Before the Route: Volition and the Assumption Beneath From Project to Presence

Patricia Silva

Lamar University · M.Ed. in Applied Digital Learning

EDLD 5320 — Synthesis of Digital Learning & Leadership

Dr. Jennifer Roble · October 2026

From Project to Presence is an eight-day individualized intensive for adults who already have a completed project. Its purpose is to help them present that work in a way they choose. Each day would include approximately thirty minutes of instruction and modeling, followed by thirty minutes of applied project activity. There would also be three consultations across the eight days. The program would run online and asynchronously, outside any single institution, with me as the only facilitator. At this point, it is a prototype. Leadership City, the learning environment I created, is built and online, and the lessons are written. However, no participants have been recruited, the environment has not been tested with participants, and no evaluation instrument exists. This analysis asks whether the program is ready to advance, considering the available evidence and the conditions that exist today.

The available evidence does not support every part of this proposal equally. The strength of that evidence matters more here than its volume. The OECD (2025a), a Module 3 resource, explains that research evidence varies in strength and that educators need to interpret findings before applying them. The OECD (2024) also emphasizes that access to digital tools is not enough; educators need to understand their pedagogical value. In my context, Leadership City exists, but I cannot yet demonstrate its pedagogical value because no participants have tested it.

Research on action control helps explain the process I want to address. Motivation concerns forming and directing a goal, while volition concerns maintaining and carrying out an intention when other demands interfere (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987; Kuhl, 1985). Koole et al. (2023) describe the transition from intention to action as a universal problem. This evidence provides a strong explanation of the process. However, it comes from a theoretical review, not from testing my program.

From this perspective, I can recognize coherence between the design and established principles of teaching and learning (OECD, 2025a). However, the program itself remains untested. I cannot yet say that it works, that eight days is the appropriate duration, or that adults with completed projects want this support.

The main uncertainty comes from an assumption I made: adults with completed projects would want help developing or presenting them. I observed valuable work sitting unused and interpreted that as a need. However, my perception alone does not establish that people want this support. A project may be intentionally private, already complete for its author, waiting for resources, or simply not a current priority. I designed this program from my own desire to develop, improve, and show my work. I assumed others would want the same. I also assumed they had left their projects behind because they lacked skills, such as art technique or marketing, that I could teach. Perhaps the main issue is their willingness to participate, rather than the eight days or the skills offered. Not everyone shares my interest.

Broek et al. (2023) identify a similar assumption in adult learning research: focusing on barriers can presuppose that all adults naturally want to learn. The OECD (2025b) explains that much of the research on barriers reflects the experience of motivated adults who have already chosen to learn. It also reports that approximately half of adults neither participate in nor express interest in adult learning. These sources help me understand the limitations of the evidence I considered. The literature reports how many adults do not want to participate, but it does not explain those individuals’ decisions or tell me how to respond to them.

My Experience Teaching Adults (1999–2026)

This video (Figure 1) presents selected moments from my experience teaching adult learners between 1999 and 2026, highlighting five years dedicated exclusively to adult education.

These experiences show that I have delivered educational programs. However, they do not demonstrate the effectiveness of this proposed innovation or explain why some adults choose not to participate. My experience can support my capacity to facilitate the course, but it does not establish who wants it.

Figure 1. Selected moments from my experience teaching adults, 1999–2026. Personal archive of the author.

Table 1. A short separation of claim from assumption, with the risk each carries.

Another limitation concerns how much of the evidence applies to my context. The OECD Evidence Web for Education (OECD, n.d.) explains that useful research is available, but it is fragmented and difficult to transfer between settings.

Table 2. Where the evidence was produced, and where this innovation would live.

My program also has no institutional support structure: no department, registrar, or support desk. Nevertheless, one finding is more applicable to this context. Koole et al. (2023) report that more than half of the variation in self-directed action is situational rather than dispositional. This suggests that the conditions in which people act matter, and I can consider those conditions in my own setting. Overall, the evidence transfers only in part. It supports my understanding of the problem and the process involved, but it does not validate this specific design or demonstrate that my context is ready for implementation.

Several practical conditions affect whether I can implement the program. Time is one concern. Although delivery would take eight days, preparation requires more work because the evaluation instrument does not exist and the alternative routes have not been tested. The clearest concern is that I am responsible for design, facilitation, technical support, and evaluation. Technology is a strength because Leadership City is built and includes tools for interaction. Cost remains fragile in the original proposal: I fund the recurring tools, and there is no financial model beyond one cohort. Demand is the least certain condition. Half of adults show no interest in adult learning (OECD, 2025b), and the other half is not automatically my audience. Only some may want this course, and fewer may already have a completed project. Depending on where I offer it, even a well-designed course could attract only one or two participants, or fewer. The scope is manageable because the design is small.

To assess readiness, I used the required Module 4 resources to examine the conditions already in place. The Essential Conditions of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, n.d.) guided this assessment.

Table 3. Readiness assessed with the ISTE Essential Conditions (ISTE, n.d.), against what exists today.

Although the platform and lessons are strong, a course without participants does not work. The problem is not the lesson or the delivery. It is whether people come.

The Education Endowment Foundation (2024) explains that implementation should be treated as a process. In my proposal, I have not yet defined when evidence will be reviewed, when adjustments will be made, or who would review the evidence besides me. The Australian Education Research Organisation (2025) also emphasizes shared implementation leadership with defined roles. In my context, one person still holds all responsibility. Therefore, I need to develop the capacity to evaluate and adjust the program, as well as to facilitate it. The platform and lessons are prepared, and my intention is clear. However, the conditions involving people and organization are not yet ready.

I revised the barrier table after the literature changed my understanding of the design. Initially, I had planned responses for people who were already participating. I had not considered those who might never choose to enter the program.

Table 4. Barriers, the early signal that would reveal them, and the planned response.

Some supports are already part of the design. Participants would arrive with an existing project, removing a common source of disengagement in professional learning. The private folder is the default, so they can develop their work without exposing it. Participation is currently free. The asynchronous environment also supports adults whose working hours are unpredictable.

However, I cannot yet say that the design provides equitable participation. A visual indication of progress must describe the activity, never label the person. Participants without reliable access to creative software need a physical, non-AI alternative through the same content. Those working with sensitive professional material must not be required to upload it to a third-party service. Two gaps remain. First, participation requires reliable internet and a comparable level of literacy in English or Portuguese. I have not surveyed these conditions, so I do not yet know who would be excluded or why. Second, the environment has no stated data retention period, access rule, or consent record, although it collects work that participants may consider private. Until these conditions are addressed, equity remains an intention that has not been verified.

Based on the evidence and my context, From Project to Presence needs additional preparation before beginning on a smaller scale. Preparation comes first because the readiness gaps concern the conditions for implementation. A smaller test would then help me understand whether adults with completed projects actually want this support.

Three reasons support this decision. The premise remains untested (Broek et al., 2023; OECD, 2025b). The existing conditions are weak because they depend on one person (ISTE, n.d.; Education Endowment Foundation, 2024). The evidence also transfers only partly to this context.

Before recruiting participants for the program, I need to complete three steps. First, develop a discovery instrument and use it with five to eight adults who have completed projects, including at least two who are expected to decline. Their reasons may help me understand what the literature cannot explain about my prospective participants. Second, test one part of Leadership City with two volunteers before delivering the full program, using their accounts of what they could and could not do. Third, establish data and consent rules covering what is stored, where, for how long, who can access it, and how participants can withdraw material they have submitted.

As the smaller-scale test, I have already redesigned the first offering as a one-day workshop of eight hours, equivalent to a full working day. Adults would use a completed project to create a 30-second animated vignette, a logo, and a cover. Lack of time is a common barrier for adults (OECD, 2025b). In my interpretation, committing to eight consecutive days may be part of that barrier. For that reason, I concentrated the first offering into one day. A one-day commitment asks for less, and that may matter more than the content itself. The workshop would test that assumption. The cost also changes at this scale. Participants use the free plans of each tool, and my cost is about US$25 a month, which I can sustain. A full lesson plan for this workshop has been drafted.

I would consider the full program ready for the next step when three conditions are met: a majority of respondents identify a need the program actually addresses, rather than one I assumed; an evaluation instrument shows a clearly interpretable difference between the first and second consultations; and a second qualified adult agrees to a defined role in delivery and evaluation. Until then, the program should remain a proposal. This analysis is based on the literature and my own experience. Evidence from participants may change my conclusion, and using that evidence to adjust the program is part of how I intend it to work.

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2025, October 16). Building and operating an effective implementation team at Mount Hutton Public School [Video]. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/guides-resources/videos/building-and-operating-effective-implementation-team-mount-hutton-public-school

Broek, S., van der Linden, J., Kuijpers, M. A. C. T., & Semeijn, J. H. (2023). What makes adults choose to learn: Factors that stimulate or prevent adults from learning. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 29(2), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714231169684

Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). A school’s guide to implementation (3rd ed.). https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation

Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338

International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). Essential conditions for effective tech use in schools. https://iste.org/essential-conditions-for-effective-tech-use-in-schools

Koole, S. L., Jostmann, N. B., & Baumann, N. (2023). From intentions to action: An integrative review of action control theory and research. In B. Gawronski (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 68, pp. 291–375). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2023.07.001

Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition–behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_6

OECD. (2024). Education policy outlook 2024: Reshaping teaching into a thriving profession from ABCs to AI. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dd5140e4-en

OECD. (2025a). Unlocking high-quality teaching. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f5b82176-en

OECD. (2025b). Trends in adult learning. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ec0624a6-en

OECD. (n.d.). Evidence Web for Education. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/evidence-web-for-education1.html

AI was used as a thought partner at Level 3. It was used to question my assumptions, to locate sources, to organize evidence, and to suggest cuts for length and flow. All evidence and every source were read by me. The problem of practice, the interpretation, the decision to combine additional preparation with a smaller first test, and the professional judgment in this document are my own.

This is a little extra for you, Dr. Roble — an invitation to play with me. After all this serious analysis, I need a little joy. I need to play. And if you have a little hope, just like I do, come play with me. I also added an Author's Note after the game!

Let's make a TOUCHDOWN!