What Do We Know about Educational Change and Stress at Mountain View Union?

Katie Bouchard and Marc Gilbertson

Education Research EDU-6920

Johnson State College

Fall 2010
 Abstract

In this action research project, the authors examine the question: what do we know about

educational change and stress at Mountain View Union? The authors provide a literature review

including the monitoring of stress, the impact of educational change, and the implementation of

Classroom Response Systems (CRS) in the classroom. The authors use the collaborative

apprenticeship model to incorporate CRS into a novice teacher’s practice. They also provide

their methods of collecting data, an analysis, their findings, and a discussion pertaining to the

improvements that could be made to the research and to educational change at Mountain View

Union. The authors found lack of time and lack of a clear process to be the dominant stressors

when incorporating technology in the classroom.

STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
3

Author Biographies

Marc Gilbertson has been a middle-level social studies teacher at Lamoille Union Middle

School since 1991. For the past 17 years he has worked on Team Extreme, which uses an

interdisciplinary approach to teach 7th and 8th grade.

Katie Bouchard is the Language Arts Resource Room teacher at Lamoille Union High

School and is in her first year teaching. She is pursuing her Masters of Arts in Education at

Johnson State College.

 What Do We Know about Educational Change and Stress at Mountain View Union?

Burnout and job related stress have impacted educators for decades. With pressure to

implement educational change involving accountability, assessment, and technology, teachers

are often asked to learn new skills and adapt to these forces. This pressure for constant change

can lead to teacher stress and have an impact on job satisfaction and effectiveness. Mountain

View Union High School has recently purchased a number of classroom response systems.

Classroom Response Systems (CRS) or clickers are small hand-held devices that transmit student

responses to a teacher’s computer using an infrared or radio frequency. Teachers can use these

systems to collect and assess student understanding quickly and efficiently. Only three teachers

at Mountain View have implemented these devices despite the fact that there are fifteen sets

available. Why did teachers choose to ignore this new technology? Does the implementation of

technology cause so much stress that teachers tend to avoid it? These questions led one novice

teacher and one veteran teacher to ask; what do we know about implementing change and stress

levels at Mountain View Union?

The answers to this question can impact teachers, administrators, and the effectiveness of

schools in general. School improvement cannot happen without some degree of change. To

examine how stress and change impact teachers at Mountain View Union could help us learn

how change can occur without causing teachers to feel unnecessary stress which can also impact

a teacher’s effectiveness. In this paper, we report on interviews we conducted with a variety of

teachers. We will also examine our own stress levels and reflections on change as we use a
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
5

process known as collaborative apprenticeship to implement clickers into a novice teacher’s

class. After collecting and analyzing data we will make recommendations for further study and

methods to improve the change process at Mountain View Union.

Review of Literature

Teachers in today’s classrooms have many responsibilities. Classroom management,

motivation of students, and providing emotional support are just a few of the jobs that teachers

are expected to perform each day. Each of these factors can cause stress and can eventually lead

to burnout. Some stress may be an inherent part of any teacher’s life. However, recently teachers

have felt added pressure to change their practices. These stressors involve implementing new

ideas including new technologies. The accountability movement’s demand for collection of data

on student performance has also contributed to teacher stress (Davidson, 2009). Many schools

have started using Classroom Response Systems (CRS) or clickers so that teachers can collect

data more efficiently. However, the implementation of this technology is not always successful

and, like many changes in a teacher’s practice, can increase stress levels.

Why monitoring stress is important.

Although several studies have shown that teaching, like many social service professions,

is an inherently stressful job (Troman & Woods, 2000; Zhang & Hu, 2008) teachers who

encounter too much stress can become less effective, damage school climate, and slow efforts to

improve schools (Zhang & Hu, 2008). If stress becomes too unmanageable, teachers may even

choose to leave the profession (Troman & Woods, 2000). The causes of teacher stress are widely

varied and illustrate how complicated a teacher’s job can be. Issues concerning student discipline
and motivation will continually be a part of a teacher’s life. Yet, the pressure to reform or

improve teaching practice and the education system in general has gained momentum. Davidson

describes this pressure to change and relates it to the pressure put on schools by the

accountability movement (Davidson, 2009). Several other studies have shown a connection

between education change and teacher stress (Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Klassen,

2010;Troman & Woods, 2000; and Zhang & Hu 2008).

How does effective educational change work?

Many authors have written about educational change. Tomal (2010) offers a five-step

process for initiating and managing change in individual classrooms. Still, educational reformers

are rarely satisfied with change in a single classroom. Luckacs (2009) noted that successful

change within schools often begins with individual or small groups of teachers acting as change

agents. Luckacs (2009) also notes that these teacher change agents often score high on tests that

measure factors including collaborative expertise. Although change is initiated by change

agents, to make it successful in schools, teachers must be able to collaborate with others. This

collaboration can also help limit stress (Eckland, 2009).

Clickers and educational change

One specific change that teachers are being asked to adopt involves the implementation

of technology. The implementation of technology is increasingly viewed as an essential part of

effective reform (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Classroom Response Systems (CRS) or

clickers are one example of a technological innovation that has been used more and more widely

in schools. Clickers are small hand-held devices that transmit student responses to a teacher’s
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
7

computer using an infrared or radio frequency format. Teachers can use clickers to simply poll

students about their opinions, but they can also be used to collect information about student

understanding of concepts and content. Specific clicker software enables teachers to collect, sort,

and organize this data. Many advocates claim that this technology can be an important

instructional tool and that clickers should be used to collect data so that teachers can adjust and

improve instruction (Koenig, 2010). Due to their ability to collect data quickly and efficiently,

many schools have asked teachers to adopt this technology and use it to change instructional

strategies. Several authors claim that clickers can be used to effectively trigger more wide-spread

reform and change the way educators teach (Koenig, 2010; Kolikant, Drane, & Calkins, 2010).

The current pressure to adopt clicker technology is a good example of how teachers are asked to

implement new ideas and technologies. However, this pressure to change can make a teacher’s

job more stressful.

How might educational change including the use of clickers be implemented while keeping

stress levels manageable?

The question of how to implement change successfully without causing stress levels to

affect teacher efficacy is important. One method to initiate change especially using technology is

collaborative apprenticeship (Glazer, Hannafin, & Song, 2005). This method pairs experienced

teachers with novice teachers to integrate technology and implement change. One of the

interesting qualities of collaborative apprenticeship is that it directly addresses the social aspect

of teacher learning (Zwart, Wubbels, Bergen, & Bolhuis, 2010). Glazer, Hannafin, and Song

(2005) suggest that traditional teacher workshops and in-service presentations are not effective
ways to implement change through technology. Glazer suggests these methods do not develop a

collaborative environment and thus often leave teachers without the support they need.

Interestingly, Eckland (2009) addresses the way that these collaborative social interactions

between teachers can help reduce stress. Using the collaborative apprenticeship model to

implement clickers in a novice teacher’s classroom could be an effective model of education

change that allows both novice and experienced teachers to keep stress levels manageable.

Data Collection

The methods used to collect data were selected with the intention of being “relevant and

valid information” (Tomal, 2010, p.35). We chose to interview purposefully selected

interviewees, record journals from both perspectives--the expert teacher and novice teacher-- and

we decided to rate our stress using a stress continuum after each of four clicker-tutorial-sessions.

In order to plan our methods, we answered the basic questions of who, what, where, when and

how. Who: We were studying ourselves, and interviewing other teachers, both novice and

veteran. What: We were researching how we, a novice teacher and a veteran teacher, handle

stress while learning new technologies. Where: We conducted our research in the schools we

work at everyday because we wanted to be able to implement this new technology. We also

wanted to interview others who teach in the same district that we teach in. Mountain View

Union is a pseudonym we selected for the school in which we conducted our study. When: We

interviewed other teachers during their free time before, during or after school hours. We held

our own teaching sessions outside of class time: before school, after school and while school was

in session. Our last session (the implementation of the clickers), was conducted during 8th
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
9

period (2:20 PM to 3:05 PM). We collected data over a three week process. How: We decided

to perform the interviews separately to save time and chose to have three one-hour sessions to

conduct the clicker lessons with a final 45 minute session to implement.

Individual Interviews

We purposefully selected teachers who had a various range of experience in the field.

We will use pseudonyms for the purpose of this pilot study for the interviewees selected. We

developed open-ended questions and used expanders to encourage the interviewee to continue

the conversation. We took both hand-written and computer notes to record the responses. We

interviewed Robert, with 40 years of experience; Jenny, with nine years of experience; Brigid,

with 20 years of experience; Tom, with five years experience and Violet, who is in her first year

of teaching. We selected these participants with the intentions of having a wide variety of years

in teaching. The questions we asked focused on change in education, technology, stress and the

use of clickers in the classroom. We asked them in the same order to remain consistent during

each interview.

• How long have you been teaching?

• What is an example of a successful educational change? What made it successful?

• What stops change from happening in education?

• Who is involved in changes in an educational setting?

• Do you find change in schools stressful? If so, how can this stress be reduced?
 • How do you feel about new technology in the classroom?

• What has prevented you from using the CRS in your classroom?

Journals

Journals are considered “a method of recording the behaviors, feelings, and incidents of

subjects” (Tomal, 2010 p. 44). We both conducted journals after each session and used a similar

structure to record our answers. We intended to record our own interpretations and observations

on each session as well as the how well the other subject played their role during this research.

We used the following five prompts in our journals:

• What progress was made in today’s session?

• What caused stress while implementing the technology? (Threat to Security, Fear of the

Unknown, Lack of Understanding, Desire for Status Quo or Potential Loss of Power)

• What is stopping us from implementing the technology?

• Stress Level Continuum Commentary.

• Other comments you felt were relevant to today’s session.

Stress Level Continuum

After each session, we each selected an amount of stress that we felt during the session using the

Likert scale, that uses a five point scale: 1) No stress; 2) Slightly less stress than normal; 3)

Neutral – normal school stress; 4) Slightly more stress; and 5) Very stressful.
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
11

Analysis

To begin our analysis, we reviewed our interviews, journals, and observations of fellow

teachers. We looked for common themes within each piece of data especially stressors pertaining

to change. At first, we used Tomal’s compilation of “common resistance to change” (Tomal,

2010, p. 125). These included threat to security, fear of the unknown, lack of understanding,

desire for status quo, and potential loss of power. Although originally we saw these as an

appropriate way to examine the data, after reviewing the data itself, this compilation no longer

seemed appropriate. The data could be fit into the categories, but we were each struck by the

dominance of two other themes. The themes that emerged were time and process. Throughout

nearly all the interviews, lack of time continually arose as a stressor to education change. The

other dominant theme was process. By this we mean that the lack of a clear process or plan for

implementing change was also seen as a stressor.

In order to identify these themes more fully, we coded them by highlighting instances

when each were mentioned. After independently analyzing the data from our individual journals

and interviews, we then combined all the data into one set. We then collaborated to re-analyze all

the data. This process confirmed our initial findings. Time and process remained the dominant

stressors involved in implementing change.

Findings

Our data showed 35 instances in which time was identified as a stressor or a factor in

preventing successful implementation of the change. Sixteen instances mentioned the lack of
clear process. Our analysis revealed several other stressors, but none of these appeared with the

same frequency as time and process. We combined the remaining issues into a single category

we defined as other. This category contained twelve different items that could be identified as

stressors. These included items such as resistance from staff, lack of clear leadership, or

technological issues.

Time was the dominant factor in causing stress while implementing change. Our

interviews and journals both presented evidence that time and time management is seen as the

overwhelming cause of stress and prevents change. Our interviews and journals allowed us to

collect data from teachers with a broad range of experience. This theme emerged across all

sources. One teacher, Jenny, with nine years of experience said, “Time stops change from

happening because you have five million other things to do.” Violet, a first-year teacher

responded, “Change is just time consuming.” Brigid, a teacher with 18 years of experience stated

that when implementing CRS “it takes time to set them up…it’s not second nature, so it is time

consuming.” Even a teacher with 40 years of experience identified time as a priority by

explaining that “implementing technology is a waste of time if it is poorly designed and half-

heartedly implemented. I need plenty of time to learn and implement.” It is important to note that

our interview question did not prompt the subjects to discuss time. Each interviewee raised this

issue without prompting.

Lack of time was also a considerable stressor present in our journals and observations.

After the first session, Marc noted that “the big cause of stress was lack of time.” He also

mentioned after the second session that “time was still an issue.” After the same session, Marc
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
13

noted that “Katie had to leave class in order to conduct the meeting.” Katie wrote that, “Marc

seemed very rushed during this session and was a little bummed out that we were not able to

progress as far as we had hoped.” Throughout the sessions, lack of time remained a consistent

stressor.

Another factor that appeared throughout the data involved the process or planning of

change. In the interviews, journals, and observations the teachers identified the lack of clear

process or plan as another contributor to stress. This theme emerged sixteen times throughout the

data. Teachers often expressed frustration with a lack of follow through from administrators.

There has been a history of initiatives that are abandoned before they are fully implemented and

the staff has invested significant amount of time and energy into. We asked Brigid, a veteran

teacher, how stress can be reduced and she responded by stating, “One of the things that bugs

teachers is that there is always a new way of doing things, then in a few years, we don’t use it.”

Robert, a teacher with 40 years of experience replied, “very rarely do top down attempts to

implement change work, they are often unprepared, and not thought out, they believe they have

solutions to failing systems every year.” Even first-year teacher Violet commented, “We have

too many huge initiatives---I like to do one thing well instead of a lot of things poorly. We never

finish the job.” When asked about what would help, she responded, “Clearer goals would help.

We should take baby steps, smaller chunks that we can jump in and actually do rather than just

meeting.”

Concerns about process were also present in the journals and observations. After the

second meeting Marc commented, “Without a plan to push our timeframe, I’m not sure we
would have as much done as we do. In this case time is still an issue, but it’s good to have a

limited goal.” Marc rated himself as a 4 out of 5 on the stress continuum after this session and

explained, “Just trying to coordinate a good plan for change is quite tough.”

The lack of a clear process for change caused frustration and stress in nearly all the

teachers we interviewed. Further, during our implementation of change, the clear and limited

process we had created helped establish clear and achievable goals. The deadlines actually

helped reduce stress and kept the project progressing.

After each session we rated ourselves on the stress-level continuum. Marc’s stress level

remained above normal for all, but the final session when the clickers were actually

implemented. Katie’s stress level remained normal to just above normal in all, but the final

session. During the final session, her stress level went up to the highest level-5. In reflecting on

the final session, it was clear that time and process were still issues. Marc listed several changes

to the process that would have helped lower the stress levels, including more modeling of the

CRS and adding more time to each tutorial session. Katie’s stress peaked on the day of

implementation. Her reflection included a both time and process issues. “I wish I had time to

incorporate some more practice before using them.”

As we began this study we were hoping to use Tomal’s list of “common resistance to

change” (Tomal, 2010 p. 125) to analyze our data. After examining the data, it became clear

that this list would not be appropriate for our study. Although this list was used to prompt

reflection in our journals and observations, when we actually examined the data, the connections

between what was recorded and Tomal’s list seemed inappropriate and ill-fitting. At one point,
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
15

after the third session, Marc commented that Katie “might feel a threat to security by having a

veteran teacher in her room.” Katie’s journal did not confirm that observation, in fact having a

veteran teacher in the room was seen as helpful, and actually added to her feeling of security.

One other theme that emerged from the interviews, journals, and observations was the

idea that the teachers involved in the study were open to change. When asked about new

technology, each of the teachers expressed excitement. Violet, the first-year teacher, explained

that she “loves it [new technology] except it’s hard to find time to learn it enough to teach it.”

Tom, a five-year veteran, responded, “I am generally open to change and new technology.

Sometimes it’s pretty exciting. When a system doesn’t work for kids, technology can make it

more effective and efficient…It makes teaching more immediate.” Robert, with forty-years of

experience, and a teacher whose first example of successful education change came from 1972,

explained that “change need not be stressful as long as it has clear goals and is well-designed.”

He went on to cite a transition to a digital grade book as a positive well-implemented change.

Tomal in explaining the process for managing change warns that “there are several natural

resistances to change” (Tomal, 2010, p. 125). In implementing our change, clickers in the

classroom, and in interviewing teachers about change, these natural resistances did not seem

evident. Most teachers expressed excitement about change, but felt reservation about the time it

takes to implement change effectively, and the lack of a clear process or plan to implement the

change.

Discussion

Lack of time was the most prevalent theme we found in our research and from our
analysis. We were startled that every interview we conducted consisted of time issues without

any prompting. This seems to be a common issue for teachers in general. The main issue we

struggled with during our sessions was the lack of time we had to conduct our research in an

effective manner. We both agreed if we had more training sessions, we may have felt more

comfortable in our roles. Marc was worried that Katie needed more time before going in front of

a class and was concerned that the pressures of being a novice teacher would only add more

stress for her. Katie, in her second month of teaching, is still adjusting her teaching styles and

tightening her classroom management. The implementation of new technology just “added more

to my [her] plate.” The concern from Marc was legitimate because Katie felt the most stressed

right before she had to teach a lesson with the CRS.

We both realized that the lack of time affected not only our research and stress levels, but

it also impacted Katie’s feelings about continuing to use the clickers. In her last journal, Katie

stated that “I felt like my lesson was a complete disaster and the students could not remain on

task. I am not sure I will ever use these again.” These feelings might have been avoided if there

was simply more time for preparation. We also question if learning new technology and

implementing educational change is practical for novice teachers. Novice teachers are in the

beginning stages of their career and this may only hinder their performance. This research has

left a “bad taste in my [Katie’s] mouth and I am not sure I would attempt to learn anything else

this year.”

We were both concerned that it was the lack of flexibility in our schedules that had

hindered the process because we did have a great working relationship. “Marc was a great
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
17

teacher and was confident, which helped me relax,” Katie had stated after the first session. Since

we had such great compatibility we wonder what would happen when the teachers do not get

along. Would this have affected our results even more? We also thought about bringing in

another teacher to join our research, but decided in the end, it would have made it even more

difficult to plan our sessions. Would it have been easier if Katie had another novice teacher who

was learning the same technology or would it have been more stressful for Marc?

So how can educators implement change in an effective manner without decreasing a

teacher’s confidence? Does it take being a veteran teacher, one who has a full understanding of

their primary job as teacher, who can deviate and learn new technology? It didn’t sound like the

lack of time issues improve with experience. How drastically would the results have differed if

it were two veteran teachers implementing the CRS? Would the stress levels have been less or

would they have been higher because the veteran teachers would struggle with dominating over

one another? It seems Marc was, in fact, less stressed than Katie, but he also knew how to work

the CRS and has years of experience on his side.

We also felt more comfortable because we had created a support system for each other

during this research. This part of the collaborative apprenticeship worked well because it

addressed the social issues of teachers (Glazer, Hannafin & Song, 2005). Teachers, from the

interviews, also stated that it is difficult to implement change without support from

administration. How would our stress levels have changed during this research if we were

frowned upon by our administrations or other teachers? Would we have been more stressed and

more eager to please in an attempt to gain support? It did seem less stressful to each other that
we did not have a competitive relationship, but rather, a mutually productive relationship.

We believed the stress level continuum was a successful way to measure and record

stress levels. It was effective for us because it produced quick and easy results and forced us to

quantify our stress level. We decided to put our initial reaction as our response, select a number

directly after the session was completed and not discuss with each other until we had each

selected our levels. It was interesting to see how differently we both felt along the way. It was a

way to share our concerns.

We believe Tomal’s (2010) examples of resistance to change may work for a broader

audience. Our study seemed stronger when we abandoned this list because we were able to

search for factors more appropriate to our specific research. This allowed us to identify the

dominate factors: time and process.

Katie wishes she took the research a little more seriously, but hesitated because she did

not feel there was any real pressure attached to this research. She felt if the research failed, it

simply failed and there would be no consequences except for bad data. How much more stress

would she have felt if she had administration commanding this implementation? How valid or

reliable are the results then? Did her attitude affect Marc’s attitude?

Marc felt disappointed in the fact that Katie thought the lesson was a disaster and wishes

he had been able to foresee these issues. He felt guilty and stated after that he “should have

known better.” He felt collaborating one on one worked well, “but if we had followed the

model of collaborative apprenticeship more closely and had another new teacher for Katie to

bounce ideas off, I [he] may have felt better about everything.”
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
19

We both agree that change will always be a stressor for us. We believe that the change

needs to be worth it and it needs to have an element of excitement to it. It needs to be worth our

time and energy. Katie agrees that if the change was worthwhile and helped her teaching, she

would have taken it more seriously and Marc agrees that change can occur, but there needs to be

time and meaning for it to be implemented.

Conclusion

Educators will always feel stress, they will also always be asked to change and to

implement new ideas. It is important to examine how change can occur without causing

unneeded stress in teachers. Our study shows that at Mountain View Union, lack of time and lack

of a clear process are important to consider when planning and implementing any education

reform. We also found the collaborative apprenticeship model was a good way to address the

social forces inherent in the change process.

References
Davidson, K. (2009). Challenges contributing to teacher stress and burnout. Southeastern

Teacher Education Journal, 2(2), 47-56. Retrieved from Education Research Complete

database.

Eklund, N. (2009). Sustainable workplaces, retainable teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 25-27.

Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,

confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42(3), 255-284. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Glazer, E., Hannafin, M., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through

collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4),

57-67. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Koenig, K. (2010). Building acceptance for pedagogical reform through wide-scale

implementation of clickers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 46-50. Retrieved

from Education Research Complete database.

Kolikant, Y. B., D. Drane, and S. Calkins. 2010. "'Clickers' as catalysts for transformation of

teachers." College Teaching 58, no. 4: 127-135. Education Research Complete,

EBSCOhost (accessed October 31, 2010).

Klassen, R. (2010). Teacher Stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. Journal of

Educational Research, 103(5), 342-350. Retrieved from Education Research Complete

database.
STRESS AND CHANGE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION
21

Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and I-Clickers to enhance student participation in

calculus. Primus: Problems, Resources & Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate

Studies, 19(3), 219-231. doi:10.1080/10511970701643970.

Lukacs, K. (2009). Quantifying "The Ripple in the Pond": The development and initial validation

of the teacher change agent scale. International Journal of Educational & Psychological

Assessment, 325-37. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Tomil, D.R. (2010). Action research for educators. New York. Rowan & Littlefield.

Troman, G., & Woods, P. (2000). Careers under stress: Teacher adaptations at a time of intensive

Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(3), 253-275. Retrieved from Education

Research Complete database.

Zhang, Y., & Yu, Y. (2007). Causes for burnout among secondary and elementary school

teachers and preventive strategies. Chinese Education & Society, 40(5), 78-85.

doi:10.2753/CED 1061-1932400508.

Zwart, R., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T., & Bolhuis, S. (2007). Experienced teacher learning within

the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers & Teaching, 13(2), 165-187.

doi:10.1080/13540600601152520