Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Cervero and Wilson Program Planning
Transcript of Cervero and Wilson Program Planning
Theoretical Overview of the Model
Cervero and Wilson (1994a) defined program planning as a social activity whereby people construct educational programs by negotiating personal, organizational, and social interest in contexts marked by socially structured relations of power.
Why planning tables matter
Drawing attention to what matters
Drawing attention to the making of judgments
Drawing attention to the character of planning
Connecting the domains of planning
Four dimensions of the planning table (Cervero & Wilson, 2006)
Cervero and Wilson Program Planning
Democratic Negotiation in Program Planning
"Ignoring the opportunities and dangers of an organizational setting is like walking across a busy intersection with one's eyes closed" (Cookson, 1998, pg 137)
Brief Historical Overview of the Model
Professor of Adult Education at the University of Georgia
Head of the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia
Published extensively in adult education, with particular emphasis in the areas of power and race, the politics of program planning.
Served in variety of leadership positions in adult education
Professor of adult education at Cornell University
Program leader of Adult and Extension Education in the Department of Education at Cornell University
Focusing on the politics of adult education, specifically the role of power in shaping educational practices.
Cevero and Wilson have collaborated on research, books, and articles that provide a political perspective and analysis of planning educational programs for adults.
Why Was the Model Proposed?
The traditional models
Scientific theory and technique
Linear path with clearly defined steps
1) Lack of attention to social context
2) fail to mention whose world view and values have been used to determine the adult education and whose have been disregarded.
3) limits our recognition of possibilities for action and “what adult education could be”
Current Literature About the Model
Donaldson and Kozoll (1999)
Focusing on the issues arising in those situations where institutional collaboration is a central dynamic
Sork (2000, p. 180)
Proposing a “question-based approach to planning” because he believes “that posing and answering questions will lead to better decisions and therefore better programs”.
Sork and Newman (2004)
Moving “beyond the convention”
Asking more precisely who benefits and in what ways
Tending to issues arising from people’s involvement in planning and has made power and negotiation central to understanding the context for planning
(Cervero & Wilson, 2006)
Ethical Issues about the Model
The context of social planning is defined by power relationships which must be addressed during planning
Must act responsibly
Who does the planner have to answer to? Negotiate for?
Use political skills to negotiate in an ethical manner
Planning must be a democratic process
Must consider five groups of people whose interests matter: learners, teachers, planners, institution leaders and affected public.
Program Planning Without Negotiation
Yuki - Supervisor and working parent
Mingshu - Supervisor mandated training
It provides planners more practical guidance in negotiating power and interests in everyday practice (Cho, D., & Kim, H., 2004).
It represents a fundamental break from the technical-rational tradition and forces people to view planning with a different set of lenses (Sork as cited in Sork, 2010).
This model is specific rather than general.
It is an integrative approach (Cho, & Kim, 2004).
This model acts on and responds to contexts for power and interests rather than involving “reading” these contexts (Sork, 2010).
Democratic negotiation, get involved multiple stakeholders into the planning process and focus on balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders
“This model still builds on the technical and practical dimensions of planning” (Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009, p. 20).
It focuses on people, rather than theories and guidelines (Umble, Cervero & Langone, 2001).
This model is a more social, ethical, and political approach to program planning (Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009).
Produce two kinds of outcomes: educational outcomes and social and political outcomes
Sample: Local Government Authority Program
The Local Government authority program was developed in collaboration with the following people:
School of Public Policy
Instructional Designers - U of R
SARM - Sask Association of Rural Municipalities
SUMA - Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association
The moral justification for actions could be easily viewed as manipulative or antidemocratic (Sork, 2010, p. 83).
Suggestion: recounting details of the negotiations, revealing the moral and ethical justifications for actions taken (Sork, 2010).
The substantively democratic planning is not a universal prescription (Sork, 2010, p. 83).
Suggestion: applying a critical approach in democratic planning and ask such questions as,
“Under what circumstances is it important to ensure substantively democratic planning?” (p. 83)
“What are the consequences of not engaging in substantively democratic planning in this particular circumstance?” (p. 83)
Planners may miss events and decisions that are not strictly tied to negotiations but that have an important impact on the program (Sork, 2010, p. 83).
Suggestion: being responsible with resources, budgets and so on (Sork, 2010).
There is little attention is given to the character of the negotiations themselves (Sork, 2010, p. 83).
Suggestion: the use of combination of frame factor theory and negotiation theory (Sork as cited in Umble, Cervero, & Langone, 2001).
It is comprehensive and time consuming.
It is not easy to find a suitable program planner
No clear tactics of dealing with power relations, interests and ethical commitment
Negotiating the Program's Need-Assessment
1. Decide whose interests matter and access their needs.
2. Connect stakeholders' needs to the historical and social context.
3. Anticipate how power relations frame the needs-assessment
4. Democratically negotiate needs.
Applying to Technical Rational Model
Negotiating the Program's Educational, Management and Political Objectives
1. Prioritize Educational, Management and Political Objectives.
2. Negotiate objectives before and during the program.
3. Anticipate how power relations frame the negotiation of objectives
4. Democratically negotiate objectives.
Negotiating the Program's Instructional Design and Implementation
1. Manage the politics of selecting and organizing Content.
2. Manage the politics of selecting formats and instructional techniques.
3. Manage the politics of selecting and preparing instuctional leaders.
4. Democratically negotiate the instructional design and implementation.
Negotiating the Program's Administrative Organization and Operation
1. Finance the message.
2. Market the message.
3. Use program location to work the message.
4. Democratically administer programs.
Negotiating the Program's Formal and Informal Evaluation
1. Evaluate programs based on educational, management and political objectives.
2. Manage the politics of evidence and criteria.
3. Anticipate how power relations frame program evaluation.
4. Democratically evaluate program objectives.
Program planning and training helps to build and promote workplace culture
Case Study Activity
What about Learners?
Please Look at your case study as a group and answer the questions:
Who should be at the planning table?
Who should the planner represent?
What might be some issues that arise out of planning?
Cho, D., & Kim, H. (2004). The most frequent lenses to see recent program planning for adult: 1999-2003. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1805/245
Umble, K. E., Cervero, R. M., & Langone, C. A. (2001). Negotiating about power, frames, and continuing education: a case study in public health. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(2), 128-145.
Sandmann, L. R., Kiely, R. C., & Grenier, R. S. (2009). Program planning: the neglected dimension of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 17-33.
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (1996b). Paying attention to the people work when planningeducational programs for adults. New directions for adult and continuing education, 1996 (69), 91-99.
Sork, T. J. (2010). Planning and delivering programs. In Carol Kasworm, Amy Rose and Jovita Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education. (pp. 157-166). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Working the planning table: Negotiating democratically for Adult, continuing, and workplace education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
CorrectionsDesigns (n.d.). Designing Adult Learning Programs in the Context of Power. Available from https://correctionsdesigns.wikispaces.com/Cervero+and+Wilson+Model
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (1997). The song remains the same: The selective tradition oftechnical rationality in adult education program planning theory. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 16(2), 84-108.
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (1996a). Learning from Practice: Learning to See What Matters in Program Planning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 69, 91-99