CBAM의 실행 측정 도구의 발전과정과 쟁점 분석 = (The) development and issues of three diagnostic dimensions of CBAM

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study was to figure out how Concerns Based Adoption Model(CBAM) was developed and improved through comprehensive research conducted by CBAM developers and what issues could be raised related the model. To achieve the purpose, this study employed documental analysis to deal with development and issues of CBAM, focusing on three dianostic dimensions including Stages of Concern(SoC), Levels of Use(LoU), and Innovation Configurations(IC).
The findings indicated that CBAM was developed from the perception that there had been little attention to individual users in educational change process. In this study, CBAM was conceptualized as a model which aims to support and facilitate implementation of educational innovations based on understanding of users' affective and behavioral dimensions and factors affecting the implementation.
History of three dimensions of CBAM was reflected regarding changes in stages, levels, and innovation configuration map, measurements, purpose to measure the dimensions.
Modifications of SoC were made around 1975. Major changes were found in names of stages and elimination of sub-stages. Three different measurements including Open-Ended Concern Statements, Stages of Concern Questionnaire(SoCQ), and One-Legged Interview(OLI) were developed, among which SoCQ was considered the most reliable method for research purposes. There were two purposes to measure SoC, which were to evaluate and understand change process and to develop, focus, and support interventions to facilitate implementation.
Changes in LoU were also found around 1975. The number and names of levels were modified, decision points to provide clear distinction between levels were developed, and dimensions of LoU were detailed. Informal interview, focused interview and observation were suggested to measure users' LoU. Focused interview and observation were recommended to obtain reliable results. The purposes to measure LoU included summative purpose and formative purpose.
IC had framework to display different patterns of implementation, which was called Innovation Configurations Map(IC Map). Initially, the framework was named IC checklist and included two factors, components and variations. Dimensions and fidelity line were added later, and more complex IC Map which included clusters and roles of different groups were also suggested. Self-reporting checklist, interview, and observation were methods to measure IC. Observation was regarded the most rigorous technique. The purposes to measure IC included evaluation of innovation implementation, support for staff development and implementation, development of alternative instruments.
Based on these results, issues related CBAM were derived from reviewing other studies. The issues were related to assumptions, stages and levels, measurements, and universal applicability of CBAM.
The problems concerned with the assumptions were that CBAM ignored teachers' judgement on the value innovations by presuming that adopted innovation was valuable, group data were used in most CBAM researches although they argues individuals should be unit of analysis, and it accepted innovation developers' perspective in determining the hierarchy of stages or levels rather than teachers' or students'.
Stages of SoC had problems in terms of validity of Stage 0, 1, and 5, distinguishing Stage 1 and 2, unproved developmental characteristics of stages. These problems were considered stemmed from the process of developing SoC. In levels of LoU, existence and developmental characteristcs of levels higher than ⅣA remained to be unanswered. As well as, the relationship between levels and dimensions of LoU was not clarified.
In terms of measurements, consideration was needed about valid methods other than SoCQ to collect qualitative data on users' concern, given that too much focus are concentrated on SoCQ in literature. In addition, instruments for observation in measuring LoU were necessary and alternative measurements with efficiency were also required by Korean researchers.
Finally, it was not reasonable opinion that CBAM can be applied universally regardless of context and the problems of SoC and LoU were found in that these dimensions did not identify specific components of innovations.
This study suggested implications of these results and provided suggestions for further study related to CBAM.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
• 2. 연구내용 6
• 3. 연구방법 6
• 4. 연구의 제한점 9
• Ⅱ. 교육과정 실행과 CBAM 11
• 1. 교육과정 실행의 개념과 관점 11
• 2. CBAM의 등장배경과 개념 및 주요 원리 14
• Ⅲ. CBAM의 실행 측정 도구의 발전 과정과 변화 25
• 1. 관심단계의 발전 과정과 변화 25
• 2. 실행수준의 발전 과정과 변화 56
• 3. 실행형태의 발전 과정과 변화 79
• Ⅳ. CBAM의 주요 쟁점 102
• 1. CBAM의 관점 102
• 2. 단계구분 106
• 3. 측정방법 121
• 4. CBAM의 보편적 적용가능 125
• Ⅴ. 논의 및 결론 135
• 1. 논의 135
• 2. 결론 143
• 참고문헌 147
• Abstract 156