• Discerning the context for planning
• Building a solid base of support
• Identifying program ideas
• Sorting and prioritizing program ideas
• Developing program objectives
• Designing instructional plans
• Devising transfer-of=learning plans
• Formulating evaluation plans
• Making recommendations and communicating results
• Selecting formats, schedules, and staff
• Preparing budgets and marketing plans
• Coordinating facilities and on-site events

 A key point from Caffarella’s model and an emphasis throughout this course,  is the fact that while there are certain steps that must be followed in the program planning process, these steps are not linear and often overlap. “The development of educational programs is a complex interaction of institutional priorities, tasks, people, and events” (Caffarella, 2002; pg. 26). That is why Caffarella presents her model as a guide, as opposed to a blueprint for planning programs. I found Caffarella’s (2002) A Checklist for Planning Programs (Exhibit 16.1; pgs. 369-370) to be particularly useful and one tool I will definitely be able to utilize in my future experiences as a program planner. Another key point that I found was woven throughout this course was the fact that programs are not planned within a vacuum and that it is critical for the program planner to discern the program’s context – the interconnected human, organizational, and environmental factors. This is why it is crucial for the program planner to have finely tuned social, communication, and negotiation skills. It seems particularly important for a program planner to be well-informed about the power dynamics that are at play within the organization, and the influences that those power relationships have in the planning process. The concept of power dynamics is one aspect of this course which I will seriously consider as I plan programs in my own work. As a program planner, I will look beyond the learners and those directly involved with the program and remain cognizant of the other stakeholders whose voices need to be heard. Thus, planning programs for adults concerns much more than merely the educational content delivered to learners – it is a multi-faceted series of overlapping steps involving a number of stakeholders. The Program Planning in Adult Education course has taught me that “Education and training programs for adults come in all shapes, sizes and formats” (Caffarella, 2002, pg. 2) and that a program planner may be required to ‘wear many hats’ in his/her role.  To be able to create a link between expectations (needs assessments) and outcomes (evaluations), as well as to ensure more accurate marketing, budgeting and logistics, a planner should be able to visualize the workshop that would best meet the needs of the learners and other stakeholders. Using a model such as the Interactive Model of Program Planning is one way to achieve this task. Overall, I found the Program Planning in Adult Education course to be very interesting and challenging. As a novice program planner, I found the material covered to be applicable to any planning situation.

• In addition to the potential participants, who else in the public might need to be “sold” on the value and worth of the program?
•  For the people who have been identified, what types of promotional materials would most likely capture their attention? Would different copy or pictures make a difference in reaching this wider audience?
• What organizational factors should be highlighted to attract potential participants into the program?
• Where learning transfer is important…how might programmers get across the idea that a well-designed transfer plan is incorporated into the program? (Caffarella, 2002, pg. 321)

One marketing strategy suggested in this module is called AIDA. The “A” stands for awareness.  At the very least, you want people to be aware of your program, what it’s all about, and its benefits. The “I” stands for interest. Beyond being aware, you want to get people interested in finding out more. “D” refers to desire. This is a more difficult step. You want your potential participants to be aware and interested, but you want them to WANT the training – and not mind the investment of time, energy and money required of them. The “A” in AIDA stands for action. Participants must be willing to deal with the logistics involved with the training – babysitting, schedules, family responsibilities, etc.; the fears – fear of failure; as well as the investment (time, money, energy).

A program planner’s marketing strategy must take into account the characteristics and needs of the potential participants; the characteristics and needs of stakeholders in the wider context; and the available budget. A planner must also take into account that some potential learner groups will have special considerations that must be kept in mind in programming as well as in marketing (such as the elderly, second-language speakers, low-literacy levels; low- technology access).

Program Planner:

• performs learner and organizational needs assessments
• sorts and prioritizes ideas and needs
• defines learner group
• writes learning objectives

Instructional Designer/Curriculum Developer:

• gathers information from program planner about the learner group and learning objectives
• begins to design a series of lessons and activities for potential learners
• creates a general program outline

Instructor/Facilitator:

• receives the instructional plan or general outline from the instructional designer
• creates specific lesson plans outlining the exact timelines and activities
• makes handouts and supplementary teaching resources
• finds suitable readings and multi-media
• invites guest speakers
• scripts the lessons

 The first half of this week’s module moves the program planner from the point of gathering and reviewing program ideas to systematically sorting and prioritizing the programs that will actually be launched. In Planning Programs for Adult Learners, Caffarella (2002) suggests that identifying ideas for education and training programs is usually not enough. Program planners must sort through the generated ideas to determine which would be feasible in terms of an educational or training program and which call for alternative interventions. Caffarella asserts that sorting and categorizing a pool of program ideas and then prioritizing needs and ideas are tasks not often considered by program planners, at least not in a systematic way. Instead, Caffarella states, some planners just assume that they are required to follow through with all of the generated ideas, while others prioritize ideas and needs, but in a haphazard manner (pg. 134).

When determining which of the generated program ideas actually constitute priority ideas, a planner must take into account several factors. These factors include the obvious ones, such as the amount of importance placed on a program idea by the organization, as well as the program’s feasibility. However, other factors must be considered in prioritizing ideas, such as; the number of people affected, the availability of resources, as well as the context within which the program is placed. These factors bring to mind the concept of power, a topic which was covered in a previous module. The planner must be cognizant of who are the decision-makers within the organization – who yields the most power – in order to effectively prioritize ideas. Thus, it seems that the concepts of discerning a program’s context (both organizational and the wider context) and understanding the power dynamics within an organization are key factors not only in generating program ideas but in sorting and prioritizing them as well.

The concept I found to be the most enlightening in this part of the module was that of alternative interventions. I learned that through the process of sorting and prioritizing program ideas, a planner may find that many of the ideas, problems, needs, and opportunities that have been identified may in fact be better addressed in alternative ways. As Caffarella (2002) states, “planning education and training programs is not the only or necessarily the best way to respond to various ideas, needs, problems, and opportunities that have been identified. Therefore, program planners have to make decisions about whether education and training programs or alternative interventions are a more useful response” (pg. 134). Caffarella (2002) provides some examples of typical issues and problems that may require solutions other than planning or conducting education or training programs. These include: lack of knowledge of the change process (within an organization); lack of learner motivation; poor quality physical facilities; lack of support for transfer-of-learning activities; organizational norms and expectations that are in conflict with the proposed ideas; and political and other outside environmental pressures (pg. 135).

 The process of determining whether ideas should best be addressed through education and training activities or through alternative interventions may be straightforward – but not in all cases. Particularly when a large number of ideas have been generated from diverse sources, it is beneficial for a program planner to get assistance with the sorting process. “People who are important players in these processes include learners, colleagues, education and training committee members, external parties, and/or other stakeholders” (pg. 138).  This point reinforces for me another concept from previous modules; that is, how critical it is for a program planner to have excellent negotiation and “people skills”.

 I learned from the readings for this module that there are three major factors (used alone or in combination) which are useful in making judgments about whether an education or training program should be developed or an alternative intervention chosen. These factors are:

• People factors which center on the knowledge and skills of individuals and groups (for example, is the proposed content something people actually do not know or do they already know it but either choose not to demonstrate it or are blocked from demonstrating it?);
• Organizational and environmental factors which focus on conditions external to the individual, such as communication systems, personnel practices, and physical environments; and
• Cost factors which include time, money, and staff.

Once the ideas have been sorted according to potential education/training programs and alternative interventions, the next step for the planner is to prioritize those ideas which have been deemed appropriate for education and training programs. The people involved in the actual priority-setting process may be the same individuals and/or groups who did the reviewing and sorting of ideas, or a combination of some of these people with additional individuals or groups. Thus, the planner’s negotiation and people skills are also important during this stage of the process.

 This module provides an overview of the two main systematic approaches for prioritizing ideas for education and training programs: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative methods are based on numerical measures, evidence, and research,  and usually involve some sort of rating charts. Qualitative strategies are more descriptive in nature, with choices being made mainly through open-ended group and/or one-on-one meetings. Qualitative strategies involve opinions, beliefs, and observations. A planner may choose to use both, or just one, of these approaches in a priority- setting process, depending on such factors as the context, time frame, and preferences of the decision-making group. However, regardless of which approach is used, a key element of the priority- setting process is to select or develop criteria. Criteria provide the basis on which priorities are judged and also serve as the justification for the final choices. The criteria generally fall under two main categories: importance and feasibility.

As mentioned earlier in this post, the concept from this module which I found most intriguing was that of alternative interventions. I found it enlightening that many of the ideas that a program planner may have generated as potential education or training activities may in fact be able to be addressed in other ways. I found particularly useful the chart of alternative interventions provided by Caffarella (2002) – Exhibit 7.5. I felt that this chart gave a clear description, and several useful examples, of each type of intervention.  I also found it interesting that a program planner’s people skills are particularly crucial in selecting and instituting the various alternative interventions.

Part 2: Program Goals And Objectives

 The second half of Module 7  focuses on program goals and objectives. One thing I learned from this part of the module is that developing program objectives can be one of the most difficult tasks facing program planners, due to two factors. First, at the heart of formulating program objectives are defining program outcomes, and these are often elusive, particularly at the beginning of the program. Second, there are not often clear parameters in the actual writing of program objectives. For example, there is often confusion between two terms, program goals and program objectives, which are often used interchangeably. The two terms can, however, be distinguished in the following way:

 Program objectives :

•  provide clear statements of the anticipated results to be achieved through education and training programs
• serve as the foundation for instructional plans
• provide concrete guidelines for developing transfer-of-learning plans
• provide benchmarks against which programs are evaluated
• focus primarily on what participants are expected to learn as a result of attending a specific education or training program (this learning results in changes in individual participants, groups of learners, organizational practices and procedures, and/or communities or segments of society
• can be divided into “learning objectives” and “operational objectives”
• are critical to good program planning

Program goals:

•  refer to broad statements of purpose or intent for education and training programs
• answer the questions “Why are we doing this?” and “Why is the program worth doing?”
• are usually part of the organizational mission statement

For me, the most enlightening and practical section of this part of Module 7  is Caffarella’s (2002) checklist of questions program planners can ask themselves to help judge the clarity of their learner and operational objectives (pg. 161). I found this checklist to be very concise and understandable and would be particularly useful for novice program planners. Caffarella (2002) also provides a chart (pg. 165) which could be used by the program planner as a self-evaluation of the program objectives which have been written. Caffarella’s (2002) self-check questions related to objective writing include:

• Is there a clear relationship between the objective and the ideas, problems, and needs that have been identified?
• Do the objectives reflect the prior knowledge, experiences, and abilities of potential participants?
• Does the objective focus on a crucial part of the program?
• Is the objective practical and doable?
• Is the objective obtainable in the time frame proposed?
•  Does the objective clearly communicate the proposed outcomes or accomplishments?
• Is the objective meaningful, and will all interested parties understand it?
•  Is the objective supposed to measureable, and if so, is it?

 I also found it interesting to learn that program objectives are often negotiated and reworked at some point(s) throughout the planning and delivery of the program. Program planners must be willing to eliminate, revise, and/or add program objectives as warranted. This process should be done in a thoughtful and careful manner, and through negotiation with other stakeholders. In addition, program objectives can be used as an internal consistency and “do-ability” checkpoint (to determine, for example, whether the instructional, transfer-of-learning, and evaluation plans match the objectives).  

 From the readings for this module, I also determined that developing learning objectives is at the heart of effective program planning. Good learning objectives will: 1) address things that the planner discovers before the program starts (in the needs assessment stage) 2) identify some of the activities the planner will need to include during the program, and 3) help assess effectiveness after the program. Effective objectives may even help the planner to market or “sell” the program because he/she can articulate exactly what the program is intended to achieve. I also discovered from this module that program planners should not develop program objectives in a vacuum. Instead, other people, such as program participants, employees, employers, and external stakeholders, should be asked to help in developing or at least reviewing these objectives. This factor again emphasizes the importance of effective “people skills” on the part of the program planner.

I was familiar with writing learning objectives prior to working on this course; however, I did find that Caffarella (2002) provides some very useful guidelines for writing clear program objectives and the use of action verbs (pgs. 170-171). I particularly like Exhibit 9.1 which illustrates how to translate program objectives into learning objectives. I also found that the suggested Youtube video on creating learning objectives gave a very clear and understandable overview and will be particularly useful in completing the final assignment for this course.

Module 6 continues the topic of needs assessments in relation to program planning. Although I was previously familiar with various learner needs assessment tools such as surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups, the readings for this module introduced a concept that was relatively new to me; that is, organizational and environmental needs assessments. I learned in this module that many of the same tools and processes that are useful for learner needs assessments are also useful in conducting organizational and environmental needs assessments, with some modifications.

 It makes sense to me that whether a program planner is an employee of the organization for which he/she is planning, or has been hired as an external consultant, it is important to get to know the organizational entities that are most closely linked to the program. In order to secure support from various stakeholders, and to ensure that the program has relevance not only to the learners but to the organization, “the program planner needs to think, read, observe and ask questions at an organizational level”. Doing so can allow the planner to “see the program through an organizational lens”. Viewing a program through an organizational lens can help the planner understand what a “successful” program looks like to different people in the organization, which in turn can influence how the program is marketed and evaluated, and how activities are planned. In addition, if the program planner is requesting organizational funding for the program, it seems logical that the planner would want to know as much as possible about the workings of the organization.

Although a program planner who works within the organization would not need to do a great deal of background research, it would still be beneficial to take some time and reflect on where the program fits within the larger organizational picture. For example, the program I am proposing for my final assignment, a Math Confidence-Building Workshop, would be conducted within the adult education organization in which I am employed. Although I am cognizant of this organization’s mission and values, administrative structures and hierarchies, it would still be advantageous for me to reflect on the specific areas which may impact my planning. I believe it would benefit my program planning if I was to step back and envision the organization as an outsider. This would allow me to reflect on areas I may not have needed to previously consider, such as potential power dynamics and how information flows within the organization. I would also want to consider how my proposed workshop might positively, or negatively, impact current programming offered at the adult education centre.

 Of course, if I was planning this proposed workshop and I truly was an outsider – not an employee of the adult education centre, I would want to do more in-depth research about the organization. In this case, I would need to consider the sources I might use in order to obtain the information I required. The sources I might use to obtain information about the planning context are:

• Written documents – promotional material from the adult education centre (brochures, newsletters, etc.)
• People – formal meetings and informal chats with: instructors and administration of the adult education centre; participants (from similar previous programs as well as potential participants); employment counselors within the community; employers within the community; program planners from other organizations; employees within the provincial Adult Learning and Literacy organization.
• Group meetings and gatherings – board meetings (adult education centre); staff meetings (adult education centre); community interagency meetings; essential skills stakeholders meetings; current classes held at adult education centre.
• Technology-based sources – websites related to math confidence; public chat rooms; e-mail; online forums and threaded discussions; websites from other adult education centres and post-secondary institutions.

Whether I was employed within the organization for which I was planning the program, or I was planning the program as an outside consultant, taking the time to research the organization (particularly meeting with various stakeholders) could also potentially lead to alternate sources of support for this program and future programs.

Caffarella (2002) outlines ten techniques for generating ideas for education and training programs (Exhibit 6.2). These techniques can also be used by a program planner in gathering information about an organization. Some of the suggested techniques may be more suited to organizational needs assessments than others. In the case of my own proposed program planning, the methods I would likely utilize would be interviews with key stakeholders, group sessions, information from printed and computer-generated materials, and social indicators.

We learned in a previous module the differentiation between two types of needs – felt and ascribed needs- as they relate to the learner. The course notes for this week’s module suggest that consideration should also be given to felt and ascribed needs in organizational needs assessments. “In particular, primary organizational stakeholders (besides the learners) should be interviewed about their vision for the training program. Often, these other stakeholders…are representative of voices that will have opinions about the training’s effectiveness at the end of a program, and it is valuable to know at the beginning how they will define “success”. It is also critical to know if there are conflicting views of success”. (This point also relates to the concept of “power” which was covered in a previous module)

“Because the organization or community is itself part of a larger context, there are times when the “wider context” must be researched as part of planning a training program. This broader information-gathering is rarely about identifying training needs, but is rather about situating the program strategically for funding or political reasons. Being able to make a link between a program and a larger, and more important, issue can raise a program’s profile and support” (Week 6: Organizational and Environmental Needs Assessments). I found this statement to be very interesting as I had not previously considered the wider context in the program planning process. In the case of the proposed program I am developing, it would seem advantageous to consider the “wider context”. As my proposed program relates to building math self-confidence in adults, it would be relevant to consider broader societal factors affected by math literacy; for example, employment and income levels. This information could be researched via the internet and through news media.

The course notes for this week’s module contained several links to websites which contain sample of some aspects of organizational needs assessment. I was unable to access these links; however, I did come across another site which I found to be very informative http://www.mcp2.ca/english/documents/G-Mod1EnvrnmtlScanFinal8May06_000.pdf

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/chapter_1003.aspx

The bottom line in regards to the usefulness of conducting needs assessments with a learner, organizational, or environmental focus, is clearly summed up in the following line from the course notes; “Together, the information about learners, organizations and/or the larger environment helps the program planner to make more effective decisions about objectives, content, logistics and likely outcomes”.

• Identifying relevant ideas and needs is one of the major tasks of people involved with planning education and training programs.
• In generating new program ideas, planners are seeking to respond to what they and the people, organizations, and/or communities they work with perceive as important topics, skills, and beliefs or value systems adults should examine/know more about.
• Ideas for programs can take a variety of forms: as an educational need (a recognized gap or discrepancy in knowledge or skills), as a specific program, as new opportunities or changing conditions, or as societal issues.
• Program ideas surface from diverse sources- people, responsibilities of adult life, organizations and communities, and society in general.
• Planners have at their disposal several techniques or tools for generating ideas for education and training programs. These include: questionnaires, observations, interviews, group sessions and community forums, job and task analysis, tests, information from printed and computer-generated materials, performance and product reviews, social indicators, and conversations with colleagues, friends, and family. The planner must determine which technique(s) fit the particular program.
• A formal needs assessment (also called a needs analysis or performance analysis) can be a powerful tool but may not be applicable in all cases. A program planner must determine which needs assessment technique(s) best suits their particular program.
• In the initial planning stages, a program planner should get a general lay of the land or envision the potential learners who might attend their program.
• Creating a learner group profile will provide the planner with valuable information regarding the backgrounds and prior experiences of the potential learners which will help in designing learning activities and program content.
• In most planning situations, program planners cannot use all of the program ideas that have been identified. It is important for the planner to sort and prioritize these ideas,

Clearly, power dynamics come into play on a regular basis and on many levels within my experience as an adult educator and as a learner.  I have seen first-hand how critical it is for program planners to develop excellent communication and people skills in order to address these power dynamics. As Caffarella (2002) states, “One communication skill in particular that is essential for program planners when addressing issues of power is being willing and able to negotiate between and among the various stakeholders involved in the planning process” (pg. 70).

In her program planning blog my course mate, Jer, provides an apt analogy comparing a program planner to a juggler. Jer suggests that program planners are not only responsible for meeting their own needs, but must also juggle those of the other power players.

From this week’s readings, I have determined that in order to be an effective program planner one must not only identify the key individual, organizational, and “wider context” stakeholders, but must also understand the existing or potential power dynamics at play within these three stakeholder groups. For example, individuals can wield power based on their position or political clout as well as through their knowledge base or their ability to build coalitions. Organizations can wield power through setting and enforcing regulations and standards and can have major influence over program funding. The wider context – the economic, political, and social climate within which planners work is, according to Caffarella (2002), becoming increasingly important “…especially as program planners work across numerous types of borders, from geographic to cultural to ideological” (pg. 65). Thus, the power dynamics from the wider context can be just as influential as the power wielded at individual and organizational levels.

 It is also important for a planner to be cognizant of the fact that the various power dynamics can potentially have either a beneficial, or a detrimental, effect on the program. One example Caffarella (2002) suggests for using power positively in program planning is to “ensure that all voices that need to be heard are included”. This was the opposite of what occurred recently within our province’s adult education program when the Adult Learning and Literacy branch decided to make some major changes to how adult programs would be regulated and funded as well as how programs would be delivered. These controversial decisions were made without all voices being heard, and resulted in a volatile situation at a mandated in-service session for all stakeholders. As a result of the stakeholders’ negative response to their decisions, the governmental stakeholders relented on some of the changes. Perhaps if negotiations had taken place early in the planning process and, most importantly, had included representatives from all stakeholder groups, a more positive outcome would have been achieved and the negative situation would have been avoided. A second example provided by Caffarella (2002) of the positive influence of power is finding “…funding sources so opportunities can be given to any community member to attend no matter what their income level”. In this case, the provincial Adult Learning and Literacy branch does exert its power in a positive way by providing tuition-free programs which are accessible to all adult learners.

A concept introduced in this week’s readings that was new to me, and which I found particularly interesting, was the differentiation between “felt” and “ascribed” needs and how these needs can be affected, positively or negatively, by those in positions of power. Adult education and training programs are ultimately about creating some sort of change – on a personal, organizational or social level. Sometimes, there is agreement amongst all stakeholders about the desired change. Most often, however, the more powerful stakeholders (those with money and authority) will ascribe these needs to others. Thus, the more powerful voice is speaking more loudly than the others in determining the required learning outcomes. In the example of the situation with my provincial adult education program described earlier, the stakeholders in the position of power were attempting to ascribe the learning needs for the entire province without hearing the felt needs of all the other stakeholders. What I have learned is that ascribed needs, however, are not necessarily unfair or inappropriate in all cases. In adult education, for example, there exists a continuum of programs that range from flexible and learner-centred (based entirely on learners’ felt needs) to more structured or mandatory programs (based almost entirely on ascribed needs). I found this point very interesting as the majority of the adult learning research and literature I’ve read suggests that the most effective adult programs are those that are “learner-centred” and take into account the individual learners’ needs, goals, and learning styles. According to this week’s readings on the topic, while it is important for program planners to be cognizant of the learners’ needs and wants, these may not necessarily always be appropriate as the primary factor in shaping the program and thus the needs of all key stakeholders must be investigated. “In other words, program planners must be able to analyze the context of programs they are working with to determine where along the continuum of the program they are designing falls”.

This week’s lesson included a video about an adult training centre for underprivileged adults in Pittsburgh built by Bill Strickland who himself started out life as a disadvantaged youth. The video is a good illustration of the positive effects of power in the program planning process. Bill Strickland’s ability to use his highly-tuned people and negotiation skills to elicit support from potential funders is a good example of how “power” can be used in a positive way in program planning. Bill uses to his advantage his “power” – the ability to “sell” his ideas to others through creative storytelling and negotiation, as well as with humour. Bill Strickland’s vision for the centre he created was based on his belief that people will change their behavior when they have the opportunity to change the way they see themselves. He is a strong believer in the powerful effect of one’s physical surroundings on spiritual and emotional well-being. Along with state-of-the art programs, facilities, and instruction, Bill insists on top-notch aesthetics throughout his buildings. As he states many times throughout his presentation, Strickland believes that “flowers, sunlight, good food, music, and expectations” can cure “spiritual cancer” every time. Bill’s introduction of programs such as gourmet culinary arts, painting, music, and photography to his disadvantaged students could be considered an example of “ascribed needs” as these programs are primarily based on what he considers necessary for his students.

In conclusion, I have learned from this week’s readings and video that power is a key issue in the program planning process. By understanding the intricacies of the power dynamics in any given program planning situation, the planner can ensure the highest possible quality of program delivery. On the other hand, “if planners ignore those in power, they assure their own powerlessness” in the planning process. To effectively address the power dynamics in a program planning situation a planner must be able to:

• cultivate and/or enhance negotiation skills
• develop finely-tuned people skills
•  listen to multiple voices
•  be a good analytical thinker, and
•  be willing to communicate effectively through a variety of means

In order to incorporate the dynamics of power in the planning process, the planner must also ensure that his/her beliefs and actions convey ethical practices. Being reflective in one’s practice and stating personal, unit, and organizational beliefs related to program planning are essential elements of being consistently ethical in practice (Caffarella, 2002, pg. 80).