Purgeport II

There is no “I” in team.
We’ve all heard this expression.
Certainly there is more to know about teamwork than “two heads are
better then one” or “the collective sum is greater than the sum of the parts”. In fact, group dynamics and team dynamics is
a large very large field of study.

ADLT 612 should be an interesting and at times very
challenging course. As team members we
all bring something different to the table with regard to skills, strengths,
weaknesses and personal perspective. As
members of a randomly chosen team, I wondered what the team learning curve
would look like as we work to integrate our life perspectives and approaches to
problem solving.

My own background is one of self reliance. My time in the
military taught me how to function well with a team, but our goals and mission
were always clear and defined for us. Aside from this military experience, I have
limited experience working in a team. I’ve
spend most of my life learning to not rely on others and looking out for number
one.

In our first ADLT 612 course…I recall being in an EMS/EMT
course years ago. During the second or third
week of class we had to pick a course partner.
Our instructor stressed to us the importance of this choice… how we
would work with and rely on our class partners through the course and during
state testing after the course was completed.
How our success would be affected by this choice and that we needed to
take it seriously. I remember looking around
the room, paying attention to who was paying attention, watching to see who was
listening and listening to see who was hearing what was being said. I chose a partner and we spent the next 13
weeks, two times a week, four hours per meeting, working together. One week before the final exam, the
instructor reassigned us all to different partners. She felt that we might learn best with those
who we chose to partner with, but as a class, as a team, we must all be able to
work together, regardless of what baggage we carry, perspective we bring or
worries we have. As I went to through the
testing with this new partner we bonded very quickly and succeeded in the
testing. As a team, the class celebrated
our victory over the state practicals.

My memory from the EMT course helped me to embrace team
YellowBirds with enthusiasm and knowing that we, as a team, will succeed in our
endeavors.

Cheers to a new semester.

After my 2^nd class and 3^rd semester in the Adult Learner program, my reflections on and views of adults as learners continues to change. Not only has my opinion of adult learners as a group or category of people changed, but my opinion of myself as an adult learner is changing.

First, I’ve certainly become more confident in my own abilities as a graduate student. Although I’ve only taken one class per semester, until this current semester, my comfort and confidence level has changed drastically. I had expressed my fears and hesitations at length in a paper I wrote in my first class with Dr. Muth. I recall feeling unsure, hesitant and in fact scared. This was partly due to having started other programs before and having had bad experiences in those programs, but also due to my own lack of confidence in myself as a learner. Before the start of this semester I looked forward to the start of the TWO courses that I’m taking. I looked forward to meeting my classmates, to meeting my instructors, to learning something new and to being challenged.

I’ve learned from my classmates, that adult learners are far more dedicated than I ever imagined. One student in my program, who is a mother of three, married, and working full time, took three classes in the fall of 2008 and completed these with outstanding performance grades. These stories are many among the participant in my program and I’m consistently impressed by their energy and determination.

In my work, I find myself more and more concerned with questions of equal access to education and more and more frustrated by practices that do not make this a priority. I also find myself re-thinking the methods by which I evaluate my programs. Lastly, I find myself a little bit overwhelmed by the ever widening gap between what I’m learning and what I’m practicing and my desire to make changes.

As always.. more soon.

I like this theme, provided by Dr. Carter. It is also one of my favorite series on NPR @ http://thisibelieve.org/index.php.

“This I Believe is an international project engaging people in writing, sharing, and discussing the core values that guide their daily lives. These short statements of belief, written by people from all walks of life, are archived here and featured on public radio in the United States and Canada, as well as in regular broadcasts on NPR. The project is based on the popular 1950s radio series of the same name hosted by Edward R. Murrow.” – from www.npr.org

As a semester wrap up, I’m going to write a bit in the theme of “This I believe” as related to Adult Learning. With the implementation of our blogs, I’m hoping I’ll have the motivation to do so after each semester I complete in the program. Perhaps I can gain some insight into any changes or development of my own perspective of adult learners and adult learning.

More to follow soon.

I thought I’d share a job experience I had this week, still appropriate to our recent discussions on evaluation and focus groups.

This past Tuesday, I held an information session / informal focus group with a group of Chesterfield county teachers who had shown an interest in an on-site degree program. This was more or less an information gathering and reality instilling meeting. About 85 teachers in the county expressed an interest in this degree program. We invited 10 to sit with us and listen to what the program would entail and to share how they would like to see it delivered. Also in attendance was one county administrator and the a professor and head of grad studies for the academic dept from which this degree would be delivered.

The dynamics of the varied interests at this meeting were very interesting. The county administrator was most concerned with price and time to completion. The academic representative was interested in conveying the commitment it would take by the students and to make sure there was no false sense that the degree could or would be watered down just because it was off campus and being delivered to working professionals. The potential students were concerned with convenience, feasibility of workload and of course cost. My role was to represent the University, its policies, procedures and administrative and logistical capabilities. In addition, my role was and is to maintain a smooth negotiation and dynamic to the conversation. This was and usually is the most difficult part of meeting like this one. For example, when the academic representative refers to the research as daunting and extensive, I need to remind them that this is the norm, to be expected and no more than all grad students’ experience.

In the end, we provided a very realistic picture of the amount of work involved and left it to the participants to digest and reflect on the information… to talk to their significant others about the time commitment etc and determine what work load best fits their lifestyle. We also asked them to share what they had heard with their colleagues who are also interest in the program. We now plan to send out a short survey to gather information back about scheduling, work load, time commitment and preferred areas of subject concentration. I’ll post another update when the information comes back and let you know if it turns out to be pertinent and useful data.

Last week’s discussion about focus groups and interviews had me reflecting about a focus group I once did for the instructors in a programs for teachers. Invitation went out about three weeks ahead of time and between then and the group meeting, the faculty got together and decided what they wanted to get out of the meeting and more or less derailed my purpose. Needless to say, the information gained needed to be explored; otherwise they would not have taken the time to organize their approach. However, my goals were not met and I wound up making individual calls to each which was very time consuming. So, the advice from Dr. Carter is well taken…one should know when it would be best to have a third party conduct and facilitate your focus group.

In reading the Russ-Eft text for this week (ch. 12), I had to laugh as the most basic of summative evals and data analysis was described. Why? Because it sounded so much like many that I do. Although with many of my programs I don’t see the need to go any deeper in the data analysis, there are those for which I know I am not doing enough. Of particular interest to me is the system of coding and grouping qualitative data. I’ve always collected this data along with the quantitative summative data post course, but I’ve always done just at the text mocked…and just pulled some of the best quotes to go along with the summary of quantitative data. By asking more pointed qualitative open ended question and then using the coding and grouping methods to come to some real conclusions about what is being said, seems highly attainable and extremely useful when relating the questions back to the key eval questions. I feel so learned!!! I hope I can put this to use.

Back from Las Vegas. The wedding was beautiful. Hope I did not miss too much in class. I’ll have to ask again tonight what the deadline is for early submission of what we have so far for our program plans. I’ll be working on it a lot this weekend, as well as catching up on reading.

I’ve got a horrible cold, hoping it’s not the flu. But, I’ll be in class this evening and trying not to cough on anyone.

Back to the point…In reading chapter 11 of the Cafferella text, I feel like it was a review of much that we have covered. This is not a bad thing, I need all the reinforcement I can get. The idea of phone interviews as a means of evaluating learning post program, did however strike me as a new and potentially good idea for my Spanish Language and Culture for Law Enforcement Officers program. The immediate summative eval will provide good data about logistics, enjoyment, and relative value of the program, but following up with phone interviews, perhaps one month after the program, would help me get an idea of the actual usefulness of the material on the job.

I do believe that I’m not doing enough with the data I collect in my programs. Do we test, yes. Do we have summative evals in the form of participant questionnaires, yes.. But, these methods aside, I don’t believe I am properly justifying these programs to the higher administration, nor am I doing enough to ensure transfer of learning post course/program. Wth this in mind, the reinforcement in chapter 11 provides me with much to think about in re getting the data I need.

I’m realizing that my years working in a University have limited my vision. Whether reading course texts or listening to information in class, I find myself tuning out certain information that I’m thinking does not pertain to what I do. This is quite a shortsighted approach to learning. I need and want to be very careful to keep my eyes and ears open to all information. In fact, I should probably be focusing more on the info that I seemed to be dismissing as irrelevant, if not only to make myself more knowledgeable and thus more marketable, but also because my narrow view may overlook opportunities for new approaches to my own work – opportunities to think outside of my box. The many types of evaluative methodologies is a perfect example.
On a different note…With regard to data collection methods, the text has been a reminder of the advantages of pre-existing data and efficiency. VCU has an entire team devoted to data mining and providing statistics to internal customers. The Center for Institutional Effectiveness, formerly Institutional Research, has decades of information at their finger tips. This data can be helpful in many ways; researching enrollment treads in particular courses and thus helping to understand attrition and or growth in certain subject area. With my off campus programs, this data can be extremely helpful in determining changes to enrollment and thus helping me decide where to focus resources for continuing studies.

Interview with a Program Planner

Interview Date: Friday, October 3, 2008

Interviewer: Edward Howard

Preface:

When choosing a program planner to interview, I had a few objectives. Naturally, my first objective was to gather information to satisfy the requirements of this assignment. However, I wanted to use this opportunity to compare my own program planning to that of someone else working within a state University setting. I’ve never before done such an inquiry and therefore decided this would an opportunity to explore and compare some issues that arise for me when program planning in an environment with a very unique and often challenging context.

Interviewee:

For purposes of this assignment, I will call my interviewee Retta. Retta runs a program for seniors / retired persons that creates learning opportunities in the form of brown bag lunches, lectures, book groups, single day workshops, multiple day workshops, courses that last up to ten weeks, and even educational travel opportunities; topics ranger from oil painting and book making to literature and architecture. The opportunities are not credit or ceu bearing; further, there is no testing or evaluation beyond summative evaluation at the reaction level. These educational opportunities are offered for a fee, which ranges from $10. for brown bag lectures to thousands for travel experiences.

From the moment I sat down, I was very comfortable talking to Retta. Later in the interview, I would learn how Retta’s very endearing personality became the glue that keeps her program membership and participation high. In fact, one of her participants sent an extremely generous anonymous monetary gift with a note thanking Retta for providing a outlet to keep seniors busy, learning and socializing.

Questions from the class:

1. What special considerations must you address when planning programs for your adult learners?

One of Retta’s foremost concerns in planning programs for seniors is location and parking. Given that most of her participants are greater than sixty five years old and up to 91, many prefer not to have to drive far and many like to avoid the interstate. Also, a fair number of her participants are limited in how car they can walk and thus parking needs to be convenient. Locations must have phones available as many of her participants do not use cell phones but need to be able to receive and make calls in case of emergencies. Wheelchair access is also a must when considering locations. Lastly, comfort is very much an issue that she must also consider with location planning. Temperature control is important as is comfort of seating.

Another consideration that Retta must address is the sensitivity off all involved in the program, especially the instructors. It is vitally important to the success of her programs that these participants are treated with respect and patience. There is also much coaching that she must do for her instructors to ensure they are understanding of the needs and approach that her participants take to learning. “These folks are sponges. They don’t need or have to be here. They want to learn something, they want to have fun, and they want to feel useful, intelligent and respected”, says Retta.

2. What are the greatest limitation and/or constraints you face when planning a program? How do you deal with these Issues?

The funds brought in by the charges for these programs; do not pay all of the related expenses. The budget that Retta has from the university makes up the difference. That being said, the university has the objective of using these programs to help with public relations for the university and thus the university wants to keep the programs on the campus as much as possible. The university attempts to force the use of certain facilities and certain instructors in order to “show off”. This is Retta’s biggest constraint and limitation to the programs as she would like to use a more diverse and convenient list of venues. It also becomes difficult for Retta to use her first choice for instructors. She cites this as the most frustrating aspect of her work.

3. Where do your ideas for programs come from? Are they dictated by administration/requested by learners/ or are they needs you recognize that need to be addressed?

The idea for Retta’s programs come from a number of places; suggestions from participants, intructor’s, Retta herself and yes, some influence, as mentioned, from the administration. However, these programs are not need based. In fact when these programs began almost 11 years ago, many perceived need based topics were considered; budgeting, health related topics, dealing with grief, depression studies, and age sensitive fitness. These programs were not received well. It was found that this audience wanted fun, social, and intellectual academic programs, they want to be challenged.

Retta also researches other the website of other programs for ideas.

4. What are some of the challenges you have faced [in planning programs] and how have you overcome them?

Biggest challenge…marketing and getting the word out. There are a core group of participants who attend Retta’s programs. Retta would like to reach out to other seniors, especially those who might not be able to afford the programs. She believes the university should provide a set number or scholarships or stipends to those who cannot afford the fees. This access issue is disturbing to Retta. She became a bit emotional when talking about it. She has not overcome this problem. She continues to have conversations with the administration about providing stipends. However, she has had financial gifts from participants and has been able to provide some seats to some of the programs with lesser fees.

Assignment General Questions:

What surprised me most during this interview was Retta’s commitment to her learner’s. She truly cares about these folks, beyond the classroom, and they care about her. In talking about her relationship with them, she recalls, “I’m like there mother!… and when they act up in the classroom I say.. Settle down or I’ll call you kids!!” I was very touched and surprised by how emotional Retta got as she talked about her participants, she has truly bonded with and enjoys providing for them.

Retta’s program planning differed quite a bit from what we are learning about program planning. First, evaluation is almost irrelevant. There is not pressure to measure ROI, there is not need for grading and there is no benefit to either. This makes justification and reporting back a larger task for Retta. Measuring success is difficult and is qualitative in nature. Preparing a budget is almost a moot point for this program. It will be funded, regardless of income, based on the PR objectives of the university. Retta has been planning these educational opportunities now for over ten years and most of the work comes second nature to her. She could not point to a formal process and or organizational method used to plan her programs. In fact, she explained that a lot of the work is now done almost automatically, with input coming from the pervious instructors, host locations and all that have been involved in the program over the years. She sees herself as the glue that holds the pieces together, but that the pieces are basically “brought to” her and put on the table. She of course must plan website changes, marketing ads and mass mailings, but no planning is necessary for coming up with program ideas, evaluation efforts or outcome reporting.

The one thing that did not ’sit right’ with me about this program was the issue of access. This paragraph is an amendment to the original posting.  I talked about this at length in class and will not elaborate more in the public format, but did feel it important to mention that discussion and that it is a significant notation to my interview.

One of the most important things I learned in this interview was to remember what your learner’s bring to the table. Retta stressed over and over how important and how powerful the information is that her participants bring to the classroom. As seniors, many of these folks have seen and done things many of us will never see or do. From the depression to slavery to women’s rights, the experiences of seniors should be respected, celebrated and related to others…“things we should never forget”, and these students are also truly teachers in the classroom.

We’ll the F.O.G. is over, or should I say has lifted. Having anticipated public speaking anxiety and falling on my face, I’m excited to say I experienced neither, perhaps because of the small and intimate nature of our class. Whatever reason, I’m glad the facilitating an evaluation exercise went well. Laura… I know it didn’t have the excitement of the cookie evaluation, but I hope it kept you awake anyway. I was a little disappointed that some folks had not read the articles. It was really a matter of a about 6 pages, at most. But, as Ali says, students will be students.

On a slightly different evaluation note…I had a true F.O.G. yesterday. If you’re lost on the acronym, you’ll have to read back in my blog. An employee of mine put her notice in about two months ago and is now a week from departing. She and I got along well on a professional level and managed to have a perfect mix of friendship combined into the working relationship. Before leaving I asked her for feedback, very candid, very critical feedback. This idea of exit interviewing is probably not new to anyone. However, I got the idea of doing a more in-depth exit interview focusing on my supervisory and leadership skills after having done a 360 evaluation in a leadership program. This type of sit down is where the term F.O.G. truly came from. I’d would recommend everyone doing this with your employees….however: 1) Be open to all feedback and prepare yourself to receive and react appropriately to any and all feedback, 2) Be ready with very detailed and very pointed questions, 3) You must have the person’s full trust to get usable feedback – there is a lot you can do to help reinforce that it’s O.K. for the person to be honest, open and constructive if your not sure about the trust level before you ask. Anywho…just thought I’d share that.

I did my interview yesterday, our ‘Program Planner interview’, and am actually excited about writing about the experience. The person I interviewed plans programs for seniors. The meat and potatoes of the interview aside, I ‘bonded’, if you will, with the person I interviewed and we had fun exchange of stories about program planning and about the dynamic and fun nature of seniors as adult learners, as parents, as community members, as friends and about the very rich base of knowledge they bring to any learning experience. But, I will save those stories for my blog. I plan to include some of the great and funny stories after the ‘meat and potatoes’.

One more foggy point… In thinking about developing my program plan for class, I’ve reviewed the information in the syllabus and am a little ‘foggy’ on the written product that we are to turn in. What exactly should it look like? Any sort of length suggestions? I also noticed the syllabus refers to APA format and guidelines for the plan, but I’m not seeing much in the APA manual about program plans. I’m sure this just refers to citing any sources used and possible type and paragraph format. I’ve started an outline, based on Caferella’s model and have been filling in some of the steps as we’ve worked through them.. some used and some not, but don’t seem to have an image in my mind of how this should look when completed. I’ll need to ask for some clarification in class.

As we delve into evaluation, I’m reflecting a lot on the programs that are part of my job. I would have told someone that summative evaluation makes up almost all of my evaluative efforts at work; but, as I come to understand the scope of practice that is evaluation, I realize how much more I’m doing, especially developmental.

I’m struggling now with pre-planning for a M.S. cohort in one of the counties. There seems to be some unrealistic expectations on the part of the county as to how fast folks can get trough the program and how much work they can do during each term. An interest survey was sent out by the county and 80+ teacher responded showing and interest in the program. I believe we will now try some developmental evaluation by identifying 10 to 15 of these teachers for a focus group. By brining the potential participants together with some of the faculty who will be teaching in the program, I hope we come up with a real sense of the level of commitment these teachers are willing to make and thus develop a realistic time frame for completion of the program. This will hopefully address the question outlined in our Russ-Eft text… ‘What and whose needs are this program addressing’? I fear without this potential participant input, the county administrative folks would put some very unrealistic expectations on these teachers and perhaps set them up for failure.

This developmental evaluation then, is a place where you can address quite a few of the steps in Caffella’s model…Defining realistic program objectives and instructional plans and objectives, discerning some contextual questions, and selecting formats and schedules. Some things are starting to gel.

I’ll be very interested in learning more about making the most of your summative evaluations. I know there is much more to be gleaned from the data I collect at the end of my programs.

Keep reading →