Historical Aspects of Program Planning and Interactive Program Planning Model

4 Differences

1. Not linear: “no real beginnings or endings” (p. 30)

2. Planning as a people activity: “real people plan real programs in complex organizations” (Wilson & Cervero, 1996a, p. 6)

3. Cultural differences are considered during planning process

4. Observed to be a “useful and practical tool” by planners (p. 31)

In order to provide effective programming for adult learners, program planners must understand how adults learn.

Adult learning is knowledge derived from diverse sources and disciplines:

• Cultural studies, psychology, anthropology, neurosciences, sociology (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, as cited in Caffarella & Daffron, 2013).
• Adult learning covers many topic areas, such as intelligence, narrative learning, experiential learning, transformational learning, and non-Western and Indigenous ways of knowing and learning (pp. 52-53).

Experiential (pp.53-54)

• Experiential learning can occur in a variety of environments, both formal and informal; activities may be planned or spontaneous; can be group or one-on-one; can be face-two-face or online.

• Experiential learning techniques include group simulation, storytelling, critical reflection, creative writing, coaching, conversation, mediation, music, movement.

• Some experiential learning techniques are better in some circumstances/settings than others.

• A key aspect of experiential and transformational learning is critical reflection/reflective practice through learning from experience.

Transformative Learning (pp. 54-56)

• A learning process first conceived of and described by Mezirow in 1978.
• One of the most influential and popular theories in adult education, even outside of Western culture.
• Triggered by a meaningful event , or series of events
• What constitutes a meaningful event is specific to the individual.
• Critical reflection and reflective practice are integral elements of transformational learning.
• According to Mezirow, the "basic elements of reflective practice that form the foundation of transformation learning - content, process, and premise reflection" (p. 56).
• Content and process reflection allows people to reflect on their thoughts and change their thinking.
• Premise reflection – critical reflection on personal beliefs and assumptions and sense making of experiences leads to transformational learning.

Non-Western and Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning (pp. 57-58)

• How can program planners learn about Indigenous and non-Western ways of learning and knowing?
• Publications with overviews of different ways of knowing from across the globe and various cultures. These can be resources can be technology- or print-based and can be fictional or non-fictional.
• Collaborating with or consulting experienced practitioners who have worked across cultures and who utilized other ways of knowing/learning.

• Indigenous and non-Western ways of learning and knowing have not yet been categorized, but there are a number of emergent themes across populations. The most common themes found in the literature are:
• Learning is a communal act.
• Learning as oral tradition.
• Learners are connected the natural world.
• Learning and knowledge are holistic and derive from learners’ cultures and daily lives.

• Program planners can incorporate these non-western ways into many aspects of program planning, from evaluation, to instruction, to assessment.

• In the past, program planners did not take cultural differences into account.
• In order to acknowledge and honour cultural differences program planners must “…have a basic understanding of how culture is defined, how to build relationships across cultural borders, and how cultural differences affect communication (p.7).”
• Culture is “…a set of values, beliefs, and practices grounded in common history and experiences shared by a group, which is viewed as distinct and different from that of other groups” (Rothman, 2007, p. 8, as cited in Caffarella & Daffron, 2013, p. 7).
• Examples of the types of cultural differences found in adult education programs:
• Language
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Social class
• Spirituality/religion

• Program planners must be able to build relationship with all stakeholders.

• Relationship building is “central to the work of program planners” (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013, p. 9)

• Planners must have an understanding of others’ ways of learning and knowing in order to advance the planning process and to provide meaningful, accessible, and relevant programming

• Stakeholders include:
• Instructors and learners
• Community and organization partners
• Funding agencies
• Other program planners

• These can be can be either formal/informal and can occur across stakeholder groups.

Examples:

• Informal: friendships (rare); mentoring.
• Formal: supervisor/subordinates; boards/advisory committees.

• Program planning is not culturally neutral – planning has a reciprocal relationship with culture.

• Program planners must be cognizant of the effect of cultural differences on program planning in any country.

• Cultural competence and the organizational values that support it are invaluable for program planners who are working in varied cultural settings.

• Organizational values that support cultural competence in different cultural settings recognize that audiences from different cultures require (Netting, O’Connor, & Fauri, 2008, as cited in Caffarella & Daffron, 2013):

• Respect for their unique culture and needs.

• Appreciation that their culture shapes their values and behaviours.

• Understanding that societal and/or organizational values and the values of cultural groups may not always align (i.e. there may be conflict).

• Appreciation that certain cultures may value harmony, balance, and process over product.

To be successful, program planners need intercultural training and support. Cultural competence will enable them to build relationships with stakeholders successful and help them to create meaningful and respectful programming for their audiences.

• Power is defined as the ability to influence others through position, reputation, expertise, persuasion, negotiation, and coercion, including armed force (Cervero & Wilson, 2006; Forester, 1989; French & Raven, 1959).

• A key idea to grasp is that power can be used in either negative or positive ways.
• Negative power is having control over people to the point where their options are limited in what we are able to do or think such as was exhibited in Apartheid in South Africa
• Positive power enables one to assist others to achieve their goals, to give voice to those who have been silenced, to cross boundaries where deep divides exist, and to build relationships for the good of all involved.

Cervero and Wilson (1999) believed the primary role of educators is twofold:

• use these power relations to provide top-quality and accessible programs
• challenge the status quo in terms of the distribution of knowledge and power in society

Therefore, they contend that planners continually need to ask:

• Are the best products being prepared?

• Who benefits from taking these programs?

• Who has been excluded or overlooked?

Technology is continually changing and becoming more accessible and easier to use. For the past few decades, program planners have focused heavily on integrating technology into their planning processes (Moore, 2012; Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Rocco, 2007). However, technology is still not used to its fullest potential in program planning practice. King (2003) and King and Lawler (2003) have proposed a number of reasons to explain this trend:

• Lack of funding or resources
• Lack of educators training on tool
• Educators’ apprehension or misunderstanding of tools
• A continually changing field of technology

• In program planning, use of technology can improve planner efficiency, increase accessibility of resources, and reduce human error throughout the planning process.
• Not only will this make the planner’s job easier but also better serve their clients and stakeholders who will most likely be using the newest technology and will expect the same for the program planner.
• According to King and Lawler (2003), technology encourages and empowers educators to capture their greatest potential. 
• Technology probably will not replace traditional ways of communicating and interacting with people but using appropriate technology can maximize program planners’ efficiency and better equip them to meet the demands of their trade.
• A new technology tool should not be used just because it is the latest and greatest thing but because it is the best way to achieve the physical, cognitive, and emotional learning process.

Collaborative planning among diverse stakeholders involves conflict over whose interests will receive greater attention

• it is very likely that planning will get lost or subverted in the complex interplay of power relationships, interests, and socio-structural and economic factors in such environments

• who is empowered is largely determined by who has access to the planning table and who influences the decisions made there

• planning is always constrained by time, so the task of adequately addressing multiple purposes is an ongoing challenge

"To fully understand planning, we must understand where power comes from and how it is distributed, redistributed, and exercised" (p. 86).

"An ethical stance must be taken on whose interests matter" (p. 86).

• sometimes those who control access to resources are much more powerful than those seeking access to resources

• although they urge planners to act ethically, there is little discussion of how one justifies decisions to manipulate people and circumstances to pursue specific interests

• there is little discussion of the moral justification for actions that could easily be viewed as manipulative or anti-democratic

We begin to form a mental picture of the actors and their interests, influence, and power when we know their gender, race, social and economic status, education, current position, and networks (p. 87).

This information "provides a basis for establishing human relationships, acknowledging and respecting differences, and finding common ground on which programs can be constructed" (p. 88)

Illustrates the complex interplay between the actor's identities, interests, and power

• How accurate and complete are these images, and to what extent are they based on stereotypes?
• Does having such information add depth to our understanding of the social dynamics of planning?
• Does it motivate us to more fully engage because we have images of the actors, or does it encourage us to reach facile and premature conclusions about planning?
• What information should we reveal about ourselves and seek to learn about other actors to strengthen our position as negotiators?
• Should we selectively reveal information about ourselves, lest we weaken our position?

Sork quotes Apple (1992) in the article saying that "all people who are affected by a program and who have a stake in the program should be involved in the deliberation of what is important" (p. 88).

• to assert that all good planning should be substantively democratic seems too easy.
• a good deal of program planning is neither substantively democratic nor occurs in a substantively democratic context
• one reason is that citizens have trusted others to represent their interests
• some citizens become involved in planning only when they sense a grievous violation of this trust
• Under what circumstances is it important to ensure substantively democratic planning?
• What are the consequences of not engaging in substantively democratic planning in this particular circumstance?