Will R. Yliniemi M.Ed. Extension Cohort Learning Task #1 March 8, 1999

ANALYSIS OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE In late October, the M.Ed. Extension Cohort group met on the St. Paul campus for introduction to the governance team and to learn more about the Masters of Education program. That day, we were able to suggest topics of personal importance, and later met with others with similar interests. One area discussed involved New Educator/Employee Training and what people were gaining from those sessions.

Leading the discussion was Sue Damme, U of MN Extension Staff Development Leader. Six educators expressed interest in becoming involved with the Early Career Training Workshop effort. The group was soon involved in interviewing previous Training participants, planning the January Early Career Training and presenting sessions at the workshop.

Vince Crary, Kari Fruechte, Kia Harries, Joyce Jacobs, Clark Montgomery and Will Yliniemi were the cohort members involved. Jodi DeJong was also involved as a recent "graduate" of the Early Career Workshops and was a valuable resource to the team. With the team members residing throughout the state, face to face meetings were difficult to arrange. The group used conference calls and ITV sessions for workshop planning. On January 25-27, the Minnesota Extension Service Early Career Workshop was conducted at the Arrowwood Resort in Alexandria, MN. Twenty-two new educators gathered to become orientated about their role and the resources within Extension. Workshop sessions were delivered by cohort team members, with five or more years Extension experience, and by resource people suggested by the planning team.

Five sessions were planned and delivered by the six M.Ed. Cohort educators. Those were 1. Benefits of Working for Extension 2. Small Group Question and Answer about Extension 3. Working with and in Counties 4. Twelve Commandments and Personal Accountability and 5. Programming

Other program sessions were led by cohort members but relied on other University professional for delivery. The cohort group also conducted the final evaluation session (with many reminders to make comments on by formal written evaluation) and received valuable information about the three-day workshop. Questions in the evaluation session included: 1. What was helpful to you? 2. What could/should be done differently? 3. Any ideas or suggestions for the next workshop? 4. How did you feel about having seven experienced educators as part of the planning/presenting group?

Feedback from the group was terrific. Questions were asked of the group and they were asked to respond in either written or oral form. Interestingly, roughly half the participants had attended a previous orientation session(s). As a result, there appears to be some correlation among previous experience and evaluation comment. Overall, comments were generally positive. Many of the new staff appreciated the presentation of actual examples of Extension programming. From that, many felt they were better prepared to set up programs of their own. Other positive comments were made regarding presentations on job responsibilities the first few weeks of employment and how accountability fits into daily work. A frequently mentioned comment was the effectiveness of planning and teaching by Extension educators (cohort team) rather than by University staff, a perception referred to as administrative "control". An important point was made that all Extension educators (veterans and newcomers) bring experience and expertise to the job and that a broad range of talent exists that should be regarded as an accessible resource by everyone in the organization.

The group provided valuable input about the effectiveness of conference calls as part of the agenda. Due to illness and a last minute scheduling, two consecutive presentations were conducted utilizing conference calls. The group found difficulty in listening, focusing and participating in those sessions. It was recommended that conference calls be eliminated as an instruction technique. Other comments pertained to the facilities and how those affected personal comfort, group congeniality and attention span. On that subject, there were a variety of preferences. Another recommendation was that a District Director be in attendance throughout the workshop. A directors presence is important, not only to address questions, but also to give perspective on personal situations, programming difficulties, etc. Other comments suggested involving state specialists or campus based faculty to serve as workshop resources. In addition, to conduct some orientation workshops on campus so new employees could meet St. Paul staff and become acquainted with those surroundings.

Asking for suggestions on what to include in the next workshop, we received tremendous feedback from the group. Some suggestions included addressing conflict resolution, program evaluation, engaging new audiences, completing performance assessments, writing skills and speaking with the media. Their suggestions will be reviewed by the cohort planning committee and will be implemented into the next workshop as appropriate.

The feedback received, regarding involvement of experienced educators in the training, was extremely positive. Throughout the workshop, comments were made on how good it was to bounce ideas off staff and the helpfulness of meeting experienced people that might lead to future programming connects, etc. From a personal perspective, the best feedback arrived in an unsolicited e-mail a few days after the conference - when one of the participants took the time to thank us for our contributions. All participant feedback is important and will be considered while planning future workshops.

Informal observations were another evaluation component conducted by the planning team throughout the workshop. Participant reactions, including body language, comments, nature of questions and attention span provided clues to the program's overall effectiveness. In one instance, several questions posed of a presentation panel were not being directly answered. One new educator, expressing the group's frustration, spoke up and said " if you don't know the answer, please say so and move on." That frustration seemed to reflect a combination of program content, program delivery, time of day and the attention span in the room. These are important observations and will help with future planning. Other observations were made of the group during meals and evening entertainment. It appears that group camaraderie developed quickly in these unstructured settings. The conclusion being that unstructured time is important, allowing participants time to meet and visit with others about common interests. Developing camaraderie is important and that seemed to occur more quickly when people are allowed to build it on their own. The planning team had preliminarily tossed around the possibility of an icebreaker, but that idea was not adopted. After the session, it was evident that most program participants do not prefer icebreakers. They prefer meeting new people on their own terms. A valuable lesson for us! As the planning team observed the new educators over those three days, it was obvious how diverse 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 allowed everyone to get something of value. That's a significant insight for the planning team and useful as we think ahead to the next workshop. To substantiate that comment, it's important to remember that the program evaluation comments also reflect the pros and cons of different learning experiences. No one liked everything, but everyone liked something.

The planning team became very cohesive as this effort progressed. What began as six members having different ideas and needs soon evolved into a team that worked well together. The unique skills and talents of each member were valued, utilized and complemented the entire process. Sue Damme's orchestration of the planning team was helpful. It was her encouragement and trust in the cohort members that allowed us to move forward.

As the planning team looks ahead to the next Early Career Workshop, the information, observations and insights gained at the Alexandria session are put to good use. Applying that knowledge, the group has already begun the planning process to provide new educators the information they need and in a format they will accept. The six members of the cohort group bring new ideas, different experiences and backgrounds, and a variety of presentation skills to the planning team. It's this combination that helps make Orientation Training a successful experience for participants.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 1999

Answers

Thanks, Will. You know Ive been reading and hearing about these sessions for a while from other folks, but it is really interesting to some very important themes and learnings reiterated. For example, there appears to be some correlation among previous experience and evaluation comment.--that is so important (even though its tricky to document) in planning what for whom.

Also, I hear this loud and clear again An important point was made that all Extension educators (veterans and newcomers) bring experience and expertise to the job and that a broad range of talent exists that should be regarded as an accessible resource by everyone in the organization. What an important comment on your collective expertise! I chuckle again when I read this, ..most program participants do not prefer icebreakers. They prefer meeting new people on their own terms. A valuable lesson for us! Im with you! (Dont know if anyones been around long enough to remember those ENDLESS and SILLY icebreakers of the early 70s! I always felt like I was somewhat of a bad person because I didnt like them!

-- Anonymous, May 31, 1999