Synthesis Statement
It used to be that when I developed programs I would tend to get stuck and not really know why I was getting stuck. After learning about program planning models I started to get better at identifying what needed to be done in order to move a program or project forward because the abstract model gave me a framework in which to think about the project differently.
I first encountered program planning in library school where I was taught how to use the University of Wisconsin Extension’s Program Development Logic Model (2005). The project I was working on at the time had nothing to do with the University of Wisconsin Extension program, it was a service-learning project to develop a literacy outreach program in rural China for the Evergreen Foundation. However, for both myself and my classmates I think it would be fair to say that learning about logic models was transformative for us. The ability to model almost any project backwards from outcomes to the basic inputs was a new and useful way to think about planning. When I took the CCE/AHE Program Planning class and we were asked to write a paper comparing models for program planning I jumped at the chance to compare and contrast the University of Wisconsin model with the Caffarella (2002) Interactive Model that was the focus of that class. Just as knowing about different educational theories and how they are applied can be useful for an educator, knowing about different program planning models and being able to borrow elements from more than one helps expand an educators set of tools that can be used in different situations. My paper explains how different approaches to program planning can complement each other and the strengths and weaknesses of each. As I point out in my paper, Warren (2003) notes that there is not “a single, formally accepted, succinct definition of program planning in adult education” (p. 1). Immediately following the Program Planning class I was able to put into practice elements from both the University of Wisconsin Model and Interactive Model as the lead planner for a series of events focused on academic literacies related to scholarly communication (Armstrong, Gossett, Lopresti, Madsen, & Werder, 2012).
Broadly speaking I found that the University of Wisconsin Model tended to be better for macro-level planning and the Interactive Model better for micro-level details. The University of Wisconsin Model is good at giving a simple, easy to understand, shape to entire projects where the Interactive Model provides checklists of details. However, I think it is fair to say, in reflecting on these and other models, that there are some elements that are core to program planning, instructional design, and curriculum development. First, it is essential to conduct a needs assessment so that the program or curriculum meets a particular stakeholder need. As Brookfield (1991) has pointed out, programs need flexibility in order to adapt to the needs of participants. From there, desired outcomes can be established, and working backwards outputs, in terms of products, and inputs, in terms of resources, can be identified and mapped into the model. Constantly revisiting and revising the model as program progress is essential to ensure relevancy and success in working towards outcomes for participants. If it is done well this is essentially an implementation of formative assessment.
Program development, instructional design, and curriculum development has been and will remain a significant part of my work as an academic librarian. In some ways I am surprised at all the ways in which I am involved in these kinds of efforts since I never would have thought it would be some a major part of my work when I started library school. My involvement with these efforts at Western takes place on many levels. For example, I serve as the Libraries representative on the One World Internationalizing the Curriculum Committee where we are tasked with planning for curriculum on a university-wide level. I serve on the Library and Information Technology Association Top Tech Trends Committee where, as of this writing, we are planning a program for an upcoming conference. I am working on a course redesign for an online class I am teaching next quarter and have recently been given access to a software program to help develop work on the Libraries “LIT” information literacy tutorials. There are other examples that I probably could list here, but suffice it to say I only anticipate that the need for program planning, instructional design, and curriculum planning will increase in my profession. Realistically, it is not easy to get all the different groups I work with to use the planning models presented here, since they take a little training to use, but they nonetheless remain useful in understanding and interacting with issues.
I first encountered program planning in library school where I was taught how to use the University of Wisconsin Extension’s Program Development Logic Model (2005). The project I was working on at the time had nothing to do with the University of Wisconsin Extension program, it was a service-learning project to develop a literacy outreach program in rural China for the Evergreen Foundation. However, for both myself and my classmates I think it would be fair to say that learning about logic models was transformative for us. The ability to model almost any project backwards from outcomes to the basic inputs was a new and useful way to think about planning. When I took the CCE/AHE Program Planning class and we were asked to write a paper comparing models for program planning I jumped at the chance to compare and contrast the University of Wisconsin model with the Caffarella (2002) Interactive Model that was the focus of that class. Just as knowing about different educational theories and how they are applied can be useful for an educator, knowing about different program planning models and being able to borrow elements from more than one helps expand an educators set of tools that can be used in different situations. My paper explains how different approaches to program planning can complement each other and the strengths and weaknesses of each. As I point out in my paper, Warren (2003) notes that there is not “a single, formally accepted, succinct definition of program planning in adult education” (p. 1). Immediately following the Program Planning class I was able to put into practice elements from both the University of Wisconsin Model and Interactive Model as the lead planner for a series of events focused on academic literacies related to scholarly communication (Armstrong, Gossett, Lopresti, Madsen, & Werder, 2012).
Broadly speaking I found that the University of Wisconsin Model tended to be better for macro-level planning and the Interactive Model better for micro-level details. The University of Wisconsin Model is good at giving a simple, easy to understand, shape to entire projects where the Interactive Model provides checklists of details. However, I think it is fair to say, in reflecting on these and other models, that there are some elements that are core to program planning, instructional design, and curriculum development. First, it is essential to conduct a needs assessment so that the program or curriculum meets a particular stakeholder need. As Brookfield (1991) has pointed out, programs need flexibility in order to adapt to the needs of participants. From there, desired outcomes can be established, and working backwards outputs, in terms of products, and inputs, in terms of resources, can be identified and mapped into the model. Constantly revisiting and revising the model as program progress is essential to ensure relevancy and success in working towards outcomes for participants. If it is done well this is essentially an implementation of formative assessment.
Program development, instructional design, and curriculum development has been and will remain a significant part of my work as an academic librarian. In some ways I am surprised at all the ways in which I am involved in these kinds of efforts since I never would have thought it would be some a major part of my work when I started library school. My involvement with these efforts at Western takes place on many levels. For example, I serve as the Libraries representative on the One World Internationalizing the Curriculum Committee where we are tasked with planning for curriculum on a university-wide level. I serve on the Library and Information Technology Association Top Tech Trends Committee where, as of this writing, we are planning a program for an upcoming conference. I am working on a course redesign for an online class I am teaching next quarter and have recently been given access to a software program to help develop work on the Libraries “LIT” information literacy tutorials. There are other examples that I probably could list here, but suffice it to say I only anticipate that the need for program planning, instructional design, and curriculum planning will increase in my profession. Realistically, it is not easy to get all the different groups I work with to use the planning models presented here, since they take a little training to use, but they nonetheless remain useful in understanding and interacting with issues.
Artifact
A Comparison of the University of Wisconsin Extension’s Program Development Logic Model and Interactive Model of Program Planning
References
Armstrong, J., Gossett, G., Lopresti, R., Madsen, L., & Werder, C. (2012) Scholarly Communication Task Force final report. Western Washington University Libraries. Retrieved from http://library.wwu.edu/sites/library.wwu.edu/files/stratplan/scholarly_comm_final_report_2011-2012.pdf
Brookfield, S. D. (1991). Structuring programs around learners’ needs and abilities. In Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices (pp. 233-260). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Caffarella, R. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of Wisconsin. (2005). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmcourseall.pdf
Brookfield, S. D. (1991). Structuring programs around learners’ needs and abilities. In Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices (pp. 233-260). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Caffarella, R. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of Wisconsin. (2005). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmcourseall.pdf