Program planners’ practical knowledge

Abstract

The adult education literature offers little analysis and
 understanding of the practical knowledge of the program planning
 process planners hold and use. Rather, a comprehensive review of
 theoretical sources revealed the widespread use of the academic
 model, informed by Tyler’s rationale, which has yielded a linear
 model of planning and a technical view of planners. By contrast,
 the theoretical sources on practical knowledge and on curriculum
 and teachers’ thinking pointed to the use of an experiential model,
 informed by Schwab’s theoretical concepts, which has presented
 planning as deliberative, and planners as creators and possessors
 of knowledge.
 The purposes of the study were to: gain an understanding of
 the kinds of practical knowledge planners in a university
 continuing education unit find useful and relevant to their
 decision making in program planning; acquire a greater
 understanding of the planning process from their perspective; and
 develop categories for interpreting these understandings. The
 research was guided by an interpretive perspective and qualitative
 methods.
 The study was conducted in two phases. A pilot and a follow
 up study. In total, a purposive sample of six planners, two males
 and four females, none of whom had pursued graduate study in adult
 education, working in the same institution, were interviewed.
 It was concluded that practical knowledge, which informs
 planning practice, consists of three kinds of knowledge:
 declarative, procedural, and conditional which stand in dialectical
 relationship to one another; and that planning practice requires
 that planners have and use all three kinds of knowledge. Further,
 planning is indeterminate and contingent on the context and
 planners’ knowledge. These planners’ practical knowledge
 incorporates a framework of concepts, rules and routines or
 strategies, beliefs, values, principles, and metaphors of practice.
 This framework has implications for planners’ criteria of valid and
 reliable knowledge, informal and formal planning strategies, the
 ideological character of knowledge, and ethics of practice. As
 well, these planners use a combination of planning approaches which
 are directly related to the nature of the planning context and
 their own capabilities. The contextual and problematic nature of
 planning is made explicit. The study challenges the prevailing
 assumptions associated with a traditional view of planning.

Education, Faculty of

Educational Studies (EDST), Department of

Graduate