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)
Distance education, to the surprise of some, has been around for the better part of 150 years (
evolution may be underneath technology, in the dirty underbelly of educational theory and instructional design (Moller et al., 2008, Simonson, 2008).
Moller, Huett, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) recently collaborated on a series of three articles published in 
designers, creating curriculum for distance education through leveraging the "craft" of traditional education. A tradition that, in many cases, was not effective to begin with (Moller et al, 2008). The result is courses lacking quality needs assessments, effective learning models, and a connection to recent research. These courses lead to increased student disillusionment, not just for their courses, but also for distance education as a whole. Moller et al., in their final installment, call for all eLearning professionals to collaborate, and begin "the hard work of building a cumulative and unified base of knowledge for e-learning and the field of instructional design" (Huett et al., 2008, p. 66).
At the point where the fingers meet the keyboard, Moller et al. (2008) have a thorough and practical analysis of distance education's difficult situation. They make it clear to see why instructional design must evolve to meet the needs of diverse online learners, and fill the gap between the number of trained instructional designers and the demand for new courses. As presented, Dr. Simonson's theory of equivalency is relevant, though not motivating. It will not stir the professional masses to begin the "hard work" Moller et al. emphasize, and the industry needs. I agree with Moller et al. (2008). It is time to stop dragging our collective knuckles and persisting with research and analysis that only compares distance education to traditional delivery. It is time for researchers to focus on 
maturing and evolving distance education in its own right. It is time for distance education to stand up on its own, assuming responsibility for its place and potential in academia.