PROJECT #2

In late October, the M.Ed. cohort group met on the St. Paul campus to be introduced to the governance team and to learn more about the Masters of Education program we were enrolled in. During the course of the day, we were able to suggest topics we were interested in, and later met with others of the same interest. One of those interest areas was New Educator Training and what people are learning at those sessions.

Sue Damme led the discussion and several educators became very interested in working with Sue at a future training. Sue convened a conference call to confirm interest and possible involvement by several cohort members. Out of this, six cohort members became involved in evaluating participants from previous New Educator Trainings, planning the January Early Career Workshop and presenting sessions at the workshop.

Vince Crary, Kari Fruechte, Kia Harries, Joyce Jacobs, Clark Montgomery and Will Yliniemi were the cohort members involved with Sue Damme as the planning team. Jodi DeJong was also involved as a recent "graduate" of the Early Career Workshops and was a valuable resource to the planning team as well. Conference calls and an ITV session were used by this group to plan the workshop. On January 25, 26 and 27, the planning team was in Alexandria at Arrowwood Resort for the Early Career Workshop where twenty-two new educators gathered to become orientated about their role in Extension and to learn about resources within Extension. The goal of this Early Career Workshop was to introduce people to resources, programs and the work that is done within Extension. This information was provided by current educators with five or more years of experience and resource people suggested by the planning team.

There were five sessions that were planned and led by six educators who are in the M.Ed cohort group. Those sessions were: Benefits of Working for Extension Small Group Question and Answer about Extension Working with and in Counties 12 Commandments and Personal Accountability Programming

Many other components were led by cohort members but used other resource people to deliver the information. The cohort group also led the final evaluation session (with many reminders to make comments on a formal written evaluation as well) which was how we received very valuable information about the three day workshop. Questions in the evaluation session included: What was helpful to you? What could/should be done differently? Any ideas or suggestions for the next workshop? How did you feel about having seven experienced educators as part of the planning/presenting group?

Feedback from the group was terrific. The questions were asked to the whole group and they were asked to provide feedback as they so desired, since they also had a written summary. There was a mix of experience among the participants as well, as approximately half had attended a previous training, or possibly two in the past.

Comments were generally positive about what was helpful. Many of the new staff appreciated the actual examples of programming that were given, as ideas of how to go about setting up their own programs. Another positive comment regarded the information on doing the job during the first few weeks and how accountability fits into the daily work. A frequently mentioned comment was the planning and teaching by educators which felt different than the "control" by University staff , who had previously done much of the teaching. (Control was the word used, but I interpreted it to mean direction and function). An important point was brought out that all extension educators bring experience and expertise to the job, so you could contact new people as well as those with Extension experience, because there was a wealth of knowledge in that room and in this organization.

The group had some valuable input about conference calls being a part of the agenda. Due to an illness and a last minute scheduled meeting, there were two conference calls back to back. The group did not find them to be very easy to listen to, focus on and participate with. Another process was recommended to try, or eliminate those components on conference call completely. The room setup and atmosphere was another suggestion as the size and setup determined how comfortable people were with getting to know others, as well as paying attention. Another recommendation was to make sure a District Director was in attendance throughout the workshop to not only answer questions but to give perspective on situations, etc. There was also a suggestion to add state specialists or campus based faculty to the workshop as resources. Holding the workshop on campus so people would have the opportunity to meet staff or become associated with the campus was an alternative.

When we asked for suggestions of what to include for the next workshop, we received tremendous feedback from the group. Some of the suggestions included conflict resolution, evaluation of program, how to address new audiences, now to complete performance assessments, and some resources about writing or speaking with the media. These suggestions will be reviewed by the planning committee and will be implemented into the next workshop as appropriate.

Feedback regarding the involvement of experienced educators was extremely positive. During the entire workshop, comments were heard about how good it was to bounce ideas off of others, as well as to meet people who might share the same specialization or background that could lead to future programming connects, etc. The best feedback about having experienced educators involved came unsolicited via e-mail a few days after the conference, when one of the participants thanked us for our contributions. That feedback is important to consider when planning future workshops, so new educators have resources available to them while learning about the vast possibilities in this job.

Some informal observations made by the planning team were very important and were noted for future reference. In one instance, several questions were not answered and were being strung out by a panel. One new educator spoke up and said " if you dont know the answer, please say so and move on." That was an important point to make and it reflected the feelings of the group. The planning team immediately noticed the time of day and the attention span in the room. These were important and will help us plan for when we schedule another session of that type.

Another valuable observation occurred when the group was doing things such as sitting at meals and evening entertainment. The camaraderie was established at those times when they were allowed to meet others in an unstructured setting. Those are important times to allow during a conference so people can ask questions and visit with others about common interests. The camaraderie was important as people built it on their own. The planning team had tossed around the possibility of an ice breaker, but some members of the planning team were opposed to the idea. After the session, it was evident that most people preferred not to do an ice breaker, but to meet people on their own terms. A valuable lesson for us!

As the planning team watched the new educators over those three days, it was obvious how diverse the learning styles were. That diversity of learning styles made it impossible for every person to benefit from every session, yet the diverse delivery of topics (intended for that variety of learning styles) allowed everyone to get something of value from the workshop. That is a pretty significant learning for the planning team as we think ahead to the next workshop in May and how we can help meet the diverse needs of the participants. It is also important to remember that the evaluation comments reflect the pros and cons of how people viewed the different learning experiences.

The planning team became very cohesive over the planning time and during the workshop. It began with the six members having different ideas and needs, but ended with a team that worked well together and built on the skills and talents of each member. Having Sue Damme orchestrate the planning team was very helpful and it was her encouragement and trust in the cohort members that allowed us to move forward and succeed.

As the planning team looks ahead to May 3,4 and 5 and the next Early Career Workshop, we have already made notes about the opportunities we can provide to new educators and how this experience in January has helped us to realize the potential of working together. The six members of the cohort group bring new ideas, different experiences and backgrounds and a variety of presentation skills to the planning team and this combination helps to make it a successful experience for those who attend.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

Answers

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this....the day after our final exams were done, I had to go to a week-long technology camp where I felt like a prisoner! I kept thinking all during the 8 hours per day we were in the computer labs about how your team is working so hard to gather information about optimum teaching/learning situations and how my administration who planned Tech Camp had a lot to learn from you all!

I am guessing that one or several of you on your team are gathering peoples expert lists from these assignments? Certainly seems like a rich source of information.

I think it is a great idea to have someone (or several, maybe from different media--tv, newspaper, radio) come to give pointers about how to get what you communicated TO them and what you want communicated BY them. Great idea.

Glad you received the unsolicited e-mail response...sometimes those things do fall in our laps!

The more I get to know Sue Damme, the more I realize how fortunate you all are to have her expertise and support....she is so knowledgeable AND she really believes in the work you all do! (She told us the story about the goat...we LOVED it!)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 1999