If I had only known then ...

Knowing and Doing

In my relatively short time as an academic researcher, I have explored many authors’ work. To date, the most impactful has been Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control (1997). To normal people (non-Phd candidates) I often describe it as the foundational reason most self-help books work. Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). A simply complex definition Bandura explains over the remaining 522 pages.

For now, you need to keep in mind what you already know and feel – your belief in your ability to accomplish a given task significantly influences the outcome.

When diffusing technology to new audiences, it is critical to know their level of belief in their ability to adopt. However, knowing that is not enough, you must do something about it. Driscoll (2005) does a wonderful job of combining Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy with Keller's ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction) model of motivation. This begins to close the gap between knowing your audience, and doing something about it.

If I had only known then …

Some time ago, I developed and implemented a discussion board for my faculty. Its primary purpose was to bring together a diverse faculty dispersed to several buildings as the campus had grown; losing the sense of community they once enjoyed. Additionally, it would disseminate information, allow faculty to give input on policy and procedure, discuss curriculum, and mentor each other.

The system was live for about 9 months, and never realized its potential.

If I had known about Bandura’s (1997) and Keller’s (Driscoll, 2005) theories, the results would have been different. To begin with, many faculty members believed they could not operate the system or integrate it into their daily life. They were hesitant, expressed feelings of inconvenience, and were often uninterested. While we discussed these concerns, we did not address them in the systematic and effective way the ARCS model allows.

Attention: Instructors were attentive during the training, but we did not engage their curiosity, or cerate within them Keller’s “attitude of inquiry” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 334). Their attention did not last. As Driscoll (2005) suggests, integrating more interesting problems to solve, and changing how we delivered the material would have helped.

Relevance: The system was relevant to the goal of creating more community, and providing the faculty a stronger voice - what Driscoll (2005) referred to as Keller's "ends-oriented" relevance. However, it lacked what Driscoll labeled Keller’s “means-oriented” relevance (p. 335) - or the way to achieve your goal. I think this, combined with their unfamiliarity with discussion boards, was the system’s fatal flaw. Improving instructors' familiarity with the boards was just a matter of time. Solving the means-oriented relevance would have required more focus on how a virtual community can provide strong connections.

Confidence: Many faculty members were confident in their abilities. However, for those that were not, we did make our expectations clear and provide many opportunities for them to be successful using the system – Keller’s first and second strategies for building confidence (Driscoll, 2005, p. 336). Unfortunately, we did not provide them with enough assistance outside of the training, nor did we allow them the flexibility to “control … their own learning” (p. 337). Addressing these issues would require a less structured curriculum design allowing exploration of key concepts and functionality. Additionally, establishing support hot-lines and email addresses may have provided a safety net for their confidence.

Satisfaction: We did provide sufficient feedback during and outside of the training, as instructors used the system, to generate satisfaction. However, given the other deficiencies, this did not have enough impact to sustain use.

Next time … results will be different.

Brad

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)

Motivation. Technology. Facilitation. Connection. Collaboration.

(Please explore the interactive mind map above. It represents my personal learning network. Using the buttons at the top you can zoom in and out (as will your mouse's scroll wheel), fit the entire chart to the screen, and others. You can also use your mouse to drag the map around and expand each node. Nodes with a circle at the end can be expanded. Nodes with a red arrow inside of them have a link to follow. To open the link, please click the red arrow and not the node name. Thanks!)

Networking is not new. To become the best, individuals have networked with each other and master teachers for centuries. So what is new?

1. We no longer have to move to study with masters. We can study and connect with them from our homes – with our families in the next room.
2. We can study and connect with peers and masters on our own time, and often in our own way.
3. We can study and connect with peers and masters from anywhere a mobile network signal will reach … even on top of the Mogollon Rim.
4. We can reach students in the variety of ways necessary to keep them engaged in difficult academic pursuits.
5. We can build a personal work environment tailored to our learning needs and style.

I first began reaching outside of a traditional learning network as an undergraduate. With a 2400 baud modem, and the Compuserve BBS, I began to explore social and learning networks. Without realizing it, I started a personal trend of technical exploration that continues today. Reflecting on that journey, I realize that network grew proportionately to the technology I accessed. First BBS, then PINE, eMail, AOL, ICQ, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and others. Now, I have them all with me, any time, on my mobile phone.

Has this changed the way I learn? I do not know yet. What I do know, is I have expedient and nearly instant access to any piece of information I need to fuel my learning. Whether it is peers, instructors, professional connections, or anything stored in the mass of the internet, when I have a question I can connect and ask just one, or practically all simultaneously.

In a post on a Walden University discussion board, Dr. Moller (2009) posits technology is an “enabler instead of a driver” of learning strategies. A fantastically hopeful comment, as it implies we have much more potential to unlock and fill. I feel the key lies in the continued growth of collaborative technologies, and the many conversations taking place about how we learn.

References
Moller, L. (2009, July 20). Course Home Page. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3470109&Survey=1&47=4198219&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Basic Instinct (sans ice pick) … (maybe)

During Howard Rheingold’s 2008 TED talk he traces a path of human development based on an inherent instinct to collaborate. Citing everything from mastodon BBQ parties to the modern economic engine, he deftly points out how our base programming may be wired to collaborate more than to dominate and defeat. While acknowledging the shrinking place of the survival-of-the-fittest, he speaks of this emergent culture of cooperative arrangements with a hopeful tone. And, I choose to believe him.

Now, there are examples of positive and negative cooperative arrangements throughout history. Some simply wanted to become king of the proverbial hill –generally for no real reason other than to prove it was possible. I imagine the populous of the world as pockets of cooperative arrangements akin to the hemispherical bubbles circling the drain after a bath. Some are countries, some are small religions, some are global industries, and some are just what is leftover. Normally, the bubbles will collide together, losing structure, and draining away with the bathwater. But, If the conditions are just right, and each bubble is strong enough to stay together, yet pliable enough to bend and merge without breaking, a single hemispheric bubble remains on top of the drain after everything else has washed away.

I like to believe that is how Rheingold sees it. If cooperative arrangements and collaboration are humankind’s basic instinct, we have a chance of not washing it all down the drain.

Of course, to reach that point we need to transform and re-educate. We need to teach as if collaboration is our first and most basic instinct. Thankfully, we have entered an era characterized by explosive growth in global communication between individuals, not just corporations and governments. Mobile phones, the semantic web, social networking, Twitter, and the promise of cloud computing increasingly support this collaboration. Constructivist theorists like D.J. Cunningham support the need for students to talk to each other, understand each other's viewpoints, and take responsibility for their own learning. Vygotsky called for strong relationships between learners, their culture, and appropriate mentors.

Rheingold calls for us all to begin and participate in the necessary “transdisciplinary discourse” to make this transformation possible. In education, that discourse must involve the _isms. What cooperative arrangements can be forged between educational theorists to create the ways of teaching necessary to foster and build a culture of collaboration?

The means exist.

The will to change must follow.

Matters of Perspective

I will be the first to admit my relatively novice status in the realm of educational theory and instructional design. And, of course, the more I learn, the less I know. However, reading the 2007 posts by Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp regarding learning theory was refreshing, comforting, and encouraging.

• Refreshing because their discussion is accessible, well structured, and less academic;
• Comforting because the struggle over the _ism gap is nothing new … we are still talking about it, and likely will be for years. It’s like an MC Escher sketch. From one point of view, the theories are miles apart; from another they support and build upon each other;
• Encouraging because they reinforce my own thoughts about the role of _isms in education.

I find the tension that fills the space between cognitivism and behaviorism buzzing with possibility. And I certainly don’t think behaviorism has been left on the side of an old country road, while the rest of the _isms cruise merrily along our beloved internet super highway. To continue the metaphor, I believe they all belong in a Prius, zipping down the HOV lane. Or, as Karl Kapp writes:

“What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”
- Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought

Now, to answer Bill’s question from the preamble to his post: “What do we do about these _isms?”

We need them.

Most importantly, as Bill writes and like Kuhn’s (1996) thoughts on scientific paradigm shift, we have to discuss where we are, where we have been, and where we need to go in order to create necessary revolution. To do that efficiently, we must symbolize, label, and define. We must stake our tents, raise our flags, and fling our arrows until the dust clears and a new camp has formed.

As Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman write:

"It is incumbent upon all professionals with a commitment to the potential of technology in education and training, no matter what their theoretical or ideological bent, to think outside the box, to collaborate and to advance the common vision"

References
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The university of Chicago press. (Original work published 1962)
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C (2008) The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends 52(5), 63-67.

This I believe … the learning version …

(Not related or to be confused with the fantastic "This I Believe" essay and radio series.)

As I return to the blog-o-sphere from my hiatus, it seemed appropriate to begin with where I stand (or sit) on learning, theory, and educational technology. In the past year, I have spent time studying Illich, Vygotsky, Bandura, Selman, Skinner, and Siemens. What I find interesting, is the interrelated threads woven throughout the broad spectrum of these theorists. However, before I talk about them, I want to talk about my beliefs. I have neither the years of experience nor the degrees of the aforementioned theorists. I have some experience (about 10 years), a couple of diplomas, and my opinions. So, without further a due, this I believe. I believe …

• People learn best when they are interested in what they study.
  
• People learn best when they have dedicated time to study, to explore, to create, and to share.
  
• People learn best when they share their learning with others who are interested.
  
• People learn best when they leave their egos aside and relish in exposing their ignorance.
  
• People learn best when they can access information in just the way they want to.
  
• People learn best when they have the freedom to express their knowing in many different ways.
  
• People learn best when they leave their comfort zone, and are appropriately challenged.
  
• People learn best when they have someone who cares if they are learning.
  
• People learn best when they can laugh.
  

So … what does that, have to do with the theorists, learning theory, and educational technology (an area of personal exploration and study)? For someone unconcerned with the inner-sanctum of education and learning (otherwise known as academia), a list similar to the one above may be all they need, or likely care about, regarding learning theory. However, for those of us attempting to decipher how to improve the world through researching and implementing a better understanding of how and why people learn, the above list feels nice but is not sufficient. We want and need more.

So, we create detailed learning theories full of "constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). The four biggest players on the scene are, of course, behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, and connectivism. (I am not going to explore these here, but if you would like to read check out this site, and this one.)

For educational technology use, learning theories still act as a guide for instructors, administrators, and course designers. Driscoll's (2005) three basic components (results, means, and inputs) can all be utilized; however, they inherit a new specificity. The following are built on what she writes in Psychology of Learning for Instruction (p. 9):

• Results: How are the changes in performance explained by the theory related to educational technology?
  
• Means: Does educational technology facilitate the processes through which the results are created?
  
• Inputs: Can educational technology activate the required processes?
  

Correctly adopted, learning theories help steer faculty members and administrators toward the effective use of educational technology for content delivery, assessment, and feedback.

References
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educator and designers [Paper presented to ITFORUM]. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http:/​/​it.coe.uga.edu/​itforum/​Paper105/​Siemens.pdf