The Change Process in Educational Settings: Implementing the Teaching
for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model

Sara Coble Simmons, Ph.D.
sara.simmons@uncp.edu
The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

This study examines change in educational settings; more specifically, it investigates the types of concerns that public school teachers experience as they implement an innovation in their classrooms. The innovation being studied is the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model, which provides a framework for developing curriculum, designing instruction, and planning assessment to promote student understanding.

Interventions to facilitate change should be aligned with the concerns of those engaged in the change. The "Stages of Concern Questionnaire," one of the diagnostic tools of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2001), is being used to gather data from teachers as they attempt to differentiate instruction for their students. The resulting "concerns profile" can be used to guide concerns-based interventions that are designed to resolve the concern and to move the individual toward more advanced use of the intervention. Thus, the purpose of this study is to better understand how to facilitate the change process in order to provide appropriate, targeted assistance to the teachers involved in the change effort.

This paper session will provide an overview of the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model and will introduce the "Stages of Concern Questionnaire." Preliminary data collected from the target group of practicing teachers, who also are graduate students at a state university, will be shared.

Objectives of the Study:
In this study, data is being collected for a study about change in educational settings, and more specifically, the change process that teachers go through as they learn about and implement an innovation in their classrooms. The innovation that is being studied is the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model, as it is being used for the design and implementation of differentiated learning experiences to meet the needs of diverse learners. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into the change process so that appropriate assistance can be targeted to the teachers' levels of concerns as they experience change on a personal level.

Theoretical Framework or Perspective
As the diversity of the student population continues to increase, educators must find ways to address the wide variation in student needs while ensuring that all groups of students achieve adequate yearly progress. To accomplish this, teachers must be able to provide appropriate levels of challenge and support for the wide range of student abilities found in today's classrooms. In the current literature on best practices, two helpful approaches to meeting these challenges can be found-differentiated instruction and "backward" curriculum design.

Differentiated instruction is teaching that is responsive to the uniqueness of each learner. It takes into account the different ways that students learn, as well as their prior experiences and background knowledge. Its aim is to maximize the capacity of each learner. Differentiated instruction, or responsive teaching, is much more than a recipe that delineates step-by-step strategies to use in the classroom. Rather, responsive teaching is a pervasive philosophy of teaching and learning. Responsive teaching considers WHO we teach (knowledge of students), WHAT we teach (knowledge of curriculum), HOW we teach (knowledge of instructional strategies), and WHERE we teach (learning context). Resources by many authors are available on the topic (e.g., Gregory & Chapman, 2001; Sprenger, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001, 2003; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).

Using the "backward" curriculum design process, the teacher starts with the end in mind (i.e., the desired outcomes) and then identifies the evidence (i.e., the assessments) necessary to determine that the intended results have been achieved. Once the results and assessments are clearly specified, the teacher delineates the requisite knowledge and skills and designs the learning experiences that will enable students to perform. In recent years, Wiggins and McTighe have been the leading advocates of backward curriculum design, which they refer to as "Understanding by Design" or "UbD" (e.g., Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This curriculum design process is referred to as "backward" because it is in contrast to the common practice by many teachers of selecting the learning activities before defining the assessment plan. Simply stated, the traditional unit development process proceeds through the main design components in this order: (1) goals, (2) activities, and (3) assessments. Conversely, backward unit design advances in this order: (1) goals, (2) assessments, and (3) activities.

The Teaching for IMPACT Model integrates the principles of differentiated instruction and backward curriculum design. It provides a framework for designing units that engage learners in respectful curriculum and personalize learning for each child. The model was developed to help candidates in the Master's Elementary Education Program at a state university to design effective differentiated units of study. These candidates, who were practicing teachers, found it challenging enough to incorporate strategies for differentiation into their units. When they also were encouraged to use the principles of backward design to clearly define their curriculum goals and assessment plan before selecting the "fun" learning experiences for their units, they seemed to be overwhelmed. They struggled with how to manage all of the critical elements that needed to be considered as they moved through the unit design process.

What they needed was a teacher-friendly, easy-to-follow framework for developing curriculum, planning appropriate assessments, and designing instruction in order to promote understanding and to address the learning needs of diverse students--in short, they needed the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model. The model has six components, which are described below.

The first step of unit development focuses on the "Identification of Goals." When identifying goals for a unit, teachers consider various sources, such as standards developed by professional organizations at the national level, curriculum guides at the state level, and school system guides at the local level. When "Mapping the Essentials," teachers seek to establish curricular priorities by distilling out the enduring understandings or big ideas for the unit, by defining essential questions to guide student inquiry, and by identifying discrete knowledge, skills, and dispositions that students are expected to develop during the unit. In "Planning for Assessment," teachers decide upon the types of evidence necessary to show that students understand unit content. The assessment plan should include both formative and summative assessments. At this point in the design process, teachers also consider criteria for evaluating student work and scoring tools that will be used. At the "Activities for Learning" step, teachers select the methods of instruction, determine the sequence of learning experiences, and choose materials and resources to support the unit. The "Consideration of Diversity" step requires that teachers incorporate strategies for differentiation of content, process, and activities according to students' readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles. The final step of the model, "Teaching for Understanding," challenges teachers to ensure that students really understand what they were expected to learn in the unit.

Methodology/Design and Data Source
The study participants are graduate students from a state university who also are practicing teachers. One of the diagnostic tools of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2001), the "Stages of Concern Questionnaire," is being used to gather data from teachers as they attempt to implement the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model in order to differentiate instruction for their students.

Preliminary Results/Conclusions/Implications
Teachers who have been introduced to the Teaching for I.M.P.A.C.T. Model have found it to be a powerful tool for designing effective units of study. The model seems to provide a coherent framework for developing strong curriculum, designing targeted instruction, and planning appropriate assessment measures in order to address the diverse needs of today's students and to promote learning for understanding.

The preliminary survey data has provided insight into teachers' concerns as they try to incorporate this innovation into their practice. As the study progresses, the researcher hopes that teachers will acquire more nuanced insights into the change process, and that they will continue to refine the skills needed to be effective implementers of educational innovations. This researcher expects to learn more effective ways to support educators as seek to successfully implement change.

References
Hall, Gene E. & Hord, Shirley M. (2001). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gregory, Gayle H. & Chapman, Carolyn. (2002). Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn't Fit All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sprenger, Marilee.  (2003).  Differentiation through learning styles and memory.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2001). How to Differentiate in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd edition). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2003). Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Allan, Susan D. (2000). Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.