Review of Program Planning Model
This paper is a modifying review of the personal Program Planning model that has been submitted in the first assignment. The main areas of rethinking would cover the various elements of the program planning model, including how these elements are organized and the type of interaction among these individual elements. Although, my underpinning philosophical perspective, which is that education is believed to be the vehicle for societal reform remains, how the program planning model evaluates the degree of social reform that would have hence taken place is also the subject of my rethinking.
The main source of ideas for reviewing my initial program planning model came from all the reading materials specified for the course and some valuable feedback that have been provided by the course instructor in connection to the first assignment. The following discussion would briefly summarize the key changes I would be making to my program planning model and the underlying rational behind the change. The modified model, along some explanations how it is supposed to work would also be discussed in latter sections. The conclusion section of this paper would restate the key points of the discussions presented in this paper.
How are the different elements of the program planning model organized
The program planning model designed in my first assignment has the evaluative process at the center of the ray structure. In rethinking such a crucial position in the planning model, however, I would now like to place the overarching review process at the center instead. There are two implications to the overall planning process as a result of this change. Firstly, the central review process would oversee the evaluation element, just like any other element in the model, to address issues of relevance as to whom such an evaluation is carried out for and whose interests do they really serve. Secondly, evaluation is essentially judgmental in nature while review is developmental, and hence, by centrally positioning the review process, the model can strategically monitor our practices at the micro and macro levels.
There is an additional separate element for marketing that was initially thought to be part of the implementation procedure. However, based on my recent learning, especially during the second unit of this course, it is now clear that marketing to a complex set of client system presents a unique set of challenges which would directly or indirectly influence other operational practices or policy formulations with in the wider planning work. Hence a new marketing element is introduced to meet this particular challenge as well as effectively reach those who stand to benefit most from the whole endeavor. Marketing should focus on price, product, place and promotion in order to overcome real or perceived issues that result in barriers to participation.
PRICE. In terms of participation, program fees represent only one element of price. Hidden costs such as food, travel, childcare, materials, and the opportunity cost of loss of income must be considered.
PRODUCT. In addition to perceptions of the tangible (course, program, etc.), participation is affected by consideration of the activity's total meaning to prospective learners--the augmented product.
PLACE. Inaccessibility, cost, and previous negative experiences in a school environment are deterrents that make selection of the location of educational activities a crucial factor.
PROMOTION. Information about educational opportunities must also be designed to change negative attitudes, enhance motivation, and provide value-added incentives, such as stipends for job trainees or continuing education units for professionals.
Another major change in the overall design of the planning model involves recognition of the model is essentially three dimensional in a sense that beyond the practical provisions outlined in each element, there exists an ideological, philosophical or cultural considerations. And, the inevitable interactions on such higher order grounds would invariably influence our micro as well as macro level practices continually.
The evaluation element of the program planning model needs, in my view, special considerations. If we hold the view that education ought to reform society, then how would one know what levels of reform had actually been achieved? One could consider learner feedback, summative assessment results and external evaluation procedures as possible routes to find the answer. However, it is clear that in the realms of competing interest with in complex set of client system, the interests of the learner my not be given the importance or priority that it deserves. It would not be, in my view, straying too far out into cynicism to even question whose interests are represented in a given evaluative process. Conflicting interests and assumptions may, to often, have to be entertained with in the same context. Another approach is, however, to evaluate indirectly. If we plan a course for mothers of infants, for example, to help them to effectively utilize baby and toddler play time to boost their child's basic literacy, numeracy and cognitive skills, then local school reports of how preschoolers and kindergarten children are faring would provide an alternative way of assessing social-reform impact.
The new and modified program planning model, therefore, includes a review process at the center that serves to integrate various actions at micro and macro levels, an additional element for the marketing aspect of our program to recruit learners and address their needs and a three dimensional conceptualization of the model to reflect the progressive belief espoused that adult education is transformational and can reform society. In addition, the three dimensional conceptualization would also be indicative of our concept of society and how we hope to reform it. Conclusion
Program Planning is a critical stage in the process of developing and implementing a sound educational provision that meets the interests of all stakeholders. In this course, I have learned the various aspects of program planning model in ways that address' my core beliefs about education, learners, learning and society in general. Adult education is a powerful way of reassigning positive roles for oppressed people who suffer from perennial social devaluation at the hands of the dominant forces in society. As such, a program planer need to be clear about the purpose of her or his planning. However, whether they are or not though, they would still serve to either challenge or reinforce existing social structures. An informed planning action allows for strategically responsive model at a micro and macro practice level.
References
Cafferella, R.M (1994) Planning Programs for Adult Educators: A practical Guide for Educators, Trainers and Staff Developers, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers
Carvero, R.M. And Wlson, A.L. (1996). What really matters in Adult Education Program Planning: Lessons in negotiating power and interests, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers
Sork, T.J. And Cafferella, R. (1998) Planning Programs for Adults; Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers
This paper is a modifying review of the personal Program Planning model that has been submitted in the first assignment. The main areas of rethinking would cover the various elements of the program planning model, including how these elements are organized and the type of interaction among these individual elements. Although, my underpinning philosophical perspective, which is that education is believed to be the vehicle for societal reform remains, how the program planning model evaluates the degree of social reform that would have hence taken place is also the subject of my rethinking.
The main source of ideas for reviewing my initial program planning model came from all the reading materials specified for the course and some valuable feedback that have been provided by the course instructor in connection to the first assignment. The following discussion would briefly summarize the key changes I would be making to my program planning model and the underlying rational behind the change. The modified model, along some explanations how it is supposed to work would also be discussed in latter sections. The conclusion section of this paper would restate the key points of the discussions presented in this paper.
How are the different elements of the program planning model organized
The program planning model designed in my first assignment has the evaluative process at the center of the ray structure. In rethinking such a crucial position in the planning model, however, I would now like to place the overarching review process at the center instead. There are two implications to the overall planning process as a result of this change. Firstly, the central review process would oversee the evaluation element, just like any other element in the model, to address issues of relevance as to whom such an evaluation is carried out for and whose interests do they really serve. Secondly, evaluation is essentially judgmental in nature while review is developmental, and hence, by centrally positioning the review process, the model can strategically monitor our practices at the micro and macro levels.
There is an additional separate element for marketing that was initially thought to be part of the implementation procedure. However, based on my recent learning, especially during the second unit of this course, it is now clear that marketing to a complex set of client system presents a unique set of challenges which would directly or indirectly influence other operational practices or policy formulations with in the wider planning work. Hence a new marketing element is introduced to meet this particular challenge as well as effectively reach those who stand to benefit most from the whole endeavor. Marketing should focus on price, product, place and promotion in order to overcome real or perceived issues that result in barriers to participation.
- PRICE. In terms of participation, program fees represent only one element of price. Hidden costs such as food, travel, childcare, materials, and the opportunity cost of loss of income must be considered.
- PRODUCT. In addition to perceptions of the tangible (course, program, etc.), participation is affected by consideration of the activity's total meaning to prospective learners--the augmented product.
- PLACE. Inaccessibility, cost, and previous negative experiences in a school environment are deterrents that make selection of the location of educational activities a crucial factor.
- PROMOTION. Information about educational opportunities must also be designed to change negative attitudes, enhance motivation, and provide value-added incentives, such as stipends for job trainees or continuing education units for professionals.
Another major change in the overall design of the planning model involves recognition of the model is essentially three dimensional in a sense that beyond the practical provisions outlined in each element, there exists an ideological, philosophical or cultural considerations. And, the inevitable interactions on such higher order grounds would invariably influence our micro as well as macro level practices continually.The evaluation element of the program planning model needs, in my view, special considerations. If we hold the view that education ought to reform society, then how would one know what levels of reform had actually been achieved? One could consider learner feedback, summative assessment results and external evaluation procedures as possible routes to find the answer. However, it is clear that in the realms of competing interest with in complex set of client system, the interests of the learner my not be given the importance or priority that it deserves. It would not be, in my view, straying too far out into cynicism to even question whose interests are represented in a given evaluative process. Conflicting interests and assumptions may, to often, have to be entertained with in the same context. Another approach is, however, to evaluate indirectly. If we plan a course for mothers of infants, for example, to help them to effectively utilize baby and toddler play time to boost their child's basic literacy, numeracy and cognitive skills, then local school reports of how preschoolers and kindergarten children are faring would provide an alternative way of assessing social-reform impact.
The new and modified program planning model, therefore, includes a review process at the center that serves to integrate various actions at micro and macro levels, an additional element for the marketing aspect of our program to recruit learners and address their needs and a three dimensional conceptualization of the model to reflect the progressive belief espoused that adult education is transformational and can reform society. In addition, the three dimensional conceptualization would also be indicative of our concept of society and how we hope to reform it.
Conclusion
Program Planning is a critical stage in the process of developing and implementing a sound educational provision that meets the interests of all stakeholders. In this course, I have learned the various aspects of program planning model in ways that address' my core beliefs about education, learners, learning and society in general. Adult education is a powerful way of reassigning positive roles for oppressed people who suffer from perennial social devaluation at the hands of the dominant forces in society. As such, a program planer need to be clear about the purpose of her or his planning. However, whether they are or not though, they would still serve to either challenge or reinforce existing social structures. An informed planning action allows for strategically responsive model at a micro and macro practice level.
References
Cafferella, R.M (1994) Planning Programs for Adult Educators: A practical Guide for Educators, Trainers and Staff Developers, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers
Carvero, R.M. And Wlson, A.L. (1996). What really matters in Adult Education Program Planning: Lessons in negotiating power and interests, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers
Sork, T.J. And Cafferella, R. (1998) Planning Programs for Adults; Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Pblishers