Stage 0, Awareness; Stage 1, Informational; Stage 2, Personal; Stage 3, Management; Stage 4, Consequence; Stage 5, Collaboration; and Stage 6, Refocusing. The Levels of Use are the following: Level 0, Nonuse; Level I, Orientation; Level II, Preparation; Level III, Mechanical; Level IVA, Routine use; Level IVB, Refinement; Level V, Integration; and Level VI, Renewal. The Innovations Category does not feature specific classifications, as it is analyzed through surveys, interviews, or observations (, 1997). Furthermore, to measure SoC, the Stages of Concerns Questionnaire (SoC Q) was developed. This is a 35-item Likert scale questionnaire designed to measure teacher concerns. (Chamblee & Slough, 2004) Along with this, an Open Ended Concerns Statement procedure and other interview strategies were outlined. To measure LoU, a Levels of Use Interview was designed along with a “branching interview” (Anderson, 1997, p. 336). Finally, the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ) was constructed so that a holistic picture could be drawn from the examination process (Chamblee & Slough, 2004). The literature on CBAM since its inception has shown a number of discoveries in its application. First, teacher psychology, school climate, school leadership, and physical layout can all influence how well innovation spreads among teachers and how much of an impact that training through a CBAM program can make. Second, patterns of technology advancement are not predictable, and patterns of faculty development are not linear, while some scholars have noted that CBAM assumes stable innovation and linearity in instructor advancement. Third, CBAM presents challenges in its application in other countries and cultures. School Climate, School Leadership, Psychological State, and Physical Layout
Hopkins, D., (1990). Integrating staff development and school improvement: A study of teacher personality and school climate. Yearbook (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), 1990, 41-67. Leithwood, K. Montgomery, D, & Sage Publications, (1980, April). Evaluating program implementation. Evaluation Review, 4(2), 193-214. Retrieved , from SocINDEX with Full Text database. Marsh, C. J. (1987). Implementation of a social studies curriculum in an Australian elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 87, 475-486. Retrieved , from Education Abstracts Database. McKibbin, M., & Joyce, B. (1980). Psychological states and staff development. Theory Into Practice, 19(4), 248. Retrieved , from Academic Search Premier Database. Slough, S. (1999). High school science teachers’ perceptions of barriers and supporting conditions to telecommunications implementation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics / Science Education and Technology 1999 (pp. 526-530). Retrieved , from AACE Database. Slough, S. (1999). Some concerns about the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and technology. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. : AACE. Retrieved , from AACE Database. , S. & Chamblee, G. (2007). Looking Beyond Short-Term Implementation and Concerns: Assessing the Full Impact of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for