Curriculum

Occasionally I become aware that some of the participants in a BEPV workshop have had prior experience with the workshop. Some may have participated in a full workshop or completed the train-the-trainer course, others may have been introduced to the BEPV content in a speech or webinar.

Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik on FlickR.

I am often uncertain about how to address the range of experience in the audience. If I teach primarily to the inexperienced, I run the risk of disengaging those familiar with the content. If I teach to those with experience, I may frustrate the newbies. Because I usually do the former, I am willing to bet that more than a few participants have emerged from one of my workshops mumbling, “Well, that was nothing new.”

Last week at a training session for the LEAD21 leadership development program, a trainer used an approach that I think can be effective with a mixed-level-of-experience group. The trainer first asked group members who had been through a similar training to identify themselves. S/he then named these people as the group’s experts on the topic, and said that s/he would call on them to enrich the training by sharing their own experiences. Instead of expressing unease that some people in the group were already familiar with the content (which I’m sure I have done), the trainer showed gratitude that the room was rich with peer expertise.

Here are some ways I can see using this approach in a BEPV workshop:

==Ask people with prior experience to not only identify themselves, but describe briefly the kind of experience they have had (e.g., prior workshop, writing public value messages).
==If time allows–and if the experts are few in number–ask them to explain why they have chosen to attend the training again. I might use that information to more effectively prioritize the program content.
==Arrange participants so that the experts are distributed among the work groups.
==Before setting groups to work on an activity, ask the experts what they recall as the pitfalls for that activity, For example, I can imagine someone saying, “I remember that it takes a while to get all the way through the stakeholder exercise. Make sure you quickly choose a program to work on and move ahead to the exercise.”
==During the next steps module, ask the experts what steps they have taken since their original training, and what obstacles and successes they have experienced.

I am grateful to the LEAD21 trainers for the reminder to draw “expert” participants into the conversation and to encourage them to share their knowledge with their peers.

(Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik on FlickR.)

A couple of posts ago I highlighted the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s (CIRM’s) elevator pitch challenge for its fund recipients. I linked to CIRM’s #sciencepitch web page that contains links to the grantees’ videos. But I failed to draw your attention to the video on the front page that depicts CIRM’s Director of Public Communications, Kevin McCormack, introducing the challenge. He asks, “Do people’s eyes glaze over when talk about your research?” and “Do reporters hang up on you when you talk about your work?” Check out the video for amusing scenes of researchers struggling to hold a co-worker’s or a reporter’s attention. Do Extension advocates ever struggle in the same way?

In the video, McCormack offers tips for constructing an effective pitch: make the pitch “short, simple, clear, articulate, informative, engaging, even entertaining.” All of those adjectives could apply to an effective public value message for an Extension program, with a few more suggestions shown in the slide below

Elements of a program’s design can influence how much public value the program can create. Module 9 of the Building Extension’s Public Value Presenter’s Guide lists a number of those elements:

When I was at the 2012 Women in Agriculture Educators National Conference last week, I was reminded of the risk management education program for farm and ranch women known as Annie’s Project. It is an example of a program that achieves its impact by targeting a carefully selected audience: women who are motivated to be involved in a farm or ranch business. Not knowing much more about the project than that, I wondered how the Annie’s Project curriculum is tailored to its target audience. After all, if the program could achieve its objectives using all the same approaches as a traditional risk management education program–which historically were targeted to men–then it wouldn’t be necessary to have a separate program for women.

I have learned, partly from this 2010 Journal of Agricultural Education article by Lynn Hambleton Heins, Jeff Beaulieu, and Ira Altman, some of the ways that Annie’s Project is designed to be particularly effective with farm women learners. For example, the curriculum recognizes that women typically play different roles in the farm business and have different motivations for being involved in the business than men do.

I have also read and heard elsewhere–not in the Heins, Beaulieu, Altman paper–that the Annie’s Project uses educational approaches that address the specific learning needs of women, who learn better in supportive environments with other women. I haven’t found an article that describes these specific educational approaches or presents evidence that they are more effective with women learners than approaches used in traditional risk management classes. If any readers know of such a source, please let me know. With that evidence, I think Annie’s Project can be a fine example of a program that maximizes its public value through careful program design.

Source: Hambleton Heins, Lynn, Jeff Beaulieu, and Ira Altman. “The Effectiveness of Women’s Agricultural Education Programs; a Survey from Annie’s Project.” Journal of Agricultural Education 51,4 (2010):1-9.

Module 7 of the Building Extension’s Public Value workshop leads participants to answer the question “Why Extension?”–that is, why should Cooperative Extension, and not some other public or private entity, develop and deliver outreach education programs? We answer the question by listing the people and organizations that are perceived to deliver programs that are similar to what Extension does, and naming Extension’s strengths relative to those alternative providers. The result is a type of asset inventory: a list of the qualities that make Extension a preferred source for programming or the assets that we bring to the table when we engage in partnerships. The inventory usually includes Extension’s trained educators, research-based curricula, local knowledge, statewide and national networks, and connection to the land-grant university.

It can be affirming for Extension professionals to assemble this asset inventory and see the organization’s strengths. However, the exercise also gives us an opportunity for transformative learning through a disorienting dilemma, an idea from Jack Mezirow that I learned from Nancy Franz and wrote about in these blog entries.

The fact is, we can only use our list of Extension’s strengths to make our case for Extension funding if the items on the list are true. In the “Why Extension?” exercise, I challenge participants to think about whether their organization really does ensure that educators are using the best teaching methods, curricula are based on current research and local knowledge, and connections to the university and to key networks are maintained. Inevitably, I hear participants share that for their organization, there is frankly room for improvement in at least some of these areas.

I think this challenge can create a disorienting dilemma for some participants: they have been asked to switch from admiring their organization’s strengths to recognizing some of its weaknesses. I suggest that the way out of the dilemma is to see the asset inventory as a list of possible investments that Extension administrators can make to shore up Extension’s strengths. Investing in our strengths can help us make Extension’s best case.

I thought about this opportunity for disorientation and transformative learning on Tuesday of this week when I lead the “Why Extension?” exercise for Virginia Cooperative Extension professionals. Were you at the VCE workshop? What did you think of the exercise? Have you taught this module? What approaches work for you?

Last week I spoke at a workshop for grantees of the North Central Risk Management Education Center (NCRMEC). At the workshop, Karl Duley of University of Wisconsin Extension gave a presentation on meeting the needs of learners with different personality types, using the Myers-Briggs taxonomy. I wondered how well the “Building Extension’s Public Value” (BEPV) curriculum can be adapted for different kinds of learners. Below are a few of my own observations about how well the BEPV workshop–as I teach it–matches some of the learning preferences Karl described.

• Extroverts (E-types) prefer thinking out loud, working with other people, and group activities. The BEPV curriculum includes many small group activities, so I think we may do a good job of reaching E-types.
• Introverts (I-types) prefer quiet reflection and keeping their thoughts to themselves until they are comfortable. Karl demonstrated teaching to this preference by having us write down our answers to some of his questions, only sharing them later in the small group. In the BEPV workshop, when I introduce the different criteria for public sector action, I ask participants to think about the ways those criteria apply to their own programs. I can easily augment this by, after explaining each criterion, asking participants to write down the ways their program satisfies the criterion. This would give I-types a chance to reflect before speaking up, and would give everyone a list of ideas to refer to during the small group exercise.
• Sensing learners (S-types) prefer a practical approach to new material, providing skills and facts they can currently use. I think the worksheets, exercises, and examples in the BEPV workbook should serve this kind of learner well.
• Intuitive learners (N-types) prefer seeing the big picture before details. Spending adequate time on the introductory BEPV material (the workshop learning objectives, what is public value?, what is the purpose of the public value approach?) and periodic reminders of that material throughout the workshop can help I-type learners to keep track of the big picture.
• Thinking learners (T-types) focus on objective truths, free from emotional distractions. Basing the public value approach on the (somewhat clinical) principles of public economics should be satisfying to these learners.
• Feeling learners (F-types) feel comfortable taking into account people’s motives and personal values. One key objective of the BEPV workshop is to help learners see the value of their own program from the perspective of someone who is not a participant in that program. I ask them to “put themselves in the shoes of” that non-participant stakeholder and imagine what matters to that person. This exercise should be a cinch for the F-types!
• Judging learners (J-types) want clear structure in the learning situation from the beginning. The BEPV workshop is carefully organized into modules, each with learning objectives and exercises. I think J-types will feel comfortable the degree of organization in the curriculum.
• Perceiving learners (P-types) prefer open exploration with limited structure. Hmm. Being a clear J-type myself, I may have designed a curriculum that doesn’t serve this type of learner very well. I need to think of ways to insert–into a highly structured workshop!–some unstructured time to allow for a more creative flow of ideas.

Have you ever tried to modify a curriculum to meet different learning styles? Did you use the Myers-Briggs taxonomy, or do you find a different approach more useful? Do you have suggestions for how to make the BEPV curriculum more learner-friendly?

This summer I will be updating the curriculum materials for the “Building Extension’s Public Value (BEPV)” and “Public Value of Programs (PVofPP)” workshops. For each workshop, we are updating the slideset, the participant’s workbook, and the presenter’s guide.

If you have taken the BEPV train-the-trainer course and are using the curriculum materials to teach your own BEPV workshops, or if you are a UM Extension Educator who teaches PVofPP, I would love to hear your suggestions for revising the materials. Have you noticed typos in the printed materials? Have you thought of ways the workshop activities can be improved? Can you suggest updated examples for presenters to use? Are there images or graphics that you think would improve the materials’ look? Please share any ideas at all in the comments here or in an email to me.

Thank you for your suggestions. I look forward to sharing the revised materials later in the year.

Many Extension programs receive sponsorships from third parties: individuals, businesses, or organizations that wish to ensure that a program takes place. The program’s sustainability sometimes hinges on the sponsor’s financial support, and sponsors have an interest in the program’s outcomes. University of Minnesota Extension’s Farm Transfer and Estate Planning program is an example. According to Agricultural Business Management Extension Educator Gary Hachfeld, sponsors for the program include attorneys, accountants, and bankers who support the program so that their clients (and others) may attend.

When assembling a public value message, we consider the private benefits to the program participants and the public value that accrues to the greater community. But, is it legitimate for a program to also create benefits for the third-party sponsors? In my view, when the sponsor’s financial support is crucial to the program, and the program persists in creating substantial public value, creating benefits for the sponsor is warranted.

Consider the schematic below, based on the diagram we typically use to illustrate the elements of a public value message:

Note that the program’s outcomes may result in private benefits, public value, and sponsor benefits. Moreover, the sponsor’s interests may overlap with those of the program participant (private benefits) and the greater community (public value). In the case of the farm transfer program, a sponsoring attorney may value improved business outcomes for her clients, as well as an increase in demand for her own estate planning services. Being a member of the same community as her clients, she may also value the economic vitality and social capital improvements that arise from the program.

So, generally, where the interests of a third-party sponsor coincide with–or at least do not compete with–a program’s public value, a sponsorship can create a win-win-win-win for Extension, program participants, the sponsor, and the community.

Yesterday I taught a short version of the “Public Value of Public Programs (PVPP)” workshop for a Public Affairs class at the University of Minnesota. The PVPP workshop content is similar to that of the BEPV workshop, and the objectives are the same: to help people who develop, teach, evaluate, and advocate for publicly funded outreach programs to make a case for that public funding. The difference is that PVPP is not directed at Extension professionals, but at program providers in the government and nonprofit sectors.

I presented the slide below to introduce the idea that under conditions of market failure, collective action(for example, by the public or nonprofit sector) can improve the outcome for a community.

A student asked whether I was assuming that government or nonprofits would act efficiently and in the best interests of the people. In some developing countries, he noted, governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are sometimes inefficient and corrupt. Their action, even in the presence of market failures, can make a community worse off than if the market failures had persisted.

Indeed, the PVPP program addresses the role of the public and nonprofit sectors when private enterprises (“the market”) fail, but is silent on the possibility of government or nonprofit failures. A shortcoming, indeed.

So, yes, to make a strong case for public funding of a program, it is necessary not only to explain how a public or nonprofit organization can in theory address issues that the private sector cannot (market failure), but to provide evidence that your organization will in practice act efficiently, benevolently, and honorably for the public good.

In Extension’s case, we can safely assume that our organizations always act efficiently, benevolently and honorably, right? Right?

Earlier this month I gave a short talk on the public value of Extension and outreach programs for the Western Rangelands Partnership. The organization’s website, Rangelands West, is source of research and educational resources for rangeland managers, landowners, and residents of western states.

I drafted an example of a public value message for a hypothetical rangeland outreach program. In my example, the target stakeholder is a state resident who is not directly involved in the outreach program–or rangeland management–and who may have little awareness of the business and recreation uses of rangeland. Nevertheless, the resident is concerned about threats to the state’s water resources.

Do you have some experience and/or expertise with outreach programs targeted at rangeland managers? Have you done public value work for such programs? Feel free to critique my example or share your own in the comments.

 

(Photo credit: Beef Cows and Calves at the Matador Cattle Co’s Beaverhead Ranch by Edwin Remsberg USDA/CSREES)

* To register for the March 2010 “Building Extension’s Public Value” train-the-trainer course, go here. The registration fee is $100 per participant. To encourage institutions to send teams of staff to the training, the maximum total registration fee for any institution is $500.

* The training will be conducted online, via UMConnect, and will consist of two, two-hour sessions, with all participants attending both sessions. The training sessions will be Monday, March 29, and Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 2:00-4:00 Eastern; 1:00-3:00 Central; 12:00-2:00 Mountain; 11:00-1:00 Pacific; 9:00-11:00 Hawaii.

* Prior to the beginning of the sessions, participants will receive an email notifying them of how to participate in the two online sessions and how to download the training materials, including the Building Extension’s Public Value Presenter’s Guide, the Building Extension’s Public Value Workbook, and accompanying Powerpoint™ presentation.

* Questions about registration? Contact our help desk at [email protected] or 800-876-8636.

* Questions about program content and relevance to your work? Contact Laura Kalambokidis at [email protected].

* Other questions? Contact Diane McAfee at [email protected].