in which they have received certification. The highest number of certificat ions was in agricultural educa tion and specialized agriculture with 29.5% (n=44), closely followe d by science with 22.8% (n=34). Table 4-5 shows the areas of teacher certification. Table 4-5. Teacher areas of certification (n=149) Area f % Agricultural education and specialized agriculture 44 29.5 Science 34 22.8 Special education and ESOL 10 6.7 Administration 7 4.7 Middle school integrated curriculum 7 4.7 Social sciences 6 4.0 Elementary 4 2.7 Health and physical education 4 2.7 Others 4 2.7 Math 3 2.0 Reading 2 1.3 Note. f= frequency. % = > 100 due to teacher hol ding multiple certifications. Involvement in the Innovation Participants were asked how long they have been involved with content area reading strategies, not counting this year. Of the respon ses, 48.4% (n=74) responded they had never been 72

PAGE 73

involved with the innovation and 15. 7% (n=24) responded they have been involved for five or more years. Table 4-6 illustrates the length of involvement in the innovation. Table 4-6. Participants length of involvement in the innovati on (not counting current year) (n=153) Number of Years f % Never 74 48.4 1 year 14 9.2 2 years 17 11.1 3 years 13 8.5 4 years 11 7.2 5 or more years 24 15.7 Note. f= frequency. When asked at which level of expertise the pa rticipant considered himself/herself to be, over 60% of the participan ts considered themselves to be nonusers or novice users. Almost 40% considered themselves intermediate users or old hands. None of the respondents considered themselves to be a past user of the innovati on. Table 4-7 indicates t eachers perception of themselves in their level of expertise with the innovation. Table 4-7. Teachers perceptions of their expertise with CARS (n=153) Perception f % Non-user 51 33.3 Novice 45 29.4 Intermediate 43 28.1 Old hand 14 9.2 Past user 0 0.0 Note. f= frequency. Participants were asked how often they have been incorporating CARS into their lesson. They could chose from the following options: 34 times a week, 1-2 times a week, 3-4 times a month, 1-2 times a month, or <1 per month. Respondents replies i ndicated 16.3% (n=24) incorporated CARS 3-4 times a week. A third of the respondents (n=49) reported incorporating 73

PAGE 74

CARS< 1 per month. Table 4-8 highlights the fre quency with which teachers incorporated CARS into their lessons. Table 4-8. Frequency teachers incorpor ate CARS into their lessons (n=147) Frequency f % 3-4 times a week 24 16.3 1-2 times a week 46 31.3 3-4 times a month 15 10.2 1-2 times a month 13 8.8 < 1 per month 49 33.3 Note. f= frequency. Concern profiles were developed based on t eachers frequency of use of CARS. Three profiles were created: weekly users (Figure 4-3) monthly users (Figure 4-4), and seldom and non users (Figure 4-5). Each of these profiles were nonuser profiles with a slight negative one-two spilt The negative one-two split occurs when personal concerns are higher than informational concerns. This idicated that teachers were mo re concnerend about how the use of CARS would affect their position and job security than th ey were about learning more about the concern. Teachers with a negative one-two spilt may demonstrate resistance to the change. Their personal concerns need to be addressed for them to c ontinue to progress through implementation. Weekly and monthly users had slightly higher insten sity concerns than seldom and nonusers. The major difference in these three profiles, wa s the direction of the tail of the graph at Stage 6. The weekly users score for Stage 6 was the same as their score for Stage 5, thus the profile neither tailed up or down. Monthly user s had only a slight tailing-up of three points, which indicated that they have other ideas which may be competing with the innovation, but these ideas have not caused much resistance to the innovation. Seldom and nonusers have a tailing-up of 9 points. This indicated a resist ance to the implemen taiton of CARS. 74

PAGE 75

Figure 4-3. Concerns profile for teacher incorporating CARS in to lessons on a weekly basis (n=83) The weekly users profile (Figure 4-3) illustra ted the highest concners were in Stage 0, awarness. Informational, persona l, and management concerns we re close and moderately high, between 73 and 78, with a very silght negative one-two split. Consequences concerns were the lowest. Both collaboration and refocusing concerns scored 52 in relative intensity. The monthly users profile (Figure 4-4) illustra ted the highest concerns were in Stage 0, awarness. Informational, persona l, and management concerns we re close and moderately high, between 72and 83. This profile showed the most darastic (11 percentile points) negative one-two split of the three frequency of use profiles. Cons equences concerns were the lowest follwed by collaboration concerns and refocusing. 75

PAGE 76

Figure 4-4. Concerns profile for teacher incorporating CARS in to lessons on a monthly basis (n=30) Figure 4-5. Concerns profile for teacher incorporating CARS into lessons on a seldom to never basis (n=50) 76

PAGE 77

The seldom and nonusers profile (Figure 4-5) illu strated the highest conc ners were in Stage 0, awarness. Informational, persoanl, and manage ment concners were close and somewhat high, between 66 and 70, with a very silght negative one-two split. Consequence and collaboration conserns were the lowest fo llowed by refocusing concerns. Participants were asked to rate their working relationship with the reading coach from their school on a scale from 1-5, where 1= very weak and 5= very strong. One-third of respondents indicated they had a weak or very weak relati onship with the reading co ach. Only about 26% (n = 39) or respondents considered th eir relationship to be strong or very strong, but two-thirds rated their relationship average or higher. Table 4-9 underscores agriscience teachers relationship with their reading coach. Table 4-9. Agriscience teachers relati onship with their reading coach (144) Relationship f % Very weak 26 18.1 Weak 22 15.3 Average 57 39.6 Strong 23 16.0 Very strong 16 11.1 Note. f= frequency. Participants were asked if they have been cu rrently involved in the first of second year of another major innovation or program. In response to this question, 55.6% (n=85) of the respondents indicated they were in volved in the first or second year of another major innovation and 44.4% (n=68) of the respondents indicated they were not involved in th e first or second year of another major innovation. Thes e innovations focused on incorpor ating reading, science, math, technology, active learning strate gies, and differentiated inst ruction in the classroom. The teachers were asked what they believe d to be the biggest barriers to CARS implementation in their school. Of the responde nts, 5.4% (n=6) were unsure what barriers 77

PAGE 78

existed. The number one barrier identified by the respondents was time (33.9%; n=38). Other barriers recognized included: othe r demands, training needs, pla nning and preparation, materials and resources, student interest and motivati on, knowledge and confidence, paperwork, teacher motivation, financial burdens, lack of commitmen t/leadership, large class size, reading coach (or lack of), school policies/electiv es, curriculum, few certified, and lack of collaboration. Table 410 highlights the barriers the respondents identified. Table 4.10. Teacher perceived barriers to school-wide CA RS implementation (n=92) Barrier f % Time 38 41.3 None 15 16.3 Other demands 10 10.9 Training needs 8 8.7 Unsure 6 6.5 Planning and preparation 5 5.4 Materials/resources 4 4.3 Student interest and motivation 4 4.3 Knowledge and confidence 3 3.3 Paperwork 3 3.3 Teacher motivation 3 3.3 Financial burdens 2 2.2 Lack of commitment/leadership 2 2.2 Large class size 2 2.2 Reading coach (or lack of) 2 2.2 School policies/electives 2 2.2 Curriculum 1 1.1 Few certified 1 1.1 Lack of collaboration 1 1.1 Note. f= frequency. % = > 100 due to teachers identifying multiple barriers. An overall concerns profile was developed to illustrate the concerns of the population as a whole regarding implementing CARS into the agriscience classroom. Figure 4-6 shows the overall concerns profile. The primary stage of concerns was unconcerned with a percentile score 78

PAGE 79

of 91. Informational, personal, and management concerns were relatively high as well. The lowest SoC was consequences, followed by collaboration and refocusing respectively. Figure 4-6. Overall CARS c oncerns profile (N=214) Results by Objective Objective 1 Objective: Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional development history. Teachers were asked to indicate their partic ipation in a range of CARS professional development experiences, which included: pre-pr ofessional, continuing education, training with reading coach, school training, c ounty training, Florida Reading Initiative training, or other training. Table 4-11 indicates the frequencies with which each type of professional development training was attended. The majority of teachers surveyed (75.9 % n=104) had participated in school training for CARS and at least half of the re spondents had participated in continuing 79

PAGE 80

education course work, pre-pr ofessional course work, count y training, and personal reading coach training regarding CARS. On ly about one fourth of the re spondents had participated in Florida Reading Initiative training or ot her CARS profession al development. Table 4-11. Teacher participation in CARS professional development Training n f % School 137 104 75.9 Continuing education 140 88 62.9 Pre-professional 144 81 56.3 County 133 73 54.9 Reading coach 142 75 52.8 Florida Reading Initiative 104 28 26.9 Other 96 26 27.1 Note. f = frequency. Teachers were also asked to sp ecify how many total hours they had devoted to each of the professional development experiences in which they had participated. Table 4-12 summarizes the range, mean, and standard deviation for th e hours spent in each t ype of professional development. On average, teachers devoted the highest number of hours (M= 24.06, SD=13.00) to Florida Reading Initiative training. Teach ers spent the fewest number of hours (M=14.43, SD=11.838) training with their reading coach. Table 4-12. Number of hour s teacher devoted to CARS professional development Training n Min. Max. M SD Florida Reading Initiative 35 0 >30 24.06 13.00 Pre-professional 73 0 >30 22.51 12.75 Continuing education 88 0 30 21.30 11.65 Other 22 0 >30 20.14 13.28 County 72 0 >30 16.44 11.39 School 99 0 30 14.58 10.95 Reading coach 77 0 >30 14.43 11.89 Note. Min.=minimum; Max.=maximum. 80

PAGE 81

The total number of hours par ticipants reported in the di fferent types of professional development programs were added to determine the total number of professional development hours. The mean total number of CARS pr ofessional development hours completed was 60.56 with a standard deviatio n of 52.20. The range was 312. Objective 2 Objective: Determine the Stages of Concern of agriscience teachers who have completed a CARS professional development program. A group concerns profile was developed for teachers who had reported receiving CARS professional development. Figure 4-7 illustrates th e group concerns profile for teachers receiving professional development training. The primary So C for the group concerns profile was Stage 0, unconcerned with a 96 percentile sc ore. The secondary SoC for this group was management Stage 4, with an 80th percentile score. These teachers also had high concerns in the informational and personal stages. Their lowest SoC was consequences with a 33rd percentile score. Collaboration and refocusing scores for this group were around the 50th percentile. One of the questions on the questionnaire asked participants to provide a concerns statement to the prompt: Please briefly descri be the concerns you have regarding the use of content reading strategies in your agriscience class. The concer n statements of teacher with CARS professional development training were anal yzed to provide additional details of their concerns. From the participants who comple ted professional development, 104 concerns statements were completed. 81

PAGE 82

Figure 4-7. Group concern profile fo r teachers with CARS profe ssional development experience (n=134) Three concern statements simply said none Twenty of these concern statements included awareness concerns. Five teachers indicated a lack of knowledge. One teacher admitted, I am not familiar with them. Another teacher responde d, ...I have no idea what CARS [are]. Fifteen of the concerns statements indicated that teachers were focused on other obligations. For example, a teacher emphasized, In today's cla ssroom, we are shuffling from one innovation to another so quickly. One teacher noted, Bei ng a busy teacher, I am concerned how much time implementing this new strategy will take from my other responsibilities. Another teacher noted he/she had other requirements and copi ous amounts of paper shuffling. Yet another teacher wrote, I am struggling to have time to do everything and a life too! SPS, FFA, Land Lab, Reading, etc. Similarly, another teacher st ated, I spend so much time preparing for teaching the other aspects of my classes. 82

PAGE 83

Fifteen of the concerns statements highlighted concerns in the informational stage in the areas of learning more information and receiv ing necessary training. Some teachers noted the desire and need to gain more information abou t CARS. One teacher said, I think I have used types of the program, but I'm not sure what this all entails. Another teachers statement read No concerns, just want more definition, etc. From the teachers who wanted to learn more, several expressed a need to learn about and find resources to help them. Getting resources to implement it, was one teachers concern. Anot her teacher wanted help, finding appropriate materials for them to read concerning agriscience. One teacher noted three resource related concerns, where to find information, who to as k for help, [and] agriculture lesson plans with reading strategies. Some teachers highlighted con cerns about training. A teacher stated, I am concerned that we will not get enough in-ser vice training and re-training to use this strategy properly. One teacher stated, I would like to know how to better use them in my classes. Another teacher was more specific, I would like some examples of how I could use this approach in my class. Yet another teacher observed, With any staff developm ent, it is one thing to go through the training and quite another to implement. Many teachers ha ve set ways of doing things and realistic time and training is needed. Only 6 concerns statements underscored personal concerns. One teacher admitted, I do not feel that I understand how to use them well enough in my agriscience classes. Another teacher expressed uncertainty over the roles he/she had in incorporating CAR into career and technology education courses. Usually the examples that are given in trainings do not relate to CTE courses. It sometimes is difficult to figure out how to use some strategies. I think a group of CTE teachers needs to put together examples of how to use the strategies in their courses. 83

PAGE 84

Two teachers shared concerns about their status. Fo r example one teacher was afraid if he or she focused on implementing CARS, That my class will be used to dump students that have no interest in ag[riculture]. The school might use my class for all its discipline problems. Fifty-four concern statements addressed ma nagement concerns. These concerns were broken into smaller categories: scheduling and or ganizing, efficiency, other responsibilities, and time. Fifteen statements expressed scheduli ng and organization concerns. Planning was a common theme emerging from these concerns. A nother teacher stated, I am more concerned with variety of strategies than anything else. I don't want my students to get bored, but at the same time I want them to be able to count on the consistency of routin e. One teacher declared, freedom to organize the content area reading my self. One teacher expressed a need for time to organize and implement strategies in between all of the other interruptions and expectations. Finally another teacher said, I know we all n eed to help with the reading scores, but the strategies need to be doable w ithin the frameworks [of my goals for the agriculture program]. Five teachers focused on the efficiency of instruction and resour ces in their concern statements. From the instructional standpoint, one teacher felt, We need a standard that can be accepted by a majority of the state and county programs. This would simplify reading programs. Too many programs [exist,] and everyone is differe nt. Another teacher noted, I have too many students (157) [with] too broad of a range of abilities. One size will not fit all. From the resources perspective, one teacher wrote, It is difficult to find non-textbook reading material that does not need to be printed. My school is cu rrently in a severe pape r shortage and any extra printing is difficult. Managing CARS with other responsibilities was discussed by four teachers in their concern profiles. One teacher mentioned, These strategies take away from the class/lab time 84

PAGE 85

devoted to a topic or a specific project. Sim ilarly another teacher commented, My time and energy are directed to teaching my subject area, th at does include reading strategies, but, not to take away from what I do best. Time was a major management concern unders cored in 28 concern statements. Generally, teachers expressed concerns about time for implementation, training, creating lesson plans, course content, hands-on experience, and all other responsibilities. Specifically, teachers stated: [My concern is] the excessive amount of tim e/training required to be CARS certified by our school district. It does seem to use more time. I find that a lot of time is required to formulat e reading strategies that fit the ag[riculture] program in my classroom. Time is my primary concern since I spend so much time preparing for teaching the other aspects of my classes. There are times when it feels like we do not have enough time to cover our content. When you use reading for information and other readin g strategies it increases time needed to teach a unit. I am concerned about the continued in crease in the amount of time spent on documentation that should be used preparing students for a career. Forty four statements focused on conse quences concerns. These concerns were distributed between the following categories: outcome, students needs and interests, and effects on the agriscience program. Teachers highlighted both negative and positive outcomes. One teacher said, In today's classroom, we are shuff ling from one innovation to another so quickly that it is impossible to evaluate the effects and affects of each innova tion. Another teacher commented, Some strategies are used too ofte n and the students become num[b] to the effects. On the other hand, a teacher explained th at CARS, further enhanced the relevancy of my instruction for all students enrolled. On e teacher noted, once a strategy is taught a teacher can rely on it for the duration of the term.Another teacher commended, The strategies 85

PAGE 86

mixed with hands-on student engagement and pres entation activities allow reading to occur with a tangible and interesting end result for the st udents. One teacher describes how CARS have enhanced her class. I have found that by using reading strategies my students understa nd the material at a deeper level. If was difficult to make the ch ange at first and determine what was going to work, but now using reading strate gies is part of every lesson. Twenty-six teachers emphasized concerns of students needs and interests. The majority of statements concerning student needs disc ussed the challenge of reaching and engaging students on variety of reading levels. For ex ample, Classes are too diverse in academic achievement. Another teacher noted, I have a mixture of highs and lows and I am worried that my high will lose interest when we use strategi es that help the lows and vice versa. Another student need concern expressed, My kids are no t college bound and will rebelat any approach that lessens hands on or the pr actical approach to learning. However, one teacher stated, Students come into our programs to enjoy and have fun in learning. I feel if we can use these strategies and innovations to further help and advance our students that they will be more receptive of the strategies since they will be used in an area of their interest. Anything we can do to help our students will be a step in the right direction. One teacher noted the importa nce of reading, but was concerned about how the students would react, Without a doubt, read ing is the key to developing our students ability to advance in the present age of technology. Selling this to the students is another thing. Another teacher shared, Students are not motivated to read; pe riod. One teacher stated, The higher level readers have a negative attitude towards them. A teacher worried, This may turn [agriculture] students off because this may take some enjoymen t out of the agriculture class. Another teacher commented, So many students are getting reading strategies in all their classes that they groan when talking about them. I want fun strategi es that make life easier not more difficult. 86

PAGE 87

Teachers had concerns about the effects CARS had on their programs. One teacher stated, Too much emphasis [is] on CARs inst ead of the goals set for my program. Another teacher said CARS were, taking away even more time that the students could be learning hands on. One teacher said, Students see my class as too much like their co re academic classes and don't sign up for it in as large of numbers beca use of the larger [amount] of reading and strategies. One teacher discussed the cons equences of incorporating CARS and the consequences of not having student s in the agricultural classes. I am slightly concerned with the fact that we will be account able for the learning gain and feel this may take additional time from the curriculum to monitor, but the alternative is not to have the students in the very progra ms that make them productive citizens. However, one teacher noted, I have adapted the reading strategies to enhance comprehension and retention of the agriscience content. Seven concerns statements addressed colla boration concerns. Teachers discussed the importance of coordination and cooperation. On e teacher explained, We need to focus on getting everyone on the same exact page. Anot her teacher suggested, I think a group of CTE teachers needs to put together examples of how to use the strategies in their courses. One teacher explained how she coordinated the use of CARS to meet her course content and structure. I use them in daily lessons as they ap ply to what I am teaching. I do not use them just to do reading, it applies enough on a regular basis. Six teachers expressed refocusing concerns. One teacher who was actively implementing CARS said she was concerned a bout, what lies ahead for content area reading instruction. Three teachers discussed alternatives. One teacher noted, Increasing student's interest in the material presented, industry jour nals with related curriculum topics seem to work better. The second teacher called attention to the ever-changing innovations. I t seems to me every time we 87

PAGE 88

turn around there is a new approach. If we stay around for any length of time there will be another one to use. The third teacher explaine d his/her experience with an alternative plan, A few years ago I submitted a plan to improve our students' reading and before I was able to begin to implement my plan, I was being "e ncouraged" to obtain all types of reading endorsements. I would have liked it much bette r if I would have been able to implement my reading plan. Two teachers recommended major changes. On e suggested, With all the emphasis being on reading, I think students need other strategies to keep them focused. Reading will become a burden to them if used so frequently. The ot her teacher proposed, an approach to enhance a seamless integration of CARS into content area instruction rather than as an add-on, be developed. Objective 3 Objective: Determine the Stages of Con cern of agriscience t eachers who have not completed a CARS professional development program. A group concerns profile was created for teachers reporting having no CARS professional development. Figure 4-8 shows the group concer ns profile for teachers who reported not completing any professional development tr aining. The primary So C for this group was unconcerned Stage 0, with a 91st percentile score. This concern was followed by informational Stage 1, and management Stage 4, both with an 88th percentile score. The concern statements for this group of i ndividuals were reviewed to provide more explanation of their concerns Of the 11 teachers who had no CARS professional development training, only 6 completed concern statements. One of the teachers with no training identified none in the concerns statement. Two teachers identified informational concerns. One teacher noted, I don't feel that I have enough inform ation to make any comments. Another teacher 88

PAGE 89

provided greater explanation of how he/she was incorporating reading in the content area, but admitted that he/she did not have know specifically what CARS were. We utilize newspaper clippings, Aged.net handouts, Land in the Sunshine (alumni book), small group reading with an aide and other items to work on reading in the content area. My apology, I really do not know anything specif ic about CARS and wo uld read about it if you direct me to some items easy to research. It is hard to be negative or positive about cars with the limited knowledge I have. Agai n, we do work with students on reading...we also are pretesting each area we study, retesting and reviewing with anyone that does not make at least a "C" on a test. Figure 4-8. Group concerns prof ile for teachers without CARS professional development experience (n=12) Two teachers highlighted management concerns in their concern statements. One stated, Being a busy teacher, I am concerned how much time implementing this new strategy will take from my other responsibilities. The other teacher mentioned th at CARS takes away hands on time. One teacher identified consequence concerns of the innovation. When asked what concerns the individual had regarding CARS this teacher responded, that my class will be used 89

PAGE 90

to dump students that have no interest in ag[ricul ture] The school might use my class for all its discipline problems. Objective 4 Objective: Determine the relationship be tween CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. Stages of Concern Profiles were developed based on the number of professional development hours completed. The participants we re broken into the following groups based on total number of CARS professional development hours: 0 (Figure 4-9), 1-10 (Figure 4-10), 11-20 (Figure 4-11), 21-30 (Figure 4-12), 31-40 (Fi gure 4-13), 41-50 (Figure 4-14), 51-60 (Figure 415), 61-70 (Figure 4-6), 71-80 (F igure 4-7), 81-90 (Figure 418), 91-100 (Figure 4-19), 101-110 (Figure 4-20), 111-120 (Figure 4-21), 121-130 (F igure 4-22), >130 hours (Figure 4-23), of CARS professional development. Overall, a general pattern did not emerge from the profiles based on the amount of professional development they received. Each profile was characte rized by a high relative intensity (88-99) in Stage 0, Awareness, with the exception of teachers with 81-90 hours of professional development. Of the 14 prof iles developed, between 1 and >130 hours of professional development, 9 of them tail-up The tailing-up indicates that teachers have other ideas which compete with the innovation. From the 9 profiles which tail-up 6 of them increase more than 10 percentile points. Some of the prof iles identified strong peaks, such as those with 61-70 hours of research (Figure 410) in management and those with > 130 hours (Figure 4-17) in collaboration. 90

PAGE 91

Figure 4-9. Concerns profile fo r teachers with 1-10 hours of CARS professional development (n=7) The profile for teachers with 1-10 hours of professional development training (Figure 4-9) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were hi ghest. Informational, personal, and management concerns were high with relative intensity percentiles of ranging from 88-80 respectively. Consequence concerns were the lo west followed by collaboration concerns which were also relatively low. This profile showed a tailing-up of 16 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have other ideas which they cons ider more important, thus indicating resistance towards CARS. 91

PAGE 92

Figure 4-10. Concerns profile for teachers with 11-20 hours of CARS professional development (n=14) The profile for teachers with 11-20 hours of professional development training (Figure 410) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were hi ghest. Informational, personal, and management concerns were essentially equal at the 60th, 59th, and 60th percentiles respectively. These scores were also comparatively low in reference to other profiles. Consequence and collaboration concerns were the lowest concerns with percentile scores of 30 and 31 respectively. This profile showed a tailing-up of 38 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have competing ideas which they consider to have more merit than CARS, thus indicating severe resistance towards CARS. 92

PAGE 93

Figure 4-11. Concerns profile for teachers with 21-30 hours of CARS professional development (n=12) The profile for teachers with 21-30 hours of professional development training (Figure 411) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. Informational and personal concerns were relatively equal around the 84th percentile level. These teachers only had somewhat high management concerns at the 69th percentile. Consequence concerns were the lowest closely followed by collaborati on concerns. This profile showed a tailing-up of 12 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have ot her ideas which they consider to have greater merit, thus indicating str ong resistance towards CARS. 93

PAGE 94

Figure 4-12. Concerns profile for teachers with 31-40 hours of CARS professional development (n=16) The profile for teachers with 31-40 hours of professional development training (Figure 412) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. Informational and personal percentile scores were 72 and 78 respectively. This profile had a s econd peak at Stage 3 with an 80th percentile score for management concerns. A steep drop to the 33rd percentile score of consequences was represented. Collaboration concerns followed closely behind consequence concerns. This profile showed a tailing-up of 6 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have other ideas which they consider more important thus indicating resistance towards CARS. 94

PAGE 95

Figure 4-13. Concerns profile for teachers with 41-50 hours of CARS professional development (n=10) The profile for teachers with 41-50 hours of professional development training (Figure 413) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. Informational and personal concerns were the second highest stages, each with a percentile score of 72.The management concerns were moderate at the 65th percentile. The consequence scores dropped to the 33rd percentile, but the collaboration scores climbed to the 52nd percentile. This profile showed a tailing-up of 8 percentile points at Stage 6. These teach ers have other ideas which they consider more important, thus indicati ng resistance towards CARS. 95

PAGE 96

Figure 4-14. Concerns profile for teachers with 51-60 hours of CARS professional development (n=16) The profile for teachers with 51-60 hours of professional development training (Figure 414) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. Informational and personal concerns were the second highest stages, each with a percentile score of 80. The management concerns were moderately high at the 73rd percentile. The consequence scores dropped to the 33rd percentile, but the collaboration scores climbed to the 44th percentile. This profile showed a tailing-down of 2 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers do not have competing ideas which interfere with the implementation of CARS. 96

PAGE 97

Figure 4-15. Concerns profile for teachers with 61-70 hours of CARS professional development (n=13) The profile for teachers with 61-70 hours of professional development training (Figure 415) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. Informational and personal percentile scores were essentially equal at 66 and 67 respectively. This profile had a second peak at Stage 3 with an 88th percentile score indicating strong ma nagement concerns. A steep drop to the 43rd percentile score of consequences was re presented. Collaboration concerns were the lowest at the 28th percentile. This profile showed a tailing-up of 10 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have other ideas which they cons ider more important, thus indicating resistance towards CARS. 97

PAGE 98

Figure 4-16. Concerns profile for teachers with 71-80 hours of CARS professional development (n=8) The profile for teachers with 71-80 hours of professional development training (Figure 416) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were hi ghest. Informational, personal, and management concerns were high with relative intensity percentiles, 88, 80,and 85 respectively. Scores dropped to a 54th percentile score for consequences and a 40th percentile score for collaboration. This profile showed a tailing-up of 20 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have competing ideas which they consider more important, thus indica ting a strong resistance towards CARS. 98

PAGE 99

Figure 4-17. Concerns profile for teachers with 81-90 hours of CARS professional development (n=8) The profile for teachers with 81-90 hours of professional development training (Figure 417) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were modera tely high; however, this is one of two profiles where Stage 0 is not the highest stage. Informational concerns are the highest at the 80th percentile. A steady decline of approximately 10 percentage points exists through personal, management, and consequence concerns. Colla boration concerns incr ease slightly from consequence concerns. This profile showed a tailing-up of 8 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have other ideas which they consider mo re important, thus indicating resistance towards CARS. 99

PAGE 100

Figure 4-18. Concerns profile for teachers with 91-100 hours of CARS professional development (n=9) The profile for teachers with 91-100 hours of professional development training (Figure 418) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest (98th percentile). Informational concerns dropped 23 percentile points. Personal and management concerns tied for the second highest Stages of Concern at the 85th percentile. Consequence concer ns were the lowest followed by collaboration concerns which were also relatively low. This profile showed a tailing-up of 17 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have other ideas which they consider to have more merit, thus indicating str ong resistance towards CARS. 100

PAGE 101

Figure 4-19. Concerns profile for teachers with 101-110 hours of CARS professional development (n=4) The profile for teachers with 101-110 hours of professional development training (Figure 4-19) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highest. This profile had a slight negative one-two split Personal concerns (83rd percentile) score a bove informational (72nd percentile) and management (80th percentile). Consequence concerns were moderate (63rd percentile) and collaboration scores were the lowest (48th percentile). This profile showed a tailing-up of 4 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers ha ve other ideas which may compete with CARS, thus indicating a possible resistance towards CARS. 101

PAGE 102

Figure 4-20. Concerns profile for teachers with 111-120 hours of CARS professional development (n=3) The profile for teachers with 111-120 hours of professional development training (Figure 4-20) was a nonuser profile. Although awareness concerns we re high, this is one of two profiles where Stage 0 was not the highest Stage of Con cern. Informational, personal, and management concerns were high with rela tive intensity percentiles of ranging from 93-85 respectively. Consequence concerns were the lowest (21st percentile). Collaboration concerns increased to a moderate lever (59th percentile). This profile showed a tailing-down of 17 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers do not have competing id eas which interfere with the implementation of CARS. 102

PAGE 103

Figure 4-21. Concerns profile for teachers with 121-130 hours of CARS professional development (n=6) The profile for teachers with 121-130 hours of professional development training (Figure 4-21) was a nonuser profile. Awareness concerns were highe st. Informational, personal, and management concerns were all high with a second peak (95th percentile) at Stage 3.Consequence concerns were moderate (54th percentile) and collaboration scores were the lowest (52nd percentile). This profile showed a tailing-up of 21 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers have competing ideas which may compete with CARS, thus indicati ng a strong resistance towards CARS. 103

PAGE 104

Figure 4-22. Concerns profile for teachers with >130 hours of CARS professional development (n=12) The profile for teachers with >130 hours of professional development training (Figure 422) was a nonuser profile. Awareness and management concerns were highest. Informational concerns were also very high in relative intens ity. An extreme drop to consequence concerns, the lowest(33rd percentile) stage, existed. Collaborat ion concerns were moderately high (76th percentile). This profile showed a tailing-down of 46 percentile points at Stage 6. These teachers do not have competing ideas which interf ere with the implementation of CARS. Primary Stage of Concern George, Hall, and Stiegelbauer (2006) suggested analyzing th e primary Stage of Concern of participants. Frequencies were run on the pr imary Stage of Concern. Additionally, correlations 104

PAGE 105

were calculated to identify the degree of the relationship between demographic variables and the primary Stage of Concern. Frequencies Frequencies were calculated on the primary Stag e of Concern for participants. Table 4-13 summarizes the frequencies of the primary Stag e of Concern. The major ity of participants (51.3%, n=96) primary Stage of Concern was in the awareness stage, Stage 0. Stage 2, personal, was the second primary stage of concern for th e group with 15.5% (n= 2). Stage 3, management, followed closely with 15.0% (n=28). Stage 1, info rmational, was also close with 12.3% (n=23). Stage 5, collaboration, (3.7% n=7) and Stage 6, re focusing, (1.9% n=4) were the primary stages of concern for the least amount of participants. Zero percent (n=0) of the participants had a primary stage of concern in Stage 4, consequences. Table 4-13. Primary Stage of Concern frequencies (n=187) Primary Stage of Concern f % Stage 0 Awareness 96 51.3 Stage 2 Personal 29 15.5 Stage 3 Management 28 15.0 Stage 1 Informational 23 12.3 Stage 5 Collaboration 7 3.7 Stage 6 Refocusing 4 1.9 Stage 4 Consequences 0 0.0 Note. f = frequency. Correlations Correlations were calculated to determine the magnitude and directi on of the relationship between demographic variables and the primary Stage of C oncern. Correlations between variables with ordinal data were calculated using Spearmans rho. Table 4-14 provides each variable and its correlation coefficient. All of the correlations were determined to be positive with the exception of frequency of incorpora ting CARS, past teaching experiences, and current 105

PAGE 106

involvement in other innovations which were dete rmined to be negative correlations. Table 4-5 defines Daviss categories for describing a magnitude of a correlation which have been used to describe the correlations in this study. Teachers perceived level of expertise had a moderate correlation coefficient above 0.30. Frequency of incorporating CARS and relationship with the read ing coach had low correlation coefficients between 0.10 and 0.29. Current invo lvement in other innovations, number of years teaching, and gender had negligible corre lation coefficients between 0.01 and 0.09. Table 4-14. Spearmans rho correl ation coefficient between demographic variables and primary Stage of Concern Demographic n r Perceived level of expertise 153 .30 Frequency of incorporating CARS 147 -.29 Length of involvement with CARS 153 .26 Relationship with reading coach 144 .20 Age 153 .18 Past teaching experiences 154 -.14 Current involvement in other innovations 148 -.09 Number of years teaching 152 .09 Gender 153 .07 As the perceived level of expertise, rela tionship with the reading coach, age of the participant, and number of years teaching increas e, the primary Stage of Concern tended to increase. The primary Stage of Concern decreas ed as the frequency of incorporating CARS tended to increase. Dummy code was used to co de nominal data to run correlations. Teachers were asked if they had taught subjects other th an agriculture, those who responded yes (1), were more likely to have a higher primary Stage of Concern for CARS than those who replied no (2). Teachers who were currently involved in other in the first or second year of another major innovation (1) tended to have a lower primary Stage of Concern than those who were not 106

PAGE 107

involved in the first or second year of another innovation (2). Ma les (1) tended to have a higher primary Stage of Concern than females (2). Table 4-15. Daviss categories for desc ribing a magnitude of a correlation. r Adjective 1.0 Perfect 0.70-0.99 Very High 0.50-0.69 Substantial .030-0.49 Moderate 0.10-0.29 Low 0.01-0.09 Negligible Summary This chapter presented the results gathered fr om the online survey of agriscience teachers concerns regarding CARS. The research report ed frequency statistics calculated with SPSS to provide demographic information which explaine d the population in terms of age and gender, teaching experience, and involvement with the in novation. Both males and females were equally represented in this population. The population was evenly distri buted throughout the ages of 2160 with few teachers in the > 60 age category. The agriscience teachers averaged 15 years of experience. Nearly ha lf of them had taught subjects other than agriscien ce. Although a variety of other s ubjects were reported, science was the other subject area repor ted most often. The teachers also reported being certified in a diverse field of certifications. Frequency statistics were reported on teacher s length of involvement with the innovation, perceived level of expertise, frequency of use, relationship with the reading coach, involvement with other innovations, a nd barriers of implementation. Nearly half of the teachers reported never being involved with the innovation previous to the current year, while only about 16 % 107

PAGE 108

reported being involved for 5 or more years. One third of the respondents rated themselves as a non-user of CARS, but none of the re ported themselves as past users. Almost half of the teachers reported using CARS on a weekly basis; however a third of them reported using CARS less than once per month. A third of the resp ondents reported having weak or very weak relationships with their reading coach, about a quarter considered their re lationship to be strong or very strong, and the remainder reported an average relationshi p with the reading coach. Over half of the participants reported currently being involved in the first two years of another innovation. Time, other demands, and training needs emerged as the top three barriers for school-wide implementation of CARS. Additionally, an overall group Stages of Concern profile wa s developed. This profile showed a high primary Stage of Concern in Stage 0, awareness. Concerns in the informational, personal, and management stages also scored relatively high. Consequence concerns were the lowest. The findings of each objective were addresse d separately. Agriscience teachers CARS professional development history was reported with frequency and central te ndency statistics. At least one quarter of th e participants had completed each ty pe of CARS training. Over three quarters of the participants at tended professional development pr ograms delivered by the school. In total, teachers spent an average of 60.56 hours in CARS professional development. A concerns profile was developed a nd concerns statements were an alyzed to provide information on agriscience teachers Stages of Concerns for teachers who ha d completed CARS professional development and for those who had not completed CARS professional development. Both profiles resembled non-user profiles. Concern profiles were also developed for groups based on the number of hours of professional developmen t they had completed. No patterns to these 108

PAGE 109

109 profiles emerged. Finally, frequencies of the Prim ary Stage of Concern and correlations between the Primary Stage of Concern and dem ographic variables were calculated.

PAGE 110

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this research was to assess agricultural educators implementation of content area reading strategies (CAR S) in their classrooms. This research aimed to determine if a relationship existed between CARS professi onal development programs and agriscience teachers Stages of Concern. In order to meet the purpose of this study, the following objectives were investigated: Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional deve lopment history. Determine the Stages of Concern of agri science teachers who have completed CARS professional development program. Determine the Stages of Concern of agrisc ience teachers who have not completed CARS professional development program. Determine the relationship between CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. Methodology The study was a descriptive census survey as described by Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002). The researcher delivered a web based qu estionnaire to 371 agriscience teachers across the state of Florida. The 2008 Florida Agricultur al Education Directory (Myers & Warner, 2008) was used as the population frame. The researcher used the Stages of Concer n instrument developed by George, Hall, and Stiegelbauer (2006). An additional section on professional development was added by the researcher as well as a demographic section. 110

PAGE 111

The researcher used Statistical Package fo r the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0 for Windows to analyze the data. The researcher calcu lated frequencies, central tendencies, t -tests, and Spearmans rho correlations. In addition the SOCQ-075-Graph-and-Prin t (Scott & Persichitte, 2006) program for Excel was utilized to calcula te Stages of Concern percentiles and graph concern profiles. Weft QDA was utilized to analyze concern statements. Summary of Findings The following is a summary of findings presented in chapter 4. Demographics Demographic findings were reported on age and gender, teaching experience, and involvement with the innovation. Findings of each objective were re ported individually. Gender and Age Participants in this study were fairly equa lly distributed in regards to gender. Males accounted for 55.6% and females accounted to 44.4% of the respondents. Participants responding were dispersed evenly between the fi ve age groups with the exception of the > 60 category which accounted for only 5.9% (n=9) of the respondents. The age category with the largest number of participants was the 51-60 range with 29.4% (n=45). Teaching Experience Teachers average 15.17 years teach ing with a range of 40 year s. Eighty-two (53.2%) of teachers acknowledged they had taught subjects other than agriculture. The majority of these teachers (96.2%; n=77) taught science. Only 12 of the 82 teachers (15.0%) had taught reading, English, or language arts. Involvement in Innovation Even though 92.7% (n=141) of participants reported attending one or more types of CARS professional development, nearly half (48.4%; n= 74) of the participants reported they had not 111

PAGE 112

been involved in the innovation. However, 15.7% (n=24) of particip ants indicated being involved with the innovation for five or more years. A positive correlation (r = .26) existed between length of involvement with the innovation and the participan ts primary stage of concern. Teachers were also asked to ra te their expertise level of the innovation. One third of the participants (33.3%; n=51) rated themselves as non-users. However, 57.5 % (n=88) rated themselves as novice and intermediate users. Add itionally, 9.2% (n=14) rated themselves as old hand in their expertise of the innovation. None of the respondents viewed themselves as a past user of the innovation. The teachers perceptions of their expertise level had a moderate positive correlation (r =.30) to their primary stage of concern. Agriscience teachers relationship with the r eading coach was positively correlated to their primary Stage of Concern at a low magnitude (r =.20). Although 39.6 % (n=57) of respondents identified their relationship with the reading coach as average, only 27.1% (n=39) believed they had a strong or very strong re lationship with their reading coach. The remaining 33.4% (n=48) ranked their relationship weak or very weak. Current involvement with other innovations ha d a negligible negative correlation (r = -.16) to the primary stage of concern. Approximate ly half (55.6%; n=85) of respondents reported being in the first or second year of another innovation. Teachers were asked to identify the biggest barriers to CARS im plementation at their schools. Time was the barrier which emerged the most frequently; 33.9% (n=38) of respondents identified time as a major barrier. In addition, 13.4% (n=15) identified other demands as a barrier. However, teachers also identified sixteen other barriers they perceived interfered with school-wide implementation of CARS. 112

PAGE 113

The overall concerns profile (F igure 4-1) indicated that the primary Stage of Concern with the highest relative intensity of concern was Stage 0, awareness. In addition, informational, personal, and management concer ns were relatively high with percentile scores between 69 and 72. Consequence concerns were the lowest at the 24 percentile. Colla boration and refocusing concerns were also low. Objective 1 Objective : Ascertain agriscience teachers CARS professional deve lopment history. Teachers had participated in a wide variet y of professional development experiences including training from: pre-prof essional courses, continuing edu cation courses, reading coach, school, county, Florida Reading In itiative, and others. However, a substantial variance existed between the total number of hours devoted to CA RS professional development. The mean total number of professional development hours wa s 60.56 with a standard deviation of 52.203. The range was 312. Objective 2 Objective: Determine the Stages of Concern of agriscience teachers who have completed CARS professional development program. A group concerns profile was developed for teachers who had reported receiving CARS professional development. Figure 4-2 illustrates th e group concerns. The concerns profile for this group of teachers indicated the primary Stage of Concern was Stage 0, awareness. Although informational, personal and management scor es were relatively high, Stage 3, management, emerged as the secondary Stage of Concern for this group. Consequences, collaboration, and refocusing concerns were low; Stage 4, consequences, was the lowest SoC. 113

PAGE 114

Objective 3 Objective : Determine the Stages of Concern of agriscience teachers who have not completed CARS professional development program. A group concerns profile was created for teachers reporting having no CARS professional development. Figure 4-3 shows the group concer ns profile for teachers who reported not completing any professional development training. This profile showed that teachers had very high concerns as shown by the relative intensity percentile scores in the awareness (91), informational (88), personal (83) and management stages (88). A drastic drop was taken to the lowest stage, consequences (16). Concerns climbed through the co llaboration (31) and refocusing stages (52). Objective 4 Objective : Determine the relationship between CARS professional development and Stages of Concern. The majority of the profiles were characterized with high concern levels in the awareness stage. Concerns in the informational personal and management stages also tended to score relatively high. The profiles developed did not show a high relative intensity of concern for consequences and rarely showed high relative intensity of concern for collaboration. Nine of the 14 profiles tailed up at the refocusing stage. The total number of hours devoted to CARS professional development had a correlation coeffi cient of .20 to the primary Stage of Concern. Conclusions Based on the comparison of early and late re spondents concern prof iles, the findings and conclusions can be generalized to the entire popul ation. Although some differences were present, both profiles were nonuser profiles The differences were determ ined to be not significant 114

PAGE 115

enough to affect generalizability. The following conc lusions were drawn from the results of this study. 1. The demographic variables of gender and teach er experience (number of years teaching, other subjects taught, and area of certification) have no rela tion to participants primary Stage of Concern. 2. The variable of age had a low magnitude pos itive relationship to agriscience teachers primary Stage of Concern regarding CARS. 3. The longer the teacher has been involved in the innovation, the further their concerns have progressed and the closer they are to a higher level of implementation. 4. A clear, consistent definition of CA RS implementation does not exist. 5. The stronger the teachers relationship is w ith the reading coach, the more likely the teacher is to progress through th e CARS implementation process. 6. Teachers involvement in multiple innovations limits their implementation of CARS. 7. A relationship exists between teachers perceive d level of expertise and their primary Stage of Concern. 8. The overall concerns profile for agriscience teachers is a non-user profile. 9. In general, agriscience teachers show resistance to the CARS innovation. 10. Agriscience teachers are not focused on the consequence of implementing CARS or the potential for collaboration. 11. The number of hours of professional developm ent did not have a relationship to the implementation of CARS. 12. CARS professional development programs are not meeting the needs of agriscience teachers; thus, these teachers are not progres sing through the Stages of Concern and are not implementing CARS at a high level. Discussion and Implications Conclusion 1: The demographic variables of gender and the variables of teacher experience (number of years teaching, other subj ects taught, and area of certification) have no relation to participants primary Stage of Concern: Gender of the participants did not have a significant relationship to their pr imary Stage of Concern. Furthermore, nhis study 115

PAGE 116

confirmed the Aneke and Finchs (1997) conclusi on that years of teaching experience did not affect teachers SoC. Teachers with different areas of certification and va rious levels of teaching experience can learn to implement the innovation One aspect of teaching experience which should be studied in greater depth is whether te achers who have more experience with classroom management and the content find it easi er to effectively integrate CARS. Conclusion 2: The variable of age had a low magnitude positive relationship to agriscience teachers primary Stag e of Concern regarding CARS: A positive correlation of r = .17 did existed between age and primary Stage of Concern. This correlation can be interpreted that the older the teacher, the hi gher his/her primary st age of concern, thus the better the teacher had implemented CARS; however, according to Davis (1971) a correlation of .17 is low in magnitude and only 2.89% of the variance in primar y Stage of Concern can be explained by age. Refer to Table 4-15 for Daviss (1971) reco mmendations for describing a magnitude. Based on the age group with the most participants, th e 51-60 age group, one may assume they are approaching retirement. Researchers should consider if they are less motivated to implement change or if they are more likely to have more experience in the classroom and may be able to focus on the innovation better than younger counterparts. The teachers who will be hired to replace these teachers may have very different St ages of Concern than the current teachers. The teachers who fall in the older age category may be able to provide valuable experience and wisdom in integrating CARS into the curr iculum. These teachers should collaborate with teachers who are struggling to understand how to integrate CARS into agriscience curriculum. Research should be conducted to determin e the effect of such collaborations. Conclusion 3: The longer the teacher has b een involved in the innovation, the further their concerns have progressed and the closer th ey are to a higher leve l of implementation: 116

PAGE 117

The low magnitude correlation (r = .26) between length of involvement with the innovation and participants primary Stage of Concern indicated as teachers have more experience with the innovation, their concerns had a slight tendency to progress to higher stages. This data reinforces Hall and Hord (2006) statement that it may take 35 years for an innovation to be implemented at a high level and Change Principle 1: Change is a process, not an event (p. 4). However, the correlation only explains 6.86% of the variance. The finding also supported Aneke and Finchs (1997) conclusion that the more experience a teacher has with the innovation, the further thei r concerns progress. However, the correlation between the frequency of CARS incorporation an d teachers primary Stage of Concern (Table 414) contradicted this Aneke and Finchs statemen t. This negative correlation indicated that teachers who incorporated CARS more frequent ly tended to have lower primary Stages of Concern. When profiles were developed based u pon weekly, monthly, and seldom/never use of CARS, not significant differences were found. This finding did not support any of the literature or other findings. Although social desirability bias usually occurs during interviews, it may offer one explanation to this oddity. Social desirabil ity bias occurs when re spondents answer the way they think they are supposed to an swer, rather than responding with the truthful answer (Ary et al., 2006). If teachers misreported the frequency with which they utilize CARS based on how often they are suppose to use CARS rather than their actual answ er, they could have biased the information collected and caused the oddity in the findings. More research should be completed to determine this correlati on can be supported or not. Professional development should be provided throughout the several year processes to continue to support the teachers, develop their skills, and address their concerns so the teachers have the necessary time and experience to progress through the Stages of Concern and 117

PAGE 118

successfully implement CARS. The on-going pr ofessional development should provide an opportunity for teachers to demonstrate and practi ce their CARS skills. This practical component will help all teachers to increase their experien ce with CARS and it will encourage collaboration and sharing of particular applications of CARS in agrisc ience curriculum. Conclusion 4: A clear, consistent definiti on of CARS implementation does not exist: An unclear understanding of CARS implementation and lack of standardization is evident from excerpts from participants concern statements. One participant noted, Im not sure what this all entails. Another participant stated, [I] just want more definition etc. One teacher acknowledge, I use some reading strategies at pr esent, but they are not consistent. Yet another teacher expresses frustration because, It seems to me every time we turn around there is a new approach. If we stay around for any length of time there will be another one to use. These statements may be summarized by another concerns statement, We need a standard that can be accepted by a majority of the state and county programs. This would simplify reading programs. [There are] too many programs and everyone is different. Nearly half of the respondents (48.4%) reported never being involved in the innovation when asked how long they had been involved in the innovation, not counting the current year; however, 92.7% (n= 141) of responden ts indicated that they had r eceived one or more types of professional development training. Only 11 (7.24 %) respondents indicated they had received no CARS training. Additionally, only 33.3% of participants claimed to be non-users of the innovation. This may indicate th at around 20% of those responde nts reporting never being involved in the innovation or are in their first year of the innovation. Of the 92.7 % of agriscience teachers who have attended one or more types of CARS professional development program s, only 47.8% of the participan ts reported using CARS on a 118

PAGE 119

weekly basis and 33.3% use CARS less than onc e a month. Not all teachers who have attended CARS training have incorporated CARS into their classrooms; thus, they do not considered themselves involved with the innovation. As one t eacher noted in his/her concern statement, It is one thing to go through the training and quite another to impleme nt [the innovation]. Research should indentify barriers to implemen tation of CARS from professional development to the classroom. School staff and professional development programs should provide interventions to help teache rs overcome these barriers. Change Principle 2 states t here are significant differences in what is entailed in development and implementation of an innovati on (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 5). The lack of a clear, consistent definition CA RS implementation could stem from ineffective development of the innovation or ineffective communication of th e innovation from the change facilitator team to the teachers. In order to address this issue, researcher should be completed to develop an Innovation Configuration (IC) of the implementati on of CARS in agriscience. This IC will provide clear description of what implementati on should look like, will define involvement with the innovation, and will provide dire ctions for teachers and future professional development. Conclusion 5: The stronger the teachers rela tionship is with the reading coach, the more likely the teacher is to progress th rough the CARS implementation process: Participants (33.4%, n = 48) who ra ted their relationship with the reading coach to be weak or very weak may have an opportunity to progress through the Stages of C oncerns by developing a better relationship with thei r reading coach. A low positive correlation of .20 was determined between the working relationship with the read ing coach and the primary Stage of Concern. However, only 4.04% of the variance can be cont ributed to the working relationship with the reading coach. 119

PAGE 120

The reading coach should be actively involved on the change facilitato r team for the CARS innovation. From this position, the reading coach should support the teachers in the implementation of CARS. Reading coaches have an expertise in CARS and can provide valuable information, strategies, instruction, and tips. Teachers with a better worki ng relationship with the reading coach will most likely feel more comfortable to approach the reading coach for support or more confident in the information the readi ng coach provides them. Additionally, the reading coach should be active in delivering interven tions to aid in implementation. Teachers who interact with the reading coach more will receive more interv entions. Hall and Hord (2006) underscore the importance interventions play in the change process. They note that significantly more interventions instances leads to greater implementation success. Agriscience teachers should put forth a cons cious effort to develop a strong working relationship with their reading coaches. In turn, reading coaches and school administrations should promote working closely with the read ing coach during the im plementation of CARS. Research should be conducted to identify the effect of having a close working re lationship with the reading coach has on CARS implementation. Conclusion 6: Teachers involvement in multiple innovat ions limits their implementation of CARS: Even though the current level of i nvolvement with other innovations can only account for 2.67% of the variance, one can assume the high number of mandates put on teachers can impede their success in implementa tion of innovations. Agriscience teachers face various mandates and innovations which promote integrating reading, math, science, technology, and differentiated instruction strategies. In addi tion, they are expected to prepare students for standardized content area tests and state standard ized tests. These expectations are piled on top 120

PAGE 121

of their responsibilities or preparing for classr oom and lab activities, a dvising FFA, supervising supervised agricultural experien ce (SAE) projects, and their facu lty responsibilities such as serving on faculty committees, complete esse ntial paperwork, conferencing, and monitoring student activities. The top barriers which teachers identifie d, time (33.9%, n = 38) and other demands (13.4%, n= 15), underscores the st ress that teachers have whet her it is from other mandates, innovations, or paperwork. Teachers struggle to mana ge the needs of a particular innovation such as CARS and their other responsibilities. The concerns profiles consistently illustrated hi gh levels of concerns in Stage 0. George et al. (2006) stated that these high scores can indicate that the teachers do not view the innovation as important or that they are focused on other re sponsibilities. The questi ons which assessed this construct concentrated on the teachers focus on CARS as opposed to other innovation. Table 5-1 indicates the questions associated with this construct. Thus, th e high scores indicate that the teachers are focused on other responsibilities a nd less of their attention can be devoted to implementation of CARS. Excerpts from the con cern statements reinforce this conclusion. For example, Implementing reading strategies in the Agriculture classroom are of my top priority. Table 5-1. Statements on the Stages of Concern Questionnaire aligned to Stage 0 Statement # Statement 3 I am more concerned about another innovation. 12 I am not concerned about the innovation at this time. 21 I am preoccupied with things other than this innovation. 23 I spend little time thinki ng about this innovation. 30 Currently, other prioritie s prevent me from focusing my attention on this innovation. In the concerns statements, teachers identifie d the overwhelming responsibilities they face. Being a busy teacher, I am concerned how much time implementing this new strategy will take 121

PAGE 122

from my other responsibilities. Another teacher notes, other requirements and copious amounts of paper shuffling take up an inordinate amount of time. One teacher exclaims, I am struggling to have time to do everything and a life t oo! SPS, FFA, Land Lab, Reading, etc. Another teacher expresses the frustration of being asked to implement multiple innovations, In today's classroom, we are shuffling from one innovation to another so quick ly that it is impossible to evaluate the effects and a ffects of each innovation. Change Principle 3 states, an organization does not change until the people within it change (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 7). Until teachers ar e given the opportunity to focus their efforts on the innovation at hand, schools cannot expect to see changes in their teachers or their schools. School systems and school leadership should be aware of the work load teachers are facing. Schools should focus on one innovation at a time and realize that it takes 35 years for successful implementation of an innovation. Support should be provided to teachers in the form or resources and training which will ease their bur dens. Professional development should focus on time saving techniques and how teachers can manage the workload and time during the implementation of a specific innovation. Conclusion 7: A positive, moderate relatio nship exists between teachers perceived level of expertise and their primary Stage of Concern: As the teachers level of expertise increases, they tend to move through the Stages of Concern. However, teachers self-perceived level of expertise can only account for 9.12% of the variance. This conclusion supports Aneke and Finch (1997). Aneke and Finch (1997) concluded that teachers concerns progressed as their experience with the innovation in creased. As teachers gain more experience with CARS, they learn better ways to use and inte grate the strategy. They can learn from their experiences in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their use of the innovati on. Teachers can also 122

PAGE 123

benefit from the experience of others to lear n how to successfully incorporate CARS into lessons. As these teachers become more effectiv e in their use of the strategy and it becomes a natural teaching tool, th ey can focus more on the high level concerns and less on the lower level concerns. If teachers were able to begin building thei r experiences through professional development programs, they may progress through the Stages of Concern faster. Providing the teachers an opportunity to use, interact w ith, and teach the strategies dur ing professional development, should help them progress through the implementa tion. Teachers should also collaborate to discuss their personal succe ss and applications for CARS in agriscience. Conclusion 8: The overall concerns profile for agriscience teachers is a non-user profile: The overall concerns profile (Figure 4-1) was that of a typical nonuser according to George et al. (2006). Figure 5-1 illustrates the common user profiles and their hypothesized progression. When evaluating the group data, consider ation must be made to the fact that it will be affected by dominant high and low Stages of Concern (George et al., 2006, p. 34).This profile indicated that the partic ipants, as a whole, were not en tirely aware of th e innovation or focused on other obligations or innovations. Howe ver, since stages one and two were reasonably high in relative intensity, an interest in lear ning about the innovation ma y have existed. The low consequences and collaboration scores suggested that teachers were not intensely concerned about these areas of the innovation. The tailing-up of the profile at stage 6 signified that the teachers may have other ideas which they think deserve more time and attention. The tailing-up also indicated that the participants may be resistant to change. 123

PAGE 124

Figure 5-1. Hypothesized development of Stag es of Concern (George et al., 2006, p.36). Hall and Hord (2006) emphasize, the crucial st ep in using [concern profiles is] to make concerns based interventions that will be able to resolve the concern and move the person toward more advanced use of the innova tion (p.142). Interventi ons should be utilized to assess and address teacher resistance. Conti nued interventions and support are n eeded to help these teachers progress through the implementation of CARS. Until the teachers have fully implemented 124

PAGE 125

CARS, no research on the effectiveness or stud ent outcomes can be completed, because there will be no change in outcome until there is a change in behavior (Hall & Hord, 2006). Conclusion 9: In general, agriscience teacher show resistance to the CARS innovation: A majority of the group concerns profiles had a tailing-up of stage 6 which indicates the teachers had other id eas about the innovation (George et al., 2006). In a non-user profile, these other ideas indicate a resistance to change. When the tail increases more than 10 percentile points, it should be considered an alarm (Geo rge et al.). In this study 10 out of 15 concern profiles developed for teachers with 0 to >130 hours of professional development tailed up at Stage 6 and seven of the profiles tailed up by 10 percentile points or more. Resistance to CARS was also reflected in so me of the concern statements. One teacher said, [CARS are] taking away even more time that the student s could be learning hands on. If done correctly, I think it would be a great way to compliment the topics that are covered in a classroom, but if mandated I fear it would take up too much time. Another proclaimed, Too much emphasis on reading turns students awa y. Time on reading takes time from content. Another complained, Too much emphasis [is pl aced] on CAR instead of the goals set for my program. Finally, one teacher criticized, I am a hands-on instructor, formal classroom in struction reinforced with real world lab or farm experiences. These strategies take away fr om the class/lab time devoted to a topic or a specific project. My kids are not college bound and will rebel, and I don't blame them, at any approach that lessens hands on or the pract ical approach to lear ning. Granted all need to learn to read, but, all are not college bound. Change Principle 11 notes, appr opriate interventions reduce resistance to change (Hall & Hord, 2006, p. 13). Hall and Hord define interventi ons as various actions and events that [change leaders] and others take to influence the [change] proce ss (p. 8). Hall and Hord suggest that change facilitators need to identify one of three reasons for resistance and address each case 125

PAGE 126

with different interventions. Some of these interventions will need to be addressed individually; others can be administered to a whole group. Agriscience teachers provide a very interesti ng user system culture, since they interact often through various regional and state wide events. Agriscience teachers have the opportunity to discuss current educationa l problems or innovations. This time allows for mushroom interventions to occur and can be used constructively or destru ctively for the implementation of CARS. If teachers who disapprove of the innov ation take the opportunity to express their disproval and persuade others against the innova tion, it could be detrimen tal to the innovation. On the other hand if teachers use the time to support the innovati on and collaborate, the interaction between these teachers coul d support the implementation of CARS. Research and interventions should assess and address the cause of agriscience teachers resistance. Possible sources may be attitudes, knowledge, philosophy, perceptions and conceptions, and motivation. If professional de velopment is built upon addressing and the causes of resistance before covering th e strategies, teachers may be much more attentive and willing to implement CARS. Conclusion 10: Agriscience teachers are not focused on the consequence of implementing CARS or the potential for collaboration: The consequence SoC was consistently the lowest SoC. Agriscience teac hers do not realize how the implementation of CARS will affect student s learning. Teachers may be more likely to have lower awareness scores and higher consequences scores if t eachers understood the direct benefits of CARS utilization to students and teacher. Professional development programs should focus on marketing the benefits of CARS implementation to the teachers. Teacher might then recognize CARS as a valuable teaching tool rather than another mandate. 126

PAGE 127

Also evident from the SoC profiles, collaboration concerns also scored consistently low. If teachers are not interested in collaborating, they are missing oppor tunities to share success and applications of CARS. Based on the concern statements, teachers could benefit from collaboration. Many of the comments teachers made focused on a need for examples and ideas of how to implement CARS into agriscience cont ent. Collaboration could meet those needs. Change Principle 9 asserts, t he school is the primary un it for change (p. 12). Although change must first occur in the individual, su ccessful organizational change must occur on a school level. For this to occur, collaboration is required among teachers and between the teachers and the change facilitator tem. Teachers should be encouraged to collaborate more in order to foster implementation. Teachers who collaborated c ould decrease the concerns in informational, personal, and management stages and increase concerns in cons equence stages by learning from each other and sharing their experiences. Resear ch should investigate the effects of teacher collaboration on progression through the Stages of Concern and the implementation of CARS. Professional development programs and school sy stems should focus on fostering collaboration. A wiki or newsletter could be used to share experiences, ideas, and materials. Conclusion 11: The Stages of Concern w ere not related to the total number of professional development hours: The large standard deviation (SD = 52.20) and range (312) between the total number of prof essional development hours and indicated a lack of consistency in professional development programs complete d by agriscience teachers. The results have clearly indicated that the tota l number of CARS professional development hours has not has not been related to the progression through the Stages of Concern. These results contradict Aneke and Finch (1997) who found that Stages of Concern profiles and the inte nsity of the concerns changed when grouped by hours of reform-related training (p. 10). Howe ver, Aneke and Finch 127

PAGE 128

underscored the importance of these trainings to address the personal concerns of the participating teachers. This observation may indi cate that it is more important to focus on the quality of the professional devel opment and its ability to meet the needs of the teachers, rather than just the number of hours spen t in professional development. A shared vision of content literacy goals may assist in improving the quality of professional development (Bryant, Ugel, T hompson, Hamff, & Hougen, 2001). Developing an innovation configuration based on CBAM (Hall & Hor d, 2006) can help define and organize this vision. Quality CARS professional development programs should focus on the following areas identified by Bryant et al.: wo rd identification, partner reading, collaborative strategic reading, modeling, supporting meetings, and teams. Baker, Gersten, Dimino, and Griffiths (2004) identified three ke y components of a professional development program which led to sustained success of an educational innovation. These components included: (1) an initial training to establish the big picture, (2) on-going, onsite support for the first 5 years, and (3) school invest ment of funds. The authors emphasized the importance of providing on-going support throughout the implementation process which supports simila r suggestions made by Hall and Hord (2006). Agriscience teachers have acknowledged that im plementing this innovation will require time to adapt (Park, 2005). On-going support during this adaptation period should make the process more effective and more efficient. Baker et al. (2004) also suggested that both procedural and conceptual knowledge of the innovation be addressed by the development program. Park (2005) also noted the importance of providing opportunities for agriscience teachers to practice the new CARS skills they have learned. 128

PAGE 129

Conclusion 12: CARS professional develo pment programs are not meeting the needs agriscience teacher; thus, these teachers are not progressing through the Stages of Concern and are not implementing CARS at a high level: The group concerns profile developed for teachers who had not completed CARS professiona l development is a nonuser profile with an additional peak at stage three and a tailing-up of stage 6. According to descriptions provided by George et al. (2006), teachers in this group are likely more concer ned with something other than the implementation of CARS. The peak in stag e 3 also indicates high managerial concerns. Consequences of the use of CARS and working with others are both of low concern. This profile also had a strong tailing-up of over 20 percentile points. George et al. (2006) noted that this may show strong resistance to the innovation and s uggested it be heeded as an alarm (p. 42). Based on George et al.s (2006) description of concern profiles several conclusions can be made about the group concern profile teacher s who had completed CARS professional development. The high relative intensity score for stage 0 indicated that teachers were more concerned about other things (i.e. other innovations, responsibilitie s, or activities). The second peak at stage 3 identified the strong management concerns which existed. These teachers may be focused on time, logistics, etc. This profile indica ted little interest in c onsequences of CARS and mild interest in working with other teachers with CARS. The tailing-up of the concerns profile at stage 6 revealed that teachers had ideas about changing the innovation a nd may be resistant to the implementation of CARS. However, the tailing-up in this profile is slight and should not cause great concern. The group concerns profiles created for diffe rent levels of total CARS professional development hours did not show a pattern of development through the stages of a nonuser, inexperienced user, experienced user, or rene wing user. Figure 51 displays a hypothesized 129

PAGE 130

development of the stages of concern develope d by George et al. (2006) The profiles developed did not show a high relative intensity of con cern for consequences and rarely showed high relative intensity of concern for collaboration. The desired prof ile has the primary stage of concern at Stage 5, Collaboration (Hall & Hord, 2006; George et al.). The total number of hours of professional development did not move the prof iles closer to that of experienced users. The correlation between total number of CARS professional development hours and the primary stage of concern was of low magnitude accordin g to Davis (1971) (Table 4-7) and can only account for 3.96% of the variance. The researcher was surprised to see that rega rdless of the number of hours of professional development training, Stage 0, awareness, was the highest stage of concern. According to George et al. (2006) changes have been made to the instrument and the norms to make interpretation of Stage 0 more definite. Stage 0 scores should indicate the current degree of interest in the innovation. Low scores are indicative of individual s who view the innovation as important to his or her work. On the other ha nd, high scores indicate th at other innovations or consideration are of grea ter importance to the teacher. This explanation of the awareness concern can explain the consistently high awareness SoC. Agriscience teachers have not bought into the CARS innovation. They may view the innovation as just another mandate which adds to their work load. From the 92.7% (n=141) respondents who had reported being involved in one or more forms of CARS professional deve lopment, only about half (47.6% n=70) of the participants report using CARS on a weekly basis in their lessons. Nineteen percent (n=28) incorporate CARS on a monthly basis and one third of the participants (n=49) util ize CARS less than once per month. If the teachers are implementing CARS less than once per month, they essentially are 130

PAGE 131

not implementing the innovation. Teachers may not feel confident in their abil ities to transfer the information from training into practice. Re search should be conducte d to investigate why teachers are not transferring the skills they learn into practice. Pr ofessional development programs should incorporate a practical compone nt for teachers to practice implementing the skills they have learned. Aneke and Finch (2001) highlighted the importance of reform-related trainings to address the personal concerns of the pa rticipating teachers. By administering the Stages of Concern Questionnaire prior to a profe ssional development program, inst ructors can assess and address the concerns of the participan ts through the training. Hall and Hord (2006) recommend using open-ended concerns statements before and afte r professional development programs to identify, target, and assess development of teachers St ages of Concerns through the program. This technique should increase the quality and effectiveness of the professional development program. Baker et al. (2004) suggested making a smooth a nd gradual transition so that the innovation enhances teaching instead of asking teachers to make a drastic change in the teaching methods. Specifically, CARS professional development for agriscience teachers should focus on the areas those teachers have identified. Agriscience teachers want to learn where, how, and why to use CARS in their agriscience courses (Park, 2005, p. 138-139). Recommendations Based on the results and conclusions from this study, the research has made recommendations for practitioners and researchers. Practitioner Recommendations Based on this study, the researcher suggests that practitioners consider the following recommendations: 131

PAGE 132

1. A consistent, in depth professional devel opment program should be implemented to provide ongoing training and support of the in novation throughout a seve ral year process. 2. Professional development should provide an op portunity for teachers to demonstrate and practice their CARS skills. 3. School staff and professional development progr ams should provide interventions to help teachers overcome barriers of transferring knowle dge and skills developed in professional development into their teaching. 4. Agriscience teachers and reading coaches should work on creating a strong, positive relationship to better fost er implementation of CARS. 5. Schools should stagger innovations every 3-5 years so teachers can focus on implementing one innovation at a time. 6. Since time is a major barrier, teachers would be more likely to implement CARS if schools should provide time saving support, such as prov iding resources (i.e. provide easy to access instruction for CARS, reading materials that would foster CARS and content learning, and sample CARS lesson plans) for teachers. 7. Professional development programs should present time saving techniques and how teachers can manage the workload of the innovation within their current workload. 8. Interventions should be utilized to identify and address the ca use of teachers resistance to CARS. 9. Schools should utilize Stages of Concern questio nnaires to identify concerns which need to be addressed by professional development, meas ure the effect of pr ofessional development on Stages of concern, and measure the success of implantation. 10. Professional development trainers should address the stage 6 concerns in order to decrease resistance to the innovation. 11. School systems and school systems should encour age teacher collaboration to foster CARS implementation. Future Research Recommendations This study has identified the need fo r research in the following areas: 1. Research should investigate if teachers with more classroom management and content experience find it easier to e ffectively integrate CARS. 2. In order to improve professional developmen t programs, research should be conducted to identify the barriers which prevent teachers fr om transferring the knowledge and skills they learn in professional developmen t into the classroom setting. 132

PAGE 133

3. Research should be completed to develop an Innovation Configuration which would provide a more unified vision for CARS implementation. 4. Research should be conducted to verify the c oncern profiles develope d for the participants of this study. 5. In order to better understand the differences of the professional development programs, research should be conducted to determ ine the characteristics of various CARS professional development programs. 6. Research should be completed on the effectiv eness of different professional development programs in order to be able design more effective and efficient programs. 7. To better meet the professional developmen t needs of teachers, research should be conducted to identify the specific CARS prof essional development needs of agriscience teachers. 8. To get a more complete understanding of CARS implementation using the CBAM model, researchers need to complete a Levels of Use study. 9. Research should be conducted on the types of interventions (support) agriscience teachers receive for CARS implementation and the e ffects of the identified interventions. 10. Researcher is needed identify the points of resistance agriscience teacher have about implementing CARS. 11. Research should investigate the effects of t eacher collaboration on progressing through the Stages of Concern and the implementation of CARS. 12. Researcher should design studies to examine the other variable proposed in the conceptual model: discipline, resources, so cial context, mandates, attitudes, knowledge, philosophy, perceptions, conceptions, and motivation. 13. Research on the outcomes of CARS s hould not be performed until successful implementation can be documented. National Research Agenda The conclusions, discussions, implications, and recommendations address the research objectives outlined by The National Resear ch Agenda: Agricultural Education and Communications 2007-2010. Specifically this research addressed: RPA 4: Prepare and provide an abundance of fully qualified and highly motivated agriscience educators at all levels. o What are the professional developmen t needs of agricultural educators? 133

PAGE 134

134 Assess models for the effective de livery of teacher professional development programs. This research also set the ground work for the following research initiatives: RPA 2: Provide a rigorous, relevant, standard s-based curriculum in agricultural, food, and natural resources systems. o What instructional strategies in ag ricultural education programs promote increased student achievement in the traditional academic areas? Determine the effects of a comprehensive agricultural education program on student academic performance and achievement. RPA 5: Determine the effects of agricultural education instruction. o How do agricultural education programs contribute to student achievement and performance? Assess the influence of agricultural education programs on student achievement in math, science, reading, and communications. RPA 5: Determine the effects of agricultural education instruction. o How do agricultural education programs contribute to student achievement and performance? Examine the contribution of agricu ltural education programs to schools and communities.

PAGE 135

APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT 135

PAGE 136

136

PAGE 137

137

PAGE 138

138

PAGE 139

139

PAGE 140

140

PAGE 141

141

PAGE 142

APPENDIX B IRB LETTER OF APPROVAL 142

PAGE 143

APPENDIX C PRE-SURVEY NOTICE LETTER D epartment of Agricultural Education and Communication Anna Warner, Graduate Teaching / Research Assistant 310 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 Fax: (352) 392-9585 anna.j.warner@ufl.edu Dear Agriscience Teacher, I am a current masters student at the University of Florida. I have been working closely with Dr. Brian Myers to determine agriscience teachers concerns regarding content area reading strategies. We, along with my advisory committee, have determined that the best method of measuring these concerns is to survey agricultural agriscience teachers within the state. Within the next week, you will be receiving an e-mail from me with a link to a survey in order for you to complete the instrument online. Please feel free to contact me at anna.j.warner@ufl.edu if you have any questions regarding the survey. I used the information located within the Florida Agricultural Education Directory and if you would prefer I send e-mails to another address, please respond to me with your preferred e-mail address. Your participation is greatly appreciated and co mpletely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. If you choose to participate, you will answer items on a confidential assessment that will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. You can stop any time without penalty and you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to an swer. All answers are confidential to the extent provided by law. There are no known risks or other direct benefits associated with this study. If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact me at 408 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352392-0502 ext. 244 or Dr. Brian Myers, 307A Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352-392-0502 ext. 236, bmyers@ufl.edu If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250, 352-392-0433. Once again, your participation in completing the fo llowing assessments is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of agriscien ce teachers concerns regarding content area reading strategies. Thank you, Anna J. Warner Dr. Brian Myers Dr. Ed Osborne Graduate Assistant Assistant Professor Chair Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Education & Communication Education & Communication Education & Communication 143

PAGE 144

APPENDIX D INITIAL CONTACT LETTER 310 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 Fax: (352) 392-9585 anna.j.warner@ufl.edu Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Anna Warner, Graduate Teaching / Research Assistant Dear Agriscience Teacher, As you know from my previous e-mail, I am res earching the concerns of agriscience teachers regarding content area reading strategies for my thesis. Below you will find a link for the questionnaire, along with a password you will need to access the questionnaire. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the survey. Once again, your participation in completing the assessment is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of th e agriscience teachers concerns about content area reading strategies. Link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=50Os_2bjqm82_2fMwLAjuEaeCQ_3d_3d Password: XXX Thank you, Anna J. Warner Dr. Brian Myers Dr. Ed Osborne Graduate Assistant Assistant Professor Chair Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Education & Communication Education & Communication Education & Communication 144

PAGE 145

APPENDIX D THANK YOU LETTER WITH ADDITIONAL LINK 310 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 Fax: (352) 392-9585 anna. j .warner@ufl.edu Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Anna Warner, Graduate Teaching / Research Assistant Dear Agrisciene Teacher, I wanted to take this opportuni ty to thank you for participating in my research and encourage you to complete the questionnaire if you have not alr eady done so. It is not my intention to bombard you with e-mails, but it is part of the research design to which I must adhere in order for my research to be deemed valid. Below you will find the link for the agriscience teachers concerns regarding content area reading strategies survey. In addition I have included the password you will need to access the survey. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the survey. Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=50Os_2bjqm82_2fMwLAjuEaeCQ_3d_3d Password: XXX Once again, your participation in completing the following survey is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of th e concerns of agriscie nce teachers regarding content area reading strategies. Thank you, Anna J. Warner Dr. Brian Myers Dr. Ed Osborne Graduate Assistant Assistant Professor Chair Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Education & Communication Education & Communication Education & Communication 145

PAGE 146

APPENDIX E NON-RESPONDENTS LETTER Department of Agricultural Education and Communication 310 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 Fax: (352) 392-9585 anna.j.warner@ufl.edu Anna Warner, Graduate Teaching / Research Assistant Dear Agrisciene Teacher, Recently you have received a link to my web-base d survey. I am trying to assess the concerns of agriscience teachers towards the implementation of content area r eading strategies (CARS) as well as their levels of CARS prof essional development. Your particip ation in this survey is vital for the success of this study. The results of this study will be used to address your concerns for the innovation. If you have not had a chance to complete the su rvey I would ask you to please take time to submit complete this survey as class work slows down for the holiday break. You can complete the survey quickly and easily. I cannot empha size enough how important your response is. Below you will find the link for the agriscience teachers concerns regarding content area reading strategies survey. In addition I have included the password you will need to access the survey. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the survey. Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=50Os_2bjqm82_2fMwLAjuEaeCQ_3d_3d Password: XXX Once again, your participation in completing the following survey is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of th e concerns of agriscie nce teachers regarding content area reading strategies. Thank you, Anna J. Warner Dr. Brian Myers Dr. Ed Osborne Graduate Assistant Assistant Professor Chair Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Education & Communication Education & Communication Education and Communication 146

PAGE 147

APPENDIX F FINAL CONTACT LETTER Department of Agricultural Education and Communication 310 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 ext. 244 Fax: (352) 392-9585 anna. j .warner@ufl.edu Anna Warner, Graduate Teaching / Research Assistant Dear Agriscience Teacher, Hello, I am sorry to bother you, but we still have not received your response on the Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) Survey. I am trying to assess the concerns of agriscience teachers towards the implementation of content area readi ng strategies as well as their levels of CARS professional development. This survey applies to all agriscience teachers regardless of their involvement with CARS. It is very important to the success of this study for everyone to participate. The results of this study will be us ed to address your concerns for the innovation. If you have not had a chance to complete the su rvey I would ask you to please take time to complete and submit this survey as class wo rk slows down for the holiday break. You can complete the survey quickly and easily. I cannot emphasize e nough how important your response is. Below you will find the link for the agriscience teachers concerns regarding content area reading strategies survey. In addition I have included the password you will need to access the survey. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the survey. Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=50Os_2bjqm82_2fMwLAjuEaeCQ_3d_3d Password: XXX Once again, your participation in completing the following survey is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of th e concerns of agriscie nce teachers regarding content area reading strategies. Thank you, Anna J. Warner Dr. Brian Myers Dr. Ed Osborne Graduate Assistant Assistant Professor Chair Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Education & Communication Education & Communication Education & Communication 147

PAGE 148

LIST OF REFERENCES Allington, R. L. (2002). You cant learn much from books you cant read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16-19. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry 27(3), 331-367. Aneke, N. O., &Finch, C. R. (1997). Teachers Stages of Concern about school-wide reform. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22 (1), 55-70. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from Google Scholar. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research-based instructional practice: A case study of Peer-Assi sted Learning Strategies in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 25 (1), 5-24. Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers selection and use of content area literacy strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 (3), 154-163. Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for contentarea reading instruction. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34 (5), 293. Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (200 1). The effects of professional development for middle school gene ral and special education teachers on the implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 251-264. The College Board. (2002, August, 27). Ten-year trend in SAT scores indicates increased emphasis on math is yielding results; Readi ng and writing are cause for concern [Press release]. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.collegeboard,com/press/article0,11752,00.html DArcangelo, M. (2002). The challenge of contentarea reading: A conversation with Donna Ogle. Educational Leadership, 60(15), 12-15. Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fenton, A. (2006). Weft QDA (version 1.0.1) [Com puter software and manual]. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.pressure.to/qda/ Fisher, D, & Ivey, G. (2005). Literacy and la nguage as learning in content-area classes: A departure from every teacher a teacher of reading. Action in Teacher Education 27 (2), 3-11. 148

PAGE 149

Forget, M., & Bottoms G. (2000). Academic a nd vocational teachers can improve the reading achievement of male career-bound students. Atla nta: Southern Regional Education Board. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teach ers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal 6(2), 207-226. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL. Gertsen, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., and Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies with learning disabi lities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71(2), 279-320. Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotheringt on, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 480-488. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Loucks, S. F., Newlove, B. W., & Hall, G. E. (1975). Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for trainers, interviews, and raters. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Literacy Matters. (2008). Reading Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.literacymatters.org/c ontent/readandwrite/reading.htm Masten, W. G., Stacks, J. R., Priest, B. R., Scott, B. J. & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Effects of training in textbook comprehension improvement strategi es with teacher in inclusive classrooms. Reading Improvement, 36(4), 167-171. Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting adolescent literac y across the content ar eas: Perspectives on policy and practice Providence, RI: Brown University. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from Google Scholar. Miller, D., Stark, S. D., Bergeron, J. (2001, Septem ber). Evaluation of Florida Reading Initiative principal training and summer reading academy. Edmetrics, Inc. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.nefec.org/fri/docum ents.sra%1f_year1_report.pdf Moje, E. B. (1996). I teach student s, not subjects: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(2), 172-195. Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Newark, DE: Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. Myers, B. E. & Warner, A. J. (Ed.). (2008). Florida Agricultural Education Directory. Available at, http://www.flaffa.org/2008_Florida_Ag_Ed_Directory.pdf 149

PAGE 150

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 115 stat. 1425, 20USC 6301 et.seq. North East Florida Educational Consortium NEFEC (2008). The Florida Reading Initiative: Overview Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.nefec.org/fri/ OBrien, D. G, & Stewart, R. A. (1990). Preservice teachers perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 (2), 101-129. OBrien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1 995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into secondary school: Comp lexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (3). 442-463. Pace, C.R. (1939). Factors influencing questionnai re returns from former university students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23 ( June 1939) 388-397. Paige, R. (2001, December 18). Statement of U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige regarding Senate passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/ pressrelease/2001/12/12182001.html Park, T. (2008, February). Literacy in agri cultural educati on. Symposium conducted at the National Agricultural Education In -service, Indianapolis, IN. Park, T. D., & Osborne, E. (2005). Process and product variables for the study of reading secondary agriscience Paper presented at National Ag ricultural Education Research Conference, St. Louis, MO. Park, T. D., & Osborne, E. (2006a). Agriscience teachers attitudes toward implementation of content area reading strategies. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46 (3), 12-22. Park, T. D., & Osborne, E. (2006b). Content ar ea reading strategies and textbook use in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47 (4), 1-14. Santos, J.R.A. (1999). Cronbachs alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37 (2). Scherer, M. (2002). Beyond 3rd grade. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 5. Scott, D. & Persichitte, K. (2006). SOCQ -075-Graph-and-Print [Computer program for Microsoft Excel]. Austin, TX: Southwes t Educational Development Laboratory. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Th e RAND Corporation. United States Department of Education. (2008, June) Mapping Americas educational progress 2008. Washington, DC: United States Departme nt of Education. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/accountab ility/results/progress/nation.html Vacca, R. T. (2002a). Decoders to strategic readers. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 7-11. 150

PAGE 151

151 Vacca, R. T. (2002b). Making a difference in adol escents school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: Internationa l Reading Association.

PAGE 152

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Anna Warner was raised on a farm in Yo rk County, Pennsylvania. Growing up, she was active in 4-H and helping at her familys agri business in Carroll County, Maryland. From these experiences in agriculture, Anna had no doubt that she wanted to major in agricultural education in college. Anna attended West Virginia Univer sity where she earned her Bachelor of Science in Agriculture degree with a major in Agricultural and Extension Education. She also completed her student teaching at Hundred High School in Hundred, West Virginia as part of her requirements to become a certified agricultural t eacher. Annas experiences from West Virginia University and the opportunities offered by the University of Florida brought Anna to the University of Florida to pursue her Master of Science degree. Upon graduation, Anna plans to move back to the Pennsylvania-Maryland area ob tain a job as an agriscience educator. 152