UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Program planners’ practical knowledge Sloane-Seale, Atlanta 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-894547.pdf [ 4.44MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055981.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055981-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055981-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055981-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055981-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055981-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055981-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055981-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055981.ris

Full Text

PROGRAM PLANNERS’ PRkCTICAL KNOWLEDGEbyATLANTA SLOANE - SEALEB.A. (Hons)., The University of Manitoba, 1972M.ED., The University of Manitoba, 1983A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF EDUCATIONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education)We accept this thesis as conformingITY OF BRITISH COLU14BIAJanuary 1994Atlanta Sloane-Seale, 1994to,the required standardTHE UNIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_____________________________Department of L7 Er)t-tL-7A1The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate C-L.. (— (5’DE-6 (2)88)ABSTRACTThe adult education literature offers little analysis andunderstanding of the practical knowledge of the program planningprocess planners hold and use. Rather, a comprehensive review oftheoretical sources revealed the widespread use of the academicmodel, informed by Tyler’s rationale, which has yielded a linearmodel of planning and a technical view of planners. By contrast,the theoretical sources on practical knowledge and on curriculumand teachers’ thinking pointed to the use of an experiential model,informed by Schwab’s theoretical concepts, which has presentedplanning as deliberative, and planners as creators and possessorsof knowledge.The purposes of the study were to: gain an understanding ofthe kinds of practical knowledge planners in a universitycontinuing education unit find useful and relevant to theirdecision making in program planning; acquire a greaterunderstanding of the planning process from their perspective; anddevelop categories for interpreting these understandings. Theresearch was guided by an interpretive perspective and qualitativemethods.The study was conducted in two phases. A pilot and a followup study. In total, a purposive sample of six planners, two malesand four females, none of whom had pursued graduate study in adulteducation, working in the same institution, were interviewed.It was concluded that practical knowledge, which informsplanning practice, consists of three kinds of knowledge:declarative, procedural, and conditional which stand in dialecticalrelationship to one another; and that planning practice requires:iithat planners have and use all three kinds of knowledge. Further,planning is indeterminate and contingent on the context andplanners’ knowledge. These planners’ practical knowledgeincorporates a framework of concepts, rules and routines orstrategies, beliefs, values, principles, and metaphors of practice.This framework has implications for planners’ criteria of valid andreliable knowledge, informal and formal planning strategies, theideological character of knowledge, and ethics of practice. Aswell, these planners use a combination of planning approaches whichare directly related to the nature of the planning context andtheir own capabilities. The contextual and problematic nature ofplanning is made explicit. The study challenges the prevailingassumptions associated with a traditional view of planning.iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe mapping of new territory is often fraught with obstacles,hard work, stress, pain, and finally joy, and delight at the newvistas and discoveries which mark the charted area. In thisprocess, many have laboured with me in a variety of ways. I wouldlike to acknowledge these individuals for their emotional,intellectual, and physical support: their caring and patience,their gentle pushes along the way to yet new levels ofunderstanding, and their time and energy all of which carried mealong when the terrain was often desolate, rough, and difficult.For The University of British Columbia experience I amexceedingly grateful: to the men and women in the program whosupported me; the “healing” group of women who helped to replenishmy energies; my running buddies who never failed to listen andcomfort on those many wet but beautiful scenic runs; and thefaculty who constantly challenged us.Dr. W.S. Griffith, chair of my committee, provided prompt,constructive critical analysis of my work, and held an unwaveringfaith in my ability to meet the many challenges of doctoral work.Dr. J. Gaskell was open, supportive, and affirmative of myresearch. Dr. J. Coombs, contributed to the epistemologicalaspects of my topic. Dr. W. Werner helped to plant and cultivatethe seeds of the research problem.To my family -Victor, my husband, and Hadyn and Siobhan, mychildren- who stood by me in this long and arduous project. To thewomen and men of my study who permitted me to share their livedworlds -their intellect, emotions, and metaphors- to understand,and re-create their meaning constructs, the foundation of mydissertation. As well, I thank Professor Marcel Bonneau, whoprovided me with the opportunity to begin this journey, mycolleagues at work, and Jeanne Hurd, my mentor of long standing.But most of all, I dedicate this thesis to my brothers, sisters,and my beloved deceased parents, Camsee and Lenny.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract . . IIAcknowledgements ivTable of Contents vCHAPTER ONE . 1Introduction . . 11 Problem Statement 42 Purposes of the Study and Research Question 43 Significance of the Study 54 Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation. 6CHAPTER TWO 7Review of the Related Literature 7Introduction 71 Selected Planning Models in Education 72 Selected Planning Models in Adult Education 142.1 Research on Planning in Adult Education 253 Literature on Practical Knowledge 283.1 Definition of Practical Knowledge 283.2 Theoretical Sources on Theory-Practice 334 Research on Curriculum and Teacher Thinking 444.1 Research on Teachers’ Theories and Beliefs . 464.1.1 Research on Teachers’ Epistemologies . 474.1.2 Research on Teachers’ Practical Knowledge 504.1.3 Research on Teachers’ Planning 555 Summary . 58CHAPTER THREE . 62Methodology . . . 621 Approach of the Study . 622 Methodological Focus . 633 Pilot Study . 694 Case Study Method . . 714.1 Definition of Case Study 724.2 Characteristics of the Case Study Method . . . 72v5 Selection of Setting.6 Selection of Participants7 Data Collection .Table I: Data Collection .7.1 Interviews7.2 Document Analysis7.3 Data AnalysisCHAPTER FOURDeclarative Knowledge1 Planners’ Practical Knowledge2 Planners’ Knowledge of Planning3 Planners’ Declarative Knowledge3.1 Knowledge of Organizational Context3.1.1 Knowledge of Mandate3.1.2 Knowledge of Deficit3.1.3 Knowledge of Budget4 Theoretical Knowledge4.1 Knowledge of Research Methods .4.2 Knowledge of Program Content .4.3 Knowledge of Program Ideas4.4 Knowledge of Setting Problems .4.5 Knowledge of Evaluation5 Knowledge of the Field of Adult Education5.1 Knowledge of Commonplaces of Planning5.2 Knowledge of Program Design5.2.1 Content-Focused5.2.2 Problem-Learner-Situation .5.2.3 Learner-Focused5.3 Knowledge of Components of Planning6 Summary of Declarative Knowledge .CHAPTER FIVEProcedural Knowledge . . . . . .1 Planning context2 Collaborating with Partners3 Assessing Needs4 Evaluating Programs5 Promoting and Marketing Programs6 Developing the Curriculumvi8787878889909092939696100102103105108109112112113114115115118118118121124129136138747577787981826.1 Identify and Select Instructors6.2 Identify and Select Content6.2.1 Content Approach6.2.2 Problem Situation Approach6.2.3 Learner Approach6.2.4 Identify and Select Objectives6.2.5 Role of Learners• . . . 138143144• . . . 147• • . . 149• . . . 152• . . . 1597 Summary of Procedural Knowledge 163CHAPTER SIX 166Conditional Knowledge 166Planning Context1.1 Contextual Value: Economic1.2 Contextual Value: Educational .1.3 Contextual Value: Political1.4 Contextual Value: Social2 Team Concept2.1 Equality of Opportunity to Participate2.2 Ethical and Moral Principles2.3 Educational Values and Beliefs .3 Collaborating with Partners3.1 Personal Value: Political3.2 Personal Value: Economic3.3 Educational Principles3.4 Abstract Principles• • . . 1661671701721741781781801811861861881901921931931941941964 Assessing Needs4.1 Educational Principles, Values and Beliefs5 Evaluating Programs5.1 Abstract Values5.2 Pedagogical Knowledge6 Developing the Curriculum6.1 Principles of Practice: Content-Focused6.1.1 Efficiency and Effectiveness6.2 Educational Philosophy: A Communicative Approach6.3 Personal Intuitive Knowledge6.4 Personal Educational Philosophy6.4.1 A Metaphor6.5 Technical Focused Principle6.6 Problem-Learner-Situation Focused Principle •6.7 Learner-Focused Principle7 Summary of Conditional Knowledge 213CHAPTER SEVEN 216Towards A Deliberative Practical Planning Framework • . . . 216199199200201204206207210211212viiSummary and Discussion of Planners’ PracticalKnowledge1.1 Declarative Knowledge1.2 Procedural Knowledge1.3 Conditional Knowledge2 Summary and Discussion of Planners’ Knowledge ofPlanning2.1 Planning Context2.2 Collaborating with Partners2.3 Assessing Needs2.4 Evaluating Programs2.5 Promoting and Marketing Programs2.6 Developing the Curriculum3 Towards A Deliberative Conceptual Framework ofPractice4 SummaryCHAPTER EIGHTSummary of Findings, Suggestions for Further Research,Implications and DiscussionSummary of the Methodology2 Limitations of the Study3 Summary of the Major Findings3.1 What kinds of Practical Knowledge Do Planners Have?3.1.1 Declarative/Theoretical Knowledge -Information Aspect3.1.2 Procedural Knowledge -InterpersonalCommunication Aspect3.1.3 Conditional Knowledge - CriticalReflection Aspect3.2 How Do Planners Acquire and Use PracticalKnowledge’3.2.1 Direct, Indirect, and Tacit Learning3.2.2 Adapt, Shape and Resist3.2.3 A Practical Planning Process3.2.4 The Problematic and Contextual NaturePlanning Practice3.2.5 A Framework for ConceptualizingKnowledge3.3 What are Planners’ Implicit Conceptions ofPlanning?3.3.1 Planning Components and the Nature ofPlanning3.3.2 The Nature and Character of the PlanningContextviii216216218219223224228231235237238244246249249250252255256256257257• . . 258• . . 258• . • 259• . 259of• . . 260Practical2612622632643.3.3 Informal and Formal Planning Strategies. 2663.3.4 The Commonplaces of Planning 2673.3.5 The Importance of Nurturing Instructors inPlanning 2673.3.6 The Importance of Planners’ EducationalPhilosophy 2683.3.7 A Focus of Concern 2683.3.8 The Importance of the Political Dimensionin Planning 2693.3.9 Orientations to Planning 2704 A Deliberative Practical Planning Process 2725 Suggestions for Further Research 2746 Implications and Discussion 2766.1 Critical Practice 2766.2 A Curriculum Agenda 2776.3 Deliberative Practical Planning 2776.4 The Importance of Mentoring and Coaching 2786.5 Ethical Practice 2796.6 A Language of Discourse 2796.7 The Importance of Values in Planning Practice. 2807 Concluding Comments 281BIBLIOGRAPHY 282APPENDIX A 292ixCHAPTER ONEIntroductionThe field of adult education presents a curious paradox.Observations made in the course of professional practice lead oneto conclude that program planning is a central activity in theadult education enterprise for which program plainers areresponsible. The fulfilment of that responsibility requires theability to bridge the gap between theory and practice; to possessand use knowledge of the commonplaces, self, and planning in apurposive and creative manner; to negotiate decisions amongcompeting and conflicting needs and interests of adult learners andvarious interest groups; to be cognizant of the mission, goals, andphilosophy of the employing unit and the institution; to workwithin the constraints and conflicts of the unit, the institution,and societal context; and to facilitate and enhance adult learning.Good program planners need to be discriminating professionals whoseintentions are to bring about learning in their clients and whostruggle to choose methods, materials, and content that best servethe goal of bringing about such learning (Elbaz, 1981).However, the program planning literature in adult education,which is informed primarily by Tyler’s (1949) theoretical model, isoften atheoretical and “cookbook like”, provides a technical viewof planners’ practice (Apps, 1985; Sork and Buskey, 1986), andconsequently, presents only a partial conception of planning andplanners’ practical knowledge. In contrast, Schwab’s (1969)practical curriculum perspective portrays good planning as complexand creative, requiring a dialectical relationship between theoryand practice. His perspective presents an alternative view of1planning and planners’ practical knowledge (Connelly, 1972; Elbaz,1981; and Clandinin, 1986). Since adult education is integral tothe field of education, an understanding of the models and theirintellectual traditions provides an organizing framework for thethesis and for understanding planning and practical knowledge inadult education.Further, a nun,ber of writers in the field of adult education,including Pennington and Green (1976), Brookfield (1986), Burnham(1988), and Cervero (1988), suggest that planners reject the“wholesale” use of planning models because of their uneven fit inpractice. Brookfield (1986) describes this uneven fit as theorypractice disjunction. If some planners reject planning models inpractice, then just what is it that they do and how do they knowhow to do it? What factors contribute to their practice? On whatbasis are their decisions made? Does the situational contextaffect these decisions? Thus, it is important to describe planningpractice and elicit from planners the grounds upon which they basetheir actions.Usher and Bryant (1989) concur that planning is a centralactivity of planners, and that many practice situations are notroutine, but manifest uncertainty, uniqueness, complexity, andvalue conflict. In these practice situations, the ends are notalways known and given, and the selection of means is not simplybased on technical criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, thevalues and goals of the positivist perspective. Rather, problemsencountered in practice situations rely for resolution on thepractical knowledge of planners.Although planners may not systematically reflect on their2practice, when they do, what is often articulated is a conscious,deliberate process informed by informal theories, or assumptionsabout the what, how, when, and why of practice which describe theirpractical knowledge (Usher and Bryant, 1989). Planners’ practiceis perceived to be intentional, systematic, and emergent. Thisconceptualization of planning practice deals with the means-ends asmutually determining each other, and focuses on knowledge anddecision making in a deliberative process in the situation. Thisview offers a reconceptualization of planning, planners’ practicalknowledge, and the theory-practice relationship.However, continued reliance on the dominant view of planningas technical not only obscures what planners actually do inpractice, but also inhibits the development of meaningfulconceptions of planning and planners’ practical knowledge.Further, there are no studies in adult education which focus onplanners’ practical knowledge and the planning process. Therefore,it is important to redress this. To develop adequate conceptionsof planners’ practical knowledge and planning practice, aninterpretive perspective is used to conceptualize practice.Schwab’s (1969; 1971; 1973) perspective, upon which a numberof studies builds, including Connelly (1972), and Elbaz (1981),offers a useful alternative framework in which to conceptualizeplanners’ practical knowledge and planning. This perspective mayshed some light on the theory-practice relationship. Moreover,conceptualization is best accomplished on an empirically verifiablebasis by examining planners’ practice from their perspectives.Thus, it is critical to discover what informs planners’ practice;that is, what practical knowledge is used in planning practice.3The collection of such data requires an involvement of planners inthe research process. Thus, through interviews, planners will beasked to explain the grounds upon which their actions, decisions,and judgements are made during the planning process to understand,describe, and construct categories of their knowledge in practice.1 Problem StatementThe lack of information in the planning literature in adulteducation concerning the kinds of practical knowledge planners ina university continuing education division find useful and relevantto their decision making in planning programs must be redressed todevelop an understanding of both planners’ practical knowledge andthe planning process. Planners consciously and intentionallyunderstand, describe, and confer meaning in planning to act in amanner they consider to be appropriate in the situation.Planners not only identify content, objectives, learningexperiences, and criteria to ensure that objectives are achieved,but also make decisions among educational alternatives in planningprograms for adults. In a deliberative planning process, plannersshape planning through their practical knowledge to make the “best”decisions related to the context, content, learners’ needs,institutional goals and values, competing and conflicting interestsof various groups, and instructors.2 Purposes of the Study and Research QuestionThe purposes of this study are to gain an understanding of thekinds of practical knowledge planners in a university continuingeducation division find useful and relevant to their decisionmaking in program planning; acquire a greater understanding of theplanning process from their perspective; and develop categories for4)interpreting these understandings. The research has been guided bythe following questions: 1) what are the aspects of practicalknowledge that planners use in planning? 2) what are the componentsof planners’ knowledge of planning? and 3) what is the nature ofthe relationship of planning and practical knowledge?3 Significance of the StudyAn understanding of the kinds of practical knowledge thatplanners have, and of their planning practice may be significant ina number of ways. It is through an exploration of planners’thinking about what they do and why, that new conceptualizations ofpractice may emerge. This, in turn, may provide the basis for thedevelopment of a comprehensive conception of planning. Therefore,by attempting to understand and describe planners’ practicalknowledge and the relationship of this knowledge to planningpractice, this study is designed to contribute to the field ofadult education and to education in general.Through understanding how planners hold and use practicalknowledge in planning, it is possible to discover whether practicemediates and is mediated by its context. An examination of thisprocess provides further understanding of practice. Thisinformation, when compared with current planning models, maysuggest a framework for describing what is done in practice, inaddition to prescribing what should be done in practice. Thisapproach may lead to further understanding of theory and practice.Since the literature in adult education offers little analysisand understanding of planning practice and the practical knowledgethat planners use, it is important to redress this. This studyoffers the potential to reconceptualize the continuing education5for planners as well as assist in mapping professional practice.4 Organization of the Remainder of the DissertationIn Chapter Two, a review of the literature, as related to thefollowing areas relevant to this study, is presented: 1) selectedplanning models in education; 2) selected planning models andresearch on planning in adult education; 3) literature on practicalknowledge and the theory-practice relationship; and 4) research oncurriculum and teacher thinking. Chapter Three explains themethodology, design, and procedure used to accomplish the study.In each of Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven, through caseanalysis, the findings will be presented. Chapter Eight consistsof three parts: summary of findings, suggestions for furtherresearch, and implications and discussion. The list of referencesand appendices follow this chapter.6CHAPTER TWOReview of the Related LiteratureIntroductionResearch related to practical knowledge and planning practiceis fairly new in the field of adult education. In education,theoretical formulations of Schwab (1969), Sternberg and Caruso(1985), and Elbaz (1981, 1983) have raised the concept of practicalknowledge into the fore of curriculum study. While, in adulteducation, studies by Pennington and Green (1976), Lauffer (1977),and Burnham (1988) have raised the study of the planning processinto focus with respect to questions asked, areas examined, andmethods used.This chapter is divided into four sections which deal with therelated theoretical sources: 1) selected planning models ineducation; 2) selected planning models in adult education andresearch on planning in adult education; 3) literature on practicalknowledge and the theory-practice relationship; and 4) research oncurriculum and teacher thinking. These theoretical sourcescomprise the lens through which the research questions, problem,and findings are viewed.1 Selected Planning Models in EducationUsher and Bryant (1989) suggest that three major models ofplanning and their intellectual traditions inform planning ineducation and adult education as well as provide some understandingand insight into the theoretical underpinnings of planningpractice. These include: the academic or dominant model which iscontent focused and is informed by Tyler’s rationale; theexperiential model which is learner centred and is informed by7Schwab’s theoretical concepts; and the social reconstruction!adaptation model which is problem-situation centred and is informedby Freire’s theoretical formulation. Carr (1986) states theseperspectives more accurately approximate the Habermasian view ofthe three general forms that human and social sciences can take(positivist, interpretive, critical) each based on a differentinterpretation of the nature of human action and social life(instrumental, communicative, reflective), and each incorporatingdifferent preferences about the kind of practical purpose (or humaninterest) that social scientific theorizing serves (technical,practical, emancipatory) (p.183).Usher and Bryant (1989) suggest that the academic model stillremains the dominant and widespread model in use at all levels ofthe education system including adult education. This perspectivedraws on the natural sciences, and emphasizes the discovery ofknowledge based on the manipulation of variables as objects in thephysical world. In this approach, there is a commitment to adisinterested, value-free science whose goal is to explain in orderto control and predict through generalizable explanations. Validand reliable knowledge is achieved by the application ofquantitative techniques. The theory-practice relationship islogistical, whereby theory is applied to practice. In this view,the end of inquiry is to know.A critique of the limitations of this approach for socialsciences suggests the interpretive perspective, an alternativeapproach for the social sciences, which locates theory, practice,and research in social contexts and stresses hermeneuticunderstanding. In this approach, the construction of knowledge is8based on communicative understanding, interpreting, and conferringmeaning in particular contexts based on qualitative techniques.Theories are inherent in contextual understandings and negotiatedmeanings. Valid and reliable knowledge is achieved byexperimentation and problem-solving methods. The theory-practicerelationship is dialectical, whereby theory and practice mutuallyinfluence each other. The end of inquiry is an increased capacityto act morally and ethically.In addition, the critical paradigm draws conceptually on theinterpretive perspective, and addresses problems and questions ofsocial sciences. This paradigm underscores the construction ofknowledge based on critical reflection and action through theapplication of qualitative techniques. Valid and reliableknowledge is achieved by a problem posing method. The theory-practice relationship is praxis, whereby thought and action aremutually constitutive. The end of inquiry is to expose and changesocial conditions and patterns of control. Moreover, these threeperspectives constitute different interpretations of planning, thenature of planners’ practical knowledge, and the theory-practicerelationship.For instance, Tyler’s rationale assumes a mechanistic stepwiseplanning process which reduces the role of planners to a technicalprocedure of implementing the prescriptions which constitute hisrationale. This view promotes planning by objectives wherebyintentions are specified in advance and the means for achievingthem are seen as unproblematic. Planning by objectives convertsplanning to a procedural process: one that is carried out byapplying a uniquely suitable formula to achieve the prespecif led9outcomes. Consequently, Tyler’s rationale is seen as normative andprescriptive, providing a cookbook-like, “how to” formula whichconverts planning into a technique, reducing planners’ role totechnicians carrying out a routinized planning process (Apps, 1985;and Sork and Buskey, 1986).Tyler’s rationale is problematic in a number of ways. Itprovides no guidelines for weighing and prioritizing the selectionof content from the three potentially competing and conflictingsources -content specialist, learners, and society. It emphasizesbehaviour of learners in the educational experience. Further,Tyler claims that content must be chosen first and then submittedto psychological and philosophical screens which implies a onedirectional relationship between content and values. Finally, hesuggests that objectives and criteria to measure the objectivesmust be specified in advance which implies that all learning isobservable and measurable.Tyler’s rationale is informed by technical criteria ofefficiency and effectiveness, and is linear and one dimensional.The ends are kept separate from means, and are seen asunproblematic. It does not account for human intentions and valuecommitments, nor for the interaction of those in planning, anddecision making in the curriculum process. The emphasis ontechnique, control, and procedures to follow render the complexity,uncertainty, uniqueness, and value conflicts inherent in curriculumsilent and unproblematic.This model, which suggests that there is a “right way” ofplanning, is informed by a fixed view of knowledge, and tightstructure among the commonplaces of planning. The relationship of10learners and instructor in the learning-teaching situation isvertical and characterized by teacher-pupil role. Planning is onedimensional and linear. Planners implement knowledge in practice.As well, the role of the planner is that of a theoretic-technicianin search of control. Planning is viewed as essentially atechnical activity designed to bring about the achievement ofeducational ends that have been specified in advance by some othereducational agent.Therefore, the dominant planning model describes planners’practice as exclusively concerned with developing objectives,identifying content and learning experiences, and establishingcriteria to ensure the objectives are achieved -a content focusedperspective. While this describes a significant component ofplanning, it is not a comprehensive model for it. Perhaps, thisview of planning is suited for curriculum design in education.Also, there is a failure to address both the situational context inwhich programs are planned and the practical knowledge planners usein making decisions about planning.In contrast, Schwab’s (1969; 1971; 1973) works on thepractical nature of curriculum brought to the forefront theinadequacies of the positivist perspective to resolve curriculumproblems. Schwab (1969) argues that curriculum is a practicalfield of study and as such practical not theoretic knowledge isrequired when identifying alternative courses of action given theintentions and fundamental commitment of planners and the givencontextual situation. Thus, Schwab proffers the practical as thelanguage of the curriculum.The practical is informed by the interpretive perspective11which has an interest in communicative understanding andinteraction, and deliberation in the state of affairs. The meansand ends mutually influence each other, the goal of planning is toact appropriately based on “tested knowledge”, and the theory-practice relationship is dialectical, that is, theory and practicemutually influence each other (Popkewitz, 1984; Carr and Kemmis,1984; Grundy, 1987; Usher and Byrant, 1989).Gay (1980) sunimarizes the assumptions which inform theexperiential model. People are involved in their learning whenthere is personal relevance to them. The most tenable andjustifiable planning results from collaborative planning amonginstructors, learners, and content specialists. The inquiryprocess is based on experimentation and problem solving. Inquiryoriginates in interpersonal relations. Planning is responsive tothe situational context.Further, the experiential view of planning is informed by atentative view of knowledge, and a predisposition to an informal,loose structure among the commonplaces of planning. Theimplications are: planning is multi-dimensional and deliberate; therelationship of learners and instructor is horizontal; planners’practice is intentional, systematic, emergent and based oncommunicative understanding and interaction. In planning, themeans-ends mutually influence each other, planners mediate theprocess in a defensible manner based on practical deliberation.In this view, planning is not resolved by technical orprocedural means, nor are planners technicians carrying out theprescriptions of a technical planning process. Planners bringabout adult learning by communicative understanding and interaction12based on deliberation in the situation among the commonplaces.Their purpose is to make the “best” decision based on theirpractical knowledge. If practical knowledge is an importantcomponent of planning, then a description of this knowledge andplanning practice may provide a comprehensive conceptualization ofthe distinct parameters affecting practice.In addition, the social reconstruction/adaptation model buildson the experiential model. In this view, the validation ofreliable knowledge is based on the problematization of learners’lived world through a problem posing method. This process relieson the collaborative identification of problems related to thepolitical, social, historical, and economic context which defineslearners’ lives. The purpose of education is “emancipatory” orsocial change based on critical reflection and action. Further,this view of knowledge is tentative whereby knowledge isconstructed by instructors and learners. The relationship ofinstructor and learners is horizontal, and the planners’ role isthat of co-investigator. The views of planning expressed in theexperiential and social reconstruction/ adaptation models areperhaps consistent with planning practice in adult education.The experiential and social reconstruction/adaptation modelsare similar but they differ on a number of points. The focal pointof the experiential model is the learner, whereas in the socialreconstruction/adaptation model it is the problem-situation. Thepurpose of the experiential model is individual change within thecontext of the social structures, whereas in the socialreconstruction/adaptation model it is social change includingstructural changes. The process for arriving at valid and reliable13knowledge in the experiential model is through experimentation andsystematic problem solving, whereas in the social reconstruction/adaptation model it is problem posing. The planners role in theexperiential model is communicative understanding and interactionto act appropriately in the situation, whereas in the socialreconstruction/adaptation model it is critical reflection andaction.Eisner and Valiance (1974), Gay (1980), and McNeil (1985)argue that these models are heuristic devices, thus they are notoperationalized at the level of practice. While the models are notmutually exclusive, that is, there is some overlap among themodels, each has a unique focus. Further, in practice, planners donot use models in their pure forms. It is more likely that theyuse segments or parts of various models depending upon thesituation, learners’ educational needs, content, and context. Inshort, planners shape planning through their practical knowledge.Since adult education draws conceptually upon the entire field ofeducation these planning models and their intellectual traditionsprovide a framework for understanding planning in adult education.2 Selected Planning Models in Adult EducationTo understand how planning and planners’ practical knowledgeare conceptualized in the adult education planning literature, itis important to identify and describe the conceptual underpinningsof its major planning models. These models are described,similarities and differences identified, and conclusions drawn.Further, this provides a review of models for comprehension,analysis, and identification of a synthesis of the major componentsof planning.14Houle (1972), Apps (1985), and Sork and Buskey (1986) concurthat the field of adult education draws conceptually upon thegeneric field of education in dealing with planning. Moreover, areview of the adult education planning literature reveals that theacademic model is the conceptual model which informs the planningliterature.Apps (1985), Boone (1985), Sork and Buskey (1986), andLangenbach (1988) provide reviews of the major models which informthe planning literature in adult education. These reviews are reexamined in light of their relationship to the research questionsand problem. These reviews indicate that the academic model andTyler’s rationale inform some models. For instance, Sork andBuskey indicate that these analytical models provide a“theoretical” framework or a set of interrelated ideas, principlesor practices upon which the model is developed. By contrast, anumber of publications are devoid of any analytical and theoreticalunderpinnings but are prescriptive and normative “how- tos” ofplanning. In addition, there are few descriptive models ofplanners’ practice.Houle (1972) , Kidd (1973) , Knowles (1980) , Boyle (1981), andBoone (1985), theorists in the field of adult education, providemodels of planning which closely resemble the academic model andits theoretical formulations. Houle (1972) provides a flexibleframework for planning, which he identifies as seven “decisionpoints”, that includes the identification of the educationalactivity, a decision to proceed, the identification of objectives,the design and fit of the format into larger patterns of life, aplan is operationalized, and results are measured and appraised15(p.47). In addition, Houle identifies seven assumptions upon whichthe model is designed (p.32-40).Houle draws conceptually upon both Dewey (1938) and Tyler.Like Dewey, he asserts the importance of learners’ experiences andthe changing nature of their situation to the context of planningand the learning situation. Unlike Tyler’s rationale, heunderscores planning as “a complex of interacting elements not asa sequence of events” or steps to be followed (p.32-40). Thus,Houle lays the foundation for challenging the dominant perspective.However, Houle’s seven decision point model draws conceptuallyupon the academic model and Tyler’s rationale. Planning includesobjectives and criteria to measure the achievement of objectives.Further, although he defines education in a Schwabian sense as a“practical art”, he locates it among the theoretic disciplines andproposes the application of theory to the practical nature ofplanning. These points are consistent with the underlying thrustof the theoretic\academic model. For instance, in his explanationof the concept that “education is a practical art”, Houle states:As a sophisticated practical art, education draws uponmany theoretical disciplines in the humanities and thesocial and biological sciences. It also uses an extensiveand complex body of principles which has emerged fromanalysis of its own previous practice, and it has ahistory and lore of its own. But if this abstract andapplied knowledge is to prove effective, it must be usedin a specific situation to bring about a desired end(p.33)Houle stresses the forms of knowledge in planning and assigns alogistical relationship to theory and practice, that is, plannersapply theory in practice.Kidd (1973) posits four major components in the model ofplanning and emphasizes content, objectives, and achievement of16objectives while stressing the importance of involving learners inthe learning process to identify their felt needs and interests.Further, he underscores Tyler’s recommendations to use screens tofilter content and learning objectives after content is selected.This implies a one directional relationship between content andphilosophical values and beliefs.In addition, the engagement of learners in identifying theirneeds occurs through an exploration of learners’ needs in relationto the content itself. Thus, learners’ needs are informed bycontent with little reference to their situation. Kidd posits theuse of routine evaluation methods to ensure educational andlearning objectives are achieved. Kidd’s model draws conceptuallyon the academic model and Tyler’s rationale.Knowles (1980) identifies a model for designing programs forlearners which includes: assessing needs, defining purposes andobjectives, designing and operating the program, and evaluating aprogram. Further, Knowles’ model is informed by four andragogicalassumptions about adult learning: adults move towards self-direction; adults use their experience as a learning resource;adults are ready to learn in accordance with sociodevelopmentaltasks; and adults want immediate application of learning.Knowles draws conceptually upon both Dewey and Tyler. LikeDewey, Knowles stresses learners’ self diagnosis of learning needs,the participation of learners in planning and learning experiences,and learners’ self-evaluation. In short, like Dewey, Knowlesemphasizes learners’ role in planning. Therefore, learners have animportant role in defining their needs as well as participating inthe teaching learning transaction.17With respect to Tyler, Knowles emphasizes the role of Content,objectives, and the sequence of steps in planning. He indicatesthat potential objectives are to be divided into educational andoperational categories and screened through filters ofinstitutional philosophy, feasibility, and individual interests.These needs then are recast as program objectives. Thus, Knowles’model incorporates aspects of the content and the learner centredviews of planning.Although Boyle (1981) does not provide an actual model ofplanning, he identifies components which inform planning includingelements of planning design and implementation, and evaluationcomponents. Boyle emphasizes the role of planned change, througheducational programs, based on a number of assumptions that stressparticipatory involvement of the community in its economic andsocial progress, under the guidance and leadership of an adulteducator.However, he synthesizes and expands upon a number oftheoretical approaches which inform planning. His approach tocurriculum and instruction draws conceptually on Tyler’s rationale,and his approach to needs identification is based on Lewin’s forcefield theory. That is, imbalance in the organism indicates a needto be satisfied, satisfaction of the need leads to reduction oftension, and the restoration of equilibrium to the organism.Boyle indicates that planning is a comprehensive process involvingtheory, analysis, and practice, where the concept o lifelonglearning informs planning. He emphasizes the context of planning,and although he posits that planning varies according todevelopmental, institutional, and informational types, these types18have not been empirically verified.Although Boyle incorporates Tyler’s rationale into planning,the thrust of his approach incorporates elements of the socialreconstruction/adaptation model. This is reflected in theassumptions of planned change which inform planning. However, hisemphasis is on the social adaptation or the “residual” approach toplanning which sees individual change as synonymous with socialchange. To this end, Boyle’s approach to planned educationalchange involves a framework of institutional model building, basedon the premise that change is introduced by formal organizationsunder the direction of planners.Boone, building on writers in the field, delineates acomprehensive conceptual planning model. Boone’s (1985) model isinformed by the “scientific approach to inquiry” (p.51). On thebasis of this approach, he provides a complex and comprehensive“conceptual programming model” which includes three majorcomponents: planning, design and implementation, and evaluation andaccountability (p.64-73). Further, under each of these componentsis subsumed “processua.l tasks” which delineate the specified stepsto accomplish the identified tasks such as: identify theorganization and its renewal process; link the organization to itspublics; design the planned program; and implement the plannedprogram.The thrust in Boone’s planning model is theoretic/academic.He carefully delineates the scientific approach which informs hisconceptual model. He stipulates that planning is imperative and 1)provides a legitimate road map for a rational response touncertainty and change; 2) facilitates control of organizational19operations by collecting information to analyze needs and evaluateprograms and services; and 3) orients the organization to afuturistic leadership stance (p.80). He defines planning:.a rational, continuing sequence of precise educationalactivities carried out by adult educators, operating froman organizational base, through which the organizationestablishes and maintains linkage with learners and theirleaders in collaborative identification, assessment, andanalysis of their educational needs (p.82).Similar to Tyler, Boone’s primary assumption is “...that alleducational activity is aimed at bringing about individualbehavioral change” (p.129). The language of the theoretic!academic/technical model is unmistakable in Boone’s conceptualplanning model.However, these models, which are informed by Tyler’srationale, provide the basis for the formulation of some globalperspectives of planning which emerge across the models. Sork andBuskey (1986), in their review of the planning literature, reportthat there are several steps which are common to most models.These reviewers generate a “generic planning model” from theliterature composed of nine specific steps: analyzing planningcontext and client system; assessing client system needs;developing objectives; selecting and ordering of content;selecting, designing and ordering instructional processes;selecting instructional resources; formulating budget andadministrative plan; designing a plan for assuring participation;and designing a plan for evaluating the program (p.89). Thisgeneric, expanded view of planning provides a useful device forcomprehension and analysis of planning practice, and for definingprogram planning in adult education.20Further, these models closely resemble the academic model andTyler’s rationale for curriculum and instruction. Houle (1972)argues that Tyler’s rationale became widespread in the field ofadult education in three major ways:.many institutions have found it necessary toreconstruct their programs and have used all or part ofTyler’s rationale in doing so, . . .almost all of those whohold advanced degrees in adult education have securedthem in graduate departments or schools of educationwhere they have been extensively exposed to Tyler’sideas. . .many of the program planning models devised bytheoreticians of adult education have flowed directlyfrom his rationale (p.15).Houle concludes that while his own framework draws on othercurriculum theorists it also draws conceptually on Tyler’srationale. He writes “Certainly that fact is true of the frameworksuggested in this book” (p.15).Apps (1985) concurs that Tyler’s rationale is transformed intoa number of planning models including Houle’s and Knowles’. Heconcludes that Tyler’s model is “. . .the predominant model that muchof the continuing education literature proclaims” (p.182).Apps raises a number of questions related to the appropriatenessand applicability of Tyler’s model to the field of practice.However, he concludes that it makes no sense to abandon Tyler’smodel but suggests the necessity to recognize that many realitiesexist in the provision of educational programs for adults whichrequire alternative approaches. He suggests that the “. . .writingsof Habermas (1972) can guide us toward alternative approaches”(p.184).Similar to Carr (1986), Apps (1985) states that Habermas’“...three approaches to teaching and learning: technical,practical, and emancipatory” provide different perspectives on21teaching and learning, and different perspectives on planning.Apps argues that Habernias’ “technical”, which relates to how theindividual controls and manipulates the environment, may be wellserved by following Tyler’s rationale. Habermas’ “practical”,which relates to how the individual derives meaning from theenvironment, may be well served by a planning process which may bequite different from Tyler’s model, for instance, a liberaleducation planning process. Habermas’ “emancipatory” category,which relates to the critical and action perspective of individualsin the environment, may be well served by Freire’s approach toteaching and learning and by implication planning and planners’practice. Apps indicates that:• . . programmers have been thwarted in developingprogramming approaches that fit their own situations• . . one day these approaches may become a part of theliterature of continuing education programming (p.lBE).Habermas’ three perspectives may describe planning practicewhile reflecting the complexity, uniqueness, and uncertainty ofplanning. Apps argues that as planners take charge of:• • both the practice and theory of programming, the fieldwill be presented with a rich array of programming theoryand practice. Not only will the collection of “tried andtrue” practical approaches be expanded, but thetheoretical underpinnings of these approaches will beexpanded as well (p.187).These perceptions underscore the importance of this research to:examine planners’ practical knowledge and planning from theirperspective; construct a comprehensive view of planners’ practice;and develop a language of discourse which is consistent with thisview.A related observation is that Tyler’s formulation with itsapparent simplicity and parsimonious style is translated into a22“cookbook like” model or recipe in a substantive body of theplanning literature in adult education. For instance, Hoüle (1972)stipulates that:The books which deal generally with program developmentin adult education are highly practical.. .If such booksdeal with theory, it is often by the assertion of valuesand beliefs, thus offering a philosophy in the commonman’s use of that term, but they are essentially how-to-do-it manuals... (p.245).Although Houle calls for a non-linear, analytical approach toplanning, other authors continue to advocate prescriptive, lineartreatments of how-to-do-it manuals. Houle’s approach has not beenwidely accepted and it has not had a major influence on subsequentwriters in the field, for they, with a few exceptions, adopt alinear approach that seems to argue for the one best way. Sorkand Buskey (1986) concur that the literature is predominantlyprescriptive and normative: “. . .most of the publications containednormative models, that is, models which represented the author’srecommendations for how one should go about the tasks of programplanning” (p.87). They argue that “...the literature as a wholehas a rather low degree of theoretical explanations” (p.92). Theyidentify examples of planning models in specific planning contextswhich illustrate the pervasiveness of the normative andatheoretical nature of the planning literature. They conclude thata body of literature has been developed which incorporates a ratherlow level of theoretical explanations and research findings,essentially atheoretical literature.The academic model which informs the adult education planningliterature poses a number of problems. Elbaz (1983) indicates thatthere is a radical separation between theory and practice with23concomitant problems of how to “apply” theory to practice, andthere is a failure to acknowledge planners’ practice and practicalknowledge in planning. However, although planners’ practice may beguided by the dominant model, it is more likely that they use aneclectic approach to planning. Based on deliberation over thecommonplaces, planners mediate planning to act appropriately in thesituation.Schwab (1969) suggests that in deliberative planning, plannerstransform ideas into educational programs to bring about learning.Through an intimate knowledge of the situation, planners identifyproblems, deficiencies, or inadequacies in the system and itsproduct. They formulate solutions to maintain, repair, or improvethe system and its product; set problems; and anticipate, weigh,and generate educational alternatives. Planners combine a varietyof knowledge components regarding content, learners’ educationalneeds, learning activities and objectives, learners’ andinstructors’ intents, abilities, skills, and sensitivities,contextual values, evaluation procedures, and conflicting andcompeting demands of learners, and the situation into a reasonableeducational program to facilitate and enhance adult learning. Inplanning, planners utilize practical knowledge.However, the pervasiveness of the behaviourist discourse andthe technological perspective which inform the dominant model makeit difficult for planners to engage in meaningful discussions ofplanning issues and inhibit the development of a language ofdiscourse which is in keeping with the practice of planning. Theliterature, with a few noted exceptions, does not address planners’practice from their perspective nor their practical knowledge in24planning. Moreover, the research related to planning in adulteducation is formulated out of the dominant/positivist perspective.The few descriptive studies which deal with planning in practiceare examined for their implications to this research.2.1 Research on Planning in Adult EducationIn the adult education planning literature, few studiesexamine, through planners’ eyes, what happens in practice with whatis prescribed in the literature. For example, Rossman and Bunning(1978), and Daniel and Rose (1982) examine planners’ theoreticalknowledge and practice but these works are based on perceptions andprescriptions of professors of adult education in universitygraduate programs, and/or deans and directors of universitycontinuing education units.Daniel and Rose (1982), building on Rossman and Bunning’sDelphi study, compare planners’ and professors’ opinions concerningthe knowledge and skills planners need. Their findings identify adiscrepancy between perceptions of deans and directors, on the onehand, and professors of graduate programs, on the other, regardingthe priority they assign to the knowledge and skills planners need.They suggest that professors of adult education are expected toprovide planners with the necessary knowledge and skills. However,if preparation of planners occurs without input from planners inthe field, planners may not gain knowledge and skills in some areaswhich are important to practice (p.87). Daniel and Rose recommendthat further study should be conducted to determine if thisdiscrepancy manifests itself in planners being ill prepared tofunction in the field.Furthermore, Daniel and Rose (1982) suggest that to understand25and develop a theoretical base of planners’ knowledge in the field,it is important to ask planners directly about their practice.Reliance on the perceptions, prescriptions, and theoreticalknowledge of professors, and deans or directors of continuingeducation units may result in educational programs at the graduatelevel which do not provide planners with the necessary knowledgeand skills which are required in the field of practice. Thus, toidentify if there is a deficiency in planners’ knowledge, anexamination of their practice from their perspective may reveal it.In addition, Sork and Buskey state that “. . .a small number ofpublications contained descriptive models or models whichrepresented how program planning was actually done in a particularcontext” (p.87). The descriptive studies of Pennington and Green(1976), and Lauffer (1977) are examples of these studies.Specifically, Pennington and Green examine planning throughplanners’ perspectives while evaluating the planning model inpractice with Tyler’s rationale.Pennington and Green indicate that Tyler’s rationale is rarelyfollowed in practice. They assert that there is little indicationof needs assessment; there is rarely a comprehensive approach toidentify and develop objectives; there is little effort to selectteaching methods to match learners’ characteristics; and acomprehensive evaluation is rarely if ever conducted. Thesewriters state:What appeared to be occurring as those intervieweddescribed their planning strategies was a blending ofwhat Walker. . . labelled a “classical” model and a“temporal” model. Planners use the language of theclassical model to label their planning actions. However,as they describe their planning actions it becomes clearthat personal values, environmental constraints,26available resource alternatives, and other factorsimpinge on the program development process. These actionshave received little attention in the literature, butprobably represent a major set of critical factors forprogram development (p.22).These findings confirm that Tyler’s model, the “right” way, is notthe approach used in practice, but that “. . .personal values,environmental constraints, available resource alternatives, andother factors impinge on the program development process” (p.22).These writers argue that these factors receive little or noattention in the literature, but probably represent a critical setof factors in the practice of planning.Accordingly, this study builds on these empirical claims andargues that, if planners’ planning is guided by and makes sense inrelation to a personally held set of beliefs, values, principles,and contextual factors, the role of research is to help plannersmake explicit their often implicitly held knowledge bases, and thecontextual factors which mediate practice. Some of these factorsoccur inside planners’ heads, and are thus unobservable which maypose methodological problems for a positivist mode and suggest theuse of an interpretive mode.An interpretive perspective is used to facilitate theexamination of planners’ practice from their perspective. Thisoffers the possibility to uncover planners’ knowledge bases andcontextual factors, and to develop categories which may provide acomprehensive view of planning in practice and planners’ practicalknowledge. Further, the concerns identified by these writersinform the research questions and problem, and are considered inthe formulation of the purpose of this study. However, before anexamination of planners’ practical knowledge and planning practice,27the following section describes the literature in education whichdeals with practical knowledge and theory-practice.3 Literature on Practical KnowledgeThe literature, related to planners’ practical knowledge andthe theory-practice relationship in planning, is examined to gainan understanding of the conception of practical knowledge as wellas the conception of the theory-practice relationship which informplanning in practice.3.1 Definition of Practical KnowledgeWhile descriptions of planners’ practical knowledge are not,in themselves, inherently useful and interesting, they are valuablebecause they offer the possibility for insight into how plannershold and use practical knowledge and arrive at defensible decisionsand actions. Further, this approach calls into question thepredominant model of planning and the concomitant partial image ofplanners as simply means by which programs are developed. Roberts(1980), Johnson (1984), and Sternberg and Caruso (1985) explicatea definition of practical knowledge which provides a usefulframework for this study.Roberts argues that a sufficiently sophisticated conception ofthe connection between the practical and the theoretical knowledgeof educators engaged in planning provides insight into theirpractice. Such a conception permits understanding the practicalknowledge which links theory and practice. Further, thisconnection is made possible by understanding how educators’practical knowledge is constructed, held, and used in planning.Moreover, Johnson (1984) suggests an understanding of thisconnection provides insights into the complexity of planning. That28is, the complex “...interweaving of skills,...institutionalstructures, social relations, cultural constraints, historicalinfluences and conceptual determinants that. . .produce the fabric ofthe educators’ knowledge base” (p.467). This understanding maylead to the recognition that “. . .such a meaning complex is notsubject to reductionist models, linear analysis or hierarchicalstructuring”. To this end, practical knowledge is not simply “knowhow” but the contextually related capabilities of planners asactive intellects who define, describe, and create human learningthrough the subtle artistry of the interrelation of theory andpractice (p.467).Building on these views, Sternberg and Caruso (1985) positfive interrelated questions for thinking about practical knowledge.These are: What is practical knowledge? How does it relate toother kinds of knowledge? What are the means by which it isacquired? How is it applied? How is it held?Firstly, they view practical knowledge as “procedural”knowledge which is useful in everyday life. They stipulate thereare two conditions of practical knowledge. It is knowledge whichis procedural rather than declarative and it is knowledge that isrelevant to everyday life. In short, “. . .it is knowledge ofprocedure and for use relevant”. Also, it is a function of therelationship of individuals’ environment, that is, “. . .it isintricately linked to the individual and the individual’s contextof its use” (p.134)Secondly, practical knowledge is held (mentally represented)in the “. . .form of productions, or condition-action sequences thatimplement actions when certain preconditions are met” (p.134)29Practical knowledge is held as “production system” and or “scriptor standard event sequence” which complement each other. Manyproduction systems are embedded within the framework of a verygeneral scriptural organization of practical knowledge. Theseproduction systems help the scripts to function in an adaptive, andpractically useful way.For instance, non procedural or declarative forms ofknowledge, are stored in the form of networks, integratingconcepts, and evidence claims. An example of this form ofdeclarative knowledge is “academic” knowledge. Sternberg andCaruso argue that what distinguishes practical from academicknowledge are the conditions that practical knowledge meet, both.real world relevance and procedural action consequences”(p.138). In short, they maintain that practical knowledge is bothprocedural and relevant knowledge while knowledge that isdeclarative or irrelevant to everyday life is academic knowledge.This investigator argues that although this definition isuseful to conceptualize the nature of practical knowledge, it islimited. For instance, the generalization that all academicknowledge is irrelevant knowledge and consequently does not qualifyas practical knowledge is questionable. Not all academic knowledgeis irrelevant; however, that which is irrelevant cannot beclassified as useful and relevant to everyday life. That which isacademic and relevant can be classified as practical knowledge. Inshort, some academic knowledge j a species of practical knowledge.Thirdly, Sternberg and Caruso identify three processes for theacquisition and transmission of practical knowledge: directlearning when knowledge is acquired from theoretical sources;30indirect learning when knowledge is acquired through experiencefrom another source; and tacit learning when knowledge is acquiredthrough trial and error. They assert that most of the practicalknowledge adults acquire is tacit and this kind of knowledge, incomparison with theoretic knowledge which is acquired directly inundergraduate and graduate programs, is more relevant forsuccessful on-the-job performance (p.146-7).Finally, they posit that practical knowledge is used in threemajor forms of responses to the everyday world or individuals’context. Firstly, adapting is the process whereby individualsaccommodate themselves to demands of the environment because ofdemands created by self, others, or tasks. Individuals usepractical knowledge to respond to demands of the environment.Individuals use “adaptive intelligence”, that is, the ability touse old scripts or create new scripts through the formation of newproduction and production systems to deal with demands of thesituation.Secondly, shaping is the process whereby individuals attemptto mold the environment to make it more suitable to their needs orinterests. Shaping, like adapting, is created by demands fromself, others, or tasks. Shaping involves another use of practicalknowledge and it is used independently of adapting. Both shapingand adapting operate in “a kind of equilibrational balance”.Achieving the right balance between shaping and adapting is one ofthe most important resources in individuals’ practical knowledge.Finally, selecting is the process whereby individuals decideto leave the work environment. While adapting and shapingpresuppose the attempt to work things out within the situation,31selecting is viewed as the last resort after adapting and shapinghave failed. The decision to select another work environmentarises from self, others, or the tasks. Sternberg and Caruso donot make explicit the distinction between adapting and shaping;however, they indicate that the three components do not representa hierarchical relationship.They argue that the “better” response to a given problemsituation is a combination of individuals’ abilities, purposes ofthe program, individuals’ ability to achieve these purposes, andthe nature of the situation. All of these are informed by theindividuals’ practical knowledge.This analytical framework for thinking about practicalknowledge suggests that while practical knowledge is situationspecific, the ability to acquire and apply practical knowledge isprobably more general than the knowledge itself. Furthermore,Sternberg and Caruso argue that the more practical knowledgeindividuals acquire, the more flexibility and ability they have tomeet the demands of the environment and to achieve desired goals(p.155)In short, this investigator argues that practical knowledge isdeclarative relevant, procedural, and contextual rather thandeclarative and irrelevant. It is acquired and transmitted throughdirect, mediated, and tacit learning in relation to the task,others, and self. It is used to adapt, to shape, or selectindividuals’ environment in response to demands placed on self,others, or the tasks. This expanded definition underscores thedialectical relationship of theory-practice. This definition ofpractical knowledge provides a framework for viewing the research32questions, problem, and findings.3.2 Theoretical Sources on Theory-PracticeThe theory-practice relationship is complex. To understandthis relationship is to be in a better position to make defensibledecisions in planning. Although Schwab’s (1969, 1971) theoreticalformulations brought the dialectical relationship of thetheoretical-practical into the forefront of curriculum thinking,many scholars before him, including Dewey (1916) and McKeon (1952),had wrestled with the nature of this relationship.Schwab’s (1969) treatises on the theoretical and the practicalin curriculum highlight the difficulties and problems which resultwhen theoretic principles and methods are employed to the exclusionof practical principles and methods to resolve problems andquestions in a field which is essentially practical in nature.Schwab (1969) indicates that the theoretic fails to respond to theneeds of the field:.A crisis of principle arises, . . .when principles areexhausted- when the questions they permit have all beenasked and answered- or when the efforts at enquiryinstigated by the principles have at last exhibited theirinadequacy to the subject matter and the problems whichthey were designed to attack (p.6).He argues for a dialectical relationship of the theoretical and thepractical to deal with the particular nature and purpose of thecurriculum field which he describes as practical.Schwab indicates that the practical differs radically fromdisciplines of the theoretic whose inherent nature is: 1)abstractions and generalizations, 2) induction on phenomenon by adetached researcher, and 3) hypothetical deductions from findingswhich lead to “warranted knowledge”. The heart of the practical is33a “recourse to accumulated lore”. This is acquired in thesituation and through experience at the level of the concrete case(p.14). In Schwab’s view curriculum theorizing deals withpractical questions of “what”, “how”, “why”, and “when” which arelocated in concrete situations.Schwab (1969) postulates the practical, a discipline in itsown right, as the language of curriculum and identifies theassumptions of the practical curriculum. He suggests that thesubject matter of curriculum is not lawlike generalizations buthuman action in the situation over the commonplaces to gainsituational insight and understanding. The source of curriculumproblems is not abstractions created by the researcher but thesituation. Its method is not induction and deduction butdeliberation based on interaction in the situation which leads todefensible decisions: “. . .the target of the method is not ageneralization or explanation but a decision about action in aconcrete situation” (p.20). The end of curriculum is not warrantedknowledge but an increased capacity to act morally and ethicallybased on defensible decisions.Therefore, the practical is “concrete and particular”, theparticularities of which are discovered in the site itself. Tothis end, Schwab posits that a renaissance of the curriculum fieldrequires a dialectical relationship of theory and practice, not a“wholesale” application of the theoretical to a field which is bynature practical. The dialectical method, which is universal andfundamental to all human activity, is posited as the conception tobring the theoretic and the practical into closer alignment.However, this does not stand alone; it is supplemented by practical34and eclectic arts.Further, the concept of “practice” is central to the practicalcurriculum process. Carr and Kemmis (1984) suggest that practice,which informs the practical curriculum, is “...the organizedexpression in action of a commitment; it relies for its success onresponding to the practical exigencies of the situation in which itis enacted.” They state that:.all practices, like all observations, have ‘theory’embedded in them and this is dust as true for thepractice of ‘theoretical’ pursuits as it is for those of‘practical’ pursuits. . .Both are distinctive socialactivities conducted for distinctive purposes by means ofspecific procedures and skills and in light of particularbeliefs and values (p. 111).Furthermore, the character of practical curriculum and hencepractical inquiry is that of everyday problem-solving andexperimentation intended to understand, describe, confer meaning,and to act appropriately in the situation.Carr (1986) indicates that the practical curriculum is open,reflective, indeterminate and a complex form of human action. Assuch, it is irreducible to theoretical principles or technicalrules. It provides the basis for making wise and prudentjudgements about “what ought to be done”. In contrast, thetheoretical curriculum is based on technical rationality designedto bring about the achievement of specifiable educational ends. Inthis regard, good practice is determined by reference to scientificprinciples by means of which desirable educational outcomes areefficiently produced.Schwab (1969) delineates the underlying principles of thepractical which include: ensure the maintenance and improvement ofpatterns based on purposeful action. That is, work within the35existing framework to bring about change. Recognize deficienciesin the system and inadequacies in its product to repair these.Have an “.. .intimate knowledge of the existing state of affairs”,identify the problem, set the problem, and formulate solutionswhich necessitate the anticipation and generation of alternativesolutions to problems (p.18).Schwab proposes that deliberation is fundamental to thepractical curriculum. Deliberation is “. . .complex and arduous”.It deals with “. . .both ends and means as mutually determining oneanother” (p.20). The process involves identifying relevant factsfor the concrete case, identifying what is missing but needed forthe said case, generating alternative solutions, weighingconsequences of these solutions, and choosing the best possiblesolution for the specific case. This process is accomplished bycreating a communication linkage and synthesis from a variety oftheoretical perspectives of a particular phenomenon and bringingthis to bear on the state of affairs.Carr (1986) adds that the practical curriculum centres ondeliberation which is the human search for meaning andunderstanding that enriches individuals, groups, and community.Deliberation is the basis of the practical curriculum upon whichdefensible judgements about educational practice is mediated. Indeliberation, human beings are possessors and creators of knowledgewhich informs their actions in situations they encounter. This isbased on the assumption that practice situations are essentiallycomplex, uncertain, and unique requiring deliberation by key actorsto reach decisions.Central to deliberation is an ethical commitment or a36framework of values to contribute good and worthwhile decisionsthat enable those involved and those affected by action thatemanates from curriculum decisions to change and grow inincreasingly human ways. To this end, the interpretiveperspective, which informs the practical curriculum, describespractical situations in ways which uncover the underlying valuesand beliefs, the tacit knowledge, and unarticulated assumptionsinherent in practice.Schwab (1969) states that the practical arts are used toidentify discrepancies of the theoretic which is composed oflargely unconnected separate theories of many distinct subjects.The practical arts modify and match theories in the course of theirapplications, and devise alternative solutions (generate, and weighalternatives versus consequences) to account for aspects in thesituation not addressed by the theoretic. The practical arts jointhe theoretic and the practical because:such theories are not, and will not be, adequate bythemselves to tell us what to do with human beings or howto do it. What they variously suggest and the contraryguidelines they afford to choice and action must bemediated and combined by eclectic arts and must bemassively supplemented, as well as mediated, by knowledgeof some other kind derived from another source (p.13-14).Schwab (1971) stipulates that the arts of the eclectic, whichare methods used to prepare theory for practical use (p.495), joinand reconcile the incompleteness of theory. The arts of theeclectic deal with the incompleteness of their subject and theincomplete view each takes of its incomplete subject. As well,they take into account the “complex web” of actions andtransactions of those involved in the deliberative process.Further, they identify the underlying structure of theories which37gives the appearance of completeness to the subject of inquiry(p.501)The arts of the eclectic uncover what a given principle ofinquiry does to its material; what the principle of inquiryemphasizes; and what view the principle of inquiry includes andexcludes. They are analytical devices for comprehending,discriminating, and using the many views of the theoretic.Specifically, the practical arts are related to particulars of thepractical omitted by the theoretic. The arts of the eclectic areconcerned with the incompleteness of each subject of the theoretic,and select, adjust, and combine the incomplete views. T h epractical and eclectic arts are means to operationalize thedialectical relationship of the theoretic and the practical.Schwab (1971, 1973) moves from a conceptual to an operationallevel in delineating the practical curriculum. In the process, heexpands the language of the practical. In operationalizing thepractical curriculum, Schwab’s (1971) use of the commonplaces orthe “topica” of curriculum provide a useful device for thesystematic analysis of what is included and excluded in eachcurriculum deliberation (p.513).The commonplaces allow planners to see aspects of the wholeand to understand and defend why those aspects are included orexcluded in the deliberative process. Schwab suggests the methodof a “polyfocal conspectus”. Through the repeated application oftheories in an “unsystematic” manner planners transform a theoreticdoctrine or a “body of knowledge” into a view, a perspective, or a“. . .habit of observation, selection and interpretation of theappropriate facts to concrete cases...” (p.519). Planners ensure38that the selection of facts is relevant to the topic, and that evenif perspectives are collapsed or combined, the planners are able tooffer defensible reasons for the decision.Schwab’s perspective, with its emphasis on the practicalnature of planning, assumes a dialectical relationship betweentheory and practice. In this view, the planner’s practice isintentional, systematic, and emergent; the means-ends are seen asconflicting, competing, and mutually determining each other. Thefocus of planning is deliberation among representatives of thecommonplaces, including the planner. Planning is defined andbounded by the particularities inherent in the situation.Planning is contextualized and problematized. The centrality of aplanner’s role, and deliberation of planning over the commonplacesoffer a reconceptualization of planners’ practice, the theory-practice relationship, and planning.Schwab’s perspective includes a number of interrelatedprocesses. First, the commonplaces are considered in relation tothe social, cultural, historical, economic, and politicalperspectives. Second, the planner, in deliberation withrepresentatives of the commonplaces, transforms a “doctrine”, thatis, a habit of thinking into a perspective during planning. Forinstance, the various learning theories are scrutinized for theirappropriateness to the situation at hand, and based ondeliberation, a synthesized view is selected for the situation.Third, the final process, is deliberation which is informed by thepractical and eclectic arts. At the theoretic level, data arecollected, analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated. At the practicallevel, deliberation over educational alternatives and choices based39on understanding and interpreting the situation gives rise todefensible decision-making and action.Schwab (1973) operationalizes the process of deliberation. Heproposes a committee of ten to twelve with representatives from thecommonplaces. He describes the process as a “. . .spiral movementtoward a body of generated educational alternatives and choicesamong them” where choices satisfy the collective (p.501). Theprocess, which is chaired by the curriculum specialist, involves:the discovery of each representative’s body of experience,expertise, and relevance to planning; the coalescence of what hasbeen discovered; and the utilization of the coalesced body ofconcerns as tools to generate new educational materials andpurposes.Walker (1971) , Wick (1972) , Westbury (1972), Pereira (1984),Roby (1985), and Roberts (1980) concur with Schwab’s analysis ofthe dialectical relationship of the theoretic and the practical andattempt to operationalize the practical in the curriculum process.To this end, Walker (1971) develops a naturalistic model ofplanning using the commonplaces as a “platform” through whichdeliberation of planning is suggested.Wick (1972) supports Schwab’s thesis of the theoretic natureof the curriculum field and the need to think and talk aboutcurriculum in the language of the practical. He identifies theproblems of the curriculum field as normative problems: what shouldbe done? what should be taught, and learned? why? by whom? in whatorder and combinations?, and under what circumstances? Wick arguesthat curriculum problems are about not only “. . .what is the case”(theoretical/scientific) nor are they resolved by “.. .establishing40an explanatory theory11 but also they are practical and must betreated as such (p.37).Westbury (1972), Pereira (1984), and Roby (1985) explicate thedeliberative process. Westbury suggests that the practical arts isa “generic method” which can be employed in curriculum making. Heargues that the method of deliberation is a complex, fluid,transactional discipline which focuses on the identification of theworthwhile and the attainment of desirable educational goals.Pereira (1984) articulates the arts of perception which arepart of the practical. The arts of perception allow the planner toperceive and use the significant and particular aspects ofproblematic situations. Planning entails making decisions aboutwhat and how to teach particular groups at specific times andlocations in concrete circumstances. Theory alone is insufficientto determine these decisions. Neither can general policies,guidelines or models tell us, by themselves, what ought to be done.Pereira asserts planners understand the concrete and particularaspects of the situation under discussion; judge theirsignificance; choose the relevant features; and formulate a plan ofaction which accounts for these features.Pereira concurs that the commonplaces are used as a systematicguide in deliberation. They are the criteria for weighing,generating, and choosing alternatives. The process is an educativeone for participants and for discovering and generating new termsin which to expand the scope of the language of the practical. Hestresses a reciprocal learning process for all involved in planningand an expansion of a language of discourse which is consistentwith planners’ practice.41Roby (1985) operationalizes curriculum deliberation. Heprovides a description of deliberation, a list of habits whichimpede deliberation, and suggestions for the amelioration of thesehabits. Accordingly, he argues that to turn the task intocurriculum deliberation, it is necessary to “factor in” thecommonplaces at each stage in the process. He concurs with Schwabthat the process is distinctly a spiral versus a linear movementwhich involves a process of discovery of meaning.He argues that the use of the commonplaces is criticalbecause: they provide multiple foci which enable a view of a widerange of details with different perspectives; they allow variousperspectives which are alternative resources to be “cultivated andrefined”, not avoided; and they allow shifting relation betweenproblem posing and solution setting - a movement from confrontinga problematic situation to developing a situation of problems andsolutions. He summarizes the deliberative process as: criticalreflection, backtracking, and review and revision (p.29-30). Thisprovides a model for deliberation.Roberts (1980) argues that theory and practice areirreconcilably different in nature and purpose but enrichment onboth sides is possible only if one has a comprehensive conceptionof their relationship. He undertakes to operationalize aconnection of theory-practice which is mutually supportive anddialectical. Roberts concurs with Schwab that theory isincomplete, truncated, and needs to be treated by the arts ofeclectic. Theoretical accounts of a science event are notcomplete: no two theories explain all aspects of a “genericphenomenon”, for example, learning, equally well. Research42truncates the science event to make it manageable. The arts ofeclectic are required to capture the richness of many views thatcoexisting theories for the same phenomenon present, and to“...reintroduce wholeness to the phenomenon” (p.71).The more theories a planner has available, the moremultifaceted and enriched the interpretation of the phenomenon canbe. A synthesized view of the phenomenon is achieved through aprocess of systematic eclecticism or “informed eclecticism”. Inpractice, there is a reconciling of the incompleteness of theoriesthrough the use of this informed eclecticism. This process is ameans for “. . .scrutinizing the event in its wholeness”. Thedecision to act is not based on an outcome of direct deduction fromone theory or many theories but on a “process of deliberation”(p.73).Roberts concurs with Schwab that the commonplaces, which arepart of the tradition of the curriculum field, form an analyticdevice in the process of informed eclecticism. The commonplacesare included by planners involved in curriculum deliberation, andare used as a framework for analysis. The commonplaces allow fordefensible decisions in planning.In attempting to operationalize Schwab’s theoreticalformulations, these writers offer prescriptive and normative modelsof planning. Therefore, this literature is limited. Thisinvestigator argues that Schwab’s theoretical formulation providesan alternative approach to planning which is consistent withpractice. However, to understand and describe planning andpractical knowledge and the match with Schwab’s theoreticalformulation, it is important to conduct research which examines43planning from planners’ perspectives.Curriculum deliberation is often complex, unique, anduncertain. This planning process requires planners to join theoryand practice in the situation. In this conceptualization ofplanning, practice is intentional, systematic, and emergent. Thisconceptualization implies a framework which can render practicemeaningful, and it suggests a language of discourse which isconsistent with practice. The next section examines research oncurriculum and teacher thinking, including theories and beliefs,epistemologies, practical knowledge, and planning.4 Research on Curriculum and Teacher ThinkingHalkes (1986) indicates the National Conference on Studies inTeaching, which was convened in June 1974 by the National Instituteof Education (NIE), marked the official inauguration of research onteachers’ thought processes. The report states “. . .it is obviousthat what teachers do is directed in no small measure by what theythink” (p.21l)Further, Clark and Peterson (1986) stipulate the Panel 6report presents the teacher as a “. . .professional... [rather] than• . . technicians who execute skilled performances according toprescriptions or algorithms defined by others” (p.256). Thesewriters indicate that research on teachers’ thinking is a rapidlydeveloping field of research. They provide a concise evaluativereview of the research related to curriculum and teacher thinkingwhich is re-examined in light of its relationship to this study.Clark and Peterson provide a useful heuristic device forconceptualizing the development and growth of research in thisarea. They posit that the research falls into two streams: 1)44teachers’ thought processes: a) teachers’ theories and beliefs, b)teachers’ planning (preactive and postactive thoughts), C)teachers’ interactive thoughts and decisions; and 2) teachers’actions and their observable effects: a) teachers’ classroombehaviour, b) students’ classroom behaviour, and c) students’achievement. They argue that these research streams differ on twofundamental levels: “Teachers’ thought processes occur ‘insideteachers’ heads’ and thus are unobservable. In contrast, teacherbehaviour, student behaviour, and student achievement scoresconstitute observable phenomena” (p.257).The phenomena in stream one, that is, teachers’ thoughtprocesses, are not observable and measurable and deal with programdevelopment and design, and theories and beliefs which inform theseprocesses. This stream is examined because of its relevance to theresearch questions and problem. As well, this stream is fraughtwith challenging methodological problems for the positivist modeand entails an emerging research perspective, the interpretive mode(p.257)Further, Clark and Peterson suggest that research related toteachers’ theories and beliefs represents the smallest and youngestpart of the research on teachers’ thinking. Studies are smallsample descriptive research, and the methods of inquiry includeethnographic participant observations, interviews, stimulatedrecall, and the use and administration of the repertory grid. Avariety of terms are used to describe this research, including“personal practical knowledge” (Connelly, 1972), and “practicalknowledge” (Elbaz, 1981).Clark and Peterson argue that the fundamental principle which45informs these studies is that teachers’ cognitive and otherbehaviours are guided by and make sense in relation to a personallyheld system of beliefs, values, and principles. The main role ofresearch is to help teachers make explicit these implicitly heldand private knowledge bases which inform practice (p.287).Accordingly, an interpretive perspective is conducive to the studyof planners’ theories and beliefs in planning.4.1 Research on Teachers’ Theories and BeliefsClandinin (1986) suggests that research on teachers’ thinkingwhich deals with teachers’ knowledge base is further divided intotwo categories: 1) research which relates to what we know aboutteachers; and 2) research which relates to what teachers know.Research from the second category related to the research questionsand problem is examined. This research is further subdivided intocategories which are not mutually exclusive and include:theoretical knowledge or knowledge which teachers acquire fromdisciplines; pedagogical knowledge or knowledge which teachersacquire about practice; epistemological knowledge or knowledgewhich teachers acquire about valid and reliable ways of knowing;and practical knowledge or knowledge which teachers acquire frompractice.However, for purposes of this study, research related toteachers’ epistemologies and practical knowledge are examined.Clandinin (1986) indicates that research on teachers’epistemological knowledge identified categories from an analysis ofthe philosophical literature and then attempted to confirm thesecategories by empirical studies. Research on teachers’ practicalknowledge is based on single case studies which developed46categories of teachers’ practical knowledge.4.1.1 Research on Teachers’ EpistemologiesYoung (l981a), Clark and Peterson (1986), and Clandinin (1986)suggest that research on epistemological knowledge draws upon thedominant positivist perspective, and these findings are notencouraging. Young concludes that the degree of consistencybetween categories derived from the literature and empiricalstudies of teachers’ epistemologies is low. Participants selectitems from check lists which represent several of four types ofepistemologies (realism, idealism, pragmatism, and existentialism)developed from the literature. Patterns of correlation betweencategories derived from the literature and empirical studies aredifficult to interpret. As well, there appears to be only alimited relationship between epistemologies measured in this wayand other areas of teachers’ philosophy. In other words, there islittle “lateral” consistency between teachers’ epistemologies andother aspects of their educational practice. At the same time, itappears that research which uses the dominant positivistperspective offers little promise for understanding planners’theories and beliefs in planning.However, Young’s (1981a) study of teachers’ epistemologies isone approach which offers promise. Young suggests that thedevelopment of a satisfactory “technique” for discoveringepistemologies seems to require a careful study of the nature ofepistemological beliefs, values and attitudes of the groupinvolved, which can be best facilitated by an ethnographicexploration of these epistemologies prior to further theorydevelopment. In short, epistemological categories should be47derived from the data of participants rather than from conceptualanalysis of the philosophical literature. To this end, Young useda multistage approach to identify teachers’ epistemologies.Through the use of an ethnographic study, a list of teachers’epistemologies is constructed, the way categories form systems areexplored, and four categories which are identified areoperationalized in the form of four Likert scales.Young (1981a) develops categories which range on a continuumfrom “scientism” to “hermeneutics” with a “pluralist” position inthe middle. Young argues a teacher’s epistemology is likely tohave implications for four categories of teacher’s beliefs: theselection and justification of knowledge in the curriculum, theprocess of managing the presentation of this knowledge, the teachermanaged pedagogy, and the evaluation of learners.-Further, a scientific view of knowledge supports: a didacticview of teaching, that is, a teacher centred approach to learningand teaching, a discipline oriented view of the overall curriculumorganization, and a teacher centred approach to control andevaluation. This scientific view is informed by a content centredapproach to curriculum (p.202).Young (l981a) posits that the “technicist” view of education(an associated view of the “scientistic” view) is graduallyreplacing the “traditional” educational philosophies. The resultsof his survey to measure the four categories of teachers’ beliefsindicate that, taken together, the four categories of belief forma “coherent pedagogical ideology”. There is a strong tendencytowards consistency in terms of a sociological rather than aphilosophical theory of the implications of a teacher’s48epistemological belief (p.199).Young’s findings indicate that a scientistic epistemology isassociated with a preference for tight curriculum organization, ahigh degree of teacher control over learners, and management ofclassroom behaviour. In contrast, hermeneutic epistemologystresses purposeful meaning and interpretation, is associated witha learner-problem centred approach to curriculum organization, ahigh degree of learner’s personal development, and active learner’sparticipation in the management of the teaching learningtransaction.This study argues that these views are consistent with thosedescribed in the academic\technical model, on the one hand, andwith those in the experiential and social reconstruction\adaptation models, on the other hand. In the academic model, thereis a predisposition towards a tight vertical structure of teachercontrol of curriculum and the teaching learning transaction, and afixed view of knowledge. In the experiential and socialreconstruction\adaptation models, there is a predisposition towardsa loose horizontal structure of teacher control of curriculum andthe teaching learning transaction, and a tentative view ofknowledge.While these studies are by and large all related to schoolingand teacher education, Young’s research indicates thatepistemological categories derived from ethnographic studies appearto be appropriate to and consistent with educators’ epistemologiesin practice. Moreover, educators’ categories of beliefs appear toform a coherent belief system with specific implications for theireducational practice.494.1.2 Research on Teachers’ Practical KnowledgeResearch on teachers’ practical knowledge describes whatteachers know in practice. Connelly (1972), an early associate ofSchwab, is the progenitor of the “personal practical knowledge”studies. Connelly applies Schwab’s ideas in his own curriculumwork. He is influenced by Schwab’s view that curriculum is apractical field of study in which thoughtful deliberation byrepresentatives of the commonplaces is central. Connelly focuseson teachers’ role in curriculum development rather than on teachersas mere transmitters of externally developed curriculum materials.He is interested in knowledge which informs teachers’ curriculumdecisions. He emphasizes the practical and interactive nature ofteachers’ roles and suggests that teachers make decisions and adaptnew ideas as they acquire new understandings of their situations.Connelly and Dienes (1982) utilize the term “personalpractical” to describe the knowledge that teachers utilize to makecurriculum decisions. They posit that in dealing with theoryteachers:.attempt to personalize and make practical...theoretical ideas. . .the process of making theoreticalmatters practical and personal is the way practitionerscope with new ideas and eventually make them their own.Undoubtedly the ideas will be greatly modified when thishappens, since the personal practical knowledge of oneperson is unique to that individual (p.197).This is a Schwabian view that theories are not applied wholesale inpractice but through a dialectical relationship of theory andpractice; practitioners modify ideas in planning.Elbaz (1981, 1983), the first of Connelly’s graduate studentsto study practical knowledge, completed her dissertation on“personal practical knowledge”. Elbaz used observations and open50ended interviews in her study of “Sarah”, a secondary schoolteacher. She explores Sarah’s practical knowledge in terms ofSchwab’s (1973) commonplaces or topica. The context of Sarah’sknowledge includes knowledge of: self as teacher, milieu in whichshe works, subject matter, learners, and the curriculum.Elbaz (1983) examines how Sarah’s knowledge is oriented inactive relation to her teaching situations. She identifies fiveorientations: 1) situational, as it relates to the classroom,school, and the community; 2) personal, as it relates to self andgives meaning to experience; 3) social, as it relates to structureand social reality; 4) experiential, as it relates to experiencesthrough which knowledge has been acquired and has given shape toexperience; and 5) theoretical, as it relates to theory andpractice. The relation among them determines both how Sarahacquires and uses practical knowledge and how she attainstheoretical knowledge and exploits it for practical ends.Further, Elbaz defines the structure of Sarah’s practicalknowledge. Elbaz posits three basic categories: 1) a rule ofpractice which consists of a “...brief, clearly formulatedstatement of what to do or how to do it in a particular situationfrequently encountered in practice” (p.132-133); 2) a practicalprinciple which is an “...inclusive and less explicit formulationin which the teacher’s purposes, implied in the statement of arule, are made more clearly evident” (p.132-34); and 3) an imagewhich is the “...less explicit and most inclusive of the three...the teacher’s feelings, values, needs, and beliefs combine as sheforms images of how teaching should be and marshals experience,theoretical knowledge and school folklore to give substance to51these images” (p.134)Clandinin (1985), another of Connelly’s graduate students,developed the idea of image in her dissertation on practicalknowledge of two teachers “Aileen” and “Stephanie”. Stephanieholds images of “the classroom as home” and maker of things.Aileen holds images of the classroom as a “mini-society ofcooperation”. In a recent paper Clandinin (1987) describes thefirst year teaching experience of “Stewart” and offers, as one ofhis images, “teaching as relating to children” (p.10).However, the research on personal practical knowledge isproblematic. Clandinin’s research does not provide any newinsights into the nature of teachers’ personal practical knowledge.For instance, Court (1988), who provides a conceptual analysis ofthis emerging area of research, indicates that what these teachersvalue and the way they teach seem, for the most part, to be ratherordinary and questionable. Court argues that while these imagestell us something about teachers, they seem rather cliche like andprosaic. Court indicates that the construct of image may be apowerful one for uncovering teachers’ values and beliefs that arebeyond their conscious level, but researchers must go beyond thegeneration of images.Court argues that if insightful and appropriate images aregenerated, then these can be building blocks to help teachersarticulate the values and beliefs held in the images. Moreover,while Clandinin suggests the importance of the “moral dimension”,it is not explored in any systematic manner. In Court’s view, the“moral dimension” is one component of the blend of knowledge,experience, and values which becomes submerged in the treatment of52personal practical knowledge.Connelly and Clandinin (1985), and Clandinin (1987) explorethe idea of “narrative unity”. Clandinin (1987) states:The method we have developed for offering accounts ofteachers’ personal practical knowledge is a narrative onewith a particular focus on personal experience. . .Anarrative method has as its principal feature thereconstruction of classroom meaning in terms of unitiesand rhythms in the lives of. . .participants (p.5).Clandinin and Connelly (1986) explore two central ideas: narrativewhich deals with the “life stories” in teaching (not lifehistories); and unity which deals with “. . . the power of the cyclictemporal order in schools and the difficulty of breaking throughthe bonds of cyclic regularity” (p.378).While these studies offer thick, rich description of personalcontext, their use as personal stories and metaphors are notvaluable in and of themselves. Court states that Clandinin andConnelly seem to get involved in description for its own sakerather than for the purpose of asking: from where are these “myths”and “unities” derived? What are their effects on learners andteachers? and what could and should be done to change them?Moreover, problems of misinterpretation and under-analysis canbecome acute. Court’s sunimary of the research on “personalpractical knowledge” provides a useful reference point for thecurrent research.Court indicates that the research offers a rich, detaileddescription of the context of teaching. This is valuable becausethe context must be taken into account to understand teachers’classroom actions and decisions. However, it provides little deepand focused probing of reasons, values, and beliefs embedded in53personal practical knowledge. The research offers too muchdescription and not enough careful analysis. It very seldom positsquestions of “why”, which may have uncovered values, beliefs,strengths, and shortcomings in educators’ practical knowledge.Moreover, Apple (1982) charges that research in this arealacks critical analysis of how personal practical knowledge issocially constructed, and does not provide any criticalunderstanding of ways in which schools help to create and makelegitimate forms of consciousness that are dialectically related tothe corporate society. In response to this criticism, Elbaz statedthat this form of understanding was not sought in her study becauseher concern was to bring into the sharpest possible focus teachers’active role in using knowledge. She sees her study as a form ofconsciousness.-These perceptions of the limitations of the studies ofpersonal practical knowledge provide some understanding of how thecurrent research builds upon and departs from research studies onpractical knowledge. The current research provides rich, thickdescription and careful analysis of the context to understandplanners’ practical knowledge and planning. It also offers carefulanalysis and probing of reasons for planners’ decisions and actionsto carefully map professional practice. Further, the ethical andmoral dimension, an inherent quality of practical knowledge whichinvolves not merely correct interpretation of the practicesituation but right action, is also explicated.Furthermore, Apps (1985), and Usher and Bryant (1989) suggestthat adult education as a field of study has systematicallyneglected to study practical knowledge and the mode of54understanding associated with it. It has not only failed tointerlink its study with its practice, but also has searched forknowledge in disciplines. It is important to study knowledge inpractice to develop theory which starts from that knowledge. Thisthrust locates adult education in the practical. The present studyoffers this potential and thus attempts to break new ground.Further, it may identify points of intersection and overlapwith the research in other areas within education, specifically oncurriculum and teacher thinking. Young’s framework of questionsand Elbaz’s conceptual framework of practical knowledge provideuseful analytic tools for framing questions around categories ofplanning and planners’ practical knowledge. Further, research onteachers’ planning is explored because of it relevance to thecurrent research.4.1.3 Research on Teachers’ PlaniiingClark and Peterson (1986) subdivide this research area intothree questions: what are the types and functions of teachers’planning? what planning models are used to describe planning? andwhat is the relationship between teachers’ planning and teachers’subsequent actions in the classroom? The studies related to theresearch questions and problem are examined.Clark and Peterson (1986) suggest that Tyler’s rationale isthe most widely prescribed model for teacher planning. Thus, ithas widespread use on all levels of educational planning andteacher education programs. However, research of the l970s whichexamined planning models in use and compared what is practised withwhat is prescribed supports the researcher’s observation thatTyler’s model is not used in practice.55Taylor’s (1970) study examines how teachers plan syllabi forcourses and make decisions regarding various components of theprocess. Taylor’s findings indicate that the academic model basedon Tyler’s rationale is not used in practice. Rather, the findingsindicate that learners’ needs, abilities, and interests provide thefocus of planning which support a learner centred approach toplanning which is consistent with the experiential model ofplanning. This is followed in order of importance by content,objectives, and teaching strategies. Further, it is found thatlittle attention is paid to evaluation and the relationship ofspecific courses that teachers teach to the rest of the curriculum.Zahorik’s (1975) study, which asks teachers to list theirdecisions, pursued a similar line of investigation. His findingsindicate that the decision of greatest concern to teachers ischoosing learners’ activity in the teaching learning transaction.Although decisions regarding content are made first and arefollowed by objectives, these findings suggest that teachers’planning decisions do not always follow the linear model and thatobjectives are not viewed as important based on the infrequency oftheir use.Further, Yinger’s (1977) ethnographic field study of oneteacher’s planning generated a theoretical model of planning: 1)problem finding, 2) problem formulation and solution, and 3)implementation, evaluation, and routinization. The importance ofYinger’s study is that it suggests a cyclical or interrelatedplanning process which supports the claims of theorists such asSchwab, Houle (1972), and is consistent with the empirical researchof Pennington and Green (1976). Further, Clark and Yinger’s (1977)56study, of five elementary teachers’ planning in regard to a unit ofwriting, corroborates Yinger’s three stage cyclical planning model.Favor-Lydecker (1981) and Sardo (1982) studied planning-stylesof experienced and inexperienced teachers. Sardo’s study of fourjunior high teachers indicates there is a relationship betweenindividual differences in planning style and teaching experience.These studies concluded the planning style of the least experiencedteachers comprise mainly of daily planning based on Tyler’s linearmodel. By contrast, experienced teachers spend less time planning,are less systematic in planning, and make overviews of weeklylesson rather than detailed daily plans.Neale, Pace, and Case (1983) concur with Sardo’s findingsabout experienced and inexperienced teachers’ planning and the useof Tyler’s rationale. In addition, through the use ofquestionnaires and interviews of experienced elementary and studentteachers, their findings suggest that there is a positive attitudeby both groups of teachers towards Tyler’s rationale. However,experienced teachers indicate that Tyler’s model is perhaps moreappropriate and useful for novice teachers and when planning newmaterials. Further, the findings indicate that while teachers arewell acquainted with Tyler’s model, it is not the model of choicefor either group of teachers.Clark and Peterson (1986) summarize the research on teachers’planning: it provides a direct perspective of the cognitiveactivities of teachers as professionals; it is almost exclusivelydescriptive and deals with planning by experienced elementaryteachers; it indicates psychological benefits are produced fromplanning, that is, increased confidence and reduced uncertainty; it57states Tyler’s model provides a good foundation upon which noviceteachers can develop their own planning style congruent with theirpersonal dispositions and the environmental context; and it statesthat Tyler’s model does not portray planning behaviour ofexperienced teachers (p.268).These findings about teachers’ planning are consistent withthe observations äf this study that planners’ practice isintentional, systematic, and emergent, which implies a conceptualframework which renders practice meaningful. Further, Tyler’srationale, which is widespread at all levels of the educationalsystem, is not used wholesale in practice. Instead plannerstemporize their planning according to their knowledge, content,learners, instructors, and context.5 SummaryThe theoretical formulations presented in this review havecontributed significantly to identifying and clarifying theresearch questions and problem. As suggested, planners translatetheoretical notions about planning into practice (Connelly andDienes, 1982). Yet there remains a lacuna of research, in theadult education planning literature, about what planners do, howthey do it, and why they do what they do. This study focuses onthese critical questions to gain an understanding of planning as itis practised, and planners’ practical knowledge.Apps (1985) and Grundy (1987) argue that the objective modelof curriculum (Tyler’s model) is informed by a “technical cognitiveinterest”. Implicit within this model, is an interest in“controlling” learning through control of the learning environment.Also, the concern is with ensuring that learners acquire the58behaviours that have been systematically identified. Grundysuggests that this technical orientation to planning sheds littlelight on practice and the theory-practice relationship. Rather, itreduces the complexities of planning to a sequence of steps alonga single dimension which planners should follow.In contrast, Grundy argues that the orientation of practicalplanning is “understanding” the environment so that the individualcan interact with it. In short, “. . .the practical interest is afundamental interest in understanding the environment throughinteraction based upon a consensual interpretation of meaning”(p.12). Grundy summarizes Habermas’s position of “interaction” inthis orientation:By interaction. . .1 understand communicative action,symbolic interaction. It is governed by bindingconsensual norms, which define reciprocal expectations ofbehaviour and which must be understood and recognized byat least two acting subjects (14)In this view, the theory-practice relationship is constitutive:knowledge is judged according to how the interpreted meaningassists the planner in the process of making judgements about howto act rationally and morally. The action which arises as aconsequence of this view is “interaction”. Interaction is notaction upon but with the environment. Planning is not a means endsprocedure but a process through which representatives of thecommonplaces interact to make meaning of the particular situation.In this view, planning is concerned with promoting right action,not simply knowledge a knowledge. Thus, the ethics of practice,the centrality of planners’ practical knowledge, and the complexityof planning need to be explored.Further, the “wholesale” use of planning models is rejected in59practice because of their uneven fit in practice, a conditionBrookfield (1986) describes as theory-practice disjunction. Ifplanners reject models in practice, it is important to exploreplanning practice from their perspective which then describespractice. However, description of planning in and of itself is notinherently useful unless it describes the theoretical frameworkwhich informs that process. Thus, the reasons for planningpractice need to be exposed.Usher and Bryant (1989) suggest that planners consciously andintentionally understand, interpret, and confer meaning on theparticular practice situation to act appropriately in the planningof programs. However, studies in the adult education planningliterature did not focus on planners’ practical knowledge.Therefore, it is important to consider planning practice toidentify planners’ framework or theory that renders practicemeaningful. Also, Schwab’s deliberative practical planning andElbaz’s (1981) study offer alternative’ frameworks to helpconceptualize planning and planners’ practical knowledge.This study builds on these approaches while including thecomponents of planning. Also, the study recognizes theinterrelation among competing and conflicting ends and means thatrequire planners to bring theory and practice to bear on theproblem in the actual situation. The study focuses on planners, ina university continuing education division, about whom very littleis known with respect to practical knowledge and planning practice.As well, the study employs an interpretive perspective which aimsto understand and explicate meanings that individuals give toplanning activities within specific contexts. And finally, the60study uses qualitative methods which are congruent with theepistemological foundations of the interpretive perspective.61CHAPTER THREEMethodologyThis study has been undertaken to redress the gap in ourknowledge of the kinds of practical knowledge that planners in auniversity continuing education division find useful and relevantto their decision making in program planning; acquire a greaterunderstanding of the planning process from their perspective; anddevelop categories for interpreting these understandings. It wasanticipated that the study would permit insight into the wide rangeof knowledge which, although unarticulated, planners have and useas well as the indeterminate and contingent nature of theirplanning. The research was conducted against a background ofrelevant theoretical concepts. It was anticipated that anincreased understanding of planners’ practical knowledge andplanning practice might assist in conceptualizing the continuingeducation for planners as well as in mapping professional practice.This chapter describes how the study was conducted. It commenceswith the approach and methodological focus of the study. This isfollowed by a description of the study design including the pilotstudy and the case study method. And finally, it describes theselection of setting and participants, data collection andanalysis, interview process, and document analysis.1 Approach of the StudyMerriam (1988) indicates that when asking “how” and “why”questions the focus is on the process rather than on the outcome orproduct. This requires an interpretive approach. This approachstresses the interdependence and interrelatedness of all phenomena-educational, political, economic, social. Also, this view62emphasizes contingency and indeterminacy which contrasts with theprevailing traditional paradigm that values certainty andpredictability. This perspective emphasizes everyday problemsolving, meanings that individuals give to objects and events, andthe uniqueness of contexts within which interactions and actions ofindividuals occur. This study focuses on a specific context, auniversity continuing education unit, and examines the knowledgeand process of planning practice; as well as reasons whichindividuals give for their practice. From this perspective,individuals are viewed as possessors and creators of knowledge.Also, this approach allows for the development of categories whichare generalizable across planners’ practice as well as thegeneration of rich thick descriptions of situations, events,participants, interactions, and beliefs. Thus, the study employsan interpretive perspective which is consistent with the researchproblem, questions, desired end product, and assumptions andobservations of the study.2 Methodological FocusSchubert (1982) summarizes what he regards as the fourassumptions of interpretive inquiry. First, the problem source isnot only the actual state of affairs to be understood but also the“lives” of those involved in it. This study takes a close look atplanning practice as well as the contextual factors which impingeon planning. Second, the subject matter is the commonplaces or“topica” of planning. The study argues that the planner is centralto planning, thus the planner’s practice, including learners,content, context, and instructors are critical components for studyand analysis. Third, the method of inquiry is communicative63understanding and interaction. This is the interdependent andinterrelated relationship of events, planners’ values, context, andinvestigator and participants. The investigator enters thesituation and is interested in the discovery of worthwhileknowledge. The investigator has theories which guide thedevelopment and formulation of the research problem. Thesetheories merge with theories which are embedded in participants’practical and experiential perspectives, to understand, interpret,and develop categories related to the research. There is aconvergence of investigator’s theories and participants’ theorieswhich may result in new understandings and formulations ofcategories. Fourth, the end of inquiry is planners’ ability to actappropriately in the situation, that is, planners’ ability to makedefensible decisions and take action based on theory-practice ortested knowledge.Carr and Kemmis (1984) suggest that in the interpretiveperspective subjective meaning links human action and behaviour,and to observe individuals’ actions does not necessarily grantinsight into their meanings. Further, observation entails theinvestigator’s interpretation of the meaning which participantsplace on behaviour. Therefore, since actions can only beinterpreted with reference to motive, intentions, or purposes ofthose who perform the actions, the reconstructed accounts arevalidated with participants.Moreover, since the research attempts to uncover the socialrules which inform planners’ practice, the investigatorsystematically confirms with participants the subjective meaningstructures which guide their actions and behaviours in the64situation. Thus, the assumptions and criteria of rationality,which inform planners’ decisions and choices on which the action isjustified, are clarified. In short, the research exposes thetheoretical context that informs practice to the awareness andscrutiny of participants. Therefore, the possibility of changethrough critical analysis and self reflection becomes a reality forparticipants and investigator.Accordingly, the theory-practice relationship of theinterpretive perspective is dialectic: practical deliberation isenlightened not only by theories, but also by the practicalexigencies of situations, which demand critical assessment and aremediated by planners’ values and beliefs in planning. Eachplanning activity provides an opportunity for understandingplanners’ practical knowledge since planning is guided by sometheory. By the same token, all theories are products of planningactivities. Thus, the interpretive perspective offers the best fitto this study.In addition, the study employs qualitative methods which arecongruent with the epistemological foundations of the interpretiveperspective. These methods assist in understanding, interpreting,and constructing meaning of the conceptions of practical knowledgeand planners’ practice. These methods include participantobservation, semi-structured indepth interviews, an informalconversational approach, and documents to corroborate data frominterviews. Data are reported in literary prose style.The credibility of findings is achieved by ensuring thatfindings are plausible and believable to participants. A number ofactivities are used to ensure that the accounts are credible and65believable: the investigator spends an extended period of time witheach participant in the setting to establish trust and to learn thecontext. This activity minimizes distortions. The investigatortriangulates the data which entails cross checking events andmultiple data sources such as documents, and interviews to buildplausible and credible findings.Further, since the investigator has an intimate knowledge ofthe work of planners including their language and problemsencountered in practice, the investigator not only gained betterunderstanding and access to their planning and practical knowledge,but also may have lost some distance from the study. To addressthis issue, the investigator used a coding paradigm based on a ruleof practice for categorizing the data; used a journal to reflect ondiscussions with participants; clarified with participants thebasic criteria of rationality and assumptions of their practice;and validated the reconstructed accounts with the participants.The investigator also received feedback on the preliminaryanalysis of data from members on the supervisory committee. Thisis a form of member check by which assumptions and biases are heldup to scrutiny of independent external peers. This also served aspart of the credibility check. Finally, to increase thecredibility of findings, a direct test of findings andinterpretations against the raw data is possible because the datahave been fully recorded and archived for any tests of adequacy.The process of inquiry and reporting of findings may be publiclyexamined.To ensure that the study has transferability, rich thickdescription is collected and provided as part of the findings.66Further, a number of activities is used to ensure rich thickdescription, such as careful observation of two team meetingswhereby participants elaborated on planning activities. Theinvestigator conducted only two participant observations of teammeetings because the agenda items of the meetings were follow-up toplanning activities which participants provided in the interviews.The data are transcribed and the preliminary analysis is reviewedwith participants to corroborate the information. Also, theinvestigator collected documentary materials which described theprograms the participants discussed.The findings are clearly related to the context which mayenable other researchers to judge if they are transferable to othercontexts. Rich thick description of the context and planningactivities is provided to allow a backdrop whereby events andsituations can be viewed within their social context, and to givethe reader enough detail to make sense of the experiencesdescribed.Therefore, detailed descriptions are provided to create anawareness of the social structure of the institution andparticipants. This provides a framework for understandingparticipants’ descriptions of their actions, and for producinganalyses to construct explanations which are consistent with thecontext in which the study is conducted. The meanings thatparticipants give to their actions and behaviour are to beunderstood within the contextual values, practices, and structuresof the context; as well as the multiple perspectives that pervadethe context. Accordingly, interviews, which are recorded andtranscribed, are conducted in the work setting.67To ensure the confirmability of the study, the investigatortriangulated the data sources by comparing and contrastingdescriptions provided of the same program by two participants, andanalyzed the documentary sources against descriptions participantsprovided. Further, the investigator kept a journal for reflectingon the interviews, informal meetings, and participant observation.Since the validity of a theory is partially defined by its abilityto be internally consistent with participants’ theories, theinvestigator verified with participants the meaning of theiraccount to ensure its meaning and validity.Thus, to ensure the study’s credibility, transferability, andconfirmability, the investigator undertook a process of constantlyconfirming and disconfirming data sources through a number ofactivities which are concerned with the process of inquiry, thesureness of the representativeness of the data, findings, andinterpretation. The study examines the process of planning; aswell as meanings and interpretations which participants provide toexplain their intentions, actions, and behaviours. This type ofknowledge offers the basis for understanding planning practice andpractical knowledge.Since one of the investigator’s concerns is to determine thefeasibility of the research questions and the problem, the study isconducted in two phases. Phase one, a pilot study of two planners,explores the feasibility of the research questions and the problem.Based on this stage, a questionnaire is modified and used as aguide in the second phase. Building on phase one, phase twoincorporates a case study of four additional planners.683 Pilot StudyThe investigator’s assumptions and personal observations leadto the conclusion that planners have and use a broad range ofknowledge which may not be articulated but is knowledge ofpractice. Thus, planners are viewed as holding and actively usingknowledge which shapes their work situation and guides theirpractice. In this regard, the character of that knowledge shouldbecome evident from its use. Thus, a valid approach toconceptualizing planners’ knowledge is through direct examinationof practice through their eyes. The research questions which guidethe pilot study are: what is the planning process that plannersfollow? and what kinds of practical knowledge do planners finduseful and relevant to their planning dedisions?Non-directive interviewing was used to allow planners toreveal their planning activities on their own terms as well as toconstruct a parsimonious conceptualization of planning practice andpractical knowledge concerning these activities. A questionnaire,which was reviewed by a committee of experts, was designed for usein the pilot study. Based on the pilot study, the questionnairewas modified and used as a guide in the second phase of the study.The pilot study was conducted in two stages with anintroduction to gain access to the setting. Access to the settingand participants was gained through telephone contact followed bytwo-hour meeting with the dean of the unit to discuss the purposeand to identify participants for the pilot study. Based on thisdiscussion, the dean identified two planners with the mostseniority, and sought their consent to participate.The planners are Erna and Liz. Erna is a program director who69is responsible for team leadership and developing languageprograms. Liz is a program officer whose responsibility includesadministering the Educational Assistants Program and the English asa Second Language Program.Once access to the setting and participants had been gained,the pilot study involved two-hours of informal conversationalinterviews with each participant to discuss the purpose of thestudy, their work in general, and to establish a climate of trustand confidence. This interview was followed by six two-hour semistructured, indepth interviews using the questionnaire guide witheach participant. In addition, two-hours of participantobservations at two planning meetings were also undertaken.Thirty-four hours of interviewing were used in the pilot study.Stage One of the pilot study used an informal conversationalinterview approach which allowed for 1) the establishment of aclimate of trust and confidence, 2) the spontaneous generation ofquestions during the natural flow of the interaction, 3) thedevelopment of the interview, and 4) the appreciation of thephenomenon under study (Patton, 1980;’ and Merriam, 1988). Thisdesign also permitted the modification and formulation of questionsfor the questionnaire guide.Stage Two of the pilot study is a semi-structured, indepthinterview with the use of the questionnaire guide which is a checklist of questions with the relevant topics. This guide allowed forprobing of ambiguous answers. Also, this approach allowed forseeking reasons behind answers, gaining insights into participants’understanding of their practice, and constructing an emergingperspective on the phenomenon. The outline of the semi-structured,70indepth interview is: 1) the investigator requests participants toprovide an account of planning a program; 2) the investigatoroutlines what the participants describe as the planning processfollowed by asking “why” in reference to the particular aspect ofplanning under discussion; 3) the participants clarify theirplanning; and 4) the investigator uses probing questions onspecific components of planning.Each participant was interviewed in six two-hour interviews,in addition to a two-hour informal conversational interview. Allthe interviews are audio taped, transcribed, and analyzed. Fromthe analysis, major categories of planning and planners’ ways ofknowing were identified. The feasibility of the researchquestions, problem, and methodology was confirmed. Further, thesupervisory committee provided comments on the emerging categoriesidentified from the pilot study. Based on the preliminary analysisof the data, the data of the pilot were included as part of theanalysis. In Phase Two four additional participants from thesetting were interviewed.Phase Two of the design includes four two-hour semistructured, indepth interviews with four other participants in thesetting for a total of eight hours. Forty-two hours ofinterviewing were used in total in the study. These hours include:Phase One, the introduction and pilot study, and Phase Two, themajor part of the study.4 Case Study MethodThis design draws conceptually upon the case study methodwhich allows: indepth study and pursuit of many hard-to-reachconcepts, which are embedded in planners’ practice; and the71development of rich, thick description from which to deriveanalyses, interpretations, and categories. This may lead to thefurther development of theory and a language of discourse which ismeaningful to planning practice.This method is important, in and of itself, because ituncovers information about the unit of analysis, that is, planners’practical knowledge as they plan programs. Thus, this methodprovides a specificity of focus which is appropriate for problemswhich are derived from practice such as describing the dialecticalrelationship of theory-practice in planning of programs. In fact,the case study method offers the potential to concentrate attentionon the way planners confront specific problems around planningwhile taking a holistic view of the specific situation.4.1 Definition of Case StudyThe definition of the case study which guides the inquiryprocess is synthesized from the literature as outlined by Bogdanand Bikien (1982), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Merriam (1988).The case study is a process which occurs over time, and attempts toarrive at a thorough understanding of the phenomenon under studythrough rich thick description for purposes of analyses,interpretation, and development of categories about the phenomenon.4.2 Characteristics of the Case Study MethodThis study incorporates the four major characteristics whichare fundamental to the case study method (Merriam, 1988). First,particularistic, wherein the focus is on a specific situation,context, program, or phenomenon. In this research, the focus is onplanning practice in a specific context. Second, description,wherein rich, thick description is produced of the unit of72analysis, that is, the planning process. The case study methodincorporates as many factors as feasible and displays theinteraction of these factors over time. There is an implicitelement of the longitudinal in this research. Analyses andinterpretation, which are generally qualitative, are produced andpresented in prose and literary style. Third, heuristic, whereinthe case study enhances and or confirms the understanding of thephenomenon studied, and generates discovery of new understandingsand meanings of planning practice. These new understandings andmeanings may lead to a rethinking of the phenomenon being studied.Fourth, induction, the foundation of grounded theory, whereininferences or generalizations are used to arrive at useful theory.This research focuses on planning practice to arrive at aconceptual framework of practice.Glaser and Strauss (1967) describe the significance of therelationship between qualitative methodology and theory building:it enables understanding and explanation of behaviour; it is usedin a field’s theoretical advancement; it is used in practicalapplication, that is, to understand and control the situation; itoffers a view on behaviour, that is, a position to be taken towardthe data; and it directs the style of the research on aspecific area of behaviour (p.3).The case study offers the potential for the construction oftheories, categories, and hypotheses so that critical theories maybe confirmed in present and future research. This researchdescribes planners’ planning practice in order to constructcategories which are generalizable across these planners’ practice.Qualitative methods and the interpretive perspective are the73paradigmatic angle for viewing the research.5 Selection of SettingThe setting was selected because observations, assumptions,and empirical claims of the study are based on the practice ofplanners in a university continuing education unit. Therefore, itis important to focus on the setting to explore how it mediatespractice and how practice mediates it.The study focuses on constructing categories for interpretingthe kinds of practical knowledge planners in this setting finduseful and relevant to their decision making in program planning.Three university continuing education units are within theinvestigator’s geographic location. However, two sites wereeliminated because of the issue of biasing the data, and thedifficulties in securing access to participants and setting.The meanings that individuals give to their actions andbehaviours are understood within the contextual values, practices,and structures of the setting. The perspectives of individuals inthe setting are included. There is a commitment to understand andexamine events and actions of participants within the context, thesocial entity, of a university continuing education unit of a smallliberal arts college.Further, Kowalski (1988) identifies a typology oforganizations of adult education. This typology frames thesampling selection process. The university continuing educationrepresents one of the six categories in this typology: aninstitution which provides adult education as an exclusivefunction. Thus, framing the research within this typology allowsfor the purposeful selection of planners in this setting. This74continuing education unit provides programs including certificateprograms, seminars, workshops, short courses, and conferences to avariety of adult learners.6 Selection of ParticipantsParticipants in this study are drawn from a small universitycontinuing education unit which has a staff of seven plannersincluding a dean and associate dean. Its organizational structureis based on a. team concept. There are currently three teams: amanagement team comprised of a dean, an associate dean, and anadministrative secretary; and two planning teams. Each planningteam consists of: a program director who is responsible fordeveloping programs and team leadership; program officers who areresponsible for administering programs; and a program secretary whoprovides secretarial support to the team. One team is responsiblefor language programs. Another is responsible for management,computers, and general interest programs. Participants areselected from all three teams.Six participants, two males and four females, from the totalcomplement of seven planners were selected for the study. Theselection process occurred in two phases. Two planners, a programdirector and an officer, are selected on the basis of seniority forthe pilot study, and on the recommendation of the dean. All butone of the remaining five program staff are selected for the finalphase of the study. They are selected on the basis of their lengthof service. The program officer who was not selected had beenemployed for two months. The investigator contacted, by telephone,the remaining four participants to participate in the study. Forpurposes of anonymity and confidentiality, pseudonyms have been75used for persons and programs.Joel, one of the males, has been dean for three years. Heholds a Ph.D in Educational Administration but has had no formaltraining in adult education. However, he had been a teacher andschool principal in the secondary school system for fifteen years,and dean of a college for five years. Joel developed both aProgram for Native Students and the Educational Assistants Program.Pete, the other male, has been associate dean for two years. Peteholds a Ph.D in Higher Education and he also has had no formaltraining in adult education. He worked for ten years in anadministrative and programming capacity in a government departmentof arts and culture prior to joining the unit. Pete developed theGasper Reserve and Futures Studies Programs.Netta, Erna, Liz, and Anna are the female participants in thestudy. Netta has a M.B.A. and had worked with the university in anadministrative capacity for five years before joining the unitthree years ago. She is a program director who is responsible forteam leadership and development of the management, computer, andgeneral interest programs. Erna has a B.A. with a major in Frenchand has completed course work towards a M.A. in Languages. She hadtaught for five years as a language teacher of adults beforejoining the unit four years ago. Erna is also a program directorwho is responsible for team leadership of the language team as wellas for developing heritage and romance language programs. Liz andAnna are program officers responsible for administering programs.Liz has a B.A. with a major in languages. She had taught both inCanada and overseas for approximately six years as a languageteacher of children before joining the unit three years ago as a76member of the language team. Liz administers a number of programsincluding the Educational Assistants Program and English as aSecond Language Program. Anna has a B.A. with majors inMathematics and French. She had been a teaching assistant forthree years in the French department of the university beforejoining the unit two years ago. Anna had been a member of thelanguage team and more recently became a member of the management,computer, and general interest team. She is responsible for anumber of programs including Writing for the Journal and RefineYour Accent. Although participants have not had formal training inadult education, they are typical of planners in the field.7 Data CollectionThe study of the conception of planning and planners’practical knowledge is an attempt to take a fresh look at planningpractice to uncover the “what”, “how”, “when”, and “why” ofpractice. Data are triangulated to construct a plausible andcredible interpretation and explanation which accurately describethe phenomenon under study. The triangulated design includes: 1)interviewing participants in the setting, 2) observing participantsat two planning team meetings, and 3) collecting documents (programproposals, promotional materials, and a position paper). Thefollowing table summarizes data collection from the major part ofthe study. The table identifies the source of the data, theprocess of data collection, and the kinds of data collectionrelated to the interviews and documents collected.77Table 1: Data CollectionSource Process Kinds of DataInterviews:With four planners Semi-structured in- Sociodemographicfor a total of 8 depth interviews data ofhours used participants arecollectedParticipants askedsame questions Data are reportedin literary proseGeneration of stylespontaneousquestions to Rich, thickenhance description isunderstanding providedInformalconversationalapproach used toestablish a climateof trustPurpose, technique,& procedurediscussedUse of Questions relatedquestionnaire guide to: planningactivities;Time is spent: knowledge ofprobing for content ofinsights, & clarity programs; nature oflearners &Interviews are instructors; needaudio-taped, fully for programs;transcribed, evaluation;analyzed, & opinions, feelings,archived beliefs & values ofplanning; andTell & listen! experience &listen & tell knowledge ofmethod is used planning78Documents:Field Journal for Reflect on data; Notes are writtenfield notes generate further about interviews,questions; & create informal meetings,distance & participantobservationmeetingsPublic or archival Verbal request for Promotionalmaterials such as written materials brochures whichcatalogues describe programsplanners describeA Position paper Triangulation of Written materialsauthored by a data from documents which evaluate theprogram director with interview unit’s programsdata, & fieldjournal notesProgram Proposals Documents whichincluding minutes describe programsof committee presented tomeetings committeesincluding Senate7.1 InterviewsAs identified in the above table, a semi-structured, indepthopen-ended questioning interview design was one source of datacollection which allowed: 1) collecting sociodemographic data onparticipants, 2) asking all participants the same questions whileconstructing an emerging perspective from the data, and 3)generating spontaneous questions to enhance the understanding ofthe topic. The interview, which is a purposeful conversationnormally between two individuals under the guidance of one toelicit information from the other, is the major technique used tocollect data.The investigator used the following process: At the outset of79each interview, the investigator established, through an informalconversational approach with participants, a relaxed and trustingclimate which proved to be conducive to open and honest responses.The investigator discussed: 1) the purpose of the interview, 2) theinterview technique used, and 3) how the study would proceed, thatis, the process for recording and transcribing data, checking withparticipants for accuracy of data, and verifying the meaning ofaccounts.This kind of data collection is facilitated by the use of aquestionnaire guide which includes a number of open-ended questionsrelated to activities planners undertake in planning programs, andthe knowledge, values and beliefs they bring to planning. Forinstance, questions relate to planners’ knowledge of content ofprograms, the nature of learners and instructors, the need forprograms, and evaluation of programs. Other topics include:planners’ opinions and feelings in regard to the context ofplanning, their beliefs and values about planning programs, andtheir experience and knowledge of planning programs. These topicsare neither ordered nor asked in the same pattern so that a naturaland responsive interview results. (See Appendix A). In addition,basic demographic information is collected because all participantsare asked to complete a biographical sheet. All interviews fromall participants were audio-taped by cassette recorders, fullytranscribed, archived and are available for public credibilitychecks in the future.Part of the process of data collection, includes spending sometime in the interview probing fresh insights and new informationwhich participants provide. Moreover, because of the difficult80nature of the research questions and problem, this process allowedfor the development of the interview in a general manner whilegaining an appreciation of the phenomenon under study. Theinformal conversational approach helped to develop relevantquestions in addition to the basic questions which guided theinterview.This design permits an interactive, flexible, and adaptiveformat. It allows probing into ambiguous answers, the context, andreasons behind answers. It allows insights into participants’understanding of their planning and concerns which they face intheir practice, from their own perspectives. This designfacilitated an emerging perspective of planning and planners’practical knowledge. Besides the design and the recording of theinterview, setting the tone of the interview is important inestablishing a climate of trust and rapport. In this regard,during the interviews the climate was enhanced by using a “tell andlisten/listen and tell” approach (Adler and Adler, 1987-88).7.2 Document AnalysisDocuments as well as interviews are important sources of databecause they help to uncover meaning, develop understanding, anddiscover insights relevant to the research problem (Merriam, 1988).The documents collected include: 1) a field journal which is usedto make field notes, to reflect on interviews and meetings, tocreate distancing from the data, and to generate additionalquestions; 2) public or archival materials such as catalogues whichdescribe the unit’s educational programs; 3) a position paper,written by a program director,which evaluates the unit’s programs;4) private materials regarding proposals for programs which are81prepared for submission to internal committees; and 5) minutes ofprogram committee meetings.The process of data collection includes asking participantsduring the interviews to provide written materials of programs forwhich they are responsible. The kinds of data collected includecatalogues for promoting programs, and materials prepared for theapproval of programs, documents related to guidelines for programdevelopment, and the mission and goal statements. Data fromdocuments including field notes are triangulated with interviewdata, and form part of the data source.7.3 Data AnalysisData collection and analysis processes occur simultaneously(Strauss, 1987; Merriam, 1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Theinvestigator undertook analysis of the data during the datacollection phase and while working with the data. Initially, theinvestigator expected the findings to emerge from the data whileholding in abeyance theoretical concepts of: Schwab (1969),Sternberg and Caruso (1985), Elbaz (1983), Tyler (1949), Freire(1970), Houle (1972), Knowles (1980), and Sork and Buskey (1986)However, as the analysis proceeded, the literature andunderstandings that prompt the study became increasingly morecentral and useful to the study. The reason for this is that thesetheoretical concepts are able to describe, to a large degree, theprocesses that participants carry out in planning.All data were transcribed, then organized into categorieswhich are derived from the data. The data are filtered throughrelevant theoretical concepts, through which the findings thenbegin to emerge. Codes were developed for various components of82the data and categories were developed for the same content.Simultaneously, a rule was used to describe the criteria for thecategory. This rule justifies the inclusion of certain contentinto the category; provides a basis for later tests ofreplicability; and renders the category set internally consistent.In other words, the categories are developed on the basis of theirfit to the rule rather than their “look or feel alike” quality(Strauss, 1987)All categories which are similar are compared, contrasted andgrouped together to get the data into manageable parts and tosearch for patterns. Each category is analyzed to discover theimportant concepts which are formulated into a conceptual frameworkfor theory building. In addition, the categories were integratedto reveal if there are consistent, stable and meaningful categorysets; were reviewed for overlap; and were examined for possiblerelationships to build a conceptual framework. As a preliminaryform of data analysis, memos were written about the category sets,which were reviewed to determine what is important about thecategory sets.Specifically, Strauss’ (1987) coding paradigm is used toanalyze the data: 1) the conditions which planners use to describeprogram plans; 2) the interactions of those involved in planningdecisions; 3) the strategies or tactics which planners use to planprograms; and 4) the consequences which planners identify for theirparticular actions and decisions. With respect to developingcategories of practical knowledge, this coding paradigm is founduseful for synthesizing the categories into concepts. Forinstance, the conditions of planning transposed into planners’83declarative way of knowing. The interactions and strategies ortactics of planning described planners’ procedural knowledge. Theconsequences of planning suggested planners’ conditional way ofknowing.With respect to developing categories of program planning,Sork and Buskey’s (1986) nine generic components of planning werefound useful to describe the activities and decisions participantsdescribe. For instance, Sork and Buskey’s components of“development of objectives”, “selection and ordering of content”,“selection, design, and ordering of instructional processes”, and“selection of instructional resources” are consistent with theactivities and decisions identified in this research as “developingthe curriculum”. Also, their component, “design of a plan forassuring participation”, (p.89) is consistent with the activitiesand decisions identified in this research as “promote and marketprograms”. In contrast, the components identified in this researchas “a focus of concern”, “planning context”, “collaborating withpartners”, and “nurturing instructors” (which is included under thecomponent “developing curriculum”) are rarely described in theadult education planning literature but, in the eyes of theseparticipants, are useful to planning.The process of collecting and processing data stopped based onthe criteria of exhaustion of sources, saturation of categories,and emergence of regularities (Strauss, 1987). In other words,when data are far removed from the core categories, data collectingand coding stop. However, memo writing and reflecting on ideascontinued to build units which define categories. The analysis ofthe data was presented to participants, for member check, for84scrutiny, and to confirm the accuracy of the assessments as well asto provide a vehicle for further discussion and reflection.Further, a constant comparative method was used which involvesthe comparison of incidents which are applicable to each category.This process stimulates ideas that lead to descriptive, analytical,and explanatory categories, that is, categories which areconstructed from the data and those the investigator constructed.The final method of analysis is triangulation. This includes thecross checking of multiple data sources such as program proposals,promotional materials, the position paper, and the reflectivejournal to validate category sets against other data source.This study emphasizes the accounts which participants provide,that is, how they describe and construct their realities. From theanalysis, a set of categories which emerge from the data and appearto be generalizable were developed. These generalizations aresupported by the data; are consistent with planners’ accounts; arerecognizable and acceptable to planners; and comprise planners’methods of rendering their decisions as rational actions. Thesecategories suggest their means of understanding that their actionshave purposes which are expressed through specific understandingsof knowledge categories and through specific actions.The analysis suggests that these planners’ practical knowledgeconsists of three kinds of knowledge (declarative, procedural, andconditional) which inform planning practice. Also, these knowledgecategories have implications for six components of planningpractice including planning context, collaborating, assessingneeds, evaluating, promoting and marketing programs, and developingthe curriculum. Each category of planners’ practical knowledge is85presented in the next three chapters with illustrations from thesesix components of planning, while Chapter Seven describes theconceptual framework which evolved from the analysis. Forinstance, Chapter Four describes planners’ declarative knowledge;Chapter Five addresses planners’ procedural knowledge; Chapter Sixdiscusses planners’ conditional knowledge; and Chapter Sevenpresents the deliberative practical planning framework.86CHAPTER FOURDeclarative KnowledgeThis chapter describes the findings related to these planners’declarative knowledge. The chapter is organized as follows: itstarts with a brief description of the three kinds of practicalknowledge as well as planners’ components of planning. Then,planners’ declarative knowledge is explored through categories ofplanners’ knowledge of planning. In essence, specific practicalknowledge categories and planning activities, which emerged fromthe data, are supported by a composite of the data from interviews,participant observation team meetings, and documentary materialswhere appropriate. As well, quotations are used to support anddescribe the categories which, in turn, contribute to thedevelopment of the conceptual framework.1 Planners’ Practical KnowledgeThere are three interrelated kinds of knowledge withinplanners’ practical knowledge: declarative, procedural andconditional. These concepts are implicit in Sterriberg and Caruso’s(1985) definition of practical knowledge which “. . .is knowledgethat is both procedural and relevant to a person’s everyday life.Knowledge that is declarative or irrelevant to everyday life isacademic knowledge” (p. 139).Declarative knowledge is an information aspect wherebyplanners collect, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate data related toa situation. The purpose of this aspect is to use data to describethe situation. Also, procedural knowledge is an interpersonalcommunication aspect whereby planners use knowledge of rules androutines to implement planning strategies. And, conditional87knowledge is a critical reflection aspect whereby planners usetheir understanding of contextual values as well as theirprinciples of practice, educational philosophy, and guidingmetaphors to make defensible decisions in planning. Theseknowledge components inform planning practice as well as provide aresponse to the research question related to the kinds of practicalknowledge planners find useful and relevant to their decisionmaking in program planning. These knowledge components may not beexhaustive of all possible ways of knowing; however, they aredialectically related to each other. These components form part ofthe, conceptual framework of planning practice.2 Planners’ Knowledge of PlanningThe data support the idea that planning is composed of sixmajor components. , These components form clusters of interrelatedactivities and decisions which vary in degree of conceptualabstraction. A cluster/series is a single group of activities anddecisions which may overlap with other clusters.These components of planning are also consistent with thoseidentified in the literature on planning. For instance, Sork andBuskey (1986), in their review of the planning literature, concludethat “. . .there are several steps which are common to most models”,and generate from the literature a “. . .generic planning modelcomposed of nine specific” components (p. 89). However, planners’categories are not exhaustive of all possible planning tasks anddecisions.Series one, related to the planning context, includes themandate of the unit, operational policies and practices, the teamconcept, the mission of the institution, the deficit budget, and88the budget process. Series two, related to collaborating withpartners, includes working with external and internal partners.Series three, related to assessing needs, includes originating theprogram idea, validating the idea, and formal and informal needsassessment. Series four, related to evaluating the program,includes conducting formal and sunimative evaluation, identifyingproblem needs, and holding informal and formative evaluation.Series five, related to promoting and marketing the program,includes developing a directory, acquiring and using knowledgerelated to the commonplaces, and developing alternative means toincrease participation. The sixth series, related to developingthe curriculum, includes identifying and selecting instructorsthrough a committee structure, conducting formal and informalinterviews, holding orientation sessions, nurturing instructorsthrough professional development and classroom observations,identifying and selecting content based on the academic, the socialreconstruction/adaptation, and the experiential models, andidentifying and selecting objectives. Each series forms part ofthe conceptual framework of practice.3 Planners’ Declarative KnowledgeThe planners discussed a number of programs for which theywere responsible. From the analysis of these programs, a number ofcategories related to planning and practical knowledge wereidentified which describe planners’ declarative knowledge.Planners’ declarative knowledge is oriented to 1) organizationalknowledge including mandate, deficit, and budget process; 2)theoretical knowledge including research methods, evaluation,program content, program ideas, and setting problems; and 3)89knowledge of the field of adult education including thecommonplaces of planning, and program design related to content,problem-learner-situation, and learners. These components ofknowledge are not exhaustive, are interrelated, and oriented toother categories of planners’ knowledge.3.1 Knowledge of Organizational ContextPlanning is framed, in part, by planners’ organizationalknowledge. This gives meaning and understanding to planners’actions and decisions, and includes the mandate of the unit, thedeficit, and the budget process. This knowledge mediates and ismediated by planners’ practice.3.1.1 Knowledge of MandatePlanners describe the parameters within which planning occurs.Joel’s discussion typifies the nature of the knowledge of themandate which planners hold and use in planning. Joel describesthe mandate he received when he became dean of the unit, whichestablishes the conditions under which the unit operates andplanning is conceptualized. He states:the mandate I was given was a pretty difficult oneand.. .was hard to achieve. It was from my supervisor, whowas the vice president. It was to do something with theprograms, make them grow, make them worthwhile, asignificant part of a small liberal arts college thatserved the downtown core area. . .make it self sufficient,that is, make money, so that it makes a surplus to beused in other parts of the university...(Inter I, p. 4, L. 28-35)The vice president, Joel’s supervisor, gave him a mandate whichincludes educational, political, and economic components: offerworthwhile programs, which are consistent with a small liberal artscollege, to those who live in the downtown core area while ensuring90programs generate money to make the unit self sufficient andprovide funds to support other parts of the university. Therefore,planners are expected to have and use knowledge of: worthwhileprograms, the politics of a small liberal arts college, thedowntown community, educational needs of learners in the downtownarea, and budgeting for profit.Joel explains that the mandate is established within theparameters of a five year plan. The plan is drawn in consultationwith “...the vice president, the president, the board of regents,the finance committee, and the dean of the division”. At the levelof practice it is translated in a number of ways. Joel explains:I decided that to serve the community and make moneyat the same time, it would be impossible unless we hadstudents and we would not have students unless we offersignificant courses and programs. Through that kind ofindirect reasoning I decided it was necessary to offerdiploma or certificates. I saw that students would comeback to take another course, if they are working on atotal program, some kind of diploma or certificate...(Inter I, p.5, L.21-29)Joel’s “indirect reasoning” is based on his knowledge of whatconstitutes significant courses and programs to attract learners.He suggests that it is a diploma or certificate which normallyconsists of a number of contact hours of instruction which isdivided into required and optional courses, and attests tolearners’ successful completion of the program.Joel argues that “To achieve the objectives of the mandaterequires intelligent programming” which is assisted “...through amarket survey”. However, since his term of office is five years,he believes there is little time to conduct “...a formal marketsurvey which takes at least a year to complete” to determine91learners’ felt needs. He argues that he cannot “. . .sit back andwait for the market survey and analysis”. He expands hisrepertoire of knowledge by gathering data from a number of sourcessuch as holding discussions with planners and colleagues, andconsulting with marketing people to collect, analyze, synthesize,and evaluate data which describe the situation (Inter I, p.5, L.14-20). Joel has knowledge of collecting and analyzing data frommarket surveys. Planners’ knowledge of the mandate is oriented toeconomic, political, and educational objectives, certificateprograms, a liberal arts college, community, learners’ educationalneeds, budgeting for profit, and market surveys.3.1.2 Knowledge of DeficitLiz, Erna, and Anna discuss the impact of their knowledge ofthe deficit on planning and practice. These three planners agreethat there was a deficit during each of the three years that Joelwas dean of the unit. Liz reports that because of the deficit,they were required to “. . .decrease expenditures, increaseenrolment, and generate a profit of 25-35 on every dollar” (InterVII, p.11, L.2-6). This suggests that planners have knowledge ofbudgeting. In addition, Liz explains that planners are instructedby the dean:to put on an unique program. . . which will bring in alot of money. . . to work together as a team, develop aprogram, bring in people who are willing to pay a lot ofmoney.. . a money maker. They were organized, were put on,a little bit of money was made. . .Some were new, some wereversions of what existed, some were in new formats...(Inter VII, p.11, L.7-17)One of the purposes of planning is to generate income to cover thedeficit. However, to accomplish this, planners are expected to92have knowledge of: nature of programs, learners’ ability to pay,team work, and design of programs in new formats. To this end,planners’ knowledge is not only oriented to the deficit and thebudget process, but also to programs, learners, content, and formatof programs.For instance, because of Erna’s pedagogical knowledge relatedto the fit of content to new formats, she anticipated that aproblem would arise from offering language courses in the newformat because the time required to practice a language, in “...anon-pressured learning environment, is denied.” Therefore, shemade adjustments to the program. Further, Erna’s discussiontypifies the nature of planners’ knowledge, and planning undertakenwith respect to the deficit. Erna explains:we bought a mailing list of businesses with certaincharacteristics. . .we wanted to design.. .programs whichcould be marketed using this list. We knew the kind ofbusinesses. . .we knew they were not able to provideprofessional development but could pay. . . we selectedexisting programs and modified them. . . we put them intoone brochure and marketed them...(Inter III, p.21, L.9-18).Planners gather data from a number of sources including a marketsurvey and a mailing list of businesses from which a profile ofcompanies is developed and courses are designed. Based on thisinformation, planners determine learners’ characteristics, theireducational needs, and the ability of companies to pay. Planners’knowledge of the deficit is oriented to team work, nature ofprograms, learners’ characteristics, educational needs, and abilityto pay, program formats, and marketing of programs.3.1.3 Knowledge of BudgetPlanners are required to have knowledge of budgeting as part93of planning. Erna’s discussion typifies the nature of planners’knowledge. Erna reports that Joel:spent a couple of hours a week. . . for a total of sixweeks. . .on numbers.. .how to do budget projections. . .thetraining he gave us is in essence his management style,which revolved around the concrete evidence of numbersand from that information he expects. . .us to takeappropriate action. . . His idea was you make the bestpossible decision with the information you have...(Inter II, p.4, L.24-34; p.5, L.1-3)According to Erna, the only on-the-job training that is provided isbudgeting. Based on this information, planners are expected to“make the best possible decision with the information” they have.Further, Liz explains her difficulty regarding her lack ofknowledge of budgeting:.1 went to Erna and said, ‘how should I go about doingthis?’ It is something I have never done before . . .whatdo I charge?.. .on what basis would I be negotiating? Shereplied, ‘there are possibilities, this is what we cando...’ I said, ‘I would not feel comfortable doingthat...’ Because it was my first experience, I wanted togo with something very concrete, as opposed to somethingthat would make me think too much on my feet in asituation that I did not think I was going to feelcomfortable with.. . So I wanted to go with very setcards. . .more in keeping with the way our programs runeveryday...(Inter II, p.16, L.4-23)Liz suggests that knowledge of budgeting is oriented to negotiatingand decision making which require the ability to be creative,flexible, and to think on one’s feet because of the unknownpossibilities. Liz’s discussion suggests the emergent,intentional, and systematic nature of planning as well as theuniqueness, complexity, and uncertainty of practice situations.Also, this provides some insight into novice and experiencedplanners. She believes she will become comfortable with budgeting94as she gains more knowledge and experience.Planners concur that the budget formula which Joel provided isa fair and important part of planning. Erna, Liz, and Anna agreethat their knowledge of budgeting mediates and is mediated by theirpractice. Erna’s discussion represents the nature of theseplanners’ views:25-35 (profit) makes sense to me. I do not have anyqualms with it in theory. I know that my salary has to bepaid . . . under the present mandate that the division be aself supporting branch of the main institution then wehave to make 3Oc. . .we should be self supporting. . .1 thinkthe division is essential to any post secondaryinstitution. . .we serve an adult clientele...(Inter V1 p.1, L.23-27; p.2, L.5-7)Erna argues that the budget formula which is designed to meet theeconomic objectives of the mandate is a realistic expectationbecause planners should generate their salary. Further, shebelieves that while the unit is an important system within highereducation, it should be a self supporting unit. Erna, Liz, andAnna agree that they often re-negotiate the budget, and are allowedto do so, as long as they are able to justify it. However, tojustify the decision to budget for a smaller margin of profit, itis necessary to have knowledge of expenses and income related toprograms. This allows one to gauge the overall profit margin.In sum, planners’ organizational knowledge is oriented to: theeconomic, political, and educational objectives of the mandateincluding programs of a small liberal arts college. As well, theymust know educational needs of learners in the community,certificate programs, budgeting for profit, and market surveys.Further, consideration must be given to the deficit budgetincluding team work, nature of programs, learners’ ability to pay,95learners’ characteristics and educational needs, format ofprograms, and marketing programs. The budgeting process must beknown, including negotiation, decision making, creativity,flexibility, nature of programs, income and expense analysis, andcriteria for successful programs.4 Theoretical KnowledgePlanners hold and use theoretical knowledge which is orientedto research methods, program content, ideas, setting problems, andevaluation which inform planning. Joel, Anna, Erna, and Lizdiscuss activities related to knowledge of research methods.Joel’s discussion represents the nature of planners’ knowledge ofresearch methods.4.1 Knowledge of Research MethodsWith respect to the Educational Assistants Program, Joelundertakes a survey of stakeholders who are responsible for hiringand providing educational programs for teachers’ aides. Thereasons for the survey are to: inform and gain support for theprogram, identify the nature of program, and serve as a politicalstrategy. Joel states that by surveying stakeholders, anopportunity is provided for their input and they are unable to saythat they have not been consulted. Also, he gains support fromstakeholders by establishing collaborative arrangements with them.Joel reports:.1 said, ‘let us now survey the community, that is,school principals, superintendents, school boards, to seewhat they think. . .We got 80% return, we mailed out 500...we did not go to teachers in the classroom, we felt therewas just too much. . .We got good support for the concept• . .they had reservations. Some said, ‘if these people gettrained they will want more money’. . .My response was,‘... would you rather have low paid ignorant peopledealing with your children or well paid educated people.96(Inter I, p.8, L.33-35; p.9, L.2-12)Joel uses his knowledge of survey research to collect data from thecommunity, principals, superintendents, and school boards whichdescribe the situation while establishing support for the conceptof the program. However, reservations are expressed about theimplications of offering the program. If teachers’ aides aretrained, they may be in a position to demand more money. Joelargues the value of the program to serve the needs of children faroutweighs the economic arguments. Thus, in addition to knowledgeof survey research, planners require knowledge of, and sensitivityto, the political and economic context of planning.Joel is the only one who conducts a formal survey of learnersto validate the program idea. He forms an advisory committee,comprising the dean, planners, an education consultant, and ateacher’s aide, to research the idea to determine who provideseducational programs to teachers’ aides and the nature of theseprograms. Joel explains:we checked the history and background of what happenedelsewhere and discovered there were two previous attemptsmade.. .to establish teachers’ aides programs. They weredone by the government and the Teacher’s Society,and. . . never got beyond the program stage because offinancial reasons...(Inter I, p.7, L.19-23)The researchers collect, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate datawhich describe the history and background of programs for thisgroup. Stakeholders, responsible for providing programs forteachers’ aides, failed in their initiatives to provide educationalprograms because of financial reasons. Joel states: data relatedto learners, content, and the nature of the program, are collected97by means of a questionnaire which is designed and administered ata conference for teachers’ aides. Joel states:• we included questions about what are the types ofthings you think you should know and would like to seeoffered. . .We took all this information and put it incharts, graphs, and tables and said, ‘we have enough datato justify going ahead with the program’(Inter I, p.8, L.28-33)Joel constructs the problem through this information processingstage. Data are collected, analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated.That is, they are put “in charts, graphs, and tables” to describethe situation, and justify the decision to proceed.In contrast, Anna’s, Liz’s, and Erna’s discussion typifies thenature of their knowledge of research methods to collect data toidentify program ideas. Anna explains that the idea for Writingfor the Journal course originates from her informal environmentalscanning:.1 was aware there was a great deal of interest. . .injournalistic writing. The trend has been noticed. . . thatall of these writing courses. . .have consistently drawnlarge nunther of students, so it was clear there was aneed for courses. . .the demand was evident and I thoughtit would be worth running a trial balloon. . . it wasoriginally my idea...(Inter I, p.1, L.27-30; p.2, L.l-8)Anna gathers knowledge through informal observation of a trend:other providers offer courses related to the content, and enrolmentis high in these courses. This informal scan and observation ofthe environment provide a description of the situation and someindication of what is feasible given a range of decisions andactions which may be undertaken. Similarly, Erna discusses herknowledge of research methods. She reports:• there appears to be a need because we were getting98telephone inquiries. I could have proven that there wasa need and a market. . .we have kept a list of interestedparties. When it has grown, we offer the course. In somecases we go to associations and. . . the community...(Inter III, p.28, L.16-19; p.35, L.5-6)The idea originates from data which the planner informally collectsthrough telephone inquiries for a particular topic. Theseinquiries are compiled and a list is generated. The number ofnames, on the list is an indication that there may be a felteducational need in which case a course is developed. The plannercollects information from external groups such as associations todetermine educational needs. Moreover, planners utilize theinformation from the market strategy, which Joel commissioned, toidentify learners’ educational felt needs. Erna’s discussiontypifies this information processing stage:.a market campaign. . .random telephone calls were made.They gave us data. It was the least reliable. They builta portrait of people who took continuing educationcourses, showed us where our market was, and where weshould focus.. .They were defining someone other than theaverage language student. The questions were toobroad.. . It was not specific enough to help marketlanguage courses...(Inter III, p.30, L.14-2l)A market survey which is completed for the unit provides plannerswith data related to demographics of learners, and content areasthat appear to be needed. Planners concur the market survey doesnot provide reliable data to be useful to planning becausequestions are broad and not specific enough to describe accuratelylanguage learners. However, Erna explains:• . . to me research means a market survey that would giveus hard facts... ‘250 students attended, 25 said theywould be interested’ .. .which is the kind of hard facts Ican take to my dean and say, ‘I think we should be goingin this direction’. Whereas, if it is a major change orjust to satisfy my own need to know, if it is something99that is within the language program I would make thedecision..., I. . .like to have some kind of hard facts toback up the intuitive feelings I have which probablyguide me more than the hard facts... ‘I know it is the wayit is, but here is some evidence to back it up’...(Inter IV, p.1, L.3-l1)The lack of “hard facts” is not a problem because planners’intuitive-personal knowledge mediates theoretical knowledge.Planners’ knowledge of research methods is oriented to:sensitivity to political and economic context of planning;learners, content, and nature of programs; questionnaire design andadministration; data analysis of charts, graphs, and tables;informal environmental scanning through observation and telephoneinquiries, and collaboration with associations; market survey oflearners and educational needs; and intuitive-personal knowledge.4.2 Knowledge of Program ContentJoel, Liz, and Erna provide examples of planning withexternal organizations related to their program area. Ernadiscusses the nature of activities and decisions which characterizethe development and implementation of the Japanese Program.Because of her lack of knowledge of heritage languages, it madesense to establish contact with those in the community who are ableto provide expertise and knowledge about the content. Planninginvolves collaboration and negotiation with the Japanese community.Planners confront issues of power and control related to knowledgeof content. She reports:the only program I did right was Japanese and I got tothe right person. . . the correct contact in thecommunity. . .before the program started. I made it knownI was interested in setting up Japanese courses. . .1received an application which seemed to be excellent andagreed to set up the courses. The second person tocontact me. • .was a key figure in the Japanese community100who was able to steer me the right way...(Inter IV, p.33, L.8-17)Through word of mouth interest in developing Japanese courses isannounced to stakeholders, and she identifies content specialiststo develop the program. This is the only program which she beganby first initiating contact with key players in the community. Sheinsists that the “right” planning approach is to involve contentspecialists and stakeholders because this assures a network ofsupport and learners’ participation. She explains:this is one of the key things in developing thelanguage programs, knowing the community, being in touchwith them. . . the proof of that is our Japanese courses arerunning better than any other heritage courses. . .there ismore information available to anyone who wants to takeJapanese because of the internal communication networkthat exists in the Japanese community. So whoever wantsto take these courses, they have only to telephone anynumber of Japanese people...(Inter IV, p.33, L.19-25)According to Erna, knowledge of the community is important tocreate a network which allows information about the program tofilter into the community to potential learners. An instructor whois respected within the community is a benefit to the program.Success is defined by the ability to generate participants througha community network. Erna indicates learners state:• . . I will go to the division because this individual isteaching the course there.. . this is the individual whoguides us. He is the head of the Japanese church, heworks closely with the consul. . .everyone in theseorganizations knows what he is doing, they will tellpeople to take his course...(Inter IV, p.33, L.25-27; p.34, L.1-3)Planners’ knowledge of program content is oriented to negotiatingand developing content, creating a network system, working with101community and stakeholders, and identifying human resources andlearners. This process describes the situation.In contrast, Erna and Liz delineate planning with departmentswithin the university related to knowledge of content. Although,these planners have knowledge of the content, for politicalreasons, they collaborate with departments. In regard to theFrench Language Program, Erna reports:I began by consulting with the head of the Frenchdepartment to determine if we could collaborate. . .1 spenttime with her working out the actual content of theprogram. . . we needed the cooperation of the Frenchdepartment. . . the head of the department would be the bestrepresentative. The person who was initially contactedwas someone who knew the background, and had a vestedinterest in seeing the continuation and development ofthe program.. . One was a political move and the other wassomeone from whom I was truly looking for support. If Ihad not been interested in the political angle I wouldhave just gone to the first person and not the head...(Inter II, p.9, L.19-23; V1 p.28, L.3-21)Erna’s knowledge of the political context of planning, and issuesof power and control related to the content of the program, leadher to consult with both the head and another member of thedepartment to: determine if they will collaborate, establish thenature of the collaboration, and work with the content specialistto develop the program. Planners’ knowledge of content is orientedto: negotiating and networking, power and control, politics ofcontext, content specialists, learners, and community.4.3 Knowledge of Program IdeasIn regard to planners’ knowledge of program ideas, Joeldiscusse,s one approach of how program ideas originate. The ideafor the Educational Assistants Program as well as many other ideasfor programs originate from working with community members. By102contrast, Pete provides a broad perspective of how ideas forprograms originate and in particular how the idea for the FuturesStudies Program originated. Pete’s discussion represents anotherapproach:a number of sources shape program ideas which includethe history of the institution. . . the university offers anumber of programs which had been historically inplace.. . the market analysis of the adult populationwithin reasonable proximity of the institution...collaboration with faculty, and personal knowledge ofcontent...(Inter I, p.1, L. 7-26).Planners’ knowledge of program ideas is oriented to a numberof sources: the history, norms, values, and philosophy of a smallliberal arts college of which the unit is a part; types of programswhich the institution provides; collaboration with members of thecommunity and faculty; a market analysis of the adult populationwithin reasonable proximity of the institution; and personalknowledge of content. Planners analyze, synthesize, and evaluatedata to generate program ideas.4.4 Knowledge of Setting ProblemsPlanners set problems in planning programs. Joel, Netta, andPete discuss the nature of planners’ knowledge of setting problems.Joel discusses the Native Students Program. Joel holds discussionswith learners, and observes their academic performance which led tothe conclusion that aboriginal students have a “...lack of academicbackground”, knowledge, and understanding of their culture. Thistranslates into other areas; they are “ashamed” of themselves, andhave “no self confidence”. To set the problem, Joel uses knowledgeof learners, content, and context of the program, which incorporatehis implicit values and assumptions about “what is the case” and103“what ought to be”. A comparative need, which initiates theinquiry process, is a gap between a desirable standard and thestandard which these students display (Griffith, 1978). This gapis assessed by a rough comparison of aboriginal students’ academicperformance with that of other students in the program.A deliberative process around the act-knower-contextidentifies that aboriginal students’ failure rate is higher andtheir completion rate is lower than other students. A roughcomparison or eye-balling of students’ performance indicates thatthere is a problem. Joel’s knowledge of setting the problem, whichis informed by his implicit values and beliefs of a desirable stateof affairs, is oriented to the program’s content and context,discussion, observation, and evaluation of learners’ academicperformance and lack of self confidence.In like manner, Netta identifies a focus of concern which isthat the system of administering evaluations does not offerconfidentiality. Students do not provide “open and honestresponses” to questions on the end of course evaluation formsregarding content, instructors, and instruction. Consequently,insufficient information is provided from which to make judgementsabout the worth of the program. Netta’s knowledge of setting theproblem is oriented to scrutinizing evaluation procedures, eye-balling learners’ responses, holding discussions with learners, andevaluating the situation.Similarly, in regard to the Gasper Program, Pete collects datarelated to a focus of concern from a variety of sources includinglearners, the on site program coordinator, instructors, and self toset the problem which is:.104• a bad report about one instructor, who was insensitiveto the cultural background of students who said he wasracist...(Inter I, p. 9 L.22-27)Pete’s knowledge of setting the problem is oriented to a focus ofconcern related to learners, content, instructors. Learners feelthat the instructor is a “racist” because of his biasedpresentation of the history and culture of aboriginal peoples. Theresident program coordinator experiences difficulty communicatingwith the instructor while learners and stakeholders are unhappyabout the situation. As a result, Pete indicates:• . . students were evaluated constantly, by instructorsthemselves. . .there was instructor evaluation done bystudents, by the coordinator who was in residence, and byourselves. Each course was evaluated and the program wasevaluated...(Inter I, p.9, L.28-35)Planners’ knowledge of problem setting is oriented to implicitvalues and beliefs, self knowledge over a focus of concern relatedto learners, content, context, instructors; discussing andobserving the situation; eye-balling, scrutinizing, and evaluatingthe situation. Dewey (1938) indicates that all knowledge begins inproblems which emphasizes the dialectical relationship betweentheory-practice. Planners question whether to adapt and havelearners adapt to the situation or whether to change the situationfor learners and how this is to be done.4.5 Knowledge of EvaluationErna, Liz, Anna, and Pete discuss evaluation. Erna initiatesevaluation activities to describe the problem-need related to themandate to “switch from a pass-fail system to a grading system andhave some more formal system” in place, and in response to a105problem which instructors identify: “...there had to be a betterway to evaluate” their courses to prevent the “...high degree ofabsenteeism on the last day of classes when they [the students] hadthe test”. Erna improves the teaching learning transaction basedon a notion of desirable practice. She explains:• . . I spent a year working on different kinds ofevaluations. I spent a tremendous amount of time statingobjectives in each level, giving concrete examples,testing it out on students.. .There is more researchavailable in French, that is our usual starting point. . .1took a course at the university on evaluation...(Inter III, p.4, L.3-6; p.6, L.2-15)Erna’s knowledge of evaluation is oriented to researching theevaluation literature, testing evaluation methods with students,taking a course on evaluation, and talking to students.Similarly, Liz and Anna undertake independent evaluationactivities because of a problem-need. Liz conducts theseactivities because she feels “. . .it is one way of ensuring that wedo in fact have good instructors, it is one way of keeping in touchwith what instructors are doing”. Anna states that, “. . .if therewere some signs that the course was in trouble, then I might do anindependent telephone survey”. Anna gathers information in regardto the problem-need which relates to her “great concern” for thehigh drop out rate of 5O from one of the courses. She observesthe unhappiness and frustration that the instructor and studentsexperience as a result of the large class size. This inhibits ahigh level of interaction and interpersonal communication. Annasurveys learners:• . . the survey [the information gathered] would be toostensibly find out about various aspects of theirdealings with the division. . . the course description, thepresentation, the physical setting, were the rooms106acceptable?, how were they treated by the division staff,and the registration process?. How did they feel aboutthe instructor?. That way I would be able to get anoverall view...(Inter I, p.5, L.1O-18)Anna’s knowledge of evaluation is oriented to a survey of learnerswhich provides “...an overall view” of the situation. Annastipulates that questions related to the commonplaces are asked:what are instructors’ knowledge, abilities, and sensitivities? isthe presentation of the content appropriate? is the learningenvironment supportive of learners?, and are the administrativearrangements, admission and registration procedures flexible?Similarly, Pete discusses the Gasper Program. He states:• . . the evaluation was not all pencil and paper test, someof the evaluation was ethnography. We talked to everystudent to find out what their experiences were, welooked at test scores, we looked at examination papers, -we tried to prepare a pass score for the entry level orthe level of the students’ awareness in a certain area,and the exit results. There was a combination, but whatstudents said they experienced with the instructors inthe course was important...(Inter I, p.9, L.16-22)Because of a bad report of an instructor, Pete uses bothquantitative and qualitative evaluation methods to gather dataabout the commonplaces. Although, Joel develops a policy to governthe evaluation procedure, at the level of practice, Pete modifiesthe evaluation policy. Pete undertakes a variety of evaluationmethods to gather data about the situation. In short, Pete’sknowledge of evaluation includes pencil and paper test,ethnography, and pre and post test to measure learning.Planners’ knowledge of evaluation is oriented to: identifyproblem-needs, research literature on evaluation, test methods of107evaluation, take a course on evaluation, talk to learners, surveylearners about content, context of program, instruction, andinstructors, administer pencil and paper tests, and pre and posttests, and conduct ethnography. These data describe “what is thecase” and answer the question “what”.5 Knowledge of the Field of Adult EducationThese planners have had no formal preparation in adulteducation which has been typical of those who work in the field.Before working with the unit, Netta and Pete held administrative!management positions, while Joel, Erna, Liz, and Anna were teachersby profession. However, since working with the unit, plannersreported that they had taken courses related to the field. Ernacompleted a course on evaluation; Erna, Liz, and Anna participatedin professional development programs for adult educators. Whileplanners may be unable to articulate a coherent system of beliefsof adult education, their practice suggests a conceptual frameworkwhich renders their practice meaningful. Liz’s and Erna’sdiscussions describe planners’ knowledge of the field of adulteducation. Liz reports:.1 had some ideas in terms of what adult education is,it is a very important part of education. . .1 do not thinkI have ever had to articulate it. But I think that ifthis division is going to provide continuing education,it should be for everybody, not tied to the kinds ofprograms given at a small liberal arts college. . . It dealswith basics such as the nature of learners, learningcontext, programs, teaching and learning, andinstructors...(Inter II, p. 5, L.l-l9)Although Liz’s formal knowledge of adult education is limited,it is mediated by her knowledge of education. Also, Erna’sknowledge gained as a teacher mediates her practice. She states:108)• . .1 trained as a French teacher.. . They gave me what Ineeded to function in the classroom. . . I think that allpeople learn best by doing, by practical experiences, bybeing in control of their learning experiences.. .1 wasgiven the principles of andragogy without knowing thatwas what I was receiving through the type of classroomactivities...(Inter I, p. 9, L. 7-25)Planners’ knowledge of the field of adult education is oriented tocommonplaces of planning such as nature of learners and programs,context of learning, instructors, program design, and planningcomponents. Planners’ knowledge of planning components isaddressed in Chapter Five.5.1 Knowledge of Coumonplaces of PlanningPlanners’ discussions describe the nature of their knowledgeof the commonplaces of planning. In regard to the Futures StudiesProgram, Pete’s planning is content focused. He states:.we had a common interest, we checked with staff, Italked to people at the university, faculty people,people in government, business, and industry. . .who usedfuture’s research in forecasting. There were three and weexpanded. . .1 sold it to the dean. We went aboutdeveloping the curriculum. . . and two instructors wereselected. . .we marketed and advertised the courses...(Inter I, p.16, L.3-7; p.17, L.1-2)Pete identified a group of content specialists from the university,government, business, and industry, to form a committee to plan thecourses. He presented a proposal to the dean, selectedinstructors, developed the curriculum, marketed, and advertised theprogram. Pete’s knowledge of the commonplaces of planning isoriented to personal knowledge of content, content specialists,nature of instructors, and committee work to design the program.In contrast, the Gasper Program which originates from thecommunity is mediated by a problem-learner-situation. Pete109identifies instructors through an informal inquiry process. Thisis followed by meetings to negotiate the development of the programwith instructors, stakeholders, representatives of the learners,and the planner. Pete reports:we sat down with instructors and talked with themabout courses, purposes of courses, learners, learners’needs, and the community of the students...(Inter I, p.7, L.31-32)Pete’s knowledge of commonplaces of planning is oriented toproblem-learner-situation, negotiation, stakeholders, community,learners’ educational needs, nature and content of program,purposes of the program, and nature of instructors.Netta’s knowledge of commonplaces of planning is oriented torules and principles. She interviews potential instructors toidentify the “right” type of instructor to teach in the universitysetting. She indicates:.we looked for prior teaching experience, people whowere not consultants, because they have no commitment tothe division. That is not the people we want. We lookedat the people who were successful, the bestteachers.. .were largely people who were working andinterested in their field, and wanted to shareknowledge.. .loved what they were doing, seemed to have away to explain difficult problems that was understandableto people...(Inter I, p.31, L.2-l8)Netta’s knowledge of the commonplaces of planning is oriented torules related to content experts and practitioners, and principlesrelated to teachers who love their field of study, have the abilityto impart knowledge, and are committed to teaching, not consulting.While the focal point of Netta’s practice is mediated by rulesand principles, Erna’s, Liz’s, and Anna’s practice is mediated bya communicative philosophy to language teaching. Erna’s discussion110represents the nature of these planners’ knowledge of thecommonplaces of planning. Erna states the interview to selectinstructors consists of:• . . a lot of the usual questions about experience andeducational background. Phase two is used to find outtheir degree of self knowledge.. .we ask a ‘what if?’question to see if they can think on their feet, and aphilosophy question related to the communicativeapproach. What I want to know is can they hand the ballover to students and let them go with it. . .personalityand the ability not to be egocentric, so they can allowthat learning process to take place without them being incomplete control...(InterV, p.6, L.24-26; p.’7, L.1-15)Planners’ knowledge of the commonplaces of planning is oriented tothe communicative approach to language teaching, education,learners, instructors’ characteristics, knowledge of content, andpedagogical knowledge and abilities.In contrast, Joel’s knowledge of the commonplaces of planningis mediated by his personal educational philosophy, instructors’personality, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of content. Joelexplains that adult learners who participate in continuingeducation “. . .can learn on their own, but they prefer to learn ina more systematic” formal setting, and want formal recognition fortheir learning. Therefore, instructors must have knowledge ofcontent, and be “people persons”, referring to those who stimulateand facilitate learning. These instructors bring enthusiasm andexcitement to the teaching learning transaction which arecommunicated to learners. (Inter I, p.15, L.5-2l)Planners’ knowledge of the commonplaces of planning isoriented to personal knowledge of content, content specialists,nature of instructors, program, committee work to design programs,111rules and principles of practice, problem-learner-situation. Italso includes negotiation with stakeholders, learners, andinstructors, purposes of program, the communicative approach,education, learners’ educational needs, instructors’ pedagogicalknowledge and abilities to teach adult learners, and a personaleducational philosophy.5.2 Knowledge of Program DesignPlanners’ knowledge of program design is oriented to content,problem-learner-situation, and learner centred approaches toplanning. Pete’s, Anna’s, and Netta’s knowledge of program designis oriented to a content-focused view which represents an academicmodel of planning.5.2.1 Content-FocusedPete states that the idea for the Futures Studies Programoriginated from his personal interest in and knowledge of thecontent and of the inappropriate use of the research in the field.Pete explains:.1. . .saw what was going on. It was an experientialthing. I have followed the research so I knew thisfield. . . there are conservative types who were using theresearch to put forth a very conservative agenda. . .1wanted to cultivate some people who understood themethodology and the learning tools to do something...(Inter I, p.15, L.l-14)His analysis of the research in the field leads to the conclusionthat researchers were using the research to put forth a veryconservative agenda. He wants to ensure that a balancedperspective is presented. The program originates from his focus ofconcern and his intimate knowledge of the content.Similarly, Anna indicates that the idea for Writing for the112Journal originates from her analysis of programs which othersprovide. The idea for Refine Your Accent arises from analysis ofa gap in knowledge in the oral and phonetic structure of thelanguage of the existing offerings. In these cases, ideasoriginate from planners’ focus of concern based on observation andanalysis of content. In like manner, although Netta does notdevelop any programs, her discussion typifies an aspect of thecontent view of planning. She indicates:to analyze to see if this is appropriate, what are wetrying to do?.. .the course outlines and courses had beentaught before, there were lots of drop outs and we asked‘why?’...the questions were, are courses appropriate?,are they taught in the right order?, are they relevant tostudents’ experience?...(Inter I, p.26, L.4-14)Netta states, “I did not develop courses. What I did was repairthem”. However, her focus of concern over a high drop out rateamong learners, leads her to question the appropriateness, order,and relevance of content, and the ability of content to facilitatelearners’ self sufficiency. The focal point of her planning is atechnical aspect: the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.These planners’ knowledge of program design is oriented to a focusof concern over a gap in the level and structure of knowledge, anunderstanding of what constitutes a body of knowledge, and anappropriate use of that knowledge.5.2.2 Problem-Learner- SituationIn regard to the Gasper Program, Pete’s knowledge of programdesign is oriented to a problem-learner-situation view whichtypifies a social reconstruction/adaptation model of planning.Pete indicates the program idea originated from “. . .the community113itself”, which is one of •the:.wealthier of the native communities. It is also one ofthe most politically active and progressive nativecommunities. They approached the university and that ledto the division...(Inter I, p.5, L.30-35)The community and learners define educational needs, andapproach the university to develop a program to be delivered on thereserve. Pete believes one of the purposes of the program is to• .develop and offer a series of pre-university courses andprograms in areas like study skills, writing, and speaking” (InterI, p.5, L.23-27) which will allow students to enter the university.Pete states planning includes:a lot of front end work. There were specialrequirements, we had to hire our own staff, we had to vetour instructional staff through the appropriatedepartments. . .we had to make special arrangements foradvisors and tutors...(Inter I, p.6, L.31-35)Because stakeholders are wealthy, politically active, andprogressive, they are able to define the nature of the program tobe developed and delivered. Financial supports for the design anddelivery of the program are secured through the resources of thecommunity. Pete’s knowledge of program design is oriented toproblem-learner-situation, awareness of political and economiccontext of planning, negotiation with key stakeholders in thecommunity, learners’ educational needs, instructors’ abilities andknowledge, and nature and purpose of program.5.2.3 Learner-FocusedJoel’s, Liz’s, and Erna’s knowledge of program design isoriented to a learner-centred view which represents an experiential114model of planning. Planning is initiated by Liz’s focus of concernwith respect to learners. Liz explains that learners in theprograms are quite different from what she had anticipated. Lizindicates:less than 5O are university students, they are peoplewho work. . .and want to improve their English...(Inter I, p.16, L.1O-l4)Her focus of concern, is that the program may have been designedwith a different target audience in mind which suggests that it maynot have met learners’ felt educational needs. Liz’s knowledge ofprogram design is oriented to a learner-centred view regardingwhether or not the program is meeting learners’ educational feltneeds. This shapes planning. Planners’ knowledge of programdesign is oriented to a focus of concern over a body of knowledge;a problem-learner-situation view which is mediated by political andeconomic context, negotiation with stakeholders, learners’educational needs, instructors’ knowledge and abilities, the natureand purpose of the program; and a learner-focused view to ensurethat learners’ educational felt needs are met.5.3 Knowledge of Components of PlanningPlanners’ knowledge of components of planning include:planning context, collaborating with partners, assessing needs,evaluating programs, promoting, marketing, and budgeting programs,and developing the curriculum. These knowledge components will beaddressed in Chapter Five.6 Siiimnry of Declarative KnowledgePlanners’ declarative knowledge is oriented to organizationalmatters related to economic, political, and educational objectives115of the mandate, deficit budget, and budget process. Also, it isoriented to theoretical knowledge related to research methods,program content, program ideas, setting problems, and evaluation.As well, it is oriented to knowledge of the field of adulteducation as it relates to the commonplaces of planning such asself, content specialists, instructors, content, learners, context,communicative approach, a personal educational philosophy, andpedagogical knowledge. Further, it is oriented to program designas it relates to content, problem-learner-situation, and learners,and components of planning.A declarative way of knowing is an information processingaspect which involves an act-knower-context, and requires thatplanners mediate knowledge from a number of sources to constructthe problem related to planning. It does not tell planners what todo but describes “what is the case” and answers the question“what”. Planners collect, analyze, synthesize, and evaluatedeclarative knowledge related to planning.For instance, initially, a planner identifies a problemthrough a comparison of the current standard with a normativestandard which is triggered by the planner’s fundamental commitmentto desirable practice. Further, the planner observes that there isa high drop out and failure rate among aboriginal students in theprogram. This knowledge does not tell the planner what should bedone but provides a description of the situation.Moreover, based on declarative knowledge, which plannersgather to set and describe the problem related to planning,planners may undertake specific planning strategies related to theproblem. For instance, because of the high failure and low116completion rate of aboriginal students in the program, planners mayconduct needs assessment; devise evaluation strategies; and developthe curriculum. Developing the curriculum includes: identify andselect content and instructors, and revise the goals and purposesof the program. That is, planners use procedural knowledge inplanning. The next chapter discusses planners’ proceduralknowledge.117CKRPTER FIVEProcedural KnowledgeThis chapter begins with a brief description of planners’procedural knowledge. Then, it identifies the six major componentsof planning. And finally, it explores planners’ proceduralknowledge through these six planning components.Procedural knowledge is knowledge of rules and routines ofplanning which deals with the necessary steps to accomplishplanning tasks and answers the question “how to”. In short,planners have a number of interpersonal communication strategieswhich inform planning practice. These strategies are related tothe planning context, collaborating with partners, assessing needs,evaluating, promoting and marketing programs, and developing thecurriculum.1 Planning contextThe planning context is informed by the organizationalconditions in which planning occurs. These conditions give meaningand understanding to planners’ actions and decision: For instance,planners discuss the nature of their planning strategies vis a visthe mandate. Joel conceptualizes planning: develop as manycertificates as possible; be recognized as the inner cityuniversity by offering programs to the core area population whoincludes business people who can afford to pay, and disadvantagedgroups who cannot afford to pay; and make a profit.Joel initiates an informal rather than a formal market surveyand he discusses with “marketing people the concept of how todevelop continuing education programs” for the downtown core area.He holds discussions with planners, colleagues, the vice president,118and external community members to communicate, and gain anunderstanding of learners’ felt and ascribed educational needs.Netta’s and Erna’s discussions represent the planners’perspective of the mandate and the nature of their actions andbehaviours with respect to the mandate. Netta explains:the dean was to make the division self sufficient, itwas a directive from the university. . . however, there hasto be an action plan, if we are here and we want to getthere which means good quality programs, activedevelopment, good recruitment, training for staff.. .wehave to decide which are the most important priorities.Is it programming?, is it administrative?, ourrelationship with the university and community groups?we never collectively decided.(Inter I, p.41, L.2-lO)The dean’s directive is that the unit must generate money to beself sufficient and make a profit. However, Netta reports the unitlacks a strategy for fulfilling the mandate. There is no consensusregarding whether the mandate is to be fulfilled through qualityprograms, active program development, or recruitment of staff, andno priorities are established as to how to achieve the objectivesof the mandate. She argues an action plan, which includesintentional planning and consensus of how to achieve the plan, isimportant to reach the objectives of the mandate or there may beresistance to the mandate. She explains:.you have to decide if you develop new programs, howlong you want to carry a program before it has to proveitself. . .you have an action plan, and you say thisprogram will never make money, this program will alwaysmake money or costs us. . .you have to have a plan butthere is no plan...(Inter I, p.44, L.19-25)If the unit is to make money it is necessary to have an action planwhich guides decisions about the conditions under which programs119are offered. This strategy takes into consideration program areasand learners, what programs are generating money, and which onesare not. In the case of new and low revenue bearing programs, adecision is then made to support them for a period of time if otherprogram areas are generating money to offset the cost of theseprograms.Similarly, Erna and Liz explore a number of alternatestrategies with respect to achieving the objectives of the mandate.Erna indicates that 111 thought of collaborating” with anotheruniversity while exploring the possibility of a “.. .genericheritage oral language proficiency certificate”. Liz indicatesthat planners undertake strategies which include developing newcourses, and offering existing courses in new formats. Erna’sdiscussion typifies the nature of planning:the use of brainstorming techniques among planners toidentify themes. . .a unifying characteristic to tie it alltogether. . . this led to graphic design. . .we came up withsomething which staff agreed with.. . from a financialpoint of view it just got us through the deficit, it wasnot successful...(Inter III, p.21, L.18-23).However, Liz reports that the outcome of this activity is that alittle bit of money is made. Therefore, to alleviate thedisastrous situation, she implements additional strategies toassure learners’ participation in and increase awareness of theprogram. She explains:• .1 reduced the offerings, and increased theadvertising.. .and kept an up-to-date mailing list. . .aswell as sent out press releases and wrote articles forthe local newspaper...(Inter IV, p.31, L.13-17)120To achieve the objectives of the mandate, planners undertakestrategies which include: review, revise, and modify existingcourses; develop courses in a new format; acquire a mailing listfrom which to derive a description of learners, companies, andtheir educational policies; use brainstorming techniques togenerate ideas; develop a unifying theme to market courses; andincrease promotion. These strategies revolve around planners’procedural knowledge which deals with the necessary steps toaccomplish the planning tasks. This is an interpersonalcommunication aspect of planning practice.2 Collaborating with PartnersJoel, Netta, Liz, and Erna are the only planners who discusscollaborating with partners as part of planning. Joel discussesthe Educational Assistants Program which represents an aspect ofcollaborating with external partners. Joel explains:from the results of the survey we concluded there wasenough support for it in the school system. We developedthe curriculum.. .we had enormous registrations...(Inter I, p.9, L.12-16).Joel surveys stakeholders to: identify support for the program,identify learners’ ascribed needs, provide an opportunity forstakeholders’ input into planning, and create awareness of theprogram. The results of the survey support the concept of theprogram. Therefore, he concludes that this is a good basis fordeveloping the program. Further, based on knowledge of the“history and background” of stakeholders’ failed attempts toestablish teachers’ aides programs, Joel vigorously and cautiouslyundertakes additional strategies. The documentation process isextended. Instead of ending the data collection phase after121learners are surveyed at the conference, he branches out andbroadens the scope of the documentation process.Joel indicates the interest groups, who are unable to developa program, are not included on the planning committee because theymay undermine the process. However, they are given an opportunityto provide feedback through the questionnaire. He states: “I didnot consult with them officially, as a body, because we did notwant to leave the impression that we needed their approval...” Hejustifies this action on the basis that he is able to maintaincontrol and power. He explains:.1 refuse to have representatives from the teachers’society or superintendents because they have been unableto produce certificates before and I did not wantthem. . . this is one reason we got so much flak...(Inter 1,11, L.32-35; p.12, L.l-5)Joel’s knowledge of the background and historical facts suggestthat it may be risky to include stakeholders on the committee.This knowledge leads to the undemocratic decision to excluderepresentatives from these groups. Also, it leads to the failureto consider alternative planning strategies such as including theserepresentatives in order to educate them. Consequently, hereceives “flak” about the program in general, and more specificallyabout the “planning instruction” course.Stakeholders carefully observe every planning move; therefore,defensible decisions in planning are required. However, the roleof the community in planning is tangential. Joel does not formformal collaborative partnerships with these groups because hebelieves they may sabotage the process. He believes that, byexcluding them from the committee but consulting them through the122questionnaire, he is able to develop and gain support for theprogram while maintaining control and power.Netta, Liz and Erna discuss the nature of collaborating withexternal groups. Liz’s discussion represents an aspect of thisac.tivity. Liz states:the institution approached me and said, ‘would you beinterested in running the program in our regionalcentres?’...we [the division] do the budget, hire, andpay instructors. . .they advertise through their flyers,and regional centres for us. . .the courses filled. . .theyare doing very well...(Inter IV, p.32, L.20-23; p.34, L.l5-l9)Liz is approached by a member of another educational institution tocollaborate in delivering, through its regional centres, theEducational Assistants Program to teachers’ aides who live in ruralparts of the province. The unit maintains control over thecontent, the program, the budget, and the selection and payment ofinstructors while the educational institution promotes the programthrough its regional centres. The unit relinquishes little controland gains economic benefits from this arrangement. Courses arefilled with a maximum number of students. Further, when possible,instructors are drawn from rural areas. Liz insists that thecollaborating institution:.had some suggestions about instructors, they sentpeople, I interviewed, and hired them...(Inter IV, p.34, L.7-9)Inter-institutional collaboration is used in response to demands ofthe financial objectives of the mandate. This type ofcollaboration is a cosponsorship whereby the unit jointly offersthe program with another agency for economic gains.123With respect to collaborating with internal partners, Ernadiscusses the French Language Program which represents the natureof strategies in which planners engage. Erna explains:• . . I met the head of the department first officiallywe met fairly formally on a limited number ofoccasions.. .1 did a fair amount of research regardingadmission regulations.. .1 wrote a draft.. .the essence wasthe course requirements, core courses and electivecourses. . . they recommended some minor changes. . . there wassome negotiation. . . they insisted on certain criteriawhich I felt students would not be ready for. . .wenegotiated until it was satisfactory...(Inter V, p.28, L.l3-16 II,p.1O,L.30-34;p.ll, L.6-8)In this case, collaboration over the identification andjustification of the content in the program includes a fair amountof research, risk taking, negotiating, and sharing of autonomy toarrive at a mutual agreement. Collaboration is a political andeconomic strategy to gain benefits.3 Assessing NeedsWith regard to assessing needs all planners except Nettadiscuss how ideas originate and the informal and formal needsassessment they use to validate them. Joel discusses theEducational Assistants Program which represents one approach. Heexplains that one method of originating ideas is to send clearmessages to the community that the unit is open to suggestions.Based on this method, Joel agrees with the description of thesituation which a consultant provides because of his knowledge ofand experience in the system. He uses a number of strategies toinvestigate and validate this idea including: forming an advisorycommittee “. . .which consisted of a variety of people, planners,myself, a number of people from the community, and a teacher’saide” (Inter I, p.7, L.15-18); inviting input from the community;124consulting about the educational needs for a program; andconcurring with the consultant’s data analysis of the situation.Further, Pete discusses the market analysis which Joelcommissions. It is a formal strategy which identifies needs of theadult population. Since the university is located in the heart ofthe downtown core area, the market strategy analyzes businesses,educational providers, and the population in close proximity to theuniversity. Knowledge is gathered from these sources to determinethe nature of the job market and policy decisions related toeducation. Pete explains that the market analysis identifieslearners! preferences for:- . schedule of programs, that is, weekends, weekdayprograms, general interest programs. . .and potentialpopulation of learners such as seniors, natives andimmigrants...(Inter I, p.2, L.l-4)However, at the level of practice, programs which are provided arenot aimed at seniors, aboriginals, and immigrants because thesegroups are unable to pay for programs. Based on deliberation inthe situation over the economic objectives of the mandate, plannersshape planning. Pete does not identify any programs for the corearea groups. Rather, the Futures Studies Program is geared toindividuals in business and industry who live outside the corearea. Although he discusses a program for which the mainrecipients are aboriginals, these learners live outside the city,and the idea originates from the community which he describes aspolitically active and economically capable of paying for theprogram.Planners use a variety of informal strategies to identify125learners’ educational needs. Pete’s discussion typifies the natureof these strategies. Pete collaborates with associations andorganizations whose mandate is to certify the credentials andcompetence of their members. Pete stipulates:we are in touch with associations and organizationsthat license people, sanction their credentials andcompetence or otherwise certify persons in variousprofessions, for example, nurses. . .We identify these, anddevelop training programs for these particularconstituencies...(Inter I, p.2, L.8-12)Associations and organizations often provide educational programsfor their members. Through collaboration with these groups, ideasare generated and programs are developed to meet members’educational needs. The strategy includes “. . .meeting with...community based groups and individuals who were. . . leaders” (InterI, p.2, L.5-7). Collaboration with stakeholders and leaders in thecommunity is not intended as a virtue or socialgood but rather asan important strategy for generating ideas, assessing needs, andgaining benefits from the environment.Further, Pete reports, “. . .the faculty, is yet anothersource.. . there is expertise and knowledge, we would often pullfrom...” (Inter I, p.2, L.13-l5). Planners scrutinize facultyresources to originate ideas. Similarly, in regard to the FuturesStudies Program, Pete presents a proposal to the dean. The idea isvalidated through an internal administrative mechanism but is notformally tested with the potential clientele before it is offered.Pete, Erna, Liz, and Anna use informal needs assessment tovalidate the need. Erna’s discussion of the Learning Strategiescourse represents these strategies. Erna states:126• . . there was no research done whatsoever, and I do notfee]. that it was necessary. It was not a big risk totake. I did not need any statistics to back it up becauseI could guarantee a minimum number...(Inter I, p.14, L.31-34)Erna believes that a formal needs assessment is not required inevery situation. She recognizes the importance of the financialneed of the unit but argues “...it was not a big risk to take”because she “. . .could guarantee a minimum number” without a formalneeds assessment. She rationalizes that the purpose of research orstatistics, that is, the needs assessment process, is to back upwhat she already knows, not necessarily to indicate what she oughtto do. She explains:.based on the needs of seven or eight. . .1 put togethera course, and that was enough justification for me. Ifanyone else attends it will prove there is a widespreadappeal. . .1 proved that there was widespread appeal andhave offered it a couple of times...(Inter IV, p.1, L.2l-26)Erna’s deliberation in the situation over the commonplaces,suggests the need for a course on Learning Strategies. When thecourse is offered, more students enrol than is anticipated. Thecourse is a validation of learners’ felt need, and a trial balloonor needs assessment instrument to confirm a need. The offering ofthe course continues to be its own self justification upon whichthe decision is based. The fact that students enrol each time itis offered justifies the offering.Moreover, these planners conduct ongoing informal needsassessment strategies to validate needs. They compile a list ofinquiries from learners regarding the content, consult andestablish linkages with associations and community groups which127appears to be the “key” to “successful” offerings, and use themarket survey. These sources of information along with personaland or intuitive knowledge provide reliable knowledge whichsupports the hard data. However, Erna states that hard data areused merely as a formality to satisfy the administrative need ofthe system, the dean, of the educational need for a program or tosubstantiate what is already known.This intuitive knowledge is intimate, personal knowledge whichis gathered through experience gained from contact with learners,the context, the content, and self. Further, it is knowledgegained from informal strategies in planning programs: that is,through indirect and tacit learning in relation to the task,others, and self, and it is used to facilitate the decision makingprocess. Erna explains:in terms of intuitive information, it is. . .based onpersonal encounters with students who say, ‘this is whatwe need’ or.. .1 can see that from experience...(Inter IV, p.1 L.12-15)It is the active relationship which exists between the planner andthe context whereby genuine knowledge and understanding areachieved through the support of experience and practice (Dewey,1916). It speaks to the dialectical relationship of theory-practice which informs practice and facilitates the decision makingprocess and “justification” for action.In contrast, Joel is the only one who undertakes formalstrategies to test ideas. In regard to the Educational AssistantProgram, Joel forms a committee, conducts research of the area,offers a conference, and constructs and administers a questionnaireto survey potential learners. He states:128• . .we know that teachers’ aides are going to beinterested in this. . .let us run a conference for them.The response was overwhelming. . . the conference wasdesigned specifically to get input from teachers’ aides• . .We got 700 people. We did have a fairly detailedquestionnaire to get their feedback on the conferenceitself, on whether they wanted more of these or not,whether they were interested in a certificate program.The feedback was very positive...(Inter I, p.7, L.25-35; p.8, L.5-12)The idea is validated through a survey of potential learners whoattend the conference. Therefore, the conference is used to:solicit, by means of a questionnaire, learners’ input regarding thenature of the program; provide professional development forteachers’ aides; and determine the level of interest in acertificate program and an annual conference. Based ondeliberation in the situation, Joel conducts a formal needsassessment to collect data to make decisions and justify actions:Joel indicates that teachers’ aides express a positive interest ina program because, “. . .95k were in favour, and said, yes if youoffer it, I will certainly go” (Inter I, p.8, L. 17-18)There is an underlying synergism among contextual factors andplanning which contributes to the generation and validation ofideas. Planners mediate data sources from the external andinternal environment which include the market analysis, survey oflearners, collaboration with associations and organizations, thehistory and mandate of the institution, the faculty’s expertise andknowledge, and content of programs to identify and validate programideas. Planners use procedural knowledge related to the rules androutines of planning for interpersonal communication.4 Evaluating ProgramsEvaluation is seen by all planners as a task which is integral129to planning. In this respect, it is a routine aspect which is doneon a regular basis or is enacted based on a rule of practice or apolicy. However, further probing of the task reveals that eachplanner initiates informal, non-routinized evaluation strategies,quite independent from the formal, suinmative, routinized end ofcourse evaluation procedure. These are in response to a focus ofconcern in the situation. Joel’s discussion typifies the nature ofthe formal and surnrnative evaluation strategies. All courses andinstructors are formally and routinely evaluated at the end of theprogram. Planners use a questionnaire to conduct the evaluation.However, because there is a rapid expansion of courses, this leadsto increased numbers of instructors and students, decision makingby planners, and workload on the office support system.Further, on scrutinizing the evaluation procedure, Joelidentifies a focus of concern which is that the questionnaire isfar too extensive to be useful to practice because data arecollected and filed without use. Therefore, the simple applicationof a procedure -to evaluate all courses under every circumstance-based on a rule of practice, is inappropriate given the particularsituation. The routinization of a procedure contributes tomindless practice and is one way in which planners make theirworkload manageable. Because planners are inundated with data andhave little time, they simply do not use the data. However,deliberation -mindful action and interaction- indicates that theevaluation procedure ought to be changed.Joel undertakes strategies which include reviewing, revising,and repairing the existing questionnaire to make it useful andrelevant to practice. Also, he institutes, as a guide to practice,130a new policy which states only new courses and instructors are tobe evaluated. Joel says:• . . the existing courses and instructors were evaluatedonly if we got negative feedback from students. That wasour decision, if someone was upset about the course, theywill let us know. That is when we did evaluations duringthe course. We would talk to the instructor, to find outwhat the problem was...(Inter I, p.14, L.2-lO)Joel develops a very simple evaluation form to replace the existingextensive one. Although the policy decision is made in theinterest of time and practicality and not necessarily in theinterest of a notion of sound pedagogical practice, it is notapplied indiscriminately. The policy mediates and is mediated byplanning practice. Joel indicates that alternative evaluationstrategies are implemented immediately in those cases in whichthere is negative feedback from students. Joel evaluates theteaching learning transaction during the delivery of the course,and discusses the results with instructors. Joel states:.more courses were offered, more evaluations weredone.. .You had to trust the judgement of your programmersto read, evaluate, and make a decision...(Inter I, p.13, L.30-35)Planners use their judgement as to why, when, and how to undertakealternative evaluation strategies, because the practice situationis complex, uncertain, and unique.Moreover, planners’ actions and decisions are based on anotion of a desirable state of affairs, and an appropriate level ofpractice related to the commonplaces which lead to the initiationof a variety of evaluation strategies. Thus, a focus of concernwhich may be a “...bad report about one instructor, who was131insensitive to the cultural background of students who said he wasracist” (Interl,p.9,L.22-35), leads to extensive, informal,formative, non-routinized/eclectic strategies. Pete conductspencil and paper tests, pre and post test methods, and anethnographic study to gain access to learners’ experiences in thecourse. Also, he uses students’ evaluations of instructors, areview of students’ tests scores and examination papers, andproblem solving meetings with instructors, learners, and thecoordinator.Similarly, Netta undertakes formative evaluation strategies inregard to the foci of concern to have “. . .something on which tobase an evaluation”, and to ensure that learners provide “open andhonest responses” on the evaluation forms. Netta reports:.we did not feel they were open and honest responses,so we made them confidential.. .like the university, wehad the instructor ask for a student volunteer. Theinstructor left. . .and students returned them in anenvelope and placed them in a box assigned for thatpurpose. We had all kinds of things on the evaluation...(Inter I, p.29, L.16-20).The system of administering evaluation does not offerconfidentiality; thus, the information on the evaluation is limitedin usefulness about the teaching learning transaction. Nettagathers this understanding by scrutinizing the evaluationprocedures, “eyeballing” the types of responses learners provide,and holding informal discussions with learners. Further, she usesher knowledge of procedures and policies which govern the academicenvironment of the university to revise and modify the evaluationprocedure.This knowledge is gained through her extensive experience from132working in other departments at the university. She develops andimplements a new procedure, which parallels one used in theuniversity, to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity oflearners’ responses. Based on these strategies, Netta ensures thatstudents provide “open and honest responses” to questions on theend of course evaluation which they complete regarding thecommonplaces. She ensures data from the evaluation are sufficientinformation upon which to make judgements about the worth of theprogram.In addition, Netta conducts classroom observation ofinstructors. Her discussion represents the nature of theactivities in which planners engage:.the first thing to do is. . .to talk to them about howthey are presenting this in the classroom. ‘How do youbreak up a six week class?’, when?, why do you dothat?’...Then go to the class and find out how they areteaching the content and discuss with them on anindividual basis how they teach. Whether they do anygroup work. . .simply flip overheads, or bring in guestspeakers. Some of them heavily rely on guest speakers anddo little themselves. . .that we discourage. . .The nextstep, because that has heightened their awareness of whatyou are concerned about. . .when they are forced to talkabout how they are presenting the entire course, is animportant step. . .before you [observe](Inter I, p.32, L.20-27; p.33, L.2-22)Formal written evaluation strategy, informal discussions withinstructors followed by formal classroom observations ofinstructors and more discussions form part of the evaluationstrategies. Before the actual observation of the instructor’sclassroom teaching, Netta undertakes evaluation activities whichinclude informal discussions with instructors about how the contentis presented, and methods used to deliver it.Discussions with instructors about how they plan to deliver a133course, before the actual delivery of the course, is an importantcomponent of evaluation. This encourages instructors to thinkabout “why” and “when” regarding the delivery of the content.Observation of instructors’ classroom teaching is a confirmation ofinstructors’ plan of action for teaching the course. Moreover, theobservation strategy confirms that instructors implement their planof action, and the planner observes that the plan is enacted.Evaluation strategies provide data before, during, and after theteaching of the course, and from instructors’, learners’, andplanners’ view about the commonplaces. These views enable plannersto gain understanding and make defensible decisions.Similarly, Erna initiates activities to describe the problem-need related to the mandate to “...switch from a pass-fail systemto a grading system and have some more formal system” in place.Erna improves the situation based on a notion of desirablepractice. Erna states:I spent a year working on different kinds of evaluations.I spent a tremendous amount of time stating objectives ineach level, giving concrete examples, testing it out onstudents. . .There is more research available in French,that is our usual starting point. . .1 took a course at theuniversity on evaluation...(Inter III, p.4, L.3-6; p.6, L.2-l5)Evaluation strategies related to planning include: research theevaluation literature; test various methods of evaluation such asstudent self evaluation, pass-fail, and interactive testing whichis the completion of an assignment by a group of students and theevaluation of each student in the group by the instructor andstudents in the group; offer professional development on the topicof evaluation to instructors; complete a course on evaluation; and134talk to students.In addition, Liz and Anna undertake independent evaluationactivities because of a problem-need. On the one hand, Lizidentifies the focus of concern. On the other hand, Anna respondsto the focus of concern. Liz undertakes these activities becauseshe feels “. . .it is one way of ensuring that we do in fact havegood instructors, it is one way of keeping in touch with what theinstructors are doing”. While Anna states that, “...if there weresome signs that the course was in trouble, then I might do anindependent telephone survey”.Anna’s discussion represents the nature of activities relatedto procedural knowledge which planners hold and use in planning.Anna undertakes strategies in regard to her “great concern” for thehigh drop out rate of 5O from a course. She observes theunhappiness and frustration that the instructor and studentsexperience which she believes are a result of the large class sizewhich inhibits communication. She explains:• . . the survey [the information gathered] would be toostensibly find out about various aspects of theirdealings with the division. . . the course description, thepresentation, the physical setting, were the roomsacceptable?, how were they treated by the division staff,and the registration process?. How did they feel aboutthe instructor? That way I would be able to get anoverall view...(Inter I, p.5, L.lO-16)Anna conducts a survey that involves questions related to thecommonplaces such as: what are instructors’ knowledge, abilities,and sensitivities? is the presentation of the content appropriate?is the learning environment supportive of learners? and are theadministrative arrangements, admission and registration procedures135flexible? Regarding the purposes of evaluation Joel indicates“...before we rehired an instructor we would look at the evaluationresults and if there was a significant number of ‘no, I will notrecommend the instructor’, we would not hire them” (Inter I, p.14,L.1-6). The purposes of evaluation strategies are to gather datawhich are useful and relevant, to improve practice, and tofacilitate decisions.5 Promoting and Marketing ProgramsPromoting and marketing programs include activities anddecisions related to budgeting, developing a directory, andalternative strategies to increase awareness of and participationin programs. Netta explains that all planners are responsible forthese activities; as well as for initiating separate promotionalstrategies. Netta’s and Liz’s discussions typify the nature ofthese activities. Netta states:part of what officers and directors have to do iswrite what goes into the directory. . .This was the firstopportunity we had to re-vamp everything. The officer andI re-examined the entire marketing budget which wasaround $100,000.. .including newspaper, t.v., and thedirectory which we mailed out three times a year...(Inter I, p.12, L.13-21)Before undertaking these tasks, she reviews all promotional andmarketing strategies, and the budget in light of costs and benefitswhich lead to re-valnping the promotion and marketing strategy.Netta explains:.we produced one calendar. This provides moreflexibility, if you are trying to plan an annual budget,how can you do that if you are changing courses all thetime. . .we said there must be one budget for the year andone calendar, if you want to add a course, do targetedmailings. . .We did one mailing and told people . . .theyhave to keep this academic calendar. Then we went to atimetable, so when anyone telephoned we sent a timetable.136It was less expensive, it is just sound decisionmaking...(Inter I, p.12, L.22-35; p.13, L.1-18)Netta argues that an efficient and cost effective means to promoteand market programs is to produce one directory rather than threeand find other creative and inexpensive strategies. Thus, thedirectory is supplemented by a less expensive one sheet timetablewhich is mailed to students upon request, and learners are advisedto retain the directory for future use.Liz develops separate promotion and marketing strategies forthe English as a Second Language Program. Liz states:.where students do not read. . .1 had to look atalternative ways of advertising. I advertised in someethnic newspapers. . .cultural associations andorganizations who deal with people who speak English asa second language. I compiled a list.. .based on calls. Istarted sending to larger institutions, training anddevelopment departments, because feedback supports whatI did. The programs have grown. . . so I think that has beenworthwhile...(Inter III, p.19, L.8-25)Liz suggests that the traditional print based methods (thedirectory and the newspaper advertisements) used to promote andmarket the programs, were not reaching her clientele. To assureparticipation, it was necessary to implement alternative, creativestrategies which include: compiling a mailing list of associationsand organizations in the ethnic community; initiating telephoneinquiries to relevant groups; mailing directly to specific trainingand development departments; and supplementing direct mailing bypersonal contacts to various groups. Liz indicates:• . .1 perceived I could approach my job, by making contactwith people in the ethnic community and dealing with themdirectly and saying what are your needs?...137(Inter V, p.12, L.16-19)Because of the mandate for cost recovery, the nature ofcontent, learners, and context, planners develop alternativestrategies to market and promote programs. Thus, planners developknowledge of and a working relationship with the learners’community as a means to market and promote programs.6 Developing the CurriculumPlanners undertake activities and decisions related todeveloping the curriculum. They identify and select instructors,content, and objectives; conduct interviews; hold orientationsessions; and nurture instructors through professional developmentand classroom observation.6.1 Identify and Select InstructorsThe tasks to identify and select instructors and content areinterrelated. However, for purposes of analysis, these tasks aredealt with separately. Joel discusses the nature of activitiesassociated with this task. Two strategies are used. Advertisementsare placed in newspapers to invite instructors to apply to teach,and those who apply are interviewed. However, although thesestrategies are routinized parts of planning, they are oftenmediated by planners’ knowledge of the planning context,educational philosophy, values, and beliefs which suggest the nonroutinized nature of planning, and the dialectic nature ofplanners’ knowledge.Joel describes specific strategies he undertakes in regard tothe Educational Assistant Program. He does not advertise becausea list of instructors is generated by “word of mouth” and from alist of speakers at a conference held for teachers’ aides.138Further, a short list of instructors is created based oninterviews. The hiring process is shortened. The advertisingphase is deleted, and the interviewing phase commences based on alist of “highly qualified educators” and those who apply directlybecause of word of mouth. This strategy suggests that planners usean adaptive intelligence in planning. Planners modify theroutinized planning strategy because practice situations areunique, uncertain, and complex.Similarly, Pete does not use routinized strategies ofadvertising and interviewing to identify and select instructors.In regard to the Futures Studies Program, Pete uses a formalcommittee structure to accomplish the planning tasks. Petereported that he undertook a directive planning role which includesa number of simultaneous informal and formal strategies. Becauseof his intimate knowledge of the content and a vision of theexpansion of the program, he initiates the development of theprogram and defines the nature of the working relationship.He discusses the content with faculty, meets with people ingovernment, business, and industry who use futures research,justifies the program to the dean, and identifies a group ofpeople, who are knowledgeable and committed, to work on a committeeto plan the program. A committee of content experts identifiesappropriate faculty to teach, identifies and selects the content,and markets and advertises the program. However, with respect tothe Gasper Program, Pete holds meetings with community members toensure there is consensual understanding regarding instructors’knowledge, abilities, and sensitivities, the content and purposesof the program, the nature of the program, the community139leadership’s purposes for the program, and learners’ educationalfelt needs.Netta and Erna discuss the task of identifying and selectinginstructors in terms of the criteria they use in a formal interviewprocess. Netta interviews and holds an orientation forinstructors. The orientation strategy supports the notion that thefocal point of Netta’s practice is rules and routines of planning.Netta explains that planning includes:... an orientation to tell them what were the policies andprocedures and what to do and not to do. Some trainingabout what the university is all about. . .g±ve somegeneral information on what programs we offer, what weare trying to do with our certificates, if their courseis a part of that...(Inter I, p.32, L. 1-9)The orientation is a strategy to familiarize instructors with:policies, procedures, and goals which govern the unit; informationon programs, the course to be taught and how it fits within theprogram; and learners’ characteristics, and motivation forparticipation. Netta states:• . . the only way you are going to get a commitment to yourinstitution is if instructors feel that they areimportant. They are like your other staff. If they...understand how their courses fit into a curriculum orprogram and if they understand what the university istrying to do.. .have a sense of what the student bodyis.. .why they are coming...(Inter I, p.32, L.12-20)The orientation strategy ensures that instructors are committed torules and routines of the institution, feel part of the staff andare team players. Further, they must have an understanding of thenature of learners, and the mission of the unit.Erna, Liz, and Anna use interviews, classroom observation, and140nurture instructors through regular meetings, and professionaldevelopment programs which support the view that their practice isshaped by a communicative philosophy, a learner-centered approachto planning. Erna discusses the nature of these activities. Ernaexplains that the interview is a two stage process. Stage onegathers the “usual” information which pertains to instructors’knowledge, abilities, and their experience with teaching adults.Stage two evaluates instructors on their personality, educationalvalues and beliefs, pedagogical knowledge, and abilities.Erna undertakes “less formal” short term strategies. Shecontacts “...heritage organizations and associations” to locatepotential instructors, “. . .checks references”, and requiresinstructors to observe language classes. Instructors are asked tosubmit proposals, and when instructors are known, they are given acontract to teach because “. . .they were people who had taughtbefore and I felt very happy with their.. .competence”.Moreover, Erna, Liz, and Anna indicated they provideprofessional development and classroom observation to nurture thebeliefs and values of the communicative approach. These strategieswere discussed as part of the agenda items during the twoparticipant observation meetings. Policy issues related to theprovision of the professional development workshops, and anexchange of ideas related to the process of conducting classroomobservation informed these discussions. Erna’s discussion duringthe interviews represents the nature of these strategies:• . . regular meetings in small groups and individualmeetings of all language instructors are held. . . at leastonce a session.. .we have regular professional developmentmeetings. . .we bring in guest lecturers or have a workshopon a new teaching technique...141(Inter II, p.17, L.29-33)The long term strategies which are formalized as part of planningare: nurture instructors through ongoing regular group andindividual meetings, and hold regular professional developmentworkshops on new teaching techniques. Classroom observations arealso an integral part of the interview process because Erna, Liz,and Anna are concerned with the communicative philosophy as itrelates to instructors’ pedagogical knowledge and abilities. Ernadiscusses the observation strategy:three-hour classes are used. . . so they can.. .be on somefamiliar base with students.. .help the teacher in thesmall group work. . .we had an instructor who had anexcellent rapport with students but was missing planningskills, that was obvious in the teaching demonstration...(Inter V. p.8, L.l-1O)One of the purposes of the classroom observation is to identifywhether instructors have the necessary pedagogical knowledge,skills, and abilities. She stipulates:I have asked the instructor to do lesson planning, toobserve classes of teachers who are very good atorganization.. .and then to do a half course.. .where theinstructor will team teach. . . the instructor was versed inthe communicative approach. . . had appropriate skills fordealing with people in the classroom. . . and knowledge, butnot the methods...(Inter, V1 p.8, L.2-21)Erna argues that instructors may be versed in the communicativeapproach which informs language teaching, have a good rapport withstudents, have content knowledge, but may not have good pedagogicalknowledge, skills, and abilities. The planner may recognize thisthrough classroom observation, and recommend classroom observationof other teachers, and team teaching. A multiple rather than asingle solution approach to planning is used. However, formal142interviews and full scale classroom observations are not used onevery occasion. Erna explains:I have had people walk into my office and I thoughtthis is a great teacher, I would hire them, lessen theobservation time or observe them during the process• . . everyone is observed, they are aware of that from thestart...(Inter II, p.8, L.16-24)Planners modify the formal interview and classroom observationstrategy. They hire instructors based on informal discussions andtheir tacit knowledge. If an instructor is required immediatelyand there is little time to interview or observe, the instructor ishired and observed during classroom teaching.Joel uses a formal interview process to identify instructors’personal and pedagogical qualities which include: “outgoing,understanding personality”, and applicants’ values and beliefsabout education, teaching and learning, knowledge, and learners.The interview is mediated by his personal educational philosophywhich includes “personality mostly” and knowledge of the content.Although knowledge of the content is the first criterion,personality, which he characterizes as “people person”, is asimportant a criterion, and refers to one who stimulates andfacilitates learning. (Inter I, p.15, L.5-2l)6.2 Identify and Select ContentWith regard to identifying and selecting content, plannersundertake a number of strategies. Pete’s, Anna’s, and Netta’sdiscussions draw conceptually on the content approach to this task,while Erna’s, Liz’s and Joel’s discussions represent the learnerperspective to the task. Pete’s discussion typifies the problem-situation approach to the task.1436.2.1 Content ApproachPete develops the Futures Studies Program because of hisbelief in the importance of the body of knowledge to be passed on,and his desire to ensure that it is presented in an unbiasedmanner. Pete forms a working committee to identify and select thecontent. The committee consists of the content specialists fromthe university faculty and practitioners in the field. Planningdoes not include a role for learners, rather the planner “. . .workedwith both instructors to develop the syllabus”.Further, because of his knowledge of and involvement in thewhole area of futures studies, Pete has “...ideas about the natureof a good reading list”. As “a member of the futures society”, hereceives “books and periodicals” which contribute to “his libraryon the topic”. He collects “syllabuses from universities” whichoffer programs in futures studies. Pete is a resource toinstructors and the committee in identifying and selecting thecontent. However, Pete indicates that “... ultimately instructorsmade the decision about the content” (Inter I. p.17, L.4-l9). Thisview of knowledge is that of a body which is to be delivered tolearners, and is consistent with a fixed view of knowledge in thecontent model of planning.Similarly, Anna is concerned with the gap in the oral andphonetic structure of the language and the need to pass on acomplete body of knowledge. She explains that based on discussionswith instructors about the content and learners, specificrequirements are established for courses. In the Writing for aJournal course, learners are expected to have a good grasp ofEnglish because of the level and nature of the course. Therefore,144a prerequisite is specified so that learners are aware of therequirement. She indicates:this was an area, especially with the background andexperience that the instructor had, where he would be thebest judge of the course outline.. .my decision was towait and see what the evaluation showed...(Inter I, p.4, L.24-27)The instructor has the necessary knowledge and abilities to makedecisions about what ought to be included in the content. Annadecides to wait for data from course evaluations. Planning iscontent focused. She relies on the content specialist to identifyand select the content, and define the nature of the course. Inregard to the course, Refine Your Accent, she states:there is no course outline, it is based on a book thathelps people recognize the relationship between writtenFrench and oral pronunciation of the language. That is inlieu of an outline. . .1 chose the text, there wereexcellent materials available, the rest was up to theinstructor to deliver...(Inter I, p.21, L.l3-21)Anna, like Pete, assumes a directive role to identify and selectthe content of the course because she is knowledgeable about thecontent. She develops a course outline based on a text whichdelineates the oral and phonetic structure of the language.However, once the outline is developed, it is the instructors’responsibility to select and deliver the content. Planning iscontent focused.In like manner, Netta undertakes strategies related to thecontent which include: “to repair” with the aim of improving theexisting programs. She reports:• . .to repair a course you have to say, ‘does it fit intothe program? Is there a gap?’...it [repairing] was acombination of many things. . .talking with instructors I145said, ‘what should be covered if someone were to walkaway from this program, what should they know?’...Welisted topics. . . instructors, people from theorganizations, and myself. We itemized them and said whatis appropriate to go into these courses?...(Inter I, p.23, L.26-35)Although her planning is content focused as it relates to thecommonplaces, the impetus for planning is her concern over theefficiency and effectiveness of programs. Thus, Netta’s planningis technically focused. Moreover, there are consequences to thesedecisions and actions. Netta states:because we changed the curriculum, we had to tellstudents if you took this you have to have supplementaryreadings or grandfather some students... we had a body ofknowledge that we felt was appropriate and yet it was notin the program. . . We had to say are we going to have acourse, a seminar, a workshop, or a project, to acquirethis knowledge...(Inter I, p.24, L.l-35)Netta explains that in the repair of existing programs, questionsare re-defined within the context of current learners, their worksituation, changing needs in the job market, and instructors.Planners conduct strategies or “...a combination of manythings” over the body of knowledge. Formal and informal meetings,regarding the content, are held with content specialists,instructors, organizational representatives, and practitioners inthe field. The purposes of these meetings are to determine: thenature of the program, the knowledge and abilities of learners, theprerequisite of the course, the repair of the program, theappropriateness of the content for learners in the context, thecurrent and future desirable level of knowledge, an itemized listof important topics, and a course outline to cover the missingcritical “body of knowledge”.1466.2.2 Problem-Situation ApproachIn regard to the Gasper Program, Pete implements strategieswhich suggest a problem-focused view of planning. Pete holdsmeetings with community stakeholders to define the nature of theprogram, hire and screen instructors, hire advisors and tutors asinstructional supports, arrange to deliver the program on thereserve, and ensure the program addresses learners’ felt needs.These needs are negotiated with learners in conjunction with theleadership. Pete explains:the discussion was how do we get our folks into theuniversity and get solid training?.. .community collegesand institutions that offer technological and vocationaltraining had programs in place for a long time that wereaimed mainly at aboriginals. Or there were programs atthe university which were narrowly focused such as socialwork or education. Folks on this reserve were interestedin a university education first of all, with theopportunity to go into a variety of other areas. . .theywanted. . . a classical liberal education. . . the initiativewas very much their own. We had to bend, manipulate, andcajole the bureaucracy...(Inter I, p.6, L.1-12)Pete suggests that technological and vocational programs, whichcommunity colleges offer mainly for aboriginal students, do notmeet their educational needs. They narrow their educationaloptions and reduce their economic opportunities. Even theuniversity programs do not meet the needs of these students,because programs are too narrowly focused. Pete explains theprocess over which the content is identified and selected:this reserve is a very active, engaged aboriginalcommunity and the hierarchy wanted to see certain thingsin these courses. . .They wanted specific outcomes . . .Theyhad specific objectives. The instructors, thecoordinator, not the chief himself, would negotiate thecurriculum...(Inter I, p.8, L.8-15)147A formal process of negotiation with the leadership, instructors,representatives of the learners, and the planner occurs concerningthe content and delivery of content. Stakeholders know what theywant to include in the curriculum. Their hidden political agendais not only to foster a sense of pride in their people but also togain access to knowledge and power which they believe will enablethem to be in control of their destiny. The overriding goal of theprogram is social change within the parameters of the existingsocial structures. Pete reports:the leadership and our people spent large amounts oftime with each prospective student, so they knew whatstudents were interested in, what their background was.The students were counselled, there was an assessment oftheir reading abilities to take a university course. Thepeople who were making decisions about the curriculumknew what they were getting into. . .knew what the studentsneeded, they had a list of objectives...(Inter I, p.8, L.l6-25)Learners are counselled, and their level of knowledge and abilitiesare identified in collaboration with the leadership and theplanner. Based on this analysis, a list of topics is developedwhich is negotiated with instructors. Planning involvesnegotiating with the community including learners and instructorsto identify educational needs and to ensure that instructorsunderstand what these are. The nature of planning has implicationsfor a view of knowledge which is socially constructed rather thana body of knowledge to be passed on.The program is held on the reserve which is not onlysupportive, but also provides a support system. This entailshiring other supports, such as a resident coordinator, tocoordinate and schedule the work of instructors and students, and148providing tutorial and counselling to learners. Pete indicates,all this had to go through the typical university bureaucracy”.The on-site coordinator assumes responsibility for the managementof the program once decisions are made regarding: courses to beoffered, the sequence in which they are offered, and theappropriate class size. Pete states:this reserve has an infrastructure in place and therewere different people in the community who also hadcertain skills and they could be called upon. . . The wholecommunity supported it...(Inter I, p.9, L.l-5)One reason for holding the program on the reserve is to provide asupportive and comfortable learning environment, where learnersreceive personal, emotional, and educational supports. Learnersare not up-rooted from their families and community but receive thesupport of the community and an on-site tutor-counsellor. Planningincludes negotiating and collaborating with the leadership,learners, and instructors to define the program whose central fociare learners’ felt and ascribed needs, and the community’s longterm educational, economic and political goals.6.2.3 Learner ApproachJoel, Liz, and Erna use a learner-centered approach toplanning. Joel discusses the nature of this approach with respectto identifying and selecting the content. Joel identifies aproblem-need among aboriginal students in a program; therefore, heinitiates the design and development of the Native Students Programand carries it out to its fruition. He states:.aboriginal students were. . .unsuccessful and many neverfinished the year.. .we identified their need. The concept149of the program was to address the basic problems ofaboriginal students who lived in the inner city andattended the school. One was lack of self confidence,academic background, and culture base. I discovered bytalking to aboriginal students they lacked knowledge andunderstanding of their own culture, were ashamed of beingaboriginals, they thought everyone looked down on them...(Inter I, p.1, L.23-27; p.2, L.l8-23)Joel develops the program to address the needs of aboriginalstudents because he discovers a number of problems by talking withthem, and by observing their poor academic performance. Studentsare unsuccessful and many never finished the year because they arenew to the city, are not used to academic studies, and are learningthe white man’s culture and values. These do not give them pride intheir own culture, of which they appear to have little knowledge.To provide an enriched program of studies in a supportive learningenvironment, Joel states:the program I designed, was a Native Students Program,with Cree, Saultaux. . .Native Studies, and Native Law. Wehired a program coordinator-counsellor and teacher whowas an aboriginal lady...(Inter I, p.1, L.27-30)Joel identifies, selects, and develops courses related to nativestudies, and hires an aboriginal instructor because of the natureof learners, content to be delivered, and context of the program.Further, since a rule stipulates that learners are required to takethe core content to meet the academic requirements of theuniversity, the core content is maintained.In regard to the English as a Second Language Program, Lizanalyzes the client system and the environmental context from datasources including others, the task, and self (her “experience”based on personal knowledge of the field), and she surveys learners150in the program to get a sense of:.who are my students, are they studying at anotherinstitution?, are they working?.. .what is theirbackground in English?...(Inter I, p.20, L.4-20)She had had no experience with needs assessment and through trialand error “. . .realized that questionnaires require a lot of time”.She determines needs by developing a profile of learners (InterI,p.20, L.20-28) . From contextual analysis, Liz states:these programs do not address this issue, thisneed. . .1 focused on what was lacking. . .it is English thatis not provided by the government that is free ofcharge.. . they provided basic to intermediate programs andsome advanced but not as advanced as ours. . .which have aspecific focus...(Inter l,p.l4, L. 11-16; p. 15,L.25-30;p. 16, L. 15-18)Because of the economic mandate it makes sense to offer a programto fill this gap. This intention also reflects Liz’s values andbeliefs to provide relevant and useful programs that meet learners’felt and ascribed educational needs. In addition to surveyinglearners, she also compiles a list of “calls” she receives fromlearners. These data sources provide a good sense of programswhich are offered, so that she is able to determine the knowledgegap in programs and concurrently learners’ felt educational needs.These data are transformed into knowledge to understand thesituation. Liz reports:.all these things combine, they were just ideas. . .1could see that because students would finish the programsby the government, were in special training programs,started work, and were having problems because theirEnglish was not good enough...(Inter I, p.14, L.19-32)Based on this analysis, Liz believes that she knows learners, the151programs they have taken, and the gaps in the system and theirknowledge. Learners participate because they want relevant anduseful programs. She determines this from observing: problemslearners experience in the classroom; the nature of inquiries shereceives about specific courses; the community and what othersprovide; and the survey she conducts.Further, because there is a gap in existing programs, it makesgood economic sense to offer a program to fill the gap. However,Liz surveys learners because of her concern to know who they are,and to ensure programs are relevant and useful to them. Liz’s“growth” metaphor that the program and hence learners “blossomed”is consistent with her learner-centered approach to planning, andher educational philosophy.6.2.4 Identify and Select ObjectivesPete, Joel, Liz, and Erna discuss the role of objectives inplanning. Pete’s approach in regard to the Futures Studies Programis consistent with a content-centered focus; Joel’s and Liz’sapproach draws on a learner-centered view of planning;and Erna’s approach draws conceptually on both a learner andcontent-centered view. Pete states that a detailed description ofthe Futures Studies Program includes what students are expected toaccomplish:the students know what they were taking. We [thecommittee] produced a very comprehensive statement ofwhat the courses were, a set of course descriptions, anda sampling of what students would study...(Inter I, p.l8, L.7-9)Pete indicates that the committee produces a comprehensivestatement of what is to be covered which includes goals of the152courses, an outline of topics, and descriptions of the content.Although there are no behavioural objectives, the overall goals ofthe program serve as objectives. Pete views objectives as anexpansion of course outlines which guide what students study,rather than criteria to measure whether objectives have beenachieved. He recognizes them as an inherent part of planning whichdraws conceptually on the role of objectives in the academic model.This approach is consistent with Pete’s content-centered planningin regard to the Futures Studies Program.Joel’s and Liz’s discussions of this task represent a learner-centered approach to planning. In regard to the Native StudiesProgram, Joel indicates that based on discussion with learners andobservation of their academic performance, he conducts nonroutinized strategies such as reviewing, revising, changing, andexpanding the existing “objectives” of the program to accommodatelearners’ educational needs. Objectives are defined as programgoals rather than criteria to measure behaviour. Planningincludes:objectives which were to develop a sense ofconfidence, self worth, and to place students in aposition where they did not have to take exclusively thewhite man’s subjects. They would have options... whichallowed them to meet the curriculum requirements, butthese were options that would do something for them. Ifthey wanted to take a course in Cree it was available...(Inter I, p.2, L.23-29)Joel develops a strategy to change the situation for aboriginalstudents in the program which includes tasks that ensure that theysuccessfully complete the program, and gain a sense of confidenceand self worth. The core content of the existing program ismaintained to ensure that learners meet the requirements of the153curriculum which allow them to compete on the same terms as otherstudents. Learners have to take the required core courses whichprovide the academic background they require to gain entry into theuniversity. To this end, the goals of the program are to: addresslearners’ ascribed and felt educational needs to acquire theacademic knowledge to be successful, and develop their“confidence” and “self worth”. Therefore, the objectives of theprogram are expanded to include courses in “Cree”, “Saultaux”,“Native Studies”, and “Native Law”.Similarly, Liz uses a learner-centered approach in regard tothe English as a Second Language Program. She explains:there may be objectives but most of them are notwritten. Courses all have the same objectives, to improvestudents’ English language skills...(Inter V, p.31, L.32)There are no written objectives, but objectives are implicitlyunderstood by instructors, learners, and planner. Perhaps becauseof the nature of the content, objectives are implicit within theprogram itself. Liz believes that the lack of written objectivesis not a problem:there were no specific objectives, but objectives arethere, obviously you cannot work within a void, butI. . .am assuming that objectives that instructors have arethe same that I and the students have...(Inter V, p.32, L. 13-17)Further, she believes that although objectives are not explicitlystated they are implicitly understood. She assumes thatinstructors and learners hold the same objective as she, which is.to improve students’ English language skills”. She argues aslong as learners improve, which is the goal of the program,154instructors and students have achieved the objectives. For her,objectives are not ends in and of themselves but rather they aremeans, “a process” by which learners “improved”. She states:So for me that is a response that the objectives arebeing met, in terms of goals, it is like the goal is aprocess. The goal is for them to talk. . .to write. So justby the very fact that they do, we are reaching the goals,very general, and they are that broad, so really andtruly, in my mind, if students are speaking the goal isbeing met...(Inter V. p.33, L.1-12)Objectives are broad goals which are part of the program. Lizargues that there are checks and balances in the learningenvironment to ensure that these broad goals are met. Uponentering the program “. . . the teacher assesses students and they areput in the introductory”, a level which is deemed appropriate forthem. Upon completion of the program, “...there is a very informalassessment” to determine if they have gained the required knowledgeand abilities (Inter V, p.32, L.18-24)Liz “formally” speaks to instructors to determine if studentshave completed the requirements of the program. She states thatstudents’ evaluations of programs indicate whether they haveachieved the goals of the program. Liz believes that althoughobjectives are implicitly interwoven into the design of theprogram, and are “process” rather than product-oriented, they areachieved. Moreover, Liz argues that objectives are undesirablyrestricting:I wanted to leave it open so instructors are notrestricted by particular objectives. . .if we restrictourselves too much the very beauty of the program will belost.. .the ability to provide students with anopportunity. . .under the guidance of an instructor, towrite, talk, correct, and guide discussion...155(Inter V, p.33, L17-27)Liz suggests that behavioural objectives are not explicitly writtenbecause of the nature of learners, the content of the program, andinstructors. Learners “. . .vary so much in their background, levelof education, first language, and reason for participating”.Mostly, they participate to speak the language, so programs areconversational in nature. The “process” of speaking and improvingin the classroom is in and of itself an objective. As such neitherinstructors nor learners are restricted by objectives and criteriato measure if objectives are achieved.Liz argues that the important factors are: learners arelearning and improving; instructors are able to assess this is thecase; and the planner confirms that this is the case based ondiscussion with instructors and scan of students’ evaluation forms.Moreover, Liz suggests:objectives are just meaningless words that people wantto get written down... ‘we cannot do that because that isnot one of the objectives’.. .if learners want to learnabout X because it is not on the curriculum, why notteach X. . . so not having them written down is not aproblem...(Inter V1 p.34, L. 20-27)She believes formal written objectives may inhibit the naturallearning process which occurs because of the synergism in thelearning environment. Objectives may be used in a negative way toprevent learning in other related areas. The important factor isthat learning and teaching occur. Liz indicates:• in terms of the Educational Assistants Program thegoals and objectives are on the first page of thebrochure. I do not remember the last time I looked atthem. . .all I know is that students are taught. .they aresaying this is what we need. . . and I am tellinginstructors, listen to your students...156(Inter V, p.35, L.20-27)The written formal goals and objectives are included in thebrochure for promotional and administrative purposes. They do notprovide direction to planning; rather, deliberations over thecommonplaces determines whether the broad or general goals are met.Further, the goals and objectives are so “all inclusive” that theyprovide little guidance to instructors. In her view, objectivesare part of the process of learning.In contrast, Erna places more emphasis on objectives as aguide to practice. She states:.when the programs were much smaller there were noobjectives set down. . .a group of people would gettogether with an instructor and between them they woulddefine what they wanted to learn.. . that was a veryinformal agreement and it was based on a pass-failsystem...(Inter V, p.13, L.12-16)Erna believes that the size of program has determined the role ofobjectives. When there was a small number of offerings, there wasan informal process. There were no written objectives, becauseinstructor and learners define objectives at an informal level,that is, what is to be learned, and how it is to be learned andevaluated.Erna feels that the flexibility and informality, are lost withthe expansion of the program. In a small program, instructors have“. . .complete freedom to respond to the needs of the students”.However, the expansion and the nature of programs necessitate theformalization of objectives in planning. The purpose of objectivesis to ensure that “...students meet certain requirements beforethey proceed to the next level and function easily”, and that157instructors are accountable and responsible for ensuring thatlearners have mastered the content. “It has become essential tohave objectives written down”. They are a necessary part of Erna’splanning (Inter V1 p.13, L.22-27).Erna maintains that in smaller programs the informal approachis maintained. However, in larger programs, in which there is aneed to assess if learners have mastered the content before movingon to the next level, a more formal process is used wherebyobjectives are institutionalized within planning. Objectives servethe function of assessment and control from one level to next.Erna states:.1 see another planner does not have objectives butruns 10 courses versus 40-50 that I run. . . the plannermight have a little more flexibility built into thatprogram.. . It is an important part of the process... theremust be objectives for the sake of students. I amthinking of concrete functional and linguistic objectiveswhich are written into the curriculum. There are unspokenobjectives as well. The communicative philosophy is anobjective which is not written down . . . it is an attitudetowards language learning and towards learners...(Inter V, p.14, L.2-16)Erna thinks that objectives are an important part of teaching andlearning. Besides written objectives, she says there are“unspoken” objectives which are inherent in the communicativephilosophy. This is a learner-centered approach to languageteaching. However, there appears to be a subtle shift from alearner to a content-centered approach: it is important to masterthe content at one level before proceeding to the next level. Thistakes precedence over meeting learners’ needs and holding them ascentral to teaching and learning.Objectives are an integral part of the language158program. She states, “...functional objectives are those studentshandle upon conclusion of courses; while linguistic objectives...students are required to master. For example, the presenttense.. .instructors are free to add to these.” Thus, functionaland linguistic objectives are an inherent component of languagecourses. There are unwritten suggested objectives within thecommunicative philosophy. Instructors are free to revise these.To facilitate this process, she holds “...a series of meetings withinstructors” to review and revise objectives with a view toassessing their appropriateness for each level (Inter III, p.4,L.26-34)6.2.5 Role of LearnersPlanners discuss learners’ role in planning. Joel’sdiscussion, related to the Educational Assistants Program, typifiesan aspect of this role. Joel explains that learners’ involvementin planning is accomplished as follows:..most of the input we got from teachers’ aides on thecommittee.. .one person cannot speak for all teachers’aides, the entire group. We had their input through thequestionnaires. We.. .made it clear that anyone whoregistered for the program and had problems to let usknow so that we can make adjustments...(Inter I, p.10, L.16-23)Learners’ input in decisions is acquired in at least three ways.At the beginning of planning, questionnaires are used to seeklearners’ input about what should be included in the program.Although Joel recognizes that “. . .one person cannot speak for allteachers’ aides” a student, whose role is to represent students’perspective, is included on the committee. At the end of eachcourse, learners complete the evaluation forms about classroom159instruction. Further, learners are encouraged to provide feedbackif there is a problem. Joel states:• . . most of the students took advantage of thisopportunity. . . students in rural areas wanted credits forwhat they had taken through their school divisions, so wemade that possible. We had some transfer creditregulations that were asinine. . .there was one that said,‘if you had taken a program elsewhere and it was approvedby the program officer in charge, it could be credited tothe program’ .. . the rules did not allow people to getcredit. . .once they were in the program. There were littlekinks that you would get in any program when it isdesigned, we adjusted...(Inter I, p.10, L.25-35)Some problems occur as a result of regulations regarding theprogram. Thus, the planner is required to adjust the rules toaccommodate students’ needs. Joel suggests that this is not anuncommon occurrence because whenever a new program is designedthere are always some “kinks” to be worked out. For instance, acourse which is completed at another institution is granted“transfer credit” if the course is equivalent in contact hours andcontent to a course in the program. However, there was a “kink” inthe regulation which prevented students from receiving the“transfer credit” for eligible work completed at anotherinstitution after they were in the program. Procedural knowledgewhich governs planning, that is, rules about what content may betransferred into the program and under what conditions, is adjustedto meet learners’ needs.Based on deliberation, Joel modifies planning. He revises andreverses the particular transfer credit goal to allow students, whohave completed the course outside the institution but with theplanner’s prior approval, to receive the transfer credit. Theplanner has to “adjust” the transfer credit regulation. Learners’160role in developing the Educational Assistants Program is formal,integrated, and ongoing. At the beginning of planning, aquestionnaire gathers learners’ input. A student sits on theadvisory committee which is formed to develop the program. Aswell, students’ input, through evaluation forms, is sought duringand at the end of courses.Erna, Liz and Anna describe the students’ role within thecontext of the communicative approach, a system of values andbeliefs regarding language teaching which informs their practiceand teaching language programs. These planners, who are allmembers of the language team, agree that their approach to planningrevolves around learners. It is a learner-centered approach. Ernareports:it all revolves around learners. . .my attitude is thatwe serve, we would be nowhere without learners. All otherfactors are planned to best serve learners . . . when wechanged from de-viv-voix to archipel, the communicativeapproach, one of the major complaints was from students.They did not like the constant repeating by rote withoutany creative re-use of material. The impetus for changewas. . .from students...(Inter V, p.9, L.2-1l)Erna argues that a consideration of learners’ felt needs is centralto planning. The method which informs the approach to languageteaching is changed from de-viv-viox to archipel on the basis ofinput from learners in the program. Learners indicate that the deviv-voix method which uses rote learning without any creative reuse of the material is not acceptable. The method uses outdatedprinciples of teaching and learning the spoken language. It doesnot encourage learners to think, create, and participate. Instead,it encourages their memorization and regurgitation of knowledge.161Learners and instructors identify a problem which results ina change. Learners’ complaints are supported by instructors whoagree that the de-viv-voix method, which informs the languageprogram, is outdated. Erna explains:people enrol at the beginning, complain at theintermediate, and drop out at the advanced. . . theenrolment at our advanced levels lilA and IIIB wereextremely poor...(Inter V1 p.9, L.20-23)The focus of concern is discussed with instructors to find asolution. Based on interaction over the commonplaces, the plannersmodify planning. To this end, Erna states:I have followed what comes out of the institute fromFrance. . . that is where de-viv-voix originates, and wherethe latest research is done. . .1 gave archipel to a fewinstructors. . .and ask one of them to pilot it... one usedde-viv-voix and the other archipel...(Inter II, p.12, L.28-33)Erna explains that she follows the research on language teachingwhich is conducted by a leading institute in France. It is throughthis strategy she learns about the archipel method. Erna decidesto field test the two methods before a decision is made. Theresults support the switch from de-viv-voix to archipel. There are.quantitative differences in that students’ marks were a littlebit higher” in the archipel method. Students “...were much lessfrustrated, and their written assessment was in favour ofarchipel”. Further, the “...instructor supported the archipelmethod.11 Quantitative and qualitative results support the use ofthe archipel method (Inter II, p.13, L.2-7).Planners investigate other methods of language teachingbecause evidence suggests that there is a problem. Planners162investigate the validity of students’ complaints; research othermethods of language teaching; and institute the archipel methodwhich is based on the communicative approach. Erna indicates:we are running six to eight sections a year versus oneor two. . . that is substantial proof that we are at leastin the right direction. . .De-viv-voix dictates to studentswhen and how they should learn. . . archipel empowersstudents.. .students are free to makesuggestions. . .teachers will make selections.. . it is afreer, open ended approach. . .which includes the idea ofresponsibility of students. . . Instead of instructors beingresponsible for the structure of the delivery of theprogram, instructors are compelled to make choices aswell.. .so continual assessment of students’ needs must goon.. . Instructors have to assess where studentsare. . . instructors have to make that jump from aprescriptive method to this. . . instructors determine incollaboration with students...(Inter V, P.10, L.7-lO; II, p.13, L.l3-34)The archipel method ensures the content is relevant and useful tolearners through a collaborative approach to teaching and learning.Learners share the responsibility for the content covered.Instructors assess learners’ readiness to proceed. Togetherdecisions are made based on learners’ abilities to move to the nextcontent.7 Summary of Procedural KnowledgePlanners do not justify their planning moves, which areresponsible actions and decisions, only on the basis of declarativeknowledge. Planners undertake formal and informal strategiesrelated to planning which provide additional knowledge upon whichto base defensible decisions and actions. These strategies areinformed by procedural knowledge, “how to”, useful, and relevantknowledge of the rules and routines of planning which deals withthe necessary steps to accomplish the planning tasks and answersthe question “how”. This knowledge is fundamental for163interpersonal communication strategies which inform planningpractice.Procedural knowledge deals with strategies planners undertakerelated to planning: how to change the program? how to identify whylearners are unsuccessful? how to ensure that learners’ needs aremet? how to change the goals of the program? and how to identifyand select appropriate content and instructors? This knowledgeanswers the question “how to” and deals with “what should be done”based on the rules and routines of planning. It suggests whatsteps should be taken and in what order to accomplish planningtasks. Planners undertake useful and relevant strategies as partof planning, and in the process re-shape planning.In the planning process, more data are added to existingknowledge from direct, indirect, and tacit learning in relation tothe task, others, and self and are included in planners’ repertoireof knowledge. For example, more knowledge is gained as planning isdeliberated through informal and formal strategies related toplanning: through discussions with learners, through observation oflearners’ lack of progress in the program, through experience oflearners’ reasons for failure, and through intimate knowledge ofthe content and the context of learning.Further, planners’ procedural knowledge is directly related torules and routines of planning. For example, the rule whichmediates actions is that the core curriculum must be taken by alllearners. Thus, the core content takes precedence over other formsof knowledge. To this end, the planner undertakes a strategy whichincludes identifying and selecting optional courses specific toaboriginal students in the program. These strategies are informed164by conditional knowledge. The next chapter deals with planners’conditional knowledge.165CHAPTER SIXConditional KnowledgeThis chapter commences with a brief description of conditionalknowledge which informs planning practice. This is followed by alist of the categories of planners’ conditional knowledge. Andfinally, it explores these categories in relation to components ofplanning including the context of planning, team concept,collaboration, assessment of needs, evaluation, promotion andmarketing, and development of the curriculum.Planning practice is informed by conditional knowledge.Conditional knowledge deals with condition-action-sequences whichimplement actions when certain pre-conditions are met and isessential for critical decision making. It answers questions “why”and “when” and suggests “what ought to be done”. It consists ofplanners’ understanding of contextual values such as economic,educational, political, and social values as well as personalprinciples of practice including efficiency and effectiveness,educational philosophy, and guiding metaphors. These contextualand personal values are not exhaustive of all possible values, norare they mutually exclusive.1 Planning ContextThe following analysis provides some understanding of how theplanning context, including the mandate, the mission, and thedeficit, is oriented to conditional knowledge which includescontextual values and planners’ values and beliefs. Plannersdiscuss the objectives of the mandate which are: offer significantprograms, consistent with a small liberal arts college, to thedowntown population; be recognized as the inner city university;166and generate a profit. Economic, social, educational, andpolitical contextual values mediate planning.1.1 Contextual Value: EconomicPlanners discuss the economic objectives of the mandate onplanning. Joel’s and Netta’s discussion represents the nature ofthe economic value of the mandate which mediates planning. Joelargues that based on “intelligent programming” (intentionalplanning which includes second guessing), “indirect reasoning”(intuiting and anticipating what the market bears), he gavedirectives to planners to generate profit by offering as manycertificates to meet as many educational needs as possible. Hisinformal analysis leads to a cafeteria style program wherein anumber of courses and certificates are offered so that students canselect what appeals to them.At the level of practice, Joel encourages planners to developas many certificates as possible instead of stand-alone shortcourses, because certificates generate a reliable continuingstudent body. Joel reasons that to “. . .serve the community andmake money” it is necessary to have participants who are committedon a long term basis. It seems appropriate to offer certificatesbecause these programs are normally comprehensive and consist ofrequired and optional courses which sometimes take two or threeyears of part-time study to complete. Thus, the economic value ofthe mandate, and planner’s interpretation of it, mediate the typesof programs and formats developed, and clientele served.Further, the types of programs suggest the clientele to beserved. Those in the downtown core area are mostly business peopleand others, who can afford to pay for programs. Few programs are167geared toward residents of the inner city who are often thedisadvantaged - - women, visible minorities, and immigrants.Moreover, the offering of certificates is based on the assumptionthat students who take these programs are committed to the conceptof the program and will complete the entire program. They becomeregular participants who return to take “. . . another course if theyare working on a total program”. The impetus to developcertificates, and consequently “certify” that learners haveachieved knowledge in a particular field, is mediated by theeconomic rather than the pedagogical value of the certificate.Students are needed in courses to generate money. Joel’s practiceis driven by the goal to have “significant” numbers of courses andstudents to reduce the uncertainty of registration and to meet theeconomic objectives of the mandate. Therefore, economic valuesmediate other values of the mandate, including planner’s values andbeliefs which inform planning.Similarly, to achieve the objectives of the mandate, Nettaproposes the need for intentional decision making based on theeconomic value of the mandate as a model of planning. Herproactive strategy to planning is mediated by the economic value ofthe mandate. Netta argues that the unit not only has an economicmandate to fulfil but it functions also as a mechanism which helpsthe university to maintain the status quo in the system -continueto do research and teach.The unit responds to educational needs of a variety oflearners, including those whose needs are not met by theuniversity. Netta argues that the unit’s role is “...to bridge thegap” between the community and the university. “It provides an168opportunity” to learners who “. . .see the university as a possibleoption. . .whether it is as access programs, non credit, or degreeaccess.” Moreover, the unit ought to be financially viable. Theseroles are not incompatible because financial independence providesautonomy to offer a variety of programs, even those which are notcost effective, to a wide range of learners (Inter I, p.44, L.27-35)Based on experience gained from different positions within theuniversity, Netta “knows” how the institution functions. Sheindicates “I had partly formulated a vision,” which is that theunit is a part of an integrated higher education system consistingof the university and colleges. Programs fit, build on each other,are financially viable, and learners move with ease from one systemto another. This vision is to provide “meaningful” programs whilehaving “. . .a greater degree of autonomy”. The value position ofthe vision is the ability to act autonomously within the existingstructures of the institution and provide meaningful programs.However, to act with any degree of autonomy requires financialindependence (Inter I, p.45, L.18-31)Therefore, one of her goals is to offer “meaningful” programswithin the structure of the institution. On one level of analysis,meaningful programs suggest the principle of economy of content(the ability of the content to facilitate learners’ selfsufficiency). Finally, her goal of autonomy is based on aneconomic value of the unit’s self sufficiency (autonomy is gainedthrough financial independence from the university). The mandateof the unit is consistent with Netta’s goals to offer financiallyviable, meaningful programs while having the ability to act in an169autonomous manner.Netta’s planning is re-defined within the context of theeconomic objectives of the mandate: the unit is a system within alarger system which provides a wide range of economically viableprograms to a variety of learners who have the ability to pay. Toaccomplish its mandate, a strategy is required which setspriorities and directions for the unit while providing the basisfor intentional decision making based on the economic realities ofthe situation. The strategy is framed within an economicallyviable framework as the basis for action, and includes meaningfulprograms, active program development, instructional recruitment,and staff training. The focal point of Netta’s practice is aprocedural strategy based on an economic value.1.2 Contextual Value: EducationalAlthough Erna’s, Liz’s and Anna’s practice is mediated by theeconomic value of the mandate, the focal point of their practicemediates the mandate and represents the perspective of members ofthe language team. Erna reports:I have felt a certain amount of pressure to getcertificates passed by senate quickly. . . In the case ofthe French Language Proficiency Program, senate got whatthey wanted. . . so they said, ‘do that again.. .do that forSpanish, Italian, Russian. . . ‘This was from the dean underdirect pressure from the vice president to get morecertificates through senate as quickly as possible. . . tobuild the reputation of the division and make money,making more money being the final goal...(Inter V,p.lO, L.23-25; p.11, L.3-8)Pressure to make money, to be self sufficient, and build areputable unit comes from the vice president through the dean.Further, the development of certificates is a means to achieve thefinal goal of making more money which is dictated by the economic170value of the mandate. Erna’s reason for developing certificates isconsistent with Joel’s. She explains:the reason being that a student who will make acommitment to a certificate will take more courses andpay more money. . .but it acts as motivation for students.It might also stimulate them to broaden their horizons,by looking into literature which they might notnecessarily do by taking an isolated course...(Inter V1 p.12, L.20-23; p.13, L.3-6)Planning is modified by economic values rather than educationalconcerns, such as learners’ felt educational needs. However, Ernaargues that certificates are motivational because they are based onthe curriculum premise of concentration which is that only largeand connected units of subject matter, that is, a number of coreand elective courses, can motivate and maintain learners’ interest(Herbart, 1904). Therefore, learners may be encouraged to learnand explore other concepts if they take a certificate programrather than an isolated course because they become engrossed in theparticular content. She believes that there is an educationalvalue to developing certificates.At the policy level, the educational value of certificates islegitimized as part of the institution’s mandate through the formalapproval of certificates by senate (the governing body of theinstitution). At the level of practice, planners have to justifyon some grounds, the identification and selection of content tomeet learners’ educational needs, and the development and deliveryof such programs. A dilemma is presented because the need todevelop as many certificates, in as many languages as possible, isnot established. She resists the economic mandate. She refuses todevelop programs if there is no identifiable need.1711.3 Contextual Value: PoliticalIn his third year as dean, Joel received a “. . .directive fromthe vice president” to stop developing new programs. As a result,the unit went into a “maintenance phase”. The reasons for thedirective are economic, practical, and political. The unit showsa deficit in spite of the expansion of programs and increasedstudent enrolment, and it seemed reasonable to stop developingprograms because the “. . .internal operational systems and staffmembers were over-burdened.” Also, the directive suggests anattempt to sanction the form of knowledge which the unit offers.Joel argues that by succumbing to the pressure “...orchestrated by the academic community” and allowing others todictate the actions and behaviours of the unit he “lost control”and power over the unit. In “hindsight” he has concluded that thecorrect response was to reject the directive (Inter I, p.18, L.l21). In addition to the pressure on staff and the inadequacy ofthe internal system to handle the expansion, Joel states:.we never had time to anticipate these growths, and asa result our systems could not handle them. . . we had manyproblems. . . from the academic community we got tremendousopposition to all our certificates. . . ‘well, theuniversity does not do that type of thing, we are aliberal arts college’.. .It is very frustrating becausethe institution is not sold on continuing education...(Inter I, p.l8, L.24-35; p.19, L.l-l4)There was pressure from members of the academic community who feltthat it was inappropriate for a small liberal arts college to offerthe types of programs the unit offered. Other constraintscontributed to the frustrating work environment. Because this is“...a one faculty institution, all the power... was in thecollective hands of one person”. The “. . .real power, the behind172the scene power”, is in the dean of the faculty of arts andscience. He sees the unit as a drain on the financial resources ofthe university (Inter I, p.19, L.15-24).The dean of arts and science controls the financial resourcesof the unit. Therefore, the “real power” or locus of control restsoutside the unit. Joel feels powerless because he is given amandate which is incompatible and inconsistent. He lacks thesupport of the academic community. Moreover, the unit mustgenerate money to cover not only its own expenses but also toproduce a profit for other parts of the institution while offeringcontent consistent with a small liberal arts college of which it isa part.At the level of practice these constraints are dilemmasbecause they are inconsistent and incompatible. The economicallydisadvantaged groups are usually not in a position to pay,therefore, one cannot expect to generate income from programs forthese groups. Further, these groups may not want liberal artsprograms but “skill building and how to” programs to gainemployment and earn a living. Thus, economic and educationalvalues create a dilemma because they are incompatible. Plannersare required to work within these dilemmas and, at the same time,plan “worthwhile” programs which not only recover costs but alsogenerate profit.Planning under these contextual values: the institution’sgoals to be economically viable, its political mission to berecognized as the “. . .core inner city university”, and itseducational philosophy to maintain its liberal arts values, createuncertain and unique practice situations. Planners are required to173“adjust”, “anticipate”, and “make changes” in planning. Thus,given these conflicting and competing values, Joel indicates, “Idecided by the third year that I should really get out of thisbecause I am not going to win this” (Inter I, p.21, L.16-l7). Joelelects to change his work environment because of the untenablesituation.1.4 Contextual Value: SocialPete’s discussion of the mission of the university representsthe nature of his conditional knowledge which mediates his planningpractice. Pete noted that the “...l986 mission statement by thepresident”, stated that the university’s mission is to be “theinner city university”. It is to meet the educational needs ofaboriginals, immigrants, and working people who live and work inthe inner city. Further, “. . .the university is very much a part ofthe vibrancy and changes occurring in the inner city”. It is thecatalyst for social change, or “. . .a vehicle and resource linkagein the political and economic process in helping people to qualifyfor employment” (Inter I, p.3, L.21-25).This mission describes a role for the unit which is to createindividual change and consequently social change. The unit is ameans to an end, a vehicle by which individuals acquire knowledgeand abilities to gain access to the economic and political wealthof society. Pete argues, as a result of this mission, theuniversity:• for the last 8-10 years has become more cognizant ofits neighbours downtown, businesses. . .it has tried toserve a diversified audience of natives, immigrants,working people. The division was one major expression ofthe university’s commitment to the inner city.(Inter I, p.3, L.23-35)174At the policy level, the creation of the unit is an expression ofthe university’s commitment to this mission. The university’saccess committee also defines a role for the unit which isconsistent with the university’s mission. In this sense the roleand mission of the unit are defined by the institution of which itis a part. The unit is the vehicle and the resource linkage withthe inner city, and the means by which the university achieves itsmission of social change and responsibility.However, Pete explains that how this policy is supported bythe university, and consequently how it is translated at the levelof practice, is an indication of the university’s commitment to itsmission. From an analysis of the objectives of the mandate, it isaccurate to say that the institution provides no financial supportbut expects the unit to be self sufficient and to generate a profitto support other parts of the institution. This incompatibilityand inconsistency with policy and practice contribute to Joel’sresignation, after three years and before the end of his five yearterm. Pete states:things are unified to the extent that the leadershipdoes demonstrable things to make them happen and that thepower brokers in the university do.. . there arefaculty. . .who feel very uncomfortable with... admittingunder some aegis a great unwashed mass of persons who arenot prepared for the university.. . who need assistancewith reading, mathematics, developing study habits.. . Itcomes to the leadership.. .the funders. If the governmentfeels the university ought to move in that direction,there are ways to bring that about...(Inter I, p.4, L.6-20)Pete suggests that the mission of the university is realized onlyto the extent to which there is support for it from all levelswithin the institution. Financial support must come from the top175to ensure the mission becomes a reality. This support is notthere, neither is there widespread support from the academiccommunity for the unit’s programs and clientele. Indeed, somefaculty feel that the university ought not to admit “. . .a greatunwashed mass of persons” who are not academically prepared toundertake university study.The implications are that these persons will require supportssuch as reading, mathematics, and study skills, and concomitantlythe financial supports for these programs will have to be providedby the university. Providing this support would drain fundsearmarked for research. Pete stipulates, “. . .the staff at the unitare committed” to the mission; however, because there is nofinancial support from the leadership this mission is onlypartially implemented at the level of practice.The unit offers courses for a wide range of persons with veryspecialized interests and needs. These courses are not free.Therefore, the felt needs of only those who can afford to pay forcourses are met. Tuition is a barrier to participation forlearners who are economically disadvantaged while those who canafford to pay, who in most cases have a higher level of educationand better job opportunities, gain more access to the economic andpolitical systems. Thus, systemic discrimination and structuralbarriers are supported and reinforced at the policy and practicelevel. Pete explains:• . . the division received a very small amount of fundingfrom the university, so it finds itself in the positionof having to charge for all its courses. What it wouldtake.. .when one begins to work with. . .non traditionalaudiences is an university to subsidize to a very highdegree. . .but the division is supposed to be costrecovery, and profit generating.176(Inter I, p.4, L.28-34).Pete believes that to meet the educational needs of non traditionalgroups requires a financial commitment. These groups not onlyrequire academic supports but also they, inmost cases, lack theability to pay. Further, to provide programs for non traditionalgroups, the unit cannot accomplish this task alone. It has to“...work with some of the existing agencies, community groups, andorganizations, who already work and support these people”.The overriding assumption of planning is that learners’ needsare considered from a holistic perspective. Pete re-definesplanning as a process of “...re-educating, educating, nourishing,cultivating, and developing the whole person” (Inter I, p.5, L.13-22). It is located within the individual’s economic, political,and social contexts. Planning for “non traditional” groupsrequires a range of courses, supports from other agencies, andworking relationships.Pete identifies the Gasper Program as an example of a programwhich is designed to meet the educational needs of a nontraditional group. However, the initiative for this program camefrom the community which is described as economically advantagedand politically active and progressive. Pete describes the workingrelationship with the community and the university:all along we had to manipulate the universityadministration. We had to convince the university thatthis was worth the time and resources we were allocatingit. . .The relationship was a contractual one, the moneyflowed through the aboriginal band to the university, itwas a profit making venture...(Inter I, p.6, L.23-29)Pete suggests that part of planning involves manipulating the177administration, and convincing stakeholders of the worth and valueof developing the program. In short, there is resistance todeveloping a program for aboriginal students which is to bedelivered on the reserve. The resistance appears to be based onideological rather than educational grounds. There is an attemptto control not only the form of knowledge, but also the learners tobe served and the venue of the offering.Moreover, the unit signs a contract with the band to deliverthe program for a particular sum of money. This contractualarrangement brings economic gains to the university. Pete’sdiscussion suggests that an economic goal takes precedence over asocial goal: an economic argument persuades the unit of the valueof the program. Pete indicates that, “. . .themoney flowed throughthe aboriginal band to the university, it was a profit makingventure”. Planners problematize and contextualize planning,because it is situated within specific contextual and personalvalues.2 Tea.m ConceptPlanners’ personal values, beliefs, and ethical and moralprinciples mediate planning. Joel states that the decision tostructure the unit on a team concept is based on his “policy” ofequality of opportunity to participate in decision making andpolicy decisions. Joel and Liz discuss the nature of planners’personal values and beliefs with respect to the team concept.2.1 Equality of Opportimity to ParticipateJoel believes that a flat organizational structure and aparticipatory management style facilitate this policy and areconducive to the role of “real programmers”, which is “decision178making programmers”. Accordingly, at the level of practice, realprogrammers are those who are responsible and accountable formaking decisions about planning. They generate ideas, develop, andimprove existing programs to meet learners’ educational needs.However, at the policy level, these planners have little or noinput in decision making. Liz discusses the team concept:.the office was structured so that there are teams. Theteam is headed by program directors who supposedly doprogram development, and there are program officers whodo program administration, and there is clerical support.That is the ideal make-up of the team... initially therewere supposed to be three teams; then they fell apart,there is only one functioning team...(Inter I, p.3, L.2l-26; p.25, L.3-5)The language team is the only functioning team because the “teamleader” and members of the team share a common focus, a learner-centered approach based on a communicative philosophy. Bycontrast, the other teams do not function because they do not havea “. . .common interest.. .direction, or a clearly identified leader”,to keep the team together. Further, members of the team offerprograms in a diverse range of content areas, to a variety oflearners (Inter VI, p.15, L.l5-25; p.16, L.17-21)Liz believes that because the unit lacks leadership, amission, and goals, a team concept, which allows members toparticipate in decisions and policy making, is only partlyfunctional. However, program ideas are sometimes shaped anddeveloped through the team; therefore, the team is a problemsolving and decision making mechanism. Liz indicates:• . . if I ask a question and the director is not sure, shewill say go to the dean or the associate dean... Theywould say, you should ask the director because of herexperience, she has probably tried it before, she couldprobably tell you if it is not going to work...179(Inter II, p.27, L.14-23)Members, on the team, consult with the dean or associate only ifthey are unable to find a solution to a problem. Liz reports:I like the opportunity to interact with my colleagues anddiscuss possibilities.. .if I had to develop programs inisolation I would not like.. .my job...(Inter III, p.12, L.1-6)On one level of analysis, a functioning team provides anopportunity for interaction, discussion, and sharing of ideas withcolleagues. This is an important component of the personal contextof planning and is in keeping with the view that planners act in anintentional and discriminating manner to bring about learning foradults. Deliberation through the team suggests that learningthrough discussing, coaching, and mentoring are importantcomponents of a team concept. Since planners are not provided anysystematic on the job training, the team allows planners to learnfrom others and self about planning.2.2 Ethical and Moral PrinciplesErna’s and Liz’s discussion, with respect to developingcertificates to achieve the mandate, covering the deficit, andbudgeting, typifies the nature of their conditional knowledge, thatis, their ethical and moral principles. Erna explains that tocombine existing language courses into certificates does notnecessarily produce “solid enough programs” in which learners“would be fluent”. Therefore, “I had a little bit of trouble” withcertifying that learners are fluent in a language upon completionof the certificate. Time is required to develop solid programs(Inter V,p.11,L.9-16). Consequently, she states:180• . .1 stalled, but the dean was saying, ‘look, it is goodenough as it is, let’s just take it to senate’ •. .butmorally and ethically I could not go with it. I just didnot feel that was the right thing to do and that goesback to what I think about learners. They are the peoplewho would know...(Inter V, p.11, L.17-25)It is against her better judgement to certify that learners arefluent upon completion of the certificate when she knows that theymay not be. This situation presents a moral and ethical dilemmabecause of her commitment to provide learners with a program whichachieves its professed outcome: learners’ proficiency in thelanguage upon completion of a certificate.Her learner-centered practice, guided by moral and ethicalprinciples, shapes the economic value of the mandate: learners’rights to solid educational programs and the planner’sresponsibility to ensure that those rights are respected. Learnerswill know; they will bear the consequences of these inappropriatedecisions and actions. She resists the pressures of the dean: theeconomic objectives of the mandate to generate money at all cost.She does not put forward another certificate for approval by senateon the basis of her principle to do the “right thing” or providesolid programs.2.3 Educational Values and BeliefsLiz’s and Erna’s discussion represents the nature of theirconditional knowledge with respect to the deficit. Liz indicatesthat the economic principle, the idea to put on programs just tomake money, which overrides all planning decisions, presents adilemma. It is not consistent with her educational values and181beliefs about planning. She states:• . . I did not contribute very much because I do not thinkit is in keeping with the way I work. . .We did not have alot of time to think it through, working under verylimited time restraints, and the objective was to makemoney...(Inter VI, p.11, L.7-14)Planning requires time for careful analysis and decision making.Economic value ought not to be the focal point for right andappropriate action and decision making in planning. Consequently,she contributes little to planning. She states:• . . none of the English as a second language programs fitthat intensive weekend immersion mode. . .you cannot doEnglish as a Second Language in a day. . . That was anotherreason I found it very frustrating. . . certain contentlends itself to that...(Inter VI, p.11, L.19-23)She resists developing language courses into new formatsbecause she believes it does not make good pedagogical sense todesign English as a Second Language into weekend or short termintensive immersion type courses. The limited time constraintmitigates against designing good programs. Also, a pedagogic,rather than economic value, is a focal point of her planning. Sheresponds in a manner which is consistent with the values andbeliefs which mediate her practice. Liz states “I devoted myenergy to programs that existed. . .making them better” (Inter VI,p.12, L.4-7). She believes that she makes more money from thisactivity than by converting old courses into new formats orcreating something new in a short time.Erna responds differently to the deficit and Joel’s strategyfor dealing with it. Erna explains the dean holds regular staffmeetings to apprise planners of the budget situation and to182generate solutions. She believes this approach is consistent witha team concept to provide planners with the opportunity toparticipate in decisions and share responsibility. The dean’s“.. .approach of openness.. .and a willingness to share the burden”(Inter V,p.3, L.8-12) with planners has a positive effect becauseshe develops personally and professionally. She argues:personally, it has been a contributing factor to theamount of work that I have done and the different andcreative solutions that I have looked for. . .1 have gotteninto my personal reading. . . creative problem solving. . .andI have become more open to understand another point ofview...(Inter V, p.4, L.5-1O)She indicates that professionally, she engages in readings relatedto problem solving and:.packaged courses in a new format. . .French andSpanish.. . crack of dawn classes for people who workdowntown. . .management and computer courses as well aslanguage courses...(Inter V1 p.4, L.12-27; p.5, L.l-2)Planners’ practice mediates and is mediated by the deficit.Although Erna recognizes the pedagogical problem in offering thecontent in short intensive formats, she concedes to the economicexigencies of the Situation: the deficit and the need to developprograms to reduce it.Erna, Liz, and Anna discuss the budgeting process. Erna’sdiscussion typifies the nature of planning. The, budget formula,which is designed to meet the economic objectives of the mandate,is a realistic expectation because planners should generate theirsalaries. Further, while the unit is an important system withinhigher education, it should be a self supporting unit. Thus,framing budgeting within the economic objectives of the mandate, is183the right approach to take: 25-35% profit margin makes sense, it isright and appropriate.Erna argues, she must earn her salary, and “...the division isessential to any post secondary system. . .we serve an adultclientele”. In the case of her salary, the argument is based onfairness, that is, planners ought to earn their living. And, thework of the division is important because it is that part of highereducation which serves adults. At the policy level, the budget isdefined within the context of the objectives of the mandate, at thelevel of practice, planners re-define it.Erna reports “I have argued for less and have been told thatI can accept less if I can justify it in the long run” (Inter V.p.1, L.13-l4). The budget formula, 25-35% profit on every dollar,means that programs are required to cover their direct and indirectcost while generating the required 25-35% profit. The direct costsinclude instructional costs, travel, marketing, space. Theindirect costs are program development, coordination, and support.The three planners agree that learners’ ability to pay, and therequirement that learners complete the program within a specifictime frame are factors which are considered in negotiating with thedean for a reduced profit. Liz states:.because of the.. . clients, visible minorities andimmigrants, different programs have. . .the fact thatteachers’ aides make $5.00 per hour and people who, takeour computer and management courses make three or fourtimes as much, and very often they are sent by theiremployers, we cannot charge 25-35% on every program...(Inter VII, p.14, L.l7-22)The 25-35% budget formula is defined according to educationalvalues and beliefs related to program and learners. Each program184cannot generate the same amount of profit. Therefore, to assessall programs on the same basis is to apply a simple formula acrossthe board on all programs which is based on the tacit assumptionthat all things are equal. Since all things are not equal, theformula or rule cannot be applied indiscriminately across allprograms and learners. In deliberating profits, planners re-definethe budget formula. Planners use values and judgement, not simplyfollow rules.Liz explains in the event that the desired 25-35% profit isnot achieved because of insufficient enrolment, there are threeoptions to consider: “ I can cancel the course.. .ask the teacher toteach for less so that we can still make the 25-35%.. .or run it ata loss.” However, she justifies offering the course at no profiton two conditions. It is a “.. .required course in a particularprogram or. . . too many sections of a course were cancelled” based onthe incorrect analysis that there is a large market for the program(Inter IV, p.29, L.9-17). The second reason is the assumption thatthe institution’s reputation is at stake because too many coursesare cancelled.Further, Liz states, “. . .it was the dean’s decision to run asmany courses as possible, it went very badly in terms of how manycourses were cancelled.” This was based on miscalculating the sizeof the population for the program. However, because there weremany cancellations, “. . .it was worth breaking even.. .rather thancancel another course. . .because of the image we were establishing”(Inter IV, p.30, L.l0-20; p.31,L.l-3).Liz argues that there is a risk of destroying the credibilityand reputation of the unit. Therefore, a decision to offer a185course, in spite of the fact that the course does not generate therequired profit, is mediated by educational values and beliefsincluding the requirements of the program, learners’ needs andability to pay, the negative consequences to the unit, and thecontext of planning.3 Collaborating with PartnersPlanners collaborate with external and internal partners inplanning programs. Joel’s, Liz’s and Erna’s discussion typifiesthe nature of planners’ conditional knowledge in collaborating withexternal groups. Erna’s and Liz’s discussion representsconditional knowledge in collaborating with internal departments.3.1 Personal Value: PoliticalIn regard to the Educational Assistants Program, Joelindicates that for political reasons he seeks the support ofstakeholders because findings suggest that they are responsible forproviding education to teachers’ aides, and they have beenunsuccessful in doing so. However, although it is important tohave their support to avoid opposition to the program, he does notformalize it because he wants to maintain control and power.Joel creates awareness of the program on the part of those whoare in positions of power to hire teachers’ aides. He seekssupport for the program because if there is support, then teachers’aides may be encouraged to participate through time off, time offwith pay, or tuition reimbursement. Therefore, he collaborateswith decision makers because it makes sense from an economic andpolitical point of view. In addition, Joel identifies a rolestakeholders play in planning:• . .we had complaints from the teachers’ society,186superintendents, and others because they thought what wewere doing was not right. . .one group objected to thecourse description and we changed the course description.We were not looking for enemies...(Inter I, p.11, L.2-5)Superintendents are concerned about the program because they areresponsible for hiring and ensuring that teachers’ aides have therequired knowledge. The professional society monitors the programfor political reasons. Their role is to provide professionaldevelopment for teachers, therefore, they want to ensure that whatis provided is consistent with their view. Further, they believethat educating teachers’ aides may lead to requests for more incometo correspond with the level of education. As well, they areconcerned about one of the required courses entitled “planninginstruction” because it suggests that teachers’ aides plan andteach courses. Since they are legally not allowed to teach, thecourse is seen as inappropriate. They are concerned with theeconomic as well as the legal implication of the program. Joelindicates, “...teachers’ aides were not allowed to teach and weincluded in the curriculum a compulsory course on planninginstruction.” However, he argues that the course is includedbecause if teachers’ aides help the teacher they ought to• .understand what the teacher is doing in the classroom” (InterI, p.11, L.7-14).Erna’s discussion, in regard to the French Language Program,represents the nature of conditional knowledge with respect tointernal collaboration. She formalizes the collaborativearrangement which she describes as a “win-win situation” because:• .the department was going to get students out of this.So there was no way. . . they would disapprove of the187principle. It was a rubber stamping to get approval . . .soeveryone was delighted.. . The institution got what itwanted, the division received recognition for moving inthe right direction. The department was happy...(Inter V1 p.28, L.20.-25; p.11, L.2-4)Collaboration is based on the principle of utility, wherebypartners stand to gain from the arrangement. The French departmentgains students, hence financial resources, and the unit gainsstudents, income, credibility, and recognition from theinstitution. The unit stands to achieve the financial andeducational objectives of the mandate: to generate income to beself-sufficient and support the institution, and to offerworthwhile programs. However, the thrust of the collaborativeeffort is political. As Erna states:one was a political move and the other was someonefrom whom I was truly looking for support. If I had notbeen interested in the political angle I would have justgone to the first person and not the head...(InterV, p.28, L.16-21)3.2 Personal Value: EconomicJoel’s decision to offer the Educational Assistants Program ismediated by an economic value. The economic motivation becomesapparent when he suggests that the program is provided because• .no one is doing it.” His data confirm that programs are notoffered for teachers’ aides; therefore, a program may beeconomically viable. This factor suggests that a decision toproceed is a sound economic one which ties closely with Joel’smandate to offer financially viable worthwhile programs.To collaborate with the community is defined as a strategywhich is mediated by contextual values and planners’ values andbeliefs. Planners collaborate for political reasons because188support is important from stakeholders who are responsible forprofessional development and employment of the target audience.Planners collaborate for economic reasons because if stakeholderssupport the program, it is likely that they will provide support tolearners. Planners pursue collaboration to gain recognition,money, learners, and instructors from the environment.Similarly, in regard to the Educational Assistants Program,Liz indicates that she collaborates with an external group, whoinitiates the contact on behalf of its members who want a programdelivered in the rural area, because the opportunity presentslittle or no risk and many benefits. She believes thatcollaboration is not a virtue or social good, but a strategy basedon the principle of utility and self interest: to gain financialresources, that is, more students and income.However, in the collaborative arrangement there are benefitsand costs. The institution gains status and recognition fromcollaborating with the unit to provide a program to those who livein rural areas. Students do not have to travel to the city for theprogram which is delivered in their community, and taught byinstructors from their community who may be accessible to them.The unit maintains its autonomy and control of the program as wellas gaining students, information, instructors, income, status, anddomain. The costs are time and energy that partners expend in theprocess of collaboration, loss of autonomy by collaboratingpartners, and negative consequences in the event of an unhappytermination of the partnership. Moreover, Liz believes thatcollaboration helps to achieve the economic objectives of themandate.1893.3 Educational PrinciplesCollaboration is mediated by planners’ educational principles.Joel’s and Erna’s discussion typifies the nature of planners’conditional knowledge with respect to these principles. Accordingto Joel, the selection and justification of knowledge in theEducational Assistants Program is based on the principle of economyof content. The content ought to facilitate learners’ selfsufficiency, that is, it ought to enable learners to makedefensible personal and moral decisions (considered weighing offactors and their relationship as a guide to choice and action).Further, the content ought to be economical of teaching efforts andresources, that is, teachers’ aides may be helpful if theyunderstand what teadhers do. They may work as a team. In Joel’sview, this principle justifies the decision to include the coursein the program.However, Joel argues that “...we were not looking forenemies”. It made sense to change a “couple of words”, and “insertothers”, and modify the description rather than antagonize thesegroups because some are powerful. The political context mediatesJoel’s educational principle. Joel states:some wrote, others called. . . some were angry. . . ‘whowere you to try to teach teachers’ aides, that should bedone by us’.. .this came from the teachers’ society,superintendents, and principals...(Inter I, p.11, L.1l-19)He revises and changes the course description in response topolitical pressure from stakeholders. Joel’s deliberation in thesituation suggests that planning requires knowledge of andsensitivity to the political context -contextual values- which190includes the mandate of stakeholders, other than the unit, toprovide education to teachers’ aides. As well, planners mustproceed cautiously and exercise judgement in planning.Erna’s discussion of the Japanese Program highlights adifferent approach to the task. She indicates that personalcontacts are beneficial because she gains tangible resources suchas students, income, and advertising, and intangible benefits suchas a high profile for the program. Erna explains:I found the community contacts were really the key toit, the more people I got to know the more boards I siton, the more successful my programs are somehow...(Inter III, p.31, L.1-4)Erna believes that the key to a successful program is thepartnership with community groups which results in recognition andsupport for the program. However, she collaborates with thecommunity to gain benefits such as a network system, and also asolid program. Erna explains:I sit on the provincial association of continuingeducation [board] and the multicultural resource centre[board]. The other planners also sit on one or two boardsand we feel that we represent each other. . . as adepartment...(Inter III, p.31, L.6-8)Erna suggests that because she lacks knowledge of the Japaneseculture, community, content, and instructors, the “right” thing todo is to work with the community to develop a solid program, whichmeets learners’ educational needs, and gain benefits from theenvironment. Thus, she formalizes the collaborative arrangementthrough a committee structure.Further, she believes that experts who reside in the communityought to be involved in planning because they can identify content,191learners’ educational needs, and provide high visibility andcredibility for the program. She states that, “. . .our Japanesecourses are running better than any other heritage courses”. Thus,the Japanese community gains status from the arrangement, while theunit gains a solid program, students, income, and instructors.However, her educational principle to develop a solid program tomeet learners’ needs mediates the economic mandate.3.4 Abstract PrinciplesWith respect to the charge that the university ought not toprovide education to teachers’ aides, Joel’s discussion representshis conditional knowledge -his abstract principles of rights,obligation, and responsibility. Joel suggests one quality of auniversity is academic freedom to offer educational programs to awide variety of learners. He reports:I developed a standard response which was approved bythe president. . .we were saying that we have the right asan university to offer certificate and degrees. Nobody inthe community can tell us what we can or cannotoffer. . . our prerogative is to offer certificates to helpsociety, to offer certificates to teachers’ aides becauseno one is doing it...(Inter I, p.11, L.l7-30)The university is an educational institution with the expertise andknowledge to perform certain tasks. One of these tasks is toprovide programs and certify that learners have achieved specificknowledge and abilities. The university is performing its legal,moral, and social rights and responsibility to meet learners’ needsand help society. The community cannot dictate its mandate. Joeljustifies his decision on abstract principles of rights,obligation, and responsibility, to society, where the good of thewhole is served through the good of individuals.192Collaboration is based on the principle of utility for thepurpose of gaining benefits from the environment. However,planners re-define collaboration which is oriented to theirconditional knowledge including contextual values, and theirpolitical and economic values, educational and abstract principles.Collaboration, which varies on a continuum from formal to informal,suggests that planners’ practice is intentional, systematic, andemergent, and practice situations are often unique, uncertain, andcomplex.4 Assessing NeedsPete’s and Erna’s discussion represents the nature ofplanners’ conditional knowledge in assessing needs for programs.With respect to the Futures Studies Program, Pete’s personalinterest in and knowledge of the content originate the idea for theprogram. Erna’s principle of practice mediates planning.Planners’ principles, values, and beliefs related to planningmediate the task.4.1 Educational Principles, Values and BeliefsPete’s belief in the intrinsic value of the content mediatehis practice. Learners do not identify the need, rather Peteidentifies the ascribed need, based on intuitive analysis of theimportance of the content, and subsequently prepares a proposalwhich he justifies to the dean.Erna indicates that the idea for the Learning Strategiescourse originates from learners in the course. Erna’spsychological principle of practice mediates planning. In theclassroom learners are allowed to speak only the language they arelearning. Since the content has to be taught in English, it193necessitates offering a separate course. She explains:• . . many learners have tremendous numbers of strategiesthat. . .they can share. . .Teaching or learning those areinterchangeable words. . .either helping people learn orlearning. . .we are all continuous learners, there is timein this course for sharing strategies, memorize• . .reproduce, re-apply it using these strategies...(Inter I, p.13, L.26-34; p.14, L.l-4)Erna designs a course on the basis of a number of principles.Learners are a rich resource of knowledge which is recognized andutilized in the teaching learning transaction. The course designallows learners to share their teaching strategy with otherlearners and the instructor who is also a learner in the process.These principles have implications for her educational philosophy.Knowledge is constructed in the teaching learning process, and therelationship between the teacher and learners is based on respectfor learners’ knowledge and sharing of knowledge. A planner’sknowledge of the content and knowledge in the intrinsic worth ofthe content, and a planner’s educational principles, values, andbeliefs shape planning.5 Evaluating ProgramsPlanners conduct evaluation in regard to their programs. Afocus of concern, related to planners’ notion of a desirable stateof affairs, is the impetus for a number of evaluation strategies.These foci of concerns centre on the issue of improving practice.Joel’s, Pete’s, Netta’s, and Erna’s discussion typifies the natureof planners’ conditional knowledge which is oriented to planners’values and beliefs related to “good” educational practice.5.1 abstract ValuesPlanners use the end of course evaluation which learners194complete to make informed and appropriate decisions about planning.Joel holds an informal meeting with an instructor, who has receivednegative evaluations, to discuss the results to determine thedecision to “rehire”. Although the feedback is negative, adecision not to rehire is not made automatically. Deliberationwith the instructor about his pedagogical knowledge, and Joel’ssense of fair play mediate the decision. Joel rehires theinstructor because it is the first time he has taught and he showeda willingness to improve. Joel states that the decision to rehireappeared to be well founded because the second evaluation results“were not bad”.With respect to the Gasper Program, Pete makes decisionsrelated to a bad report of an instructor who appears to beinsensitive to learners’ cultur.l background and history:there was no way to replace the students, theinstructor, or to reschedule because the students werescheduled to move into another class. We expressed withstudents our awareness and concern. We had a number ofconflict resolution meetings with the instructor and thecoordinator. . .We have not used him since...(Inter I, p.10, L.7-l2)Pete indicates that replacing the instructor is not practicalbecause the program design requires that the course be completedwithin a specified time, and that learners successfully completethe course to advance to the next course. Therefore, the “best”decision is to work out a solution with the instructor and thecoordinator, resolve the problem with the instructor and students,and have students complete the course on schedule.Planning is informed by the program design, learners’ needs,and planner’s commitment to improve the program and ensure that the195goals of the program are met. The instructor is not replaced, noris he rehired. The evaluation policy is not used indiscriminatelybut with critical reflection and action. That is, it is shaped byplanners’ values and beliefs in fair play to arrive at defensibledecisions and actions.5.2 Pedagogical KnowledgeNetta’s discussions with and classroom observation ofinstructors regarding the delivery of content provide insight toher use of pedagogical knowledge to facilitate adult learning andto ensure solid programs. Netta asks instructors to make conscious“why” and “when” they use the method, technique, or device todeliver the content, and whether the method, technique, or deviceis appropriate for content, and learners. Netta’s purposefulclassroom observation shapes her planning.Similarly, Erna discusses evaluation methods which describethe nature of her pedagogical knowledge which informs planning:self-evaluation worked well at higher levels in theprogram rather than at entry level, because students ata higher level knew what they need to improve. Further,the discrepancy between students’ and instructors’analysis was sometimes vast. . . some instructors did nothave a firm enough grasp of the goals of the program. SoI decided until we could improve the quality ofinstruction we would really be going out on a limb to useself evaluation...(Inter III, p.4, L.4-6; p.6, L.l5-22)Erna concludes from her experimentation with self-evaluation thatit is inappropriate to recommend the use of this method ofevaluation. To be effective, students have to be at a moreadvanced level in the program. Some instructors must be clearabout the goals of the program. There cannot be discrepanciesbetween learners’ and instructors’ evaluation. As well, the196quality of instruction needs to be high. Erna’s principle of“quality instruction” mediates the decision to recommend againstthe use of self-evaluation.In regard to the pass-fail system of evaluation, Ernaindicates that it cannot be used with certificate programs becauseletter grades are required by Senate regulation. However, Ernaopposes letter grades because,it creates undue stress, most people want to do theirbest.. .1 do not think it is the best way to encouragelearning...(Inter III, p.7, L.l8-24)Erna believes that the grading system creates a stressful learningenvironment which inhibits rather than encourages learning. Sheargues that there are alternate ways to facilitate and encouragelearning, which include interactive testing.However, the planner’s values and beliefs mediate her planningdecisions. Although she believes that interactive testing is adesirable method of evaluation because it is compatible with theprinciples of the communicative approach, she does not recommend itbecause she believes instructors are not conversant enough with it.The communicative approach is a learner-centered approach tolanguage teaching which recognizes learners as rich resources inthe teaching learning transaction. She does not impose any of theevaluation methods with which she experiments; rather, Ernaindicates:.whatever method of evaluation they want to use, wewill help any instructor.. . the only guideline we offer isthat 75c of the marks must be oral and 25 must be onwritten.. . the emphasis must be on the spoken language,not the written language...(Inter III, p.8, L.9-ll)197The choice of method of evaluation is left to the instructor.However, she provides general guidelines and assistance aboutevaluation. These guidelines are based on the principles of thecommunicative approach which inform language teaching.Erna argues that language programs are conversational innature, and learners register because they want to learn to speakanother language. The unit has a moral obligation to maintain theintegrity of the program by ensuring that courses areconversational. The guideline of basing 75 of the mark on oralwork, and 25 on written work ensures that the emphasis is placedon the spoken rather than on the written language. Erna explainsher view of the evaluation process:in the past I have been able to develop and maintainthe programs without evaluation, now I have the luxury ofevaluating programs, taking appropriate action andimproving their quality. It is no longer just maintaininga program, it is growth and to me that is veryimportant.(Inter II, p.19, L.31-34)Erna stipulates that purposeful evaluation is a process whichaccounts for qualitative differences between program maintenance onthe one hand, and program development, growth, and quality on theother, and leads to appropriate action. She states:.1 am filling in that extra step but the result is avery high quality program that I knew inside out, that Icontinue to change and develop...(Inter II, p.7, L.22-24)Purposeful evaluation leads to changes, development, and highquality programs. However, programs have to fit within theframework of the institution’s rules and regulations, and someflexibility and control are lost. For example, the informal pass-198fail system which seems more conducive to learning than theuniversity letter grade system is no longer appropriate for courseswhich are part of certificates. Planners are compelled to switchto formal evaluation, which fits the institutional goals. Theplanner embarks on a. process of problem setting and experimentationbefore recommending a particular method.Planners’ pedagogical knowledge including educationalprinciples, values and beliefs, a sense of fair play, qualityprograms and instruction, moral obligation to students, thecommunicative approach, which are essential for critical reflectionand action, shape planning. Planners hold problem solving meetingsand classroom observation to deliberate and make the best decisionsbased on principles, the nature of programs, the institutionalcontext, needs of learners, and instructors. Planners believe thatcertain methods of evaluation enhance students’ learning, whileothers inhibit it, that purposeful evaluation contributes to highquality programs, and that the integrity of programs ought to bemaintained.6 Developing the CurriculumPlanners’ discussion, related to developing the curriculumincluding identifying and selecting instructors, content, andobjectives, holding orientation sessions, and nurturing instructorsthrough professional development and classroom observation,typifies the nature of their conditional knowledge.6.1 Principles of Practice: Content-FocusedWith respect to identifying and selecting instructors, Pete’sdiscussion in regard to the Futures Studies Program represents acontent focused principle to planning:199• . . I envisioned a time when a course in futures researchcould be offered. . . at the university in political sciencedepartments... [because the].., information that isgenerated teaches research which is significantlyimportant to every aspect of our lives ... [The contentincludes] . . .a body of knowledge, a rich literature andscholars in the field...(Inter I, p.19, L.19-26)Pete’s planning is content-centered. It is guided by his personalknowledge of the content, his belief in the importance of the bodyof knowledge, and a commitment to pass it on to learners. Heargues that the body of knowledge is important enough to beincorporated into the university curriculum because the knowledgewhich it embodies is useful and relevant to learners. He relies oncontent specialists who are identified and selected through acommittee structure on the basis of recommendations from experts inthe field. Learners have little or no input in the process.6.1.1 Efficiency and EffectivenessTo identify and select instructors, Netta uses a formalinterview which is mediated by a nuniber of criteria: instructors’teaching experience, their success as teachers and practitioners,their enthusiasm for teaching and sharing their knowledge. Theseinstructors have content knowledge, and pedagogical skills tofacilitate the teaching learning process. However, Netta redefines the task by her principle of practice which is not to hireconsultants because they are not committed to the values andbeliefs of continuing education, and facilitating adult learning.Netta believes that it is her responsibility to ensure thatinstructors understand and are committed to these values andbeliefs. It is not sufficient to simply hire instructors. Anecessary condition of the hiring process is an orientation session200to inform them of policies, procedures, and values which are usedto guide teaching in a university setting. This stance hasimplications for Netta’s own values and beliefs about continuingeducation, adult learners, and the characteristics of a goodteacher. The selection task is a complex process which is mediatedby Netta’s principles, procedures, and maxims for efficient andeffective practice.6.2 Educational Philosophy: A Coimicative ApproachErna, Anna, and Liz conduct formal interviews which aremediated by contextual values and their educational philosophy.Because of the financial objectives of the mandate, programs aredeveloped which require hiring instructors on short notice. Ernaargues that unwritten objectives of the communicative philosophymediate practice:it is made clear. . . that the relationship to thestudent is the basis for why we are here.. .meetingstudents’ needs.. .People are not hired unless.. .they canwork with the communicative approach. . . It is an attitudeto language learning, the role of the teacher, and therole of students. . . If there is a major philosophicaldifference then they probably do not get through theinterview, observation, or demonstration phase. . .there isa kind of homogeneous atmosphere we all agree to...(Inter V1 p.14,L.15-29; p.l5,L.14-l7)According to Erna, unwritten objectives represent an attitudetowards learners, and the teaching learning process. It is anunderstanding, a tacit knowledge, a “homogeneous atmosphere” whichthose who work on the language team hold and share. This attitudeis discussed with prospective instructors. It is also used as acriterion of hiring, in making classroom observation, and inmonitoring the demonstration phase. In addition, there arefunctional and linguistic objectives which are integral to Language201Programs, and are used to determine if learners may advance to thenext level. Erna suggests objectives and content are revised tofacilitate learners’ self-sufficiency. Thus, the principle ofeconomy of content also mediates planning.A step-by-step mechanistic process is not used but throughdeliberation planners shape planning. Integral written objectives-a system of checks and balances- represent a strategy to ensurethat learners have achieved the knowledge and abilities to proceedto the next level. However, there is a tacit shared understandingthat students are there to learn what the course outlines.Instructors use the framework of the course outline to teach. Theplanner ensures that the goals of the program are met throughdiscussions, classroom observation, and students’ evaluations ofinstructors. -Their planning is informed by a communicative approach tolanguage teaching which is a system of beliefs and values aboutteaching and learning and working with adults. This includes therecognition that learners bring a wealth of knowledge to theclassroom based on their experiences. The instructor is not thesole possessor of knowledge. Knowledge is constructed by theinstructor and learners. The learning teaching transaction is ashared responsibility. As well, the instructor is not “in completecontrol”. This suggests that learners share the responsibility forthe teaching learning transaction and the evaluation process.Erna uses a metaphor of a “ball” which embodies her personalphilosophy that education is a collaborative learning teachingprocess whereby instructors facilitate adult learning. Theseplanners’ planning is learner-centered. However, Erna uses the202interview process to determine if instructors support thecommunicative approach to language teaching. She states:I was assured there was some agreement in principlewith the philosophy and methodology of the communicativeapproach...(Inter III, p.29, L.l)Further, these planners undertake additional strategies whichsuggest their commitment to the communicative approach. Theynurture instructors through professional development and classroomobservation to ensure adherence to the communicative approach.Erna states:• . . we wanted to find out what new materials they may beintegrating.. .exchange ideas, ensure the communicativephilosophy is adhered to because it is so different fromthe traditional teacher training they might have received• . .and to problem solve. People need a boost and I needto be reassured they are in fact not lecturing to theirstudents, so I know the quality of programs is beingupheld...(Inter II, p.17, L.12-l9)Instructors are nurtured to ensure the quality of the program whichis defined in terms of instructors’ adherence to the communicativephilosophy. These planners believe that regular meetings andprofessional development workshops are mechanisms to ensure thatinstructors integrate the principles of the communicative approachinto their teaching as well as improve the quality of programs.Thus, procedure and policy issues related to scheduling meetingsand professional development workshops are part of the agenda itemsat participant observation meetings. These planners shape planningthrough the communicative approach which draws conceptually uponthe learner view of planning which is a whole system of beliefs andvalues related to the teaching-learning transaction, a role of203learners, a view of knowledge, and a. view of the evaluation ofstudents’ learning.6.3 Personal Intuitive KnowledgeWhile Erna, Liz, and Anna concur that as a general rule ofthumb instructors are selected on the basis of an interview,mediated by a communicative approach to language teaching, theymediate the communicative approach which guides their practice.Anna discusses the nature of this activity. She states:in the French language program all instructors werehired because of their interest in and adherence to thephilosophy of the communicative approach...(Inter I, p.35, L.5-7)However, Anna indicates that an instructor’s teaching style isaccommodated if the instructor is uncomfortable with thecommunicative approach and prefers a traditional lecture style.For instance, an instructor may have knowledge and abilities toteach but if the style is not suited to a conversational coursewhich requires the use of the communicative approach, then theinstructor’s style is matched with an appropriate content.Anna reports that because an instructor uses a traditionalapproach to teach, this does not indicate that the instructor isnot qualified to teach for the unit. This approach may be quiteappropriate for certain courses which the unit offers. What isimportant is that the approach be clearly specified so as not tomislead instructors and learners. On another level of analysis,the blind application of a policy, which is to hire only those whoare interested in and committed to the communicative approach, isinappropriate. Anna believes there are various approaches toteaching and learning, and some are appropriate to certain content.204Anna’s personal intuitive knowledge mediates the communicativeapproach. She explains:• instructors cannot be satisfied they are excellent andhave no more to learn. What constitutes excellence?.. .atleast a good body of knowledge. . . it is no guarantee. Iwill not, if there were two people applying for aposition and one had a Ph.D and the other a home fanatic•1 necessarily take the Ph.D...(Inter I, p.16, L.15-22)Anna believes that instructors ought to be continuous learners.This view of learning suggests a tentative and open disposition toknowledge. Thus, knowledge is viewed as socially constructed andnot a body of facts to be passed on. Instructors ought to have agood command of the content, which is a necessary but not asufficient condition for hiring. The fact that an instructor hasa Ph.D is not an indicator that the instructor will beautomatically selected to teach.Knowledge of content is but one factor in the selectionprocess. Other factors include: “. . .the ability to impartknowledge in a logical way” and at the same time motivate learners;“...the ability to respect students’ rate of learning, students’style, sensitivity to the need to change pace”, and learners’ feltneeds in the teaching learning transaction; and the ability to useappropriate methods, techniques, and devices in the delivery ofcontent. Instructors who are selected have both content andpedagogical knowledge (Inter I, p.16, L.23-31). Instructors’personal qualities include respect and enjoyment of others,organizational skills, humour, enthusiasm for the content, and theability to motivate learners. Anna does not rely only oninstructor’s supporting documentation. She states, “.. .thosequalities and paper qualities also, but that is a very intuitive205thing, assessing these qualities.” She seeks recommendations fromthose whose judgement she trusts and respects by making personalcontacts in the community to gain information about potentialinstructors (Inter I, p.17, L.19-25). Instructors are judged oncontent, pedagogical knowledge, personal qualities, and onrecommendations she receives. However, these factors are shaped byher intuitive knowledge -knowing a good instructor because of herexperience.Education is a social interactive process in which instructorsfacilitate learning in a supportive learning environment, learnerscontribute to a body of knowledge, and share the management andevaluation of knowledge. Moreover, learning is enhanced bylearners’ motivation to learn. This is stimulated by instructors’enthusiasm and humour in the teaching-learning transaction. Inthis view, a planner’s intuitive knowledge mediates thecommunicative philosophy.6.4 Personal Educational PhilosophyJoel’s personal educational philosophy mediates the interviewprocess. Joel indicates the interviews:• . . were open ended with three or four knowledge questionsand the philosophy base.. .their philosophy of education• . .1 am a laid back, wide open person, I am a peopleperson and believe we should deal with people we teachnot as some one inferior. . .but as people who are good intheir field and happen to be not as good in my field asI am not as good in theirs. Learning is a two way street.English is the only language. . .that has two separateverbs for the concepts of teaching and learning. But itis a two way Street, you do not teach without learningand you do not learn without teaching...(Inter I, p.16, L.1-24)The analysis of interviewees’ qualities, values, and beliefs isbased on their response to three or four open-ended questions.206Moreover, it is planners’ responsibility to ensure that instructorsare knowledgeable in their field, are able to facilitate thelearning process, and provide quality instruction. It is thestudents’ right to have high quality instruction.Joel considers himself a “people person”, one who is fairlyopen to others, who believes in the equality of human beings, andwho believes in people’s unique knowledge and abilities. Thisuniqueness ought to be acknowledged, recognized, and affirmed.Uniqueness does not make one individual inferior to another. Hebelieves there is no distinction between teaching and learningbecause these concepts are inseparable since one does not teachwithout learning and vice versa. He uses a metaphor of a “two-wayStreet” which has implications for his educational philosophy.6.4.1 A MetaphorJoel’s metaphor suggests that there is a fundamental unitybetween teaching-learning which is often neglected and denied ineducation and consequently in the approach to teaching andlearning. If the fundamental unity is recognized, there may notexist an hierarchical relationship whereby the teacher is seen asthe fountain of all knowledge, the “know it all”, while learnersare viewed as vessels or “dummies” into whom knowledge is poured.A view of knowledge which suggests that knowledge is a body tobe passed on to others negates the view that knowledge is sociallyconstructed between and among teachers and learners, and thatlearners’ knowledge and abilities are to be capitalized upon in thelearning environment. To view knowledge as socially constructed isto see knowledge as a “perspective” which converts a “habit”, a wayof thinking of a concept, into new possibilities and ways of207knowing and being in the world (Schwab, 1969).Further, the relationship between the teacher and learners ishorizontal. The teacher and learners share the responsibility forwhat is included or excluded in the curriculum, and how knowledgeis to be delivered and evaluated. Joel argues:• in the English language there is that distinction. Itimparts a know it all philosophy about teachers. . .theytend to think they know it all, and they have to passthis knowledge on to these dummies, and the concept thatthey can learn from their students is beyond them...(Inter I, p.16, L.24-29)Joel’s metaphor conceptualizes his educational philosophy whichshapes planning, and parallels the communicative approach whichinforms language teaching. His metaphor has implications forcategories of his beliefs. The selection and justification ofcontent includes learners’ knowledge and abilities which are-recognized as part of the resources of instruction out of whichfurther knowledge is constructed. The process of managing thepresentation of knowledge includes learners and teacher who sharethe responsibility not only for what is included and excluded, butalso for managing the pedagogical components. This view oflearners’ role suggests that active participation through a numberof techniques is part of the teaching learning environment.Evaluation of learners is the shared responsibility of the teacherand learners. As well, it is important to recognize and valuelearners’ diversity in teaching and learning. Joel argues thatlearners who “. . .do not want to learn” may not share “our values”about education. The instructor’s role is to “. . .help them findvalues that help them” learn. A large component in teaching andlearning concerns “values” learners place on education and hence208their own motivation to “. . .want to learn”. If learners vieweducation as valuable to their personal and professionaldevelopment, their motivation to learn may be enhanced.Instructors must have the ability to help learners find theirmotivators to learn since instructors cannot make learners learn.It is learners’ motivation to learn which makes learning possible,not “. . .saying this is the curriculum and you are going to have tolearn...” (Inter I, p.17, L.14-25).The role the teacher plays in stimulating these values iscritical, therefore the qualities of the teacher -a “peopleperson”- are critical to successful teaching and learning.Teachers must have the insight to recognize that learners may notimmediately understand the content covered, therefore teachers musthelp learners understand so that they can interpret, apply, andmake the content their own, that is, make it relevant and useful.This suggests that the teacher facilitates the principle of theeconomy of content to ensure learners’ self sufficiency throughtransfer of knowledge to other content. Joel explains:I tend to compare people in the interviews withanswers they give which compare with my own thinking onhow we should do teaching. If I felt comfortable with theanswers then I felt we had a people person. . .we look forpeople who have the ability and insight to say justbecause I know does not mean they should understand thefirst time I tell them. That is what teaching is about...(Inter I, p.16, L.29-35; p.17, L.1-12)A personal educational philosophy which is embedded in the metaphorshapes a planner’s practice. Planners’ conditional knowledgeincluding contextual values, and personal educational philosophy,values and beliefs, principles, and metaphors mediate planning.2096.5 Technical Focused PrinciplePlanners undertake activities related to identifying andselecting content. Planners’ discussions represent the nature ofconditional knowledge which informs this planning task.Netta’s discussion indicates that because of changes to anexisting program, there are consequences related to students andcontent. As a result, she meets with students to discuss changes,rationale for changes, and the most appropriate course of action.In the case of the content, she indicates that it is important toidentify the appropriate format for the content. In this regard,she asks questions which include: is it appropriate to offer thethirty hours as a seminar, workshop or a project? and what is theappropriate format given learners’ and organization’s requirement?Netta’s planning is shaped by her values of efficiency,effectiveness, and pedagogical knowledge regarding theappropriateness of the content and format to meet learners’ needs.Netta explains the difference between developing a new program andrepairing an existing one:if you start something cold, you ask all the rightquestions before you put it in place, but if you aregoing to re-evaluate something, you do not think isappropriate, you have to be diplomatic.. . there is just somuch more work...(Inter I, p.26, L.l6-23)Netta believes that planning includes a process of criticalanalysis which may lead to repair of existing programs. Planningrequires asking all the right questions or doing all the rightthings the planner does at the inception of planning. Thissuggests that Netta mediates planning through technical values.2106.6 Problem-Learner-Situation Focused PrinciplePete’s discussion, in regard to the Gasper Program, typifiesthe nature of planning related to the problem-learner-situation.The leadership wants to ensure that students meet the universityentrance requirements, and gain access to a classical liberaleducation which will create a range of educational opportunitiesfor students. The leadership attempts to gain access to knowledge,power, and control for its community. In doing so, the leadershipspecifies the nature of programs and learners’ educational needs,and it has the economic power to ensure that the system providesthe required program.The overriding aim of the program is to bring about socialchange by using the existing educational structures. This approachdraws conceptually on the “residual” view of the problem-situationview which differs significantly from the content view which Peteuses to develop the Futures Studies Program. This approach isproblem-learner-situation focused, and views knowledge as sociallyconstructed, not a body of facts to be delivered to learners.Further, it is not an “armchair” method to planning wherebythe planner works independently from learners and the community toidentify learners’ needs. It is one in which the planner works incollaboration with learners, instructors, and the community todevelop a program which is defined by the community to bring aboutsocial change. Pete indicates that because programs are plannedwithin the framework of a small liberal arts institution, he isrequired to “. . .bend, manipulate and cajole” the system to meet therequirements of the community. Planning mediates and is mediatedby internal and external contextual values.2116.7 Learner-Focused PrincipleJoel’s, Erna’s, Liz’s, and Anna’s planning draws conceptuallyon a learner-focused view. Joel discusses the Native StudentsProgram which typifies the nature of planning. Joel discovers aproblem from discussions with learners and observation of theiracademic performance. Joel observes that aboriginal students inthe program have a higher failure and a lower completion rate thanother students, and they lack self confidence and self worth. Hereconstructs the existing program. He maintains the program’s goalwhich is to prepare learners for university by providing the corecurriculum. He includes optional courses related to aboriginalculture, language, and law to provide learners with a sense ofpride and self confidence. Also, he hires an aboriginal instructorto teach in the program.These conditions-action-sequence are shaped by planner’slearner-focused view and the principles of the program. Joel’sprinciple of economy of content is to ensure learners’ selfsufficiency by providing a program which is useful and which theyperceive as relevant. The program’s principles are: learners arerequired to take a core program to meet the requirements of theuniversity; and the institution is obliged to provide a program tofacilitate learners’ self sufficiency. Planners’ learner-centeredview and sense of responsibility mediate planning. Erna, Liz,and Anna discuss learners’ role in planning. Liz’s discussionrepresents the nature of learners’ role:• . . learners are allowed to give input into what they wantto learn. . .so it is not necessarily instructors whoestablish a set curriculum but students will say, ‘Iwould like to learn...’ It is real language, it is notjust, ‘today we are going to learn this...’ Unless it is212something learners want to learn because they need it, itis not going to be meaningful. It values learners.. .whohave something to contribute. It is not just instructorscoming and giving all this knowledge. It is sharing. . .andinstructors facilitating...(Inter III, p.24, L.l6-20; p.25, L.1-23)The content is focused on learners’ felt needs. It is relevant anduseful to learners. It is not necessarily a set curriculum whichinstructors deliver but what learners need to learn is included inthe materials to be covered. Learners’ input is central toteaching and learning. Liz develops strategies to increaseawareness of and participation in programs based on a learner-centered approach:.it is the way to go because it benefits students.. .1want to do what is best for students. . .My personalbeliefs, what students’ needs are, and what adulteducation should be.,. .how those needs should be met. . .1look to students first, then build on what their needsare. If the program is not meeting the needs I willchange the program.. . programs have constantly, slowlybeen evolving. . .It is not easy, it is. . .complicatedbecause of money, time, and other issues...(Inter V1 p.17, L.7-22; p.19, L.2-lO)Her fundamental commitment to a learner-centered approach informsher practice. To be responsive to learners’ educational needsrequires a process of adjusting, repairing, and changing programs.It is not a simple process but rather a complicated one because ofmoney, time, and other issues. However, identifying learners’ feltneeds is a principle which guides her practice. Programs which aredesigned around these needs are built on a learner-centeredprinciple, and the economy of content, which means that contentought to ensure learners’ self sufficiency.7 Siiimnry of Conditional KnowledgeConditional knowledge deals with conditions-action-sequence213which implement actions when certain pre-conditions are met. Itanswers the questions “why” and “when”. For instance, a plannerquestions why the drop out rate of aboriginal students is higherthan other students? when does this occur? The response to thesequestions leads to the conclusion that something “ought to be done”based on the contextual values and planners’ values and beliefs.A planner’s educational values and beliefs suggest that the programought to facilitate learners’ self sufficiency, while contextualvalues -the goals and expectation of the institution- suggest thatlearners are required to take the core content to meet therequirement of the university.The response is made on the basis of planners’ principles andcontextual values. For instance, a planner makes an ethical andmoral decision because it is the right thing to do. A plannerchanges the situation because of rights, obligations, andresponsibilities derived from contextual values and principlesderived from self. This knowledge modifies planning and isessential for critical reflection and action. This does notsuggest a hierarchy of levels of knowledge but rather represents adifferent response to the situation.The planning process suggests that more data are added basedon deliberation -reciprocity- that is, interaction, reaction, andaction, as decisions are made and actions are carried out at eachlevel of knowledge. These data are gathered through direct,indirect, and tacit learning in relation to the task, others, andself. Planners transform these data into knowledge to understandthe situation, and gain insight and understanding, meaning makingand judgement, and arrive at defensible decision making and action.214Planners use an adaptive intelligence to identify, weigh, andselect educational alternatives and choices in planning. Plannersmake the “best” decision in deciding “what ought to be done” in thesituation. These processes result in the reformulation ofplanning.Planners’ conditional knowledge includes contextual values,such as economic, political, social, educational; and planners’educational philosophy, principles, metaphors, values, and beliefswhich shape planning. The principle of economy of content whichinforms planning means that content ought to facilitate learners’self-sufficiency. There are three ways in which content iseconomical: teaching effort and use of resources, learners’efforts, and generalizability. The principle fails in one criticalway because the content does not facilitate learners’ self-sufficiency because it is not generalizable. Therefore, a plannerchanges the program.bstract values of responsibility and obligation to ensurethat learners receive a program that is useful, relevant, andfacilitates their self-sufficiency inform planning. The principleof learners’ freedom to choose from a list of options informsplanning; therefore, optional courses are included. Planners’values and beliefs about educational purposes, experientialknowledge of aboriginal students, a sense of an appropriateinstructor, and pedagogical knowledge of the learning teachingenvironment inform planning. The next chapter develops thedeliberative practical planning framework which emerges from thedata.215CHAPTER SEVENTowards A Deliberative Practical Planning FrameworkPractical knowledge is an important component of planners’knowledge of planning. However, little research has been done inadult education to develop the concept of practical knowledge.Therefore, the study builds on research in education includingElbaz’s (1983) study on teachers’ practical knowledge. Moreover,the data highlight an important discrepancy between the teachers’practical knowledge literature and planning practice, and providea framework for describing, categorizing, and organizing practicalknowledge. This chapter describes the relationship of planners’practical knowledge and components of planning. Then, itsummarizes planners’ practical knowledge. This is followed by asummary of planners’ components of planning. And finally, itproposes a deliberative conceptual framework of practice.1 Sunmiary and Discussion of Planners’ Practical KnowledgeIn comparing the practical knowledge which planners’ use inpractice with that described in the literature, the gaps whichemerge relate to declarative, procedural, and particularlyconditional knowledge. These aspects of practical knowledge haveremained unexplored in the adult education literature.1.1 Declarative KnowledgeDeclarative knowledge sought by these planners includes:knowledge of organizational context including the mandate, deficit,and budget process; knowledge of research methods, program content,program ideas, problem setting, and evaluation; and knowledge ofthe field of adult education including the commonplaces of programdesign and the components of planning. Declarative knowledge216consists of concepts, conceptual structures, and methodologiesrelated to a discipline or field of study. Further, planners’decisions and actions suggest a number of concepts and processeswhich describe their conceptions of practical knowledge andplanning.For instance, through deliberation in the specific situation,a planner identifies a focus of concern among aboriginal students.The planner collects, analyzes, synthesizes, and evaluatesdeclarative knowledge related to the commonplaces which describes“what is the case” and answers the question “what”. Thisinformation does not tell planners what to do, but sets the problemor feeds into the re-definition of the problem, and is informed byan act-knower-context sequence of planning. Based on these data,the planner identifies that there is a high drop out and failurerate among aboriginal learners in the program. These students lackacademic knowledge, skills, abilities, and self confidence. Thecity environment places constraints on aboriginal learners who arefrom rural areas. The curriculum does not include relevant anduseful courses.Declarative knowledge is a fundamental component of planners’practical knowledge. It is an information aspect which describesthe situation. The planner makes a decision to investigate theproblem further. However, this knowledge is limited because itdoes not provide the “how” to proceed related to the planningprocess which is required for follow-up investigation of the focusof concern. Planners undertake specific strategies, directlyrelated to planning, which are informed by procedural knowledge,but which build on declarative knowledge. Thus, these components217of knowledge are dialectically interrelated.1.2 Procedural KnowledgePlanners use procedural knowledge which is knowledge of rulesand routines of planning. This knowledge includes the planningcontext; collaborating with internal and external partners;assessing needs such as originating ideas and validating themthrough formal and informal strategies; evaluating programs throughformal, summative, and routine strategies, and informal, formative,and eclectic strategies; promoting, marketing, and budgetingprograms; and developing the curriculum. Developing the curriculumalso includes identifying and selecting content, instructors, andobjectives, offering orientation sessions, observing classroominstruction, and nurturing instructors through professionaldevelopment.The planner pursues formal and informal strategies whichinclude: discussing the situation with learners to define theproblem; comparing and contrasting the performances of aboriginalstudents with other students in the program; eyeballing andobserving the progress of aboriginal students; examining thecontent in the curriculum; and analyzing the context of the programand environmental factors as they relate to these learners. Theplanner conducts formal and informal needs assessment andevaluation strategies related to the aboriginal students in theprogram, the fit of the program to meet learners’ educationalneeds, and the instructors’ knowledge, skills and abilities toteach aboriginal students. These strategies lead to theidentification of learners’ educational needs, the development andaddition of new objectives and courses to the existing program to218meet learners’ educational needs, and the selection of anaboriginal instructor.Procedural knowledge deals with the necessary strategies toaccomplish the planning tasks and answers the question “how to”.This knowledge provides an interpersonal communication aspect whichinforms planning. Procedural knowledge is a fundamental componentof planners’ practical knowledge which is dialecticallyinterrelated with declarative knowledge. Moreover, proceduralknowledge is informed by conditional knowledge.1.3 Conditional KnowledgePlanners use conditional knowledge, that is, knowledge used tojustify their decisions. It consists of their understanding ofcontextual values such as educational, political, economic, andsocial values as well as principles of practice, educationalphilosophy, and guiding metaphors. For instance, it comprisesplanners’ beliefs in a learner-centered view and a principle ofeconomy of content to educational planning, learners’ rights forsolid, quality educational programs, and planners’ responsibilityto protect these rights. Further, it consists of planners’ ethicaland moral values and beliefs in fair play, justice, and equality ofopportunity to participate in decision making.Conditional knowledge entails an interpretation of contextualvalues, and planners’ principles, values, and beliefs in planning.Planners identify, weigh, and select educational alternatives basedon a consideration of policy and practice issues which are oftenincompatible and inconsistent and present moral and ethicaldilemmas. Conditional knowledge answers the questions “why” and“when” and suggests “what ought to be done”. This knowledge deals219with the conditions-action-sequence which implements action whencertain pre-conditions are met, and is essential for criticaldecision making.Planners collect data through direct, indirect, and tacitlearning in relation to the tasks, others, and self to actappropriately in the situation. For instance, the team approach,the formal structure of the organization, fosters a personal andinformal planning process which facilitates direct, indirect, andtacit learning through coaching, mentoring, researching, problemsolving, interacting, discussing, and sharing with others in thedecision making process.Further, in planning programs for various groups, includingnon-traditional groups, planners manipulate administrativestructures and negotiate the views, interest, values and beliefs ofstakeholders. Planning is situated in a context, with specificlearners, instructors, and content. Planners anticipate, adjust,and make changes in planning based on contextual values and theirvalues and beliefs. This view of planning is consistent with aview that planners act intentionally and discriminatingly to makedefensible decisions. Based on deliberation over thecommonplaces of planning, which is informed by practical knowledge,planners shape planning. For instance, because of the objectivesof the mandate, Joel and Netta reconstruct the nature of programs,learners, content, and the budgeting process within an economiccontext. Joel does not document the need for certificate programsnor does he ensure the soundness of the program. Rather, hegathers data from a nuniber of sources including self and givesdirectives to planners to develop as many certificates as quickly220as possible. In contrast, Netta proposes consensual understandingof an action plan, a procedural strategy, based on a financiallyviable framework for action and decision making. Netta’s principleof economy of content, that is, content which facilitates learners’self-sufficiency, and her vision of an autonomous but integratedunit, shape her planning.In like manner, Liz, Erna, and Anna shape the deficit and thebudget process. Based on a consideration of the objectives of themandate and a learner-centered perspective, the budget formula isapplied discriminately. Liz offers the course in spite of the lossof income because learners require the course to complete theirprogram, specific learners cannot pay a higher tuition fee, or thereputation and credibility of the institution seem to be at risk.In another case, based on data which describe the situation, Lizreduces the offerings because low enrolment indicates a lack ofneed for the offering, and the market is saturated. In contrast,she increases the promotion to create awareness of offerings andincrease enrolment. Similarly, Erna shapes planning. She growspersonally and professionally because of the need to reduce thedeficit and work within the budget formula. She engages inresearch and readings related to planning, she develops strategiesto evaluate programs, and she resists, on ethical and moralgrounds, the pressure to put forward certificates which are notsolid.Planners shape the budget process. The simple application ofa formula, to generate 25-35% profit across the board, proves to beinappropriate behaviour and leads to negative consequences.Deliberation leads to insight and understanding, meaning-making and221judgement, and defensible decision making and action amongconflicting and competing demands of the particular case at hand.Planners agree that they negotiate a reduced profit on the basis ofthe requirements of the program vis-a-vis learners’ requirement tocomplete the program.Although the budget formula is determined at the policy levelby an income to expense formula, at the level of practice, it isre-defined through dialectic mediation. It is not appliedindiscriminately but is mediated by a number of factors includingthe context, learners, content, and instructors. Plannersnegotiate the budget based upon not only economic objectives of themandate but also a range of factors which includes contextualvalues and planners’ values and beliefs about practice.Conditional knowledge, which is an integral component ofplanners’ practical knowledge, has remained underdeveloped in theteacher thinking literature. This component of practical knowledgespeaks to contextual values, planners’ educational principles,values, beliefs, metaphors, the ideological character of knowledge,and the ethical and moral dilemmas of practice. It is knowledgewhich is essential for a critical reflection aspect. Further, itis dialectically interrelated with declarative and proceduralknowledge which inform planning.Practical knowledge consists of the interrelationship ofdeclarative knowledge which is essential for an information aspectof planning; procedural knowledge of rules and routines of planningwhich is essential for an interpersonal communication aspect ofplanning; and conditional knowledge of contextual values, andplanner’s educational principles, metaphors, values and beliefs222which is essential for a critical reflection aspect. Based ondeliberation over the commonplaces, planners gather data throughdirect, indirect, and tacit learning in relation to the task,others, and self and transform these into knowledge to understandthe situation. Planners use an adaptive intelligence to identify,weigh, and select educational alternatives and choices in planning.The purpose of planners’ practical knowledge is to make the “best”decision, that is, act appropriately in planning.2 Siinmary and Discussion of Planners’ Knowledge of PlanningPlanners pay attention to a number of components of planningwhich include a focus of concern, planning context, collaboratingwith partners, assessing needs, evaluating programs, promoting,marketing, and budgeting programs, and developing curriculum.These components are consistent with those identified in thegeneric model of planning (Sork and Buskey, 1986). However, thecomponents identified in this research as “a focus of concern”,“planning context”, “collaborating with partners”, and “nurturinginstructors” (which is included under the component “developingcurriculum”) are rarely described in the adult education planningliterature. In addition, each component includes a number ofinterrelated activities and decisions which form a cluster(Pennington and Green, 1976).The commonplaces of planning including learners, context,instructors, content, and planners are central aspects which informplanning (Schwab, 1969). Planners “know” the essential componentsof planning which may be framed in terms of the academic or genericmodel of planning. In practice this model is a springboard toplanning: the model provides the theoretical underpinnings which223inform practice. However, in the process of deliberation plannersreformulate these given components of planning through dialecticmediation (the interrelationship of the three kinds of knowledgewhich inform practical knowledge).2.1 Planning ContextThe planning context includes a cluster of interrelatedactivities and decisions which planners identified during theinterviews. These include the mandate of the unit, operationalpolicies and practices, team concept, mission of the institution,deficit, and budget process. The planning context gives meaningand understanding to planners’ actions and decisions. Plannersdiscuss these tasks because they permeate planning activities.Further, this aspect of planning highlights an importantdiscrepancy between planning models found in the literature andpractice. With a few noted exceptions, for example Boyle (1981),and Kowalski (1988), little attention is given to the nature of theplanning context in the literature. However, it is an integralpart of planning which influences planning practice. It influencesto some degree the nature of planning by providing the directionfor action and decisions.The planning context reveals the uniqueness, uncertainty, andcomplexity of the planning situation and contributes to theintentional, systematic, and emergent nature of planning practice.Planners work within incompatible and inconsistent demands whichoften present ethical and moral dilemmas which require deliberationto arrive at appropriate decisions and actions. These values arerarely addressed in the planning literature.For example, one of the planner’s goals is to provide a solid224program which meets learners’ needs while achieving the outcomesspecified by the program. This goal is based on a planner’slearner-centered approach guided by moral and ethical principles.However, the directives to offer as many certificates as possible,within strict time constraints, to achieve the objectives of themandate mitigate well designed programs aimed at meeting learners’educational needs.Further, with a few noted exceptions, for example Houle(1972), the practice situation is presented as routine, logical,and linear while practice is seen as mechanistic. Consequently,the underlying synergistic nature, and the complexity of theinteracting elements of planning are under-determined. Forinstance, the mission that the unit be the resource link forlearners to gain access to the economic and political systems, andthe objectives of the mandate that the unit offer worthwhile,income generating programs for the downtown core area learners,while being recognized as the inner city university areincompatible and inconsistent. The economic objective of themandate dictates the nature and number of programs offered, contentidentified, and clientele served.At the level of practice, planners have to justify theirdecisions and actions to meet the directives to offer as manycertificates as possible, even if a felt or ascribed educationalneed for a program has not been demonstrated, even if the timeconstraints mitigate developing solid, well designed programs, andeven if a program is designed to meet the needs of those who canafford to pay. Systemic discrimination and structural barriers areperpetuated because the mission and mandate are not supported at225the policy level.On the one hand, the planner engages in “intelligentprogramming”. This includes intentional, emergent planning, suchas discussing, second guessing, indirect reasoning, intuiting,negotiating, and anticipating to arrive at appropriate decisionsand actions about planning programs. On the other hand, plannersare required to plan programs without a systematic plan of actionand consensus about how to achieve the mandate. Consequently,planners may engage in uncritical practice because the economicobjective of the mandate overrides other planning considerations.However, planners may elect to resign because of incompatible andinconsistent policy and practice issues, or planners may choose toresist plans to achieve the mandate on the terms specified by thedirectives. -Similarly, the operational policies and practices influenceplanning practice. To achieve the mandate, there is an expansionof programs offered and numbers of learners served. However, thereis no adjustment to the internal systems, staffing arrangements,and planners’ work load which lead to poor utilization of planners’time and job dissatisfaction. On the one hand, the unit isrestructured on the team concept to give planners responsibilityand an opportunity to participate in decisions vis a vis thedevelopment and growth of programs.On the other hand, the structure is designed to facilitate theachievement of the mandate. Planners are expected to takeresponsibility and make decisions. They negotiate the views,behaviours, values, and beliefs of a variety of interest groupsbecause planning is situated within a context, with specific226learners, content, instructors, and stakeholders. The data areconsistent with Houle’s (1972) statement that the design of aprogram is in a constant state of reformulation (p.39).However, the team approach provides an opportunity forplanners to interact, share and discuss ideas, problem solve, andlearn from each other. Informal sharing and learning aresubstitutes for systematic on the job training. In short, coachingand mentoring are part of the function of the team structure. Theteam becomes the sounding board and support system for developingand confirming planning activities and decisions. The teamapproach facilitates planning practice.Also, the deficit budget and related budget process mediateplanning. Because of the deficit, planners are required todecrease expenses, increase offerings and enrolment, and generate25-35 profit, while the budget formula is determined by thecriterion to cover the deficit. The purpose of planning is togenerate income to remove the deficit. Consequently, some plannersgrow personally and professionally. Planners develop new programs,while existing programs are modified and offered in new formatsregardless of the appropriateness of the fit of the content to thenew format. Planners use brainstorming techniques to developthemes, update and manipulate mailing lists to market programs, andincrease the promotion of programs. Planners explore other sourcesof data including reading material related to planning.Planners do not indiscriminately apply the budget formula butjustify any deviation from the formula on consideration oflearners’ ability to pay, the nature of the program, therequirements of learners, the reputation of the division, the227context of planning, and instructors. Planning involvesdeliberation about a number of educational alternatives to arriveat appropriate decisions. However, the time for careful analysis,critical reflection, and defensible decision making is reducedbecause planning is not only driven by the mission and the mandate,but also by the deficit and the budget formula. In the planningliterature, because there is so little attention given to theplanning context, these practice issues are often un-addressed.2.2 Collaborating with PartnersCollaborating with partners and related activities anddecisions highlight yet another important discrepancy betweenplanning models found in the literature and practice.Collaboration has received little attention in the body ofliterature on planning models. Further, although not all plannersidentify this component of planning, these discussions suggest thatthe series “collaborating with partners” overlaps with the serieslabelled planning context, assessing needs, and developing thecurriculum.Using strategies, these planners collaborate with external andinternal partners to: provide and gain information related to aprogram; gain support from key groups and potential learners for aprogram; create awareness of and increase participation in aprogram; identify and work with experts in the community; definelearners’ educational needs; create a network of support for aprogram; allow information to filter through the community; reduceopposition from key groups and individuals to a program; andachieve the economic, educational, and political objectives of themandate. However, the overriding reason for collaborating appears228to be the principle of utility and self interest. Collaboration isnot a virtue or social good in and of itself but a politicalstrategy to gain benefits from the environment to achieve themandate.The nature of the collaboration in which these planners engageis tangential or a form of co-sponsorship which allows planners totake little risk while maintaining control and power. This form ofcollaboration is defined within the framework of the economicobjectives of the mandate. While there may be other models ofcollaboration which may efficiently and effectively achieve theseobjectives, these planners do not explore any models nor the natureof collaboration. However, because of economic constraints whichcurrently confront most university continuing education units, thenature and models of collaboration may become important to theplanning process.These planners identify benefits and costs from collaborating.The tangible benefits to the unit include: gaining learners andincome; gaining knowledge to develop a solid program; gaininginstructors and instructional support; and most of all achievingthe economic, educational, and political objectives of the mandate.The intangible benefits to the unit are: to gain status, domain,and recognition in the community and in the university. Partnersmay gain a reputable program, learners, income, status, andrecognition. Learners may gain a well designed program which maybe offered in their community, and instructors who may beaccessible to them. The costs involve: loss of some autonomy overthe program; loss of time and energy in the process of working withpartners; and negative consequences in the event of termination of229the partnership.The series “collaborating with partners” suggests thatplanning requires knowledge of and sensitivity to the political andeconomic context. In other words, who are the stakeholders? andwhat are their roles and responsibilities vis a vis the clientgroup for whom a program is designed? This knowledge influencesplanning practice. It suggests that planners are required toproceed cautiously while exercising judgement in planning. It alsoguides the nature and scope of the data collection phase, andsuggests whom to involve in planning. Collaborating suggests thatthe linear representation of planning found in much of the planningliterature, (that is, objectives are determined, content isdeveloped, and criteria are identified to achieve these objectives)does not match practice, but contributes to the decontextualizationof practice.For instance, while little attention is given in the programplanning literature to contextual conditions related to planningcontext, (Pennington and Green, 1976) even less attention is givento “collaborating with partners”. Important issues related to thenature, benefits and costs, and models of collaboration are rarelyfound in the planning literature. Neither is there widespreaddiscussion related to contextual values and planners’ values andbeliefs which influence the nature of activities and decisionsrelated to these components.The linear representation of planning presented in much of theliterature and its associated mode of knowing are limited infacilitating appropriate actions and decisions, that is, defensibledecision making, which is the considered weighing of educational230alternatives as a guide to choice and action. Further, it fails toaccount for conditional knowledge -contextual values and planners’values and beliefs- and the activities and decisions related to theseries labelled “collaborating with partners”. This mode ofknowing answers the questions “why” and “when” and suggests “whatought to be done”. It deals with conditions-action-sequences thatimplement actions when certain pre-conditions are met, and isessential for critical decision making.2.3 Assessing NeedsAssessing needs and related activities and decisions includeoriginating the idea, and validating it through formal and informalneeds assessment. Not all planners engage in all these activitiesand decisions; rather, the majority of planners conduct informalneeds assessment. Only one planner conducts a formal needsassessment. Further, a focus of concern triggers the needsassessment process. Dewey (1938) states all knowledge begins inproblems which emphasizes the dialectic relation of theory-practice. Moreover, Griffith (1978) states “. . .the process ofeducational needs assessment requires a normative standard, afactual description of the current situation of a group ofpotential learners, a comparison of the two, and a commitment tothe goal of reducing the discrepancy” (p.393).From the analysis, a focus of concern is associated with theproblem setting stage that consists of discussions with students,observation and comparison of their academic performance against anormative standard. This information aspect leads to descriptionof their educational needs. Through strategies such as discussing,observing, or eyeballing and comparing the situation, and problem231solving, the planner gains insight into the situation, and sets theproblem through collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluatingdata.“Assessing needs” has been well documented in the body ofliterature on planning (Houle, 1972; Boyle, 1981; Boone, 1985; andSork and Buskey, 1986). Formal comprehensive needs assessment isprescribed as an important planning procedure. In comparing thisprescribed procedure and practice, the data suggest that plannersconduct informal rather than formal comprehensive strategiesbecause of time constraints, the exigencies of the situation, andlack of expertise. This is consistent with Pennington and Green’s(1976) study. However, these planners reformulate the needsassessment process.The nature of needs assessment is determined by factorsincluding originating and validating the idea. Ideas originatefrom a number of sources which include: clear messages which theunit sends to the community; an analysis of the history, resources,and nature of the small liberal arts college of which the unit isa part; the market analysis which the unit commissions; observingand scanning the environment to determine trends, job marketrequirements, and policy issues related to education; documentingneeds that learners identify; compiling a list of learners’requests; collaborating with associations, community, andorganizations; and personal interest in and knowledge of a contentarea.Further, since planners are unable to develop all ideas whichoriginate from all sources they must decide which of the competingeducational needs are worth pursuing. This requires a value232judgement, not a reliance on hard data. Thus, validating the ideafurther influences the nature of the needs assessment strategy.Most of these planners validate the idea by using informalstrategies. A planner defends a personal idea by presenting awritten proposal to the dean. The decision to present the idea isbased on the planner’s personal values and beliefs about theintrinsic value of the content. Three planners suggest thatbecause needs are identified by learners themselves, they arejustified in offering a program. Therefore, a program which isdeveloped in response to learners’ felt needs becomes the needsassessment instrument which validates the idea.These planners support the use of informal strategies tovalidate the needs for programs. One planner argues that a formalneeds assessment is not necessary if learners identify the needs,and if the course is filled when it is offered. Research is notnecessary in this case. Planners suggest that the purpose ofresearch or statistics is to confirm or support their knowledge ofthe situation. Research describes the situation; it does not tellplanners what to do. Planners make decisions about what ought tobe done on the basis of conditional knowledge which includescontextual values and their values and beliefs.These planners indicate that, ‘although the market surveyprovides information about learners’ needs, location and schedulefor programs, and demographic data, this information is notreliable unless planners bring their knowledge to bear on the data.They use their personal knowledge of community, learners’characteristics and abilities, and needs to inform decisions. Theneeds assessment strategy provides communicative understanding and233interaction but does not tell “what ought to be done”. This way ofknowing is based on conditional knowledge, contextual values andplanners’ values and beliefs, which stresses the inherent valueposition of needs assessment which is underdetermined in theliterature on planning (Monette, 1977).Planners use hard data to satisfy the administrative system orto substantiate what they already know intuitively or fromexperience. That is, intimate, personal knowledge is gained byexperience over time through direct, indirect, and tacit learningin relation to tasks, others and self which suggests the activerelationship between planners and their environment. According toDewey (1938) genuine knowledge and understanding are achievedthrough the support of experience and practice, that is, thedialectic relation between theory and practice.Moreover, there is a synergistic relationship which informscontextual values, planners’ values and beliefs, and planning whichgives meaning and direction to planners’ activities and decisions.There is also an overlapping relationship among these series. Forinstance, while planners collaborate with associations, community,and organizations to identify program ideas, they also collaborateto gain benefits from these environments to achieve the mandate.Assessing needs overlaps with collaborating with partners and theplanning context.In the literature, needs assessment is seen as an importantformal comprehensive strategy of planning (for example, Houle,1972; Boone, 1985; and Sork and Buskey, 1986). However, theevidence supports Pennington and Green’s (1976) findings that inpractice, planners generally do not conduct formal comprehensive234needs assessment. Moreover, time constraints, exigencies of thesituation, and lack of expertise may be barriers to conductingcomprehensive needs assessment. However, contrary to Penningtonand Green’s findings, these planners do not give lip service to theimportance of needs assessment. These planners suggest that validand reliable data are available from other sources includinginformal and formal needs assessment strategies which together withtheir knowledge of the situation provide sufficient data to makedefensible decisions. The importance of informal sources of datais stressed as well as the interrelation of formal and informaldata.2.4 Evaluating ProgramsEvaluating programs and related activities and decisions,include: conducting formal and sunimative evaluation, identifying afocus of concern, and holding informal and formative evaluation.In the planning literature, evaluation is identified as animportant part of planning which is defined as formal,comprehensive, and integral (Houle, 1972; Knowles, 1980; Boyle,1981; Boone, 1985). While the data are consistent with theseclaims they also suggest a reformulating (Houle, 1972) of theconcept of evaluation to include a focus of concern, informal, andnon-routinized or eclectic processes.All of the planners who were interviewed in this researchundertake formal and sunimative evaluation which is an integralroutinized aspect of planning enacted on the basis of a policy ora rule of practice which stipulates that at the end of every coursean evaluation is to be conducted. In this regard, declarativeknowledge is collected, analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated235without any attention given to “why” and “when” to use the data.Planners claim lack of time, heavy workloads, and the sheerquantity of the data have led to inappropriate practice -data arefiled without use. In this case, evaluation is not useful andmeaningful to practice but is only a routinized procedure whichcontributes to mindless practice.In contrast, planners’ sense of desirable practice, which isguided by interest in and attention to practice, is a trigger inplanning. Planners’ deliberation, mindful action and interactionabout the commonplaces, leads to identifying foci of concerns andconducting informal formative strategies. Deliberation is informedby planners’ notion of a desirable state of affairs which is ahumanizing factor of practice. This provides the glue to theelements of planning. Deliberation facilitates the problem settingstage which consists of the act-knower-context sequence. Plannersidentify foci of concerns related to the practice situation. Aplanner scrutinizes the evaluation procedure used to collect datarelated to the commonplaces, eyeballs the situation, and holdsinformal discussions with learners. The planner recognizes thatthe procedure does not guarantee confidentiality; therefore,learners may be unwilling to provide open and honest responses toquestions. Further, planners in this study were required to switchfrom a pass-fail to the university letter grade system to beconsistent with the university policy. Therefore, a planner, whois charged with changing the system, engages in research and studyof the evaluation literature before making decisions about anappropriate method. Planners may lack formal knowledge ofevaluation which is commonly regarded as essential to planning.236Moreover, a focus of concern is identified because learners claimthat an instructor is a racist, or because there is a 50% drop outrate in a course. These foci of concerns related to thecommonplaces, lead planners to initiate informal, formative, nonroutinized/eclectic evaluation strategis to improve practice.A planner institutes a new policy as a guide to practice: onlynew courses and instructors will be evaluated; and if there is aproblem the course will be evaluated. The evaluation instrument isreviewed, revised, and reduced to a very simple five question form.Because learners claim an instructor is a racist, a plannerinitiates pencil and paper tests, pre and post tests, and anethnographic study. The planner reviews test scores andexamination, and holds problem solving meetings with instructor,learners, and coordinator. Moreover, a planner conducts classroomobservation as a means of improving classroom instruction andensuring that instructors follow the coñimunicative approach. Thesestrategies may become part of the repertoire of practice.Planners use evaluation results discriminately, that is, theyuse an adaptive intelligence in planning. On the basis of negativeevaluation, a decision not to rehire an instructor is not madeautomatically. Planners’ values and beliefs mediate the decision.The rule determined by procedural knowledge is mediated byconditional knowledge which is essential for critical decisionsabout practice.2.5 Promoting and Marketing ProgramsPromoting and marketing programs include activities anddecisions related to developing a directory, and developingalternative strategies to increase awareness of and participation237in programs. The series parallels information presented in theplanning literature with the noted exception that in actualpractice planners redefine the planning tasks. However, theactivities described in this series are not exhaustive of allpossible planning activities and decisions described in theliterature (Knowles, 1980; and Burnham, 1988), but are the onesthat planners discuss in the interviews. Planners do not use acomprehensive marketing and promoting plan because they lack timeand expertise.Moreover, promoting and marketing programs are complex taskswhich involve acquiring data related to learners, their educationalneeds, their community, the context, the availability of otherprograms, the content, and instructors. Promoting and marketingare defined as strategies undertaken to provide information aboutthe price, location, instructors, and programs to learners forpurposes of increasing awareness of and gaining participation inprograms. The strategies used to promote and market programsinclude: develop written materials such as a directory andtimetables; and use alternative forms such as newspapers,television, and oral communication.2.6 Developing the CurriculumDeveloping the curriculum and related activities and decisionsinclude: identify and select instructors through a committeestructure; conduct informal and formal interviews; hold orientationsessions; nurture instructors through professional development andclassroom observation; identify and select content based on acontent, problem-situation, and learner view; identify and selectobjectives; and the role of learners.238In comparing the activities and decisions related todeveloping the curriculum with ideal models described in theplanning literature, a number of discrepancies emerge with respectto identifying and selecting instructors, and identifying andselecting content and objectives. Identifying and selectinginstructors is an important component in developing the curriculum.Planners gather data to describe the situation, and undertakeformal routinized strategies, such as advertising for instructorsand conducting interviews. These strategies are consistent withthose found in the literature (Knowles, 1980).However, planners undertake simultaneously a number ofinformal activities in support of, or independent of, the formalstrategies. Informal strategies include making personal contactswith members in the community to check references, solicitingrecommendations about potential instructors, negotiating withinstructors, and nurturing instructors. This informal aspect ofplanning is rarely identified in the planning literature butrepresents an important component of planning which rendersplanning non- rout inized.Further, the process of identifying and selecting instructorsis interrelated with other activities and decisions related todeveloping the curriculum. It is not a step-by-step procedure. Itmay be initiated by individual planners or by members of acommittee at any point in planning (Houle, 1972). Planners useaspects of different planning models identified in the literaturerather than the academic model informed by Tyler’s rationale (Gay,1980)For instance, Netta’s planning is guided by a personal rule of239practice which becomes a policy: not to hire instructors who areconsultants because they are not committed to the norms and valuesof the unit. She holds orientation sessions to: familiarizeinstructors with unit’s policies and procedures; provideinformation on the program, course, or learners; and ensureinstructors understand the rules, routines, and norms of the unit,feel part of the staff, and become team players. Identifyingand selecting instructors is not a simple outcome of an interview,but rather a part of a complex process which is mediated throughdeliberation based on practical knowledge which includes planner’svalues and beliefs of efficiency and effectiveness, and rules ofpractice. In this case, planning draws conceptually on a technicalmodel.In contrast, Erna’s, Liz’s, and Anna’s planning is informed bya communicative approach which is a whole system of values andbeliefs about education, knowledge, learners, and the teaching-learning transaction. The learner is central to this approach.These planners use the communicative approach as a rule ofplanning. Instructors are identified and selected based on a rulethat they must support the approach. However, this rule istranslated into a principle of practice because planners believethat high quality programs will be ensured if instructors arecommitted to and support this approach. These planners conductprofessional development and classroom observations to nurture theapproach. A principle of practice incorporates a rule of practice.This is consistent with Elbaz’s (1983) finding.Moreover, planners’ knowledge is often expressed throughmetaphors, such as a “two-way street”, a “ball”, or a “blossom”.240An examination of the metaphors reveals that they embody planners’educational philosophies which include not only their rules andprinciples of practice, but also their values and beliefs ofeducation. This finding parallels Elbaz’s (1983) use of “image”.Further, the communicative approach which provides a focal point ofthese three planners’ practice is mediated by their personal valuesand beliefs. In this case, planning draws conceptually on anlearner-focused view of planning. Planners’ educationalphilosophy, principles, values and beliefs which inform practiceare rarely discussed in the literature.A major discrepancy with practice and the planning literatureis identified. Planners fail to discuss if those involved inprograms, which are designed for them, are informed about how theyare to carry out the plans made for them. As well, planners do notdiscuss the basis on which decisions are made regarding if aprogram is to be repeated. It appears that, in most cases, adecision to repeat an educational activity is automatic regardlessof whether measurement or appraisal is undertaken. According toHoule (1972), this approach precludes the need for criticalexamination of a program, an essential process in the sounddevelopment of a program.However, based on deliberation in the situation mediated bypractical knowledge, planners conduct formal and informalstrategies related to identifying and selecting instructors andcontent. Planners’ practical knowledge includes not onlycontextual values and planners’ values and beliefs, but alsoplanners’ rules, principles, and metaphors of practice. Theseknowledge components are not identified in the planning literature241but are essential for critical decision making.Further, in the academic model, a prescriptive first step inplanning is to identify objectives and criteria to measure thatthey have been achieved. However, actual practice does not reflectthis step-wise process. This finding is consistent with theresearch of Taylor (1970) and Zahorik (1975), and the theoreticalformulation of Houle (1972.). Rather, although a planner may drawupon a content approach, objectives are seen as goals of a programwhich are integral components of a comprehensive outline whichdescribes the program.Planners on the language team whose planning is guided by acommunicative approach use objectives in unique and idiosyncraticways. While Erna sees objectives as an important part of planning,Liz believes objectives are not ends but a process by whichlearners improve. Liz considers them to be implicitly statedbroad, general goals of the program, while Erna carefully considersthe various types of objectives which include linguistic,functional, and unwritten objectives as an inherent component ofthe language program.Moreover, Erna emphasizes the use of objectives as aninstrument to assess and control the flow of learners from onelevel to another. Erna also believes the size and nature ofprograms determine the role of objectives. She argues that, in thecase of small program areas, objectives are not necessary becausethe planner deals closely with instructors and learners to ensurethat the implicit goals of the program are achieved. However, inlarger program areas, objectives are formalized in the program andserve a number of purposes including an administrative function242which is to ensure instructors are accountable, and learners havemastered the content to advance to the next level.In practice to identify and select objectives is not part ofa step-by-step procedure. Rather, it is part of the complexity ofplanning which is deliberated through dialectic mediation of anumber of factors including contextual values, planners’ values andbeliefs, and planners’ personal views of planning. For instance,although Erna’s planning is learner-focused, there is a subtleshift from a learner to a content centered view in her planningbecause mastery of content takes precedence over meeting learners’needs and holding those needs as central to planning.Contrary to the planning literature in adult education, inpractice planners use a deliberative planning process which ismediated by practical knowledge, not the academic model which isinformed by Tyler’s rationale. Schwab’s (1983) view ofdeliberation is redefined. While deliberation may involve acommittee of eight, which is chaired by a content specialist, inpractice, planners usually chair committees and may plan programswith or without a committee structure. Planners redefine planningthrough dialectic mediation of theory and practice. Planning isproblematized and contextualized. it is situated. It involvesdeliberation over specific learners, content, context, andinstructors. Deliberative planning is mindful interaction andaction which reveals the indeterminate and contingent nature ofplanning practice.Practical knowledge which informs planning includesdeclarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. In theplanning literature in adult education, planners’ practical243knowledge has received little or no attention. The data support,build on, and expand the concept of practical knowledge in theteacher thinking literature. This study elaborates, describes, anddefines declarative and procedural knowledge, and it identifies anddefines conditional knowledge, an important aspect of practicalknowledge.3 Towards A Deliberative Conceptual Framework of PracticeThe conceptions of planning and practical knowledge reflect acomplex interrelated set of concepts and processes. A deliberativeplanning framework emerges which centers around the commonplaces ofplanning. In deliberation, planners use their practical knowledgeto redefine given components of planning through dialecticmediation. For instance, based on a focus of concern of the pooracademic record of aboriginal students in the program, Joel gathersdata to set the problem which indicates an act-knower-contextsequence. The problem is refined based on knowledge gained fromexperience that aboriginal students from rural areas havedifficulty adjusting to urban life styles, and they lack selfconfidence and esteem. Declarative knowledge, an informationaspect, does not tell planners what to do but provides adescription of the situation.Further, planners use procedural knowledge which deals withthe necessary steps to accomplish planning. This knowledgeprovides understanding and interaction and is an interpersonalcommunication aspect of planning. For instance, Joel undertakesplanning strategies directly related to the situation whichincludes: discussions with students which indicate they have poorself concept, lack self confidence, and academic knowledge;244observation and analysis of their performance in the program; andreview and redesign of the program and objectives to includeoptional courses related to aboriginal culture, law, and language,and aboriginal instructors to teach in the program.These components are informed by conditional knowledge -contextual values and planners’ values and beliefs. It is thecondition-action-sequence which implements actions when certainpre-conditions are met, and provides reflection and action whichare the basis for a critical reflection aspect in planning. Forinstance, Joel’s learner-centered approach and principle of economyof content suggest that the program ought to be revised andexpanded to include optional courses which provide choices whichare relevant and useful to learners.Based on deliberation informed by practical knowledge,planners redefine given components of planning. Planning involvesdeliberation, mindful interaction and action, over a range ofshifting and dialectically interrelated knowledge components todefine the problem, negotiate the views and interests of committeemembers, stakeholders, and or individuals, and manipulate theuniversity bureaucracy. Planning is problematized andcontextualized.Planners use aspects of the content/technical, the problem-situation, or the learner-focused view to plan programs. Plannersuse an eclectic planning approach based on deliberation withlearners, instructors, and stakeholders about the program to beoffered in a particular context. This leads to insight andunderstanding, meaning-making and judgement, and defensibledecision making.245Planners gather data through direct, indirect, and tacitlearning in relation to the task, others, and self, and transformthese into knowledge to understand the situation. Planners use anadaptive intelligence to identify, weigh, and select educationalalternatives in planning. The purpose of planners’ practicalknowledge is to make the “best” decision, that is, to actappropriately in the situation. The conceptions of planning andplanners’ practical knowledge provide a conceptual framework ofpractice.4 SummaryBuilding on Schwab (1969), Elbaz (1983), and Sternberg andCaruso (1985), the conception of practical knowledge is a dialecticrelationship of theory and practice which consists of a declarativeaspect, a procedural aspect, and a conditional aspect. Further,planning practice is oriented towards the commonplaces of planning.The conception of planning is a deliberative, reciprocal,mindful process consisting of planning context, collaborating withpartners, assessing needs, evaluating programs, promoting,marketing and budgeting programs, and developing the curriculum.These planning components build on those described in the adulteducation planning literature (Houle, 1972; Boyle, 1981; Boone,1985; and Sork and Buskey, 1986). Planners re-define givencomponents of planning through their practical knowledge.Planners are central to planning because they are responsiblefor making the key planning decisions. Planners’ roles requiremaking decisions which are responsible or defensible moves withpublic significance. Scheffler (1958) argues that these moves areinescapable, important, and subject to rational critique. Thus, it246is important to explain the rules and fundamental commitments, andcontextual values which govern these moves to understand,interpret, and develop categories of practice.Planners’ practical knowledge is oriented towards content:declarative knowledge of organizational context; knowledge ofresearch methods, program content and ideas, problem setting, andevaluation; and knowledge of a discipline and or a field of studysuch as adult education. Also, it consists of procedural knowledgeof the components of planning. As well, it comprises conditionalknowledge of contextual values and planner’s principles ofpractice, educational philosophy, guiding metaphors, experientialknowledge, and pedagogical knowledge such as instructional methodsin learning and teaching.Planners’ practical knowledge is oriented towards structure.-The structure is represented by: a deliberative, reciprocalplanning process of interaction, reflection, and action among thecommonplaces, and the components of planning; and a dialecticrelationship of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge ofrules and routines of planning, and conditional knowledge ofcontextual values and planners’ educational principles, values,beliefs, and metaphors.Building on Sternberg and Caruso (1985), planners’ practicalknowledge is oriented towards source. Practical knowledge is usedin three main forms of interaction, that is, to adapt to, toresist, or to change the situation in relation to tasks, others, orself. Also, practical knowledge is used in three main forms ofinteraction, that is, direct learning from the theoreticalformulations from the field of adult education; indirect learning247from mentoring, observing, problem solving, trial and error, anddiscussing; and tacit learning from experience or the wisdom ofpractice which refers to the principles of good practice which areaccumulated and organized over time. The next chapter presentsconclusions to the findings on practical knowledge and planning,while providing implications for further research.248CHAPTER EIGHTSrnTmlary of Findings, Suggestions for Further Research,Implications and DiscussionThe purposes of this study were to gain an understanding ofthe kinds of practical knowledge planners in a universitycontinuing education division find useful and relevant to theirdecision making in program planning; acquire a greaterunderstanding of the planning process from their perspective; andconstruct categories for interpreting these understandings. It wasexpected that planners discriminately used a wide range ofknowledge which, although unarticulated, was knowledge of practice,and that planning was characterized by complexity, uniqueness, anduncertainty.Analysis of the interview data led to the conclusion thatpractical knowledge Consists of three kinds of knowledge whichinform planning practice, and that planning is indeterminate andcontingent on the context and planners’ knowledge. These planners’practical knowledge incorporates a framework of concepts, rules androutines or strategies, beliefs, values, principles and metaphorsof practice. This framework has implications for planners’criteria of valid and reliable knowledge, the informal and formalnature of planning strategies, the ideological character ofknowledge, and the ethics of practice. Further, these planners usea combination of planning approaches which are directly related tothe nature of the planning context and their capabilities. Thecontextual and problematic nature of planning is made explicit. Inshort, based on deliberation, planners adapt and shape planningthrough their practical knowledge.249In this chapter these major findings are further explicated.The chapter begins with a summary of the study methodology and thelimitations of the study. Following that, the major findings arepresented. Suggestions for further research are given, andfinally, the implications and discussion for continuing educationfor program planners are addressed.1 Summary of the MethodologyThe perspective used in this study was interpretive. Theintent was to understand and explicate meanings that planners gaveto their planning activities within specific planning contexts.The use of this perspective is a shift away from the dominantperspective which has emphasized observation of behaviour, andguided much of the research in adult education (Stalker, 1989). Inaddition, the study employed qualitative methods which arecongruent with the epistemological foundations of the interpretiveperspective. These methods included two participant observationmeetings, semi-structured, indepth interviews, an informalconversational approach, and documents to corroborate the data frominterviews. Data were reported in literary prose style.A primary concern of the investigator was to determine thefeasibility of the research questions and the problem; therefore,the study was conducted in two phases. Phase one, a pilot study oftwo planners, explored the feasibility of the research questionsand the problem. Based on this stage, a questionnaire was modifiedand used as a guide in the second phase. Building on phase one,phase two incorporated a case study of four additional planners.The study was limited in that it was a small, purposive sampleof six planners, two males and four females from the total250complement of seven, in a single setting. These planners had notundertaken graduate work in adult education and had had limitedexposure to the adult education program planning literature.However, typically, those employed as planners in universitycontinuing education units have not had the experience of pursuinga graduate program in adult education. The perspectives of thesesix planners are therefore likely to be quite similar to those ofother planners who have not been exposed to graduate study in adulteducation. They are important because they are more nearly likeplanners found in the field than graduates of adult educationprograms would likely be. However, a goal of the study was todevelop generalizations and parsimonious concepts accuratelycharacterizing cases examined rather than to develop laws orprinciples which are generalizable to the whole population ofplanners.Planners were interviewed. All interviews were audio tapedand transcribed. Data were analyzed and organized into categorieswhich were culled from the data. Categories were compared,contrasted and grouped to identify key features and patterns amongplanning practice. The data were filtered through relevanttheoretical concepts, through which the findings were reconstructed. The examination of written memos was used to refinecategories. With respect to developing the categories of practicalknowledge, Strauss’ (1987) coding paradigm (conditions,interactions, strategies or tactics, and consequences) was founduseful to synthesize categories into concepts of declarative,procedural, and conditional knowledge. With regard to developingcategories of program planning, Sork and Buskey’s (1986) generic251components of planning were found useful to describe the activitiesand decisions these planners described. A chronologicalreflexivity journal was used throughout the study wherein werenoted the processes of data analysis as well as insights andquestions. The preliminary analysis was presented to the plannersfor verification. They commented positively on the analysis andinsights they gained as a result of participating in the research.Initially, it was anticipated that the findings would bederived solely from the data while the theoretical concepts ofSchwab (1969), Sternberg and Caruso (1985), Elbaz (1983), Tyler(1949) , Houle (1972), Knowles (1980), Freire (1970), and Sork andBuskey (1986) would be held in abeyance. However, as the analysisproceeded, the literature and understandings that prompted thestudy became increasingly more central and useful to the study.The reason for this was that these theoretical concepts were usefulin categorizing, to a large degree, the processes that theseplanners described. For instance, Sternberg and Caruso’sdefinition of practical knowledge provided a frame of reference forfurther understanding and describing declarative and conditionalcomponents of practical knowledge, while Schwab’s practicalplanning provided the descriptions for a deliberative dialecticalplanning process.2 Limitations of the StudyThis study focuses exclusively on a small, purposive sample ofsix program planners from a single setting. Thus, the results ofthis study may be limited in generalizability. However, thetentative conceptual framework from this study could be used todevelop questions which may be examined more directly in field252studies.The research method, the case-style investigation using aninterview guide during the interview, may have limited the studydue to the inherent disadvantages of the method. Lincoln and Guba(1985) outlined some limitations which include relying on selfreports of planning practice, and conducting studies primarilyinvolving respondents from a limited socio-economic spectrum ofadults. Specifically for this study, the limitations wereconcerned with planners’ recall ability and their willingness toprovide answers which fit perceived expectations of what theinvestigator wants. In short, the investigator of this qualitativeresearch is concerned for credibility, transferability,dependability, confirmability (versus concerns in quantitativeresearch for internal validity, external validity, reliability, andobjectivity) and generalizability or the trustworthiness (validityand reliability) of the study which is the end result sought byresearchers regardless of their different epistemologicalassumptions.In this study, the probability of credible findings wasenhanced by prolonged engagement, triangulation, and member check.The interviews were conducted over an extended period of time whichfacilitated getting to know the participants, testing formisinformation, and building trust. Multiple sources, methods, andtheoretical concepts were used to triangulate the data. Data werecollected from planners through interviews. Documents werecollected to confirm reports from interviews. As well, theinvestigator kept a reflective journal throughout the study.Member check with the supervisory committee was also used to review253the process and outcome of the analysis at various stages of theresearch. These procedures helped to keep the investigator honest,test emerging categories, and provide an emotional outlet anddistancing from the data. Both formal and informal checking withparticipants verified interpretations, assumptions, and data.In regard to transferability, the investigator provided rich,thick description (a data base) of the organizational context thatshould allow others to judge whether there is a fit to anothersimilar setting, that is, transferability.Triangulation, an overlap method, and an inquiry audit(Lincoln and Guba, 1985) were used in this study to help establishdependability. However, according to Lincoln and Guba, ademonstration of credibility establishes dependability. Theefforts to establish credibility by using triangulation werediscussed earlier. A form of inquiry audit was used in this study.The supervisory committee reviewed the process and outcome of thepilot study, and the process of data reduction and reconstructionfrom selected participants. This process helped to raisequestions, point out oversights, and reduce the likelihood ofreaching unwarranted conclusions in the analysis. The interviewtapes and transcriptions are also available for public scrutiny.In the same way that an inquiry audit authenticates thedependability of the analysis process, the confirmability auditallowed the objectivity of the investigator to be tested (Lincolnand Guba, 1985). Although a formal audit was not used, an audittrail exists that would allow a confirmability audit to beconducted. Records exist for the verification of the sureness ofthe data.254Finally, in regard to generalizability, Firestone (1993)suggests that analytic generalizations and case-to-case transfermay be made from data obtained in qualitative research. Analyticgeneralization does not rely on samples and populations, butstrives to generalize a particular set of findings to broadertheoretical concepts. In order to do this, evidence must beprovided to support these concepts. In this study an attempt wasmade to do this by focusing on actions, planning process, andvalues and beliefs of planners in a specific setting as well asthrough the use of interviews of planners in this setting togetherwith the collection and analysis of documents. This up-closeanalysis allows links to be made between the data and thetheoretical concepts.In contrast, case-to-case transfer occurs when the readerconsiders adopting a program or idea from another setting.However, the researcher is responsible for providing rich, thickdescription of the study while allowing the reader to make thistransfer. In this study, case-to-case transfer is enhanced becausethick description is provided, permitting assessment of theapplicability of the study’s conclusions to similar settings.Given the normal procedures for establishing thetrustworthiness of a qualitative study, the research has devotedconsiderable attention to a variety of techniques to both persuadereaders of the trustworthiness of the data and to generateconfidence in the findings and recommendations.3 Siiimnry of the Major Findings• . . the field of curriculum is moribund, unable by its presentmethods and principles to continue to work and desperately insearch of new and more effective principles and methods...255there will be a renaissance of the field . . . only if the...energies are diverted from the theoretic to the practical,By the “practical” I... refer,..., to a complex discipline,concerned with choice and action, in contrast with thetheoretic, which is concerned with knowledge. Its methods leadto defensible decisions,... (Schwab, 1969, p.1-2)Like Schwab’s presentation of new and more effectiveprinciples and methods for interpreting the curriculum field, sopractical knowledge, as delineated by Sternberg and Caruso, andElbaz offers a fresh perspective on planning practice. In thissection, this perspective will be given a closer look, as the dataare discussed in light of these theoretical concepts.3.1 What kinds of Practical Knowledge Do Planxiers Have?Sternberg and Caruso’s (1985) interrelated questions regardingpractical knowledge were used as a framework for this section.These include: What is practical knowledge? How is practicalknowledge acquired? How is practical knowledge used? What ispractical knowledge? Practical knowledge consists of three kindsof knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional which standin dialectical relationship to one another, and that planningpractice may require that planners have and use all three kinds ofknowledge.3.1.1 Declarative/Theoretical Knowledge -Information AspectThe planners interviewed had engaged in a process ofgathering, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating declarativeknowledge from a number of sources. This is an information aspectwhich answers the question “what is the case”. It does not tellplanners “what ought to be done” or “how to” but provides adescription of the situation. Declarative knowledge sought bythese planners included: knowledge of organizational context which256includes the mandate of the unit, the deficit, and the budget;knowledge of research methods, program content, program ideas,problem setting, and evaluation; and knowledge of the field ofadult education which includes knowledge of the commonplaces ofprogram design and the components of planning.3.1.2 Procedural Knowledge -Interpersonal Communication AspectPlanners use procedural knowledge, that is, knowledge of rulesand routines of planning. It deals with the necessary steps thatplanners undertake to accomplish planning tasks and answers thequestion “how to”. Planners have a number of interpersonalcommunication strategies which inform planning practice. Planners’procedural knowledge includes components of planning: how best toadapt to the context, collaborate with partners, assess needs,evaluate programs, promote and market programs, and develop thecurriculum. Knowing how to develop the curriculum includes knowinghow to select instructors, objectives and content, and to specifythe role of learners. Planners’ declarative and proceduralknowledge are interrelated. However, these kinds of knowledgeprovide only partial understanding on which to base defensibledecisions.3.1.3 Conditional Knowledge -Critical Reflection AspectPlanners also use conditional knowledge, that is, knowledgeused to justify their decisions. It consists of theirunderstanding of economic, educational, political, and socialvalues as well as principles of practice, educational philosophy,and guiding metaphors. For example, planners’ personal valuesinfluence planning practice. A planner who is motivated byeconomic values may be inclined to make the financial stability of257the unit a priority, while others may place greater priority onsocial values, and be inclined to sacrifice the financial stabilityof the unit in favour of improving programs, services, andfacilities. Personal values are not the sole influence onpractice. If a planner faces an ethical decision, such as offeringa program without identifying the need, the planner also considerscontextual factors, such as the economic mandate to generate aprofit, in justifying the decision.As witnessed above, practical knowledge is not simply “knowhow” and contextually related capabilities of planners. It alsocontains an important element of declarative/theoretical knowledgewhich is knowledge that is relevant and useful to practice. Thisexpanded definition of practical knowledge underscores thedialectical (interdependent) relationship of these three categoriesof practical knowledge and their concomitant interrelated planningaspects: informational, interpersonal communication, and criticalreflection in decision making.3.2 How Do Planners Acquire and Use Practical Knowledge?The data revealed that these planners acquired practicalknowledge in a number of ways, and they used it in their planningpractice. The next sections deal with how planners acquired andused practical knowledge.3.2.1 Direct, Indirect, and Tacit LearningBy what means is practical knowledge acquired? For on-the-jobperformance, these planners acquire practical knowledge in threeways: learning from declarative expositions; learning from othersthrough mentoring and coaching; and tacit learning from experience,observation, and trial and error. In the case of direct learning,258a planner researches the literature and completes a course onevaluation. In the case of indirect learning, a planner consultswith learners, instructors, and peers. In the case of tacitlearning, a planner relies on experience gained from working in theuniversity, and a sense of what makes for “good practice”. Thissuggests that direct (formal) learning from declarative expositionsis one way to gain practical knowledge. Also, indirect and tacit(informal) learning from others, experience, observation, and trialand error are other ways to gain practical knowledge.3.2.2 Adapt, Shape and ResistHow is practical knowledge used in planning? Planners usedpractical knowledge not only to adapt to contextual values but alsoto shape or resist in light of their personal values. A plannerstrongly encouraged others to develop as many programs as possibleto adjust to the mandate to generate a profit. Another plannerresisted the directives to develop existing programs into newformats because she believed it was not a good pedagogicaldecision. A third planner resigned because of the incompatibilityof planner’s and institution’s value -to generate a profit at allcost. To adapt and shape presuppose an attempt to work within thecontextual constraints. To resign is the last option after othershave failed. These decisions reflect the indeterminate and complexform of human action in planning which is irreducible to technicalrules.3.2.3 A Practical Planxiing ProcessViewed through the lens of Schwab’s (1969) theoretical conceptof practical planning, which he described as everyday problemsolving for purposes of choice and action, this study challenges a259prevailing assumption concerning planning. The prevailingassumption has seen planning through a traditional paradigm thatvalues certainty and predictability.However, the data suggest that planning is uncertain andcontingent on the context and planners’ knowledge. This suggeststhe indeterminate and unpredictable nature of planning. Thisobservation points to the limitations of a traditional paradigm,that seeks to predict and control, and to the benefits of adeliberative practical planning process which can provide insightand understanding.Furthermore, in planning practice, planners re-define givencomponents of planning. This deliberative, mindful, planningprocess is consistent with Houle’s (1972) and Boyle’s (1981)theoretical formulation of the planning process as one ofcontinuing reformulation as planners add new information.From this perspective, practical knowledge shapes ourunderstanding the nature of the way we make sense of the situation,and influences the kinds of activities and critical decisions wemake to arrive at defensible choice among competing possiblesolutions.3.2.4 The Problematic and Contextual Nature of Planning PracticeAll planners had to take into consideration the problematicand contextual nature of planning which illustrates the importanceof the way in which the problem is defined and redefined as well asthe importance of contextual factors on planning. For example, aplanner initially identified the high drop out and failure rateamong aboriginal students as the problem. However, only afterdiscussions with learners and further analysis of their situation,260does the planner redefine the problem as their lack of selfconfidence and esteem. In this case, the planner added courses onNative Studies, and hired an aboriginal instructor to teach. Thisdecision accommodated competing contextual values: theinstitution’s requirement to offer university entrance courses; theneed to build learners’ self confidence and respect; and theplanner’s goal to reduce the high drop out and failure rate amongaboriginal students.3.2.5 A Framework for Conceptualizing Practical KnowledgeThe study describes, categorizes, and organizes practicalknowledge into three interrelate components of knowledge:declarative, procedural, and conditional. Through focused probingof reasons behind decisions, the important component of conditionalknowledge was identified. This knowledge includes planners’understanding of economic, educational, political, and socialvalues as well as principles of practice, educational philosophy,guiding metaphors, the moral dimension embedded in practice, andthe ideological character of knowledge.Elbaz’s (1983) situational, personal, social, and experientialcategories are located in conditional knowledge, and hertheoretical category is located in declarative knowledge. However,Elbaz ignores important dimensions of conditional knowledge(guiding metaphors, the moral dimensions embedded in practice, andthe ideological character of knowledge) which, in this study, arefound to be essential components of practical knowledge.The study confirms, to a large degree, Elbaz’s structure ofpractical knowledge. Elbaz indicates that the structure consistsof a rule of practice which is a brief statement of what to do in261frequently encountered situations; a practical principle which isan inclusive but less explicit statement of educators’ purposes;and an image which is a less explicit but more inclusive statementof educators’ feelings, values, needs, and beliefs.While the data support this structure of practical knowledge,they also suggest that these elements are incorporated in planners’three kinds of knowledge which form a framework for conceptualizingpractical knowledge. For instance, procedural knowledgeincorporates rules and routines, related to planning strategies,and directs how programs should be organized. Conditionalknowledge incorporates values, beliefs, principles, and metaphorsof practice. It is essential for justifying offering a program.Elbaz’s image is captured in planners’ metaphors of practice.However, planners’ metaphors incorporate a system of values andbeliefs related to their educational philosophy.The interplay of these three kinds of knowledge providesinsight and understanding into how planners acquire and usepractical knowledge that includes aspects of theoretical knowledge.The next section deals with planners’ implicit conceptions ofplanning. Theoretical concepts of Tyler (1949), Freire (1970),Houle (1972), Pennington and Green (1976), Knowles (1980), Boyle(1981), Sork and Buskey (1986), and Kowaiski (1988) provide thelens through which the data are reviewed.3.3 What are Planners’ Implicit Conceptions of Planning?Planners’ implicit conceptions of planning are derived fromtheir statements of what they did in the course of their planning.Their activities and decisions are consistent with some of the nineplanning components identified by Sork and Buskey (1986). For262instance, four of their components (development of objectives;selection and ordering of content; selection, design, and orderingof instructional processes; and selection of instructionalresources) are combined under the component designated in thisresearch as “developing the curriculum”. Components identified inthis research as “focus of concern”, and “nurture of instructors”have received little attention in the adult education planningliterature. This section deals with data related to planningcomponents and the nature of planning, the nature and character ofthe planning context, formal and informal planning strategies, thecommonplaces of planning, the nurture of instructors, principles ofpractice, the focus of concern, the political dimension of content,and approaches to planning.3.3.1 Planning Components and the Nature of PlanningEach planning component comprises a cluster of activities anddecisions which interact and overlap. For instance, in developingthe English as a Second Language program, the planner collaboratedwith a faculty member from the appropriate department to identifylearners’ needs, content, instructional staff, and evaluationmethods. Thus, activities and decisions related to planners’understanding of the planning context interact and overlap with thecluster identified as developing the curriculum, while the clusterdesignated as collaborating overlaps and interacts with the clusterdesignated as assessing needs, and evaluating the program. Aswell, the interaction and overlap of these clusters are consistentwith Pennington and Green’s (1976) claim that planning componentsform interrelated clusters of activities and decisions. Also,these clusters are consistent with Houle’s (1972) statement that263planning “.. .components are to be understood as a complex ofinteracting elements, not as a logical sequence of steps” (p. 46).The identification of these components supports Houl&sobservation:the design of an educational activity is usually in aconstant state of reformulation. . . it is reconsideredfrequently during the time of planning, the time ofaction, and the time of retrospection. All the componentparts of the design mesh together at every point at whichit is considered. Only when they are separated for formalanalysis do they appear to be logical and linear (p.39-40)Planning practice is therefore a dynamic, interactive process inwhich the concept of a discrete step is rarely a reality.3.3.2 The Nature and Character of the Planning ContextCentral to planning practice are the internal and externalcontexts. To the extent that planning practice as represented byHoule (1972), Boyle (1981), Boone (1985), and Kowalski (1988)incorporates the planning context, the data of this study promotea fresh look at the planning context. The internal and externalplanning contexts are important aspects of planning; they affectand are affected by planner& practice; and they consist ofinterrelated concepts and processes. The internal context consistsof the mandate of the unit to develop certain types of programsconsistent with a small liberal arts college; to serve certainsocioeconomic groups including women, immigrants, older learners,and aboriginal students; to generate profit from these programs; towork with a budget formula and deficit budget; and to be recognizedas the university which serves the core area. The external contextincludes beliefs of community stakeholders about programpriorities; assumptions concerning programs by learners and264community; and trends including socioeconomic factors whichinfluence planning. Also significant are beliefs and values ofcertain academic staff and planners about program priorities whichmediate planning. Accordingly, there is a dynamic relationshipamong internal and external contexts, planners’ values and beliefs,and planning.As has been demonstrated, educational, social, political, andeconomic factors influence planning. Also, planners’ values andbeliefs, principles of practice, and metaphors influence planning.In practice, planners affect and are affected by these contextualfactors which often conflict. These factors are not alwaysobvious; they may enter planning at any stage and in various ways.Planners not only accept them as part of planning but they alsoredefine them through their practical knowledge.For instance, in regard to the requirement to evaluate allcourses, planners use declarative knowledge which they acquiredirectly from the literature or course materials. Plannersanalyze, synthesize, and evaluate this knowledge in regards to thecommonplaces of planning: learners’ educational goals, the natureof content and programs, trends and policy issues related to thecontext of planning, and instructional resources. This knowledgeprovides the “what”, which describes the situation. Thisinformation aspect influences and is influenced by the otheraspects. Although, practical knowledge is not explored in theadult education literature, Houle’s “time of planning” is similarto this aspect.Further on this point, these planners used proceduralknowledge to accomplish planning tasks. For example, they265undertook interrelated strategies in regard to the financialobjective of the mandate to be a profit generating unit. They usedmailing lists to identify demographic data about learners;brainstormed techniques to develop ideas; re-designed existingcourses into new formats based on a theme and appropriate graphicdesign; developed strategies to assess educational needs; andcollaborated to gain benefits from the environment. Houle’s “timeof action” incorporates the strategies in this aspect.These knowledge categories are informed by conditionalknowledge. Contextual and personal categories mediate each otherand provide the “why” and “when” essential for justifyingdecisions. Some planners design existing courses into new formatsto meet the financial objectives of the mandate while re-framingthe budget formula on the basis of their beliefs and values oflearners’ needs, the nature of the program, instructors in theprogram, and learners’ ability to pay. Houle’s “time ofretrospection” includes this aspect.The message from this study is that the nature and characterof contextual values and personal values and beliefs impinge on allaspects of planning practice. However, these have received littleattention in the majority of planning models.3.3.3 Informal and Formal Planning StrategiesThe planners in this study do not use formal, comprehensiveneeds assessment or evaluation strategies because of lack ofexpertise and time, and exigencies of the situation. These dataare consistent with Pennington and Green’s (1976) findings. Inaddition, the data on generating strategies make clear thatplanners shape and adapt planning strategies, using on-going,266informal strategies, and make use of both informal and formal datasources. For example, a planner recognized that learners may notprovide open and honest responses on the formal evaluation formsbecause confidentiality is not assured. Therefore, the plannerimplemented administrative controls, and collected data fromlearners and instructors through informal discussions.3.3.4 The Commonplaces of PlanningSchwab’s (1969) commonplaces (learners, content, context, andinstructors) are a useful way of making sense of the data. Theseplanners gather declarative knowledge, related to the commonplaces,to describe the situation, while they use procedural knowledge toconduct strategies. Their values and beliefs influence and areinfluenced by planning, and they are accountable for planning.However, since planners are fundamental to planning, we have tounderstand planners themselves and the way they make sense of thesefour commonplaces in planning. Therefore, from the vantage pointof a program planning analyst, they must be considered in programplanning. As well, the commonplaces are not only central toplanning, but also form an analytic device for comparing andcontrasting elements which are considered in planning. This isconsistent with Walker’s (1971) observation that the commonplacesform a platform in planning.3.3.5 The Importance of Nurturing Instructors in PlanningPlanners in this study nurture instructors to influenceprogram outcomes. Planners hold orientation sessions to ensurethat instructors have a good understanding of such factors as: thefit of the course within the program; the policies, procedures,purposes, and values of the university environment and the unit;267and learners’ characteristics, motivations, interests, knowledge,and abilities. Planners conduct classroom observation to ensurethat instructors have pedagogical knowledge and abilities, and usethe communicative approach (a system of values and beliefs relatedto language teaching). Planners hold professional development andregular meetings for instructors to nurture the communicativeapproach, and to ensure quality programs. These items havereceived little discussion in the planning literature but theirimportance, in the testimony of the planners in this study, suggestthat they may be critical components of good planning practice.3.3.6 The Importance of Planners’ Educational PhilosophyPlanners’ questions during instructors’ interviews reflecttheir values and beliefs, and educational philosophy. A planner’sview on the selection and justification of knowledge in thecurriculum suggests that a planner may view knowledge as sociallyconstructed in the teaching-learning transaction. The process ofmanaging the presentation of knowledge in the curriculum suggeststhat these planners see learners sharing responsibility forlearning experiences in the teaching-learning transaction. Thereported relationship of teacher and learners suggests that theseplanners view it as horizontal, based on respect and trust.Evaluation of learning suggests that these planners view it as ashared responsibility. Thus, planning practice is shaped byplanners’ educational philosophy.3.3.7 A Pocus of ConcernPlanning is normally triggered by a focus of concern, aplanner’s sense of desirable practice, which initiates a problemsetting stage. Although this component has received little268discussion in the planning literature, it makes explicit theinherent value position of planning practice. For instance, aplanner’s concern over the high drop out and failure rate amongaboriginal students triggered planning activities. These include:a description of the problem, assessment of learners’ needs, anddevelopment of courses on Native Studies.3.3.8 The Importance of the Political Dimension in PlanningAlthough identifying and selecting content as part ofdeveloping the curriculum is well defined in the planningliterature, its underlying political dimension is not often madeexplicit. In some planning situations, this task is a process ofnegotiation with stakeholders, learners, and instructors todetermine concepts and methods which form a comprehensive body ofknowledge to be included in program of studies. These plannersgather declarative knowledge relevant to the nature and design ofprograms, the format of programs, content to be offered givenlearners’ educational needs, characteristics, and knowledge, theplanning context, and their values and beliefs.Further, practice is informed by procedural knowledge. Theseplanners undertake informal and formal strategies related toplanning to negotiate the content. A planner held a series ofmeetings with instructors, learners, and stakeholders; collaboratedwith committee members to determine the major topics; acted as acontent specialist to the committee; and independently selectedcontent for programs.Planners’ decisions are informed by conditional knowledgewhich includes a consideration of a number of factors. The contentto be offered is not only based on learners’ characteristics and269educational needs, but also on negotiation with stakeholders. Aplanner used a defensible design to deliver content; employed adefensible sequence to offer courses; identified instructors, classsize, and tutorial supports to deliver content; and built consensusamong community’s and institution’s goals to offer the program.3.3.9 Orientations of PlanningThese planners develop programs intuitively using a variety oforientations: content, learner, and problem-situation. Houle(1972), Apps (1985), and Sork and Buskey (1986) indicate that theseorientations in adult education draw conceptually on education.For instance, one planner stressed a content-centered view toplanning, and used a high degree of control over planningactivities and curriculum organization. This is consistent with anacademic orientation. Some planners used a learner-centered viewto planning which stresses learners’ personal development andactive participation in managing the teaching learning transaction.One planner who used a content-centered approach also used aproblem-situation approach to planning which stresses a low degreeof planner control over learners and management of planningactivities, and loose control over curriculum organization. Aproblem-situation approach parallels Freire’s (1970) view ofplanning as praxis (reflection and action), and Boyle’s“Developmental Framework”. In this particular framework, Boylestresses that planning is “. . .constantly being adapted to theactual situation”, and requires situational analysis of communityand clientele (p.51-52).Each planning orientation has a unique focus and in practicethese orientations are not used in their ideal forms (Gay, 1980).270These planners use a variety of approaches, or an eclectic planningapproach. As well, planners shape given components of planning inways that correspond to their analysis of the situation and theirpersonal values and beliefs.For instance, a planner whose practice is informed by aprinciple of economy of content, modified a program to includecontent which facilitates transfer to other content and learners’self-sufficiency. Some planners’ values and beliefs in a learner-centered approach informed decisions to expand programs based onlearners’ needs which are identified from observation anddiscussion of learners’ difficulty in the program, discussions withinstructors, and experience based on personal knowledge of thesituation. On the one hand, one planner’s practice was guided bya problem-situation in the community, given stakeholders’ goals foreconomic and political independence. On the other hand, in anothersituation, this same planner’s practice was guided by a firm beliefin the intrinsic value of a body of knowledge to be passed on tolearners.The study suggests that the content-focused orientation is anintegral part of planning practice because it is a starting pointfor novice planners. However, the data support the empirical claimthat this orientation is not used wholesale in practice (Taylor,1970; Zahorik, 1975; Yinger, 1977; and Pennington and Green, 1976).Further, this orientation is rarely appropriate with practicesituations because they are often complex, uncertain and unique.Rather, based on deliberation in the situation over thecommonplaces, planning practice is shaped by planners’ practicalknowledge. The data reveal that planning practice is deliberative271-intentional, systematic, and emergent.Planners have different understandings of a problem and theunderstanding of some planners shifts as they act in the situationand gain more knowledge. As planners gain more experience andknowledge, they acquire a wide repertoire of strategies and ways ofthinking about a situation. However, there will likely be aconsiderable disparity among planners about what to do in any givensituation. Further, the uniqueness, uncertainty, and complexity ofplanning situations described suggest that it may be difficult tobe prescriptive about these situations. Prescriptions flow from aconsensus about the problem. However, as we have seen, the problemfrequently shifts as planning evolves, making the application ofthe means-ends framework inappropriate. The study providesillustrations of how this happens in practice, and the difficultyof prescribing what should be done in practice. The next sectiondeals with data related to the nature of the relationship of theconceptions of planning and practical knowledge.4 A Deliberative Practical Planning ProcessThese planners reformulate given components of planning,through their practical knowledge and the commonplaces, based on adeliberative practical planning process, not a logical sequence ofsteps. Planners gather data through direct, indirect, and tacitlearning in relation to the task, others, and self, and transformthese into knowledge to understand the situation, and makedecisions.Planning deals with questions “what”, “how”, “why”, and “when”which are located in concrete situations. Planning is a complexform of human interaction and action in the situation to gain272insight and understanding. The source of planning problems is thesituation, and the method of planning is deliberation which leadsto defensible decisions within a moral and ethical framework.Deliberation, which is informed by practical knowledge, isfundamental to planning. It is a complex and difficult activity inwhich both ends and means mutually influence one another. Theseplanners “factor in” the commonplaces in deliberative planning.They gather information which they perceive is relevant and usefulto the situation; anticipate and generate alternative solutions;weigh consequences of solutions; and choose the most defensiblesolution given the situation. Central to deliberation arecontextual values and planners’ metaphors, values and beliefs -ethical, moral, and ideological commitments or a framework ofvalues- that contribute to their critical practice.In summary, the study promotes a new look at planning practiceas well as practical knowledge. Practical knowledge incorporatesa dialectical relationship among three kinds of knowledge whichinform practice. Also, it was recognized that planners identify,weigh, and select educational alternatives in planning. In thisprocess, planners, through their practical knowledge, contextualizeand problematize planning to arrive at defensible decisions. Thissuggests that planning practice incorporates the moral, ethical,and ideological character of planners’ knowledge. And, the purposeof planners’ practical knowledge is to describe, understand, andmake the “best” decision. Thus, practical knowledge facilitatesinformed planning practice. In this regard, deliberative practicalplanning forms a tentative conceptual framework of practice.2735 Suggestions for Further ResearchThis study has delineated practical knowledge as an essentialpart of planning practice which shapes that practice. Ofparticular interest were the dialectical relationship of the threekinds of knowledge which defined practical knowledge, as well ashow planners acquired declarative/theoretical knowledge and used itfor practical purposes. Also, attention was given to the largeinfluence of conditional knowledge on planning. Of furtherimportance were the nature and character of planning context, aswell as the dynamic, interactive, and interdependent character ofthe planning. Thus, the study highlights practical knowledge andpractical planning as critical to the study of program planning.First, one area that bears closer study is the nature of therelationship of the three kinds of knowledge in practice. Toelaborate on this, while the study identifies three kinds ofpractical knowledge, the study does not clearly address howplanners with different educational levels and backgrounds usethese three kinds of knowledge in practice. Based on what has beendescribed in this study, further studies might ask: What is thenature of the movement from one type of knowledge to the next basedon planners’ educational level and background?Second, the data suggest that contextual and personal valuesinfluence planners’ choice among three distinct planning models: acontent, a learner, or a problem-centered model. As well, thenature of planning is characterized by indeterminacy andcontingency (complex, unique, and uncertain practice situations)which suggests a view of planning different from the prevailing oneof certainty and predictability. Thus, further studies are needed274to reveal the implications of this shift in perspective of planningpractice as well as the impact of contextual and personal values onmodels of practice. Questions may include: Would a planner, whohas completed a graduate program in adult education, draw freelyfrom a content, a learner, or a problem centered view to planning?What is the nature of the interaction of practical knowledge andnovice or experienced planners’ practice? Is the mark of expertplanning in the selection of the most appropriate view to planningfor a specific program? Given this shift in perspective, what newknowledge, skills, and abilities would planners require?Third, the study touched a number of components of planningwhich need further exploration. The unit studied is structured ona team concept and a flat organizational structure wherein coachingand mentoring mediated practice. There is a need to study therelationship of coaching and mentoring on planning, as well as therelationship of models of planning, the nature of collaboration,and successful programs. Also, some planners indicated that thereis a difference between purposeful planning and program growth anddevelopment versus maintenance. A study is needed to uncover thenature of these differences. Further, these planners were oftennot the content specialists for programs they developed. However,they conducted activities for instructors such as professionaldevelopment, orientation sessions, and classroom observation. Astudy of the relationship of these activities and program outcomesmay provide insight into program quality.Finally, the study points to the contextual and problematicnature of planning as well as the ethical, moral, and ideologicalcharacter of practice. However, the study does not clearly address275the nature of the relationship of planners’ belief system andpractice. Further studies might explore the ideological characterof practice which may illuminate how various forms of knowledge arecontrolled and maintained, as well as an ethical model forpractice. These studies are important to the study of adulteducation and program planning.6 Implications and DiscussionWithin the context of continuing education for planners, thefindings, and the backdrop of the theoretical concepts, a number ofimplications surface which relate to critical practice, acurriculum agenda, deliberative practical planning, a learningorganization through mentoring and coaching, ethical practice, alanguage of discourse, and the importance of values in planning.These are explored in the remainder of this chapter.6.1 Critical PracticeWithin the context of the adult education literature, a bodyof knowledge has been identified as important for effective andefficient practice (Rossrnan and Bunning, 1978; and Daniel and Rose,1982). Further, Houle (1980) and the Council of Europe (1980) haveidentified the need for the body of knowledge to address thepersonal and professional educational needs of practitioners in thefield. Building on this, Brookfield (1986) has stressed aneducational agenda which fosters critical thinking. However, theimportance of a body of knowledge which incorporates a discussionof the nature of practical knowledge of planning practices has beenlargely ignored in continuing education of planners.The study suggests a body of knowledge which fails to includean understanding of practical knowledge and practical planning is276limited. Program planning which includes these theoreticalconcepts facilitates informed practice. As argued, planners’practice implies a conceptual framework which renders practicemeaningful. Making explicit planners’ often implicitly heldconceptual framework of planning and practical knowledge may leadto greater self-understanding and critical thinking. By analyzingthe processes and content of declarative, procedural, andconditional knowledge, planners can examine in depth their planningapproaches. They may become aware of the gaps in their knowledgeand pursue further studies. Planners wh