Concerns, Knowledge, and Efficacy: An Application of the Teacher Change Model to Data Driven Decision-Making Professional Development

Abstract

The purpose of this theoretical and qualitative work was twofold. First, the Triadic Change Model (TCM) was presented and explained. Second, the TCM was used to develop an assessment framework in order to evaluate teachers' status in the change process associated with the adoption of Data Driven Decision-Making (DDDM) in the United States. One dominant profile emerged through the use of the TCM assessment framework. In this profile, teachers manifested concerns indicating they were reluctant to engage in DDDM, held moderate efficacy for DDDM, experienced moderate levels of anxiety associated with DDDM, and showed low levels of knowledge required for effective DDDM. Research-based recommendations for practice and future research are discussed for this profile.

Integrating Data-Driven Decision-Making in the Egyptian Hotel Industry: Revenue Management Perspective

“…A five-point scale (1=strongly disagree/don't use, to 5= strongly agree/use) was used. (Kumar et al, 2013) Types of data: Transactional data, marketing data, firm data, historical data (Talón-Ballestero et al, 2014;Kumar et al, 2013;Magnini et al, 2003) Distribution methods (Kimes, 2011) Section Two: Assessing managers' concerns about using datadriven decision-making (Power, 2008;Mandinach et al, 2006;Dunn et al, 2013a, Dunn et al, 2013bHarvard Business Review Analytic Services Report, 2012;Brynjolfsson et al, 2011;Kimes, 2011) Pricing decisions (Talón-Ballestero et al, 2014)…”

Educational Psychology’s Instructional Challenge: Pre-service Teacher Concerns Regarding Classroom-Level Data-Driven Decision-Making

“…Hall and Hord (2011) described the CBAM as “an empirically based conceptual framework that describes, explains, and predicts probable teacher behavior based upon relevant concerns as a teacher participates in developmental activities and implements an innovation” (as cited in Dunn, Airola, & Garrison, 2013a, p. 674). Hall and Hord’s (1987) CBAM includes seven stages of concern that follow a developmental pattern and are organized into three categories: Self, Task, and Impact.…”

“…The enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) introduced a reward and punishment mechanism in association with standardized testing outcomes. Standardized tests can be powerful tools for educators, backed by decades of psychometric work, but NCLB’s model has bred more resistance to DDDM (Mertler, 2007; Dunn et al., 2013a).…”

“…An ample body of research indicates these types of external rewards do little to increase higher-level behaviors like DDDM, nothing to maintain them, and often much to decrease them (Gneezy, Meier, & Rey-Biel, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). While DDDM entails the use of a wide array of student data to inform instructional decision-making, the negative impact of tying extrinsic motivators, namely funding and teacher pay, to standardized assessment has likely negatively colored how educators view DDDM (Mertler, 2007; Dunn et al., 2013a).…”

“…While the problem of resistance has been identified and minimally studied in practicing teachers, there is a scarcity of research on the issue of resistance to DDDM in pre-service teachers (Dantow & Hubbard, 2015; Dunn et al., 2013a). This is unfortunate, as teachers are the major change agents for any innovation as well as student success, and because teacher education is the ideal arena in which to address training needs.…”