Jacob Oostra
CCE 578 Program Planning
Assignment #1
Instructor: Dr. Sandra Ratcliff Daffron
January 31st, 2013
Program Planning Models: Compare and Contrast
Introduction:
Whether it is your first time planning a program or your one hundredth, referencing back to some type of model can never do you any harm. In fact, planning models can help bring order to an overwhelming, muddled, or even chaotic program planning situation or experience. Thus, being familiar with some of the planning models laid out within the program planning field can help boost one’s planning career. With that said, there are numerous planning models available and narrowing it down to just one can potentially become overwhelming. I once heard Dr. Sandra Ratcliff Daffron, a veteran planner with years of experience claim there are over a thousand program planning models established in the field. This paper’s aim and main focus is to describe and compare just four of these models, which are based from some of the most recognized planners in the program-planning field. These include the models of Ralph W. Tyler (1949), Malcolm S. Knowles (1980), Margaret J Barr and Lou Ann Keating (1985), and Rosemary S. Caffarella (2001).
I’ll first begin with Tyler’s model, also known as “Tyler’s Rational.” Tyler’s model is considered to be one of the first and original adult program planning models, which was published in his book titled, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949). In sum, the model outline has four main questions that the planner should ask:
What is the purpose of the program?
What is the content of the program?
What method should be used to deliver the program?
Was the program effective?
The driving factor with Tyler’s rationale is that a program will not be a successful program unless the program’s objectives are met. Tyler suggests that the most important part of planning is to take the time to set clear goals and objectives for the program. If a planner can't determine what the purpose is, they shouldn’t continue any further with the following steps in the model. The goals, objectives, and/or purpose of the program don’t necessarily have to be complicated. In fact, they should be summed up in a sentence or two (Daffron, 2012). I believe Tyler would want them to be short, yet clear and powerful so that everyone in attendance knows why they’re there and what they expect to gain from the program. The last step of measuring the program’s effectiveness is determined only if it becomes clear that during the evaluation step that the objectives met.
Dr. Sandra Ratcliff Daffron suggests this type of model typically works well for any program, especially smaller programs like workshops, symposiums, etc. Although I’m fairly new to the program-planning field, I personally feel I might begin my first couple of programs with this model due to the fact that it is so clear and straightforward for new planners to work with. For example, I would like to begin conducting workshops at the local community college where they host many noncredit community education workshops on a number of topics and subjects. I have a number of workshops in mind that pertain to my passions, in which I feel could promote local community members to become more engaged and integrated towards creating positive and regenerative change. In brief these include military veteran projects, small-scale farming, permaculture, and sustainability projects, to English workshops for immigrant and refugee groups that are geared towards establishing small sustainable business ventures.
Tyler’s model, especially for the immigrant/refugee group, would help or even force me to take the time set clear and strong objectives, which would surely help in the marketing for these projects. Advertising for example, usually has very limited space so I feel Tyler’s rationale would help in this regard. By posting clear goals, I’d be able to advertise what the purpose was for each of these workshops in no more than two sentences. This way the community members who come across the advertisement would know if they were interested in the workshop or not. Additionally, once the workshop was in session, it’d surely help me to establish a reference point in the introduction. From there, I’d be able to organize the content of and go down the line of how the content should be organized.
When gearing up to cross the finish line of the program, it’d be helpful for the attendees and I to refocus on the objective and/or goals of the program. As Tyler suggests, this will help the planner and/or instructor realize if they were effective in accomplishing their objectives. This brings me back to my TESOL training program at WWU where we used the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) to plan and design all of our English lessons. In every lesson, the SIOP model highly recommends establishing a set of content and language goals, reading them to the class in the very beginning, and rereading them in the end. I found this to be a great way to begin and end a class. I’m almost certain that this would help for any program as well.
Our second model for discussion is Knowles’s model (1980). Knowles take a slightly different approach from the others in that he bases his model first and for most on the learner. For example, he might introduce or be assigned to a topic and then, he’ll first discuss the topic with the learners to understand and assess what the learner’s needs and/or interests are. The second part is to find an agreement on the goals and objectives of the program. I personally could see these first steps of the model being an efficient approach to a longer program because this could engage the learners and keep them more interested throughout the program duration. This could create a very rich learning environment by improving the learner’s desired skills. However, on a fairly short-timed program I’d be cautious to begin with this model approach for two reasons. First, establishing an effective and efficient set of goals can be time consuming. The program might need this time to cover instruction on these goals rather than create them. Secondly, the learner’s goals and interests might be on topics areas that need more than the given time frame and lack the depth needed to sufficiently cover them.
The next section of the model is the actual exchange of information. I could see on a time-limited program that this might actually work. Perhaps the program consists of a diverse group of professionals or cultures. If the group was to establish a set of goals, the instructor might break them up into groups where they could exchange their ideas and information and present them to the other groups. Note, I’m not fully sure if this would work; it’s just an idea. Nevertheless, Knowles suggests after the exchange of information is where the planner focuses in on feedback from the group of learners. This will help the planner, instructor, and management stakeholders make the changes accordingly for the next program. I actually feel and recommend this section of the model should be applied to every program. No matter how well the programs planned, there’s always room for improvement. Additionally, you want to know if the learners are actually learning anything and that the program wasn’t a waste for all the stakeholders involved. All in all, I personally feel those that have had some prior program planning experience should only apply Knowles’s model.
Barr and Keating (1985) designed the third model discussed in this paper. Although their focus was in student affairs, program planners of all types have incorporated their model. Their model consists of putting three main areas together, which consists of the context, the goal, and the plan. First, unlike Tyler’s emphasis on purpose, Barr and Keating focus on the content of the program. The content aspect of the model is considered the most crucial part of this model. They simply ask- what do you want to deliver? In order to establish this, they suggest a planner takes sufficient time in thinking about the campus and/or group culture. Who is going to be in attendance? What types of perspective do they have? In regards to the business side of the program, I could see this being very necessary if the program is going to have a fee for attending. The planner should first know their target audience. Or, if it’s just to bring in a large crowd because say maybe you’re program is being sponsored by a corporation, you would like to know whom your sponsor’s target audience is.
Once the content and the context are clear by all stakeholders involved, including the learners (attendees), secondly the goals of the program will follow. This is particularly different from Knowles’s model in that everyone understands the goals before they attend the program. They’re stated very clear, easily measured, and agreed upon by all stakeholders. In this model, it seems the goals are aimed at being established relatively quick. However from my experience in teaching English, Keep in mind, in order to create clear and precise objects and goals can be very time consuming, especially if you want to stay on focus. I suppose however, that if the learners have a decent understanding of the context, this shouldn’t be much of an issue. This is why the model suggests that the planner avoids the use of confusing words and language and that there is a widespread agreement on the goals of the program.
Lastly, Barr and Keating believe that once these two components are well established, “everything” else follows. “Everything” means the details of the plan, which should include the goal, the consultation and involvement of others, along with all the logistics of the program such as the budget, schedule, accommodations, food, travel, décor, visuals, activities, etc. These aspects seem like they’d also be time consuming. However, the main point is that the bulk of the energy be put into the first two areas of content and goals. This model seems to me that it’s really geared towards large conferences, weeklong workshops, or corporate extended training gatherings. Really after thinking about it, this model seems like it could be used for most programs, especially those with some type of theme or that is geared towards a specific “culture” as Barr and Keating put it.
Last up for discussion is Rosemary S. Caffarella’s Interactive Model (2001). There are 12 steps Caffarella suggests that must be considered when planning programs for adults. Time and space limit the ability to go into them each into great detail. However, I will list them and discuss how I believe these are effective in the planning process and how they might compare to the other models mentioned above. The 12 steps are (Caffarella; 2001):
· Discerning the context
· 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 needs
· Preparing budgets and marketing plans
· Coordinating facilities and on-site events
Caffarella presents the model as a circle where all 12 steps point towards the center circle. A keynote is that the process is non-sequential. In other words, a planner can begin the planning process from anywhere that is necessary to get the program launched. Or perhaps, one aspect might be of higher priority than the others. For example, with the global and local economies being such a hot topic the last couple of years, the budget might be of highest priority for some organizations trying to host a program. Thus, if need be, Caffarella’s Interactive Model allows for this type of flexibility and the planner most certainly can begin first by what the budget entails.
To compare this flexibility to another model discussed earlier, let’s take Knowle’s model (1980). This particular issue of the budget is much different from what Knowle’s model suggests. Knowles says the learner comes first. Unfortunately, this day in age the learner is often limited to the organization’s financial means (the budget), and the learner as a priority will drop down the list. If this is the case, the Interactive Model will help a planner look at what financial means are available and base the program off of this. Hopefully, the planner is efficient so that the learner’s will still experience a rich learning program. This is feasible, but regardless the planner has to work within his or her financial means.
Let’s make another comparison. Maybe the budget is lush and not so much of an issue. Let’s say the nongovernmental organization (NGO) that has a strong “culture” base (Barr and Keating, 1985) has hired a program planner to plan a program to bring about awareness of their educational workshops being conducted for community members in the local region to participate in. They have their target audience, which all have similar interests. This is Barr and Keating’s first priority: establish the context first. However, the NGO’s main concern is that they don’t have a facility, and they’ve asked that the planner’s first priority be to coordinate with a reliable site for the program where they could host weekly workshops for a number of months. Once they have the facility established, they’ll work with the planner to establish the exact content, goals, and objectives of the workshop. In contrast, Tyler’s model (1949) would have suggested this first. The planner almost always has to go with what the client suggests, therefore here’s where the Interactive Model shines. Here, the planner could refer back to the Interactive Model to knock out two steps in the process in just one step. The planner could not only focus on finding the facility in which the workshops need to be hosted, but the planner could also establish a schedule, which then could set the direction for the formatting and the staff’s needs.