Developing Instructional Materials for Distance Education : A " Concerns-Based " Approach

Common approaches to instructional materials development currently used at distance education institutions are reviewed in this paper with the team approach considered in some detail. It is argued, that to a very large extent, the success or failure of most team approaches can be traced to the management of the team's effort. Good management of the process is not only being concerned with getting the administrative procedures right but also with effectively managing the concerns and aspirations of all individual participants In that effort. It means being sensitive to entry-level behaviours of individual members as well as being able to guide their development towards successful achievement of the team's objective. A model for adopting educational innovations using the individual and the innovation as the frame of reference —the Concerns-Based Adoption Model— developed by Gene Hall and others is proposed to show how it could be applied to cope with this issue.


INTRODUCTION
The most distinctive characteristic of distance education (hereafter referred to as DE) is the separation of the teaching and the learning activities.Since much of the teaching activity is incorporated in the instructional materials prepared well in advance of the learning activity, the proper development of these materials becomes very important to the ensuing learning activity.Distance educators are aware of the importance of effective instructional materials and have, over the years adopted a variety of approaches to develop the best possible materials for their requirements.The most common approaches are briefly reviewed in this paper with the team approach considered in greater detail.
Discussion is focussed on the management of the instructional materials development (hereafter referred to as IMD) process especially within a collaborative team environment.It is argued in this paper, that for the majority of course team participants instructional materials development for DE usually comprises a new experience -an innovation-which if inexpertly managed is the source of much trouble within the team.An innovation adoption model from the educational literature which uses the individual and CJEC, VOL.17, NO. 3, the innovation as its frame of reference is proposed to show how it could serve to expertly guide the management of this process in DE.

Common Approaches
In a review of the commonly adopted approaches to instructional materials development in DE, Smith (1980) identified at least five clearly distinguishable models currently used by DE institutions around the world.These are: 1) the course team model; 2) the author/editor model; 3) the author/faculty model; 4) the educational advisor model; and 5) the intuition (solo author) model.The basic differences between them is best understood when seen on a continuum of approaches with the course team model on one end, and the intuition (solo author) model on the other, as in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Commonly Adopted Approaches to Course Development in DE.
The course team model on one end of this continuum exhibits the most collaborative effort with the largest number of people involved in the activity.These usually include subject-matter experts (SMEs), educational technologists/instructional designers, editors, and media specialists, each responsible for their particular areas of expertise.Not always the most successful approach, the course team model has been widely used by institutions around the world, especially the Open University of the United.Kingdom (UKOU), its original proponent.On the other end of the continuum we have the intuition (solo author) model, which involves the least collaborative approach by way of the number of specialist staff engaged in the IMD process.Without suggesting that this approach is any better or worse than any of the others, it is characteristic of institutions which rely on a single SME to develop all the materials necessary for distance study.
We have between these two extreme approaches, a variety of others not very different from one another.Three of these bearing distinctive differences appear on this continuum.Their positions on the continuum reflect the degree of specialist instructional design input in the process.

Choosing a Model
An institution's decision to choose a particular model is usually based on, inter alia, its academic tradition and resources available to it for DE activity.Notice that institutions exclusively concerned with DE such as the UKOU, Athabasca University, the Open Learning Institute in Canada and the Sukothaithamathirat Open University of Thailand, have tended to adopt a more collaborative team approach, while the more traditional campusbased institutions, having decided to engage in DE along with their other functions have tended to adopt lesser collaborative approaches, more out of necessity than choice.Examples of the latter are the University of the South Pacific, Massey University in New Zealand, University of Queensland and a host of other Australian institutions.Generally speaking, however, as institutions become more and more deeply engaged in DE activity, and hence more familiar with its character and complexity, the tendency has been for them to adopt more and more collaborative approaches in their IMD process, as has been the case at the institutions listed above.This is not the same as saying that the more collaborative the approach the better is the process or even the end product.
Teams can be democratic, autocratic or even technocratic and team characteristics are also susceptible to vacillation.Sometimes the most democratic teams have ended up as the most autocratic and the vice versa is also true.In fact collaborative team approaches to instructional materials development in DE have really been quite notorious for their inability to coexist without serious difficulties.The intricacies of team approaches and their problems are very ably documented by Batten, 1980;Crick, 1980;Delecroix, 1978;Lewis, 1971;Livingston, 1979;Mason, 1976;Newey, 1975;and Stringer, 1980.

Management of the IMD Process
To a large extent, in my view, the success or failure of most collaborative team approaches to instructional materials development in DE can be traced more than anything, to the management of the team's effort.
An instructional materials development team in DE is by nature a group comprised of people from different professional backgrounds, sometimes as many as four or more.While its overall objective for getting together is usually clear -the development of instructional materials for DE -there are several hidden agendas and individual team member aspirations that are not as clear.When these are coupled with ineffective leadership of the team, there are a lot of problems which lead to not only a lack of credibility all around, but poor instructional materials and, not too infrequently, abandoned projects.
Most collaborative team efforts at developing instructional materials for DE, include at least one subject-matter expert and an editor or course developer.At best the latter may be an expert instructional designer.Very often the SME is a campus-based classroom teacher with little or no experience or expertise in the development of instructional materials for DE.The editor/ course developer may have greater empathy with the distance learner and a little more experience in instructional materials development for DE.Whatever materials production expertise per se the two may require is requested as and when necessary.While this comprises a fairly accurate picture of the IMD scenario at the majority of DE institutions operating today, increasing numbers of DE institutions are able to afford a lot more elaborate teams than that, which include several more SMEs, educational technologists and media specialists.
For the majority of the members in the team, participation in the IMD process comprises a new experience (Eastcott, 1981).An experience which not only calls for new skills but some "de-skilling" as well, that is, shedding of certain old habits (Nisbet, 1974).Old habits die hard and when members of the team are faced with circumstances that render some of their previous experience "irrelevant" there is quite a lot of uneasiness, loss of confidence, disillusionment, hostility, and at times withdrawal from the activity altogether.In Nisbet's terms very often the "bandwagon becomes a hearse." A lot of this disillusionment in the course team, however, can be avoided through effective leadership and good management of the instructional materials development process.Good management of the process is not only a matter of being concerned with getting the administrative procedures right but also with effectively managing or co-managing the concerns and aspirations of all individual participants in that effort.Good management means being sensitive to entry-level behaviours of individual members and their development during the process.Good management means knowing how to expertly cope with the changing concerns and aspirations of members, and how to move them towards the successful achievement of the team's objective which, in this case, is the development of instructional materials for DE.
This has been the major orientation and firm conviction of a team of researchers at the University of Texas Research and Development Centre for Teacher Education.Led by Gene E. Hall, this team has, for more than a decade now, worked on the development of a set of systematic procedures for adopting educational innovations using the individual and the innovation as their frame of reference (Hall, 1979).The product of their work is the Concerns-Based Adoption Model for the adoption of innovations.Although much of this group's work, so far, has been concerned with teacher education, since it was commissioned by the U.S. National Institute of Education, the procedures they have developed are generally applicable to the adoption of change and innovation.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model
The concerns-based adoption model (hereafter referred to as CBAM) comprises a set of procedures for the effective adoption of change and innovation in human societies.These procedures are distinctly grounded in the concerns of individuals who are or hope to be adopting an innovation, including anything from a new product on the market, such as a food or drink item, to a new banking/shopping service facility.
The basic assumptions of the model are : 1) that change is a process rather than a single event and that it takes time to unfold; 2) that change is essentially made by individuals and that without a change in individuals, it is not likely that an organization will be able to initiate, maintain or institutionalise change; 3) that for these individuals change is a personal experience.To understand and facilitate change, attention must be given to this personal dimension of the process; and 4) that change entails developmental growth in terms of an individual's feelings about the innovation and skill in using the innovation (i.e., an individual is not one day completely naive in relation to the use of an innovation and the next day an instantaneous expert and a highly skilled user).
CBAM is specifically directed at the process of change and the adoption of innovation.It is not concerned with decision-making or the bringing about of decisions.It therefore assumes: 5) that the change or innovation in question is appropriate and desired; and 6) that there are formal or informal leaders who will be the change facilitators.These persons may be from within the organization or from outside it.They may be senior administrators or persons from the human resources development office or consultants from outside, but their generic function would be the same -namely, to assist users and non-users of an innovation to improve their levels of use and develop their concerns towards a more desirable stage.
The key dimensions then, of CBAM are the Stages of Concern of individuals, and their Levels of Use of the innovation.

Stages of Concern
The concept of concerns relates to the feelings, perceptions, motivations, and attitudinal dynamics of individuals as they first become aware of an innovation, approach it and gradually become increasingly confident in their use of the innovation.These concerns when determined are categorised in one or more of the following stages in the CBAM.AWARENESS: Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is indicated.
INFORMATIONAL: A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated.The person seems to be worried about him/herself in relation to the innovation.He/she is interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner such as general characteristics, effects, and requirements for use.PERSONAL: Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, her inadequacy to meet those demands, and her role with the innovation.This includes analysis of her role in relation to the reward structure of the organizatbn, decision-making and consideration of potential conflicts with existing structures or personal commitment.Financial or status implications of the program for self and colleagues may also be reflected.
MANAGEMENT: Attention is focused on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information and resources.Issues related to efficiency, organising, managing, scheduling and time demands are of utmost importance.CONSEQUENCE: Attention focuses on impact of the innovation on clients/ subjects in the individual's immediate sphere of influence.Focus is on relevance of the innovation for its recipients.
COLLABORATION: Focus is on co-ordination and co-operation with others regarding use of the innovation.REFOCUSSING: Focus is on exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation, including the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative.Individual has definite ideas about alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the innovation.
The stages of concern of users and non-users can be determined by expert interviewing, together with questionnaires specifically designed for this purpose.Persons carrying out the interview are required to undergo special training in its techniques.A manual for trainers, interviewers and raters has been developed for this purpose.Training workshops in the use of these tools are also available at the Development Centre for Teacher Education.

Development of Stages of Concern
Research on individuals' stages of concerns has discovered that individuals do not have only one intense stage of concern at a time, rather a concerns "profile" with some stages of concern relatively more intense than others and, which change quite predictably as individuals become more and more familiar with the innovation.Hall and his colleagues found that, generally, "non-users" of an innovation tend to express their most intense concerns at stages 0,1 and 2 (self-concerns) and with their least intense concerns at stages 4, 5 and 6 (impact concerns).As use of the innovation is adopted, their management concerns (task concern) become more intense while their self-concerns decrease in intensity.As user experience with the innovation increases, the researchers found that management concerns of individuals gradually decrease in intensity and various impact concerns (stages 4, 5 and 6) increase in intensity.

Levels of Use of Innovation
Levels of use of an innovation focusses upon the patterns of behaviour of the individual as he/she approaches and uses an innovation.CBAM has identified eight levels of use which are operationally defined in Figure 3 on the next page.Levels of use of an innovation by individuals can be determined by focussed interview or ethnographic procedures.Users of these tools will require training in their use as well.

Innovation Configurations
A third dimension of CBAM is the innovation's configurations.The notion of this is that as innovations get adopted, they are very likely to be adapted or mutated While change agents and users of innovations may not always be able to agree on acceptable configurations of an innovation, some attempt is made in the model to ensure retention of an acceptable identity of the innovation.
CBAM utilises a configuration checklist drafting procedure called "configuration hunt" along with interviewing and on-site observations to maintain this identity.Subjects/clients may also be asked to compile innovation configuration checklists.

The CBAM Schema
An overview of the process involved in the model is illustrated in Figure 4 on page 175.The users and non-users of the innovation, as shown in this schema are part of the user system.The change facilitator (leadership/management) may be part of the user system or a consultant from the resource system, that is the organization or the institution concerned with the change.Regardless of origins and location, the change facilitator's role is to work with the users and non-users of the innovation individually and/or in groups to enhance their State in which the user has recently acquired or is acquiring information about the innovation and/or has recently explored or is exploring its value and its demands upon user and user system.
State in which the user is preparing for first use of the innovation.
State in which the user focuses most effort on the short-term day-to-day use of the innovation with little time for reflection.The user is primarily engaged in a stepwise attempt to master the tasks required to use the innovation, often resulting in disjointed and superficial use.
Use of the innovation is stabilised.Few, if any, changes are being made in ongoing use.Little preparation or thought is being given to improving innovation use or its consequences.
State in which the user varies the use of the innovation to increase its impact on clients within the immediate sphere of his/her influence.Variations are based on knowledge of both short and long-term consequences for clients.
State in which the user is combining own efforts to use the innovation with related activities of colleagues to achieve a collective impact on clients within their common sphere of influence.
State in which the user re-evaluates the quality of use of the innovatbn, seeks major modifications of or alternatives to present innovation to achieve increased impact on clients, examines new devebpments in the field, and expbres new goals for self and the user system.
Note: Adapted from Hall, G. E. (1979).Australian Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-32.confidence and competence in the adoption of the innovation.He/she is also responsible for ensuring that acceptable configurations of the innovation are being adopted at all times.The role of the change facilitator in this schema, therefore, is an extremely critical one requiring a high degree of skill in problem-solving and management of interpersonal relationships.He/she is the manager of the innovation adoption process responsible for diagnosing user concerns and levels of use of the innovation, and based upon that, for introducing appropriate interventions in user behaviour.This comprises a very large responsibility successfully achievable only over extended periods of time, usually several years.

Application of CBAM
An example of how the mechanics of CBAM could be suitably applied in the development of instructional materials for DE is attempted in Table 1 (see next two pages).The strategies suggested therein are by no means the only ones.They offer an example of how a change agent possibly in the form of the course team leader, instructional designer or course developer could manage the IMD process.Notice that the subject of instructional materials development and instructional design in particular are brought up only at the impact level of concerns.The reason for this is that instructional materials development for DE comprises a very specialised task that can not be effectively carried out without a good grasp of the nature and function of DE in general.Its discussion will be meaningful only after participants' concerns about the nature of DE as a whole have been sufficiently dealt with.Eventual success of this program of action will be possible through good management and effective leadership but  not without a good amount of readiness on the part of the individuals participating in the process as well.

CONCLUSION
Instructional materials development for distance education is a complex process and expert management of it is essential towards achievement of a successful end product.Yet, while this is so, distance education literature has not, as yet, suitably addressed the process of IMD.Meticulous adherence to the principles of instructional design and development have been found to be insufficient on their own.They do not address, for example, the question of how one might best be able to harness the wide range of skills and resources that is often drawn into a course team.
While CBAM does not originate in distance education literature, it was developed within the context of innovation adoption in higher education and in this author's view offers the best framework to-date for a systemic approach to the management of any form of collaborative approach to IMD for distance education.In this manner CBAM is very much a generic model for innovation adoption and can be applied in distance education as is.A sure strength of the model is its usefulness as a means for zooming in on very specific concerns of individual users and participants.Where groups of individuals share similar concerns, these can be addressed just as effectively.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Stages of Concern About the Innovation.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Levels of Use of the Innovation.

TABLE 1 The
Application of CBAM to the Development of Instructional Materials in DE (Table spans two pages)