Clark B. Montgomery M.Ed. Extension Cohort Learning Task #5 June 3, 1999

What Do Our Clients/Constituents Think?

An Early Career workshop was conducted on May 3-4, 1999 for employees new to the Minnesota Extension Service. The workshop resulted from efforts of the organization's Professional Development Staff and additionally involved several of the M.Ed. Extension Cohort members. The intent of the workshop was to provide pertinent information/training that newer employees might utilize in reducing their frustrations and make quicker transition into their new career role. As one of the Cohort members involved in the workshop planning and program instruction, I consider the participants my constituents. As constituents AND co-workers, they were more than willing to provide qualified comment regarding their perceptions of what was/is needed from this and future orientation workshops.

At the conclusion of the workshop, participant questionnaires were completed regarding Learnings/Highlights and Suggestions for each program component. [Digressing from the theme of this writing, I found the use of that particular wording interesting and effective in eliciting constructive criticism. It seemed to solicit needed information without opening the door to undue praise or complaint. I wish it was my idea, but it wasn't.] The Suggestion responses were a combination of topic requests and, more importantly, indicators of what worked and what didn't regarding the transfer of information. From an educator perspective, it's the transfer of information that's important. Information conveyed that is absorbed, understood and utilized by clientele is indeed a remarkable achievement. That result is more than the sum of its parts. Without demeaning the importance of topics/research data/information, there appears to be particular emphasis on teaching techniques, student/instructor relationships and atmosphere that was expressed by participants. Phrased differently, the participants seemed to be more concerned that information be presented in a fashion they could absorb than concerns over topics to be addressed. I find that quite interesting and possibly revealing. Perhaps concern over teaching methods is a more common reaction of students/constituents than we assume.

Within the program evaluation, three main points seemed to surface again and again. Although the identity of those making statements is unknown, it's probably safe to assume the comments are from a collection of participants rather than one or two individuals, i.e. a general consensus of opinion. After consolidating all the comments from the Suggestions section, the three general requests that emerged were 1) instruction be pragmatic; 2) utilize examples and demonstration when presenting information; and 3) allow more time for informal group interaction. To substantiate those observations, the Learning/Highlights section of the evaluation reflected the same concepts. In general, what they liked and/or felt had value met one or more of the above criteria. Conversely, what they criticized violated one or more of the above standards, i.e. too lengthy, too abstract, too confining.

As an Extension Educator with no specific training in education, I've had to "fly by the seat of my pants" in order to achieve any measure of success. Most of what I understand about education has been learned through trial and error, with the error column significantly more lengthy. Recent involvement in the cohort program has afforded myself exposure to formal training about theory and application of education. A significant (to me) piece of work is the Learning Pyramid (Vernette & Sheeran, Niagra University). The Pyramid schematic is simple, easy to understand, and seemingly accurate. The approval/disapproval comments made by Orientation Workshop participant's parallels the Learning Pyramid almost exactly. I suspect that might be true in many, if not most, educational situations. If that statement is indeed true, why does education (in general) continue to predominantly utilize teaching methods that are proven less effective? There are likely many justifications for those applications, including an argument for efficiency and order. Having spent some time trying to rationalize why this phenomenon exists, I can also envision issues of instructor recognition, power and control contributing to the decision. Educators, at whatever level, are also human and subject to the same desires and motivations as the rest of the population. It may be a stretch, but the top of the Learning Pyramid seems more likely to feed an instructor's ego than techniques at the lower end. Is it possible that subliminal gratification of the instructor ego plays a role in education effectiveness? # # # #

-- Anonymous, June 04, 1999