Running Head: Case Study 1 Analysis

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

Group #4: Alma, Charlie, Lucero, Ron, Teri Lewis
EDLD 8135 - Planning/Dr. D. Jensen
Georgia Southern University

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

Identify and interpret the relevant facts

Group 4 will analyze this case using the classical viewpoint and reference the
administrative perspective. Case study 1, Updating Practitioners in University Continuing
Education, features the annual seminar sponsored by the College of Pharmacy at State
University. The annual seminar is a prominent continuing education event for the College of
Pharmacy and is promoted in conjunction with the annual alumni weekend in hopes of gaining
the largest target audience. The college can highlight their exceptional level of faculty and to
exhort the college as a leader in cutting-edge knowledge. The principal objective of the annual
seminar is to extend academic opportunities to current pharmacists and to keep them informed of
new developments and to assist with mandated re-licensing requirements for their profession.
For programs to be successful, substantial planning is required. The planning committee
established for this event consisted of three main members associated with the college and a few
local pharmacists. Bob is the director and has a long career in planning and administration with
no former career in the pharmacy profession. Carl, a third generation pharmacist, is the
Coordinator of Continuing Education. Richard is a former practicing pharmacist but now serves
as a full professor in the College of Pharmacy at State University. Richard was selected as this
years annual seminar program director. Wanting to appeal to a wider audience required great
consideration in choosing the topics and the presenters.
Critical Issues and Root Problems
Many issues were raised throughout the planning of the seminar, most due to a lack of
communication between the event planners. From the beginning, the coordinators failed to
communicate to correctly apply their professional background and educational skills during the
planning phase. Carl and Bob, the primary planners of the event, had extensive experience in

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

program planning and continuing education, yet, seemed very detached from the planning.
Richard, who had the most knowledge on the subject, had no experience regarding program
planning, was left to organize and implement most of the seminar on his own.
In the same manner, lack of communication led to issues in the seminars program
planning calendar. In this case, the organizers of the event failed to use key timing for event
planning, such as the summer months, which are not as rigorous for faculty and staff due to a
smaller student population on campus. Also, the program planners took many breaks during the
planning period, causing them to rush and make last minute programming decisions regarding
the topics, speakers, content, and seminar schedule. The lack of planning time affected the
overall quality of the workshop although it was deemed a success.
A future issue that may arise, due to the lack of communication during planning, is the
possibility of not meeting the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE)
guidelines for program certification. Since the planners made last-minute changes to the schedule
and the number of instructional hours, if audited, the ACPE could find the objectives do not
match the content of the presentations, as well as the actual hours of instruction. While these
decisions did not have any major effect on the overall seminar, they could affect any future event
if the ACPE were to deny any future certification for continuing education programming.
Apply theory to decision making and identify inconsistencies with theory
Several principles of the classical viewpoint were adhered to in this case. First, the program
planners considered several methods to diagnose the needs of learners and participants of this
conference. Planners brought in a committee of external experts and practitioners and used statewide surveys to discuss the most important and current topics. The facilities at the continuing
education center provided the needed learning conditions for the lecture style presentation.

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

University faculty were the human resource of knowledge gains, showcasing their excellent
faculty, the university, and saving on costs. Participants were able to measure the wealth of
knowledge for this seminar with the receipt of continuing education credits awarded for licensing
purposes, and planners received feedback based on post-event surveys.
While decision-making stayed within the realm of the classical viewpoint, it did not support all
of the elements. Program planners did not consult with participants to ensure their needs were
heard and implemented into the agenda. Instead, expert practitioners and surveys were used to
make those determinations. The classical viewpoint specifically calls for participants
involvement to ensure their needs are met. During various times of the planning, the committee
mentioned workshops as good agenda items to add. However, they were consistently shut down
by the group as it went against the lecture style and information overload format of the
conference. Finally, they had competing interests regarding resources and outcomes of learning.
The goal of a conference is to gain knowledge, not to bring back donors for a university. These
competing interests, which were present in the planning, can have a detrimental effect on the
experience.
Solutions from Alternate Perspectives
At the administrative level, the objective of providing continuing education for
pharmacists that met licensing requirements was partially subsumed by that of maintaining the
universitys status as the leading provider of new information in the state, particularly on alumni
weekend. Many decisions informed by these administrative considerations are in a purely
naturalistic light. The word judgment shows up multiple times in the case. For example, the
classical goal of starting from the desired learning objective and then planning in a way that
leads directly to it would not motivate planners to limit speakers to faculty. The planners did not

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

even write the objectives until after the speakers were chosen, and only to comply with ACPE
requirements (p. 77-78).
Among the individuals involved, Bob was the one whose role was most administrative.
Carl, however, even though he was a pharmacist as well as an administrator, was just as focused
on showcasing the leadership of the college as opposed to meeting learning objectives. Both
individuals were equally concerned with the event breaking even financially. Richard, a faculty
member in possession of the most current knowledge, was more insistent than the other two key
players concerning both content and delivery. He insisted the material be new to attendees,
germane to their practice, and delivered didactically. These standards were agreed upon by the
three leaders, but for different reasons. As a professor with no experience in planning, Richard
was concerned about delivering new content because it met an objective, exemplifying the
classical approach to planning. Carl and Richard saw such content as furthering the leadership
position of the College of Pharmacy, displaying a more seasoned, perhaps cynical, naturalistic
approach. The three were united when other committee members suggested an interactive
component or topics that likely would have been familiar to attendees, such as blood-pressure
screening. It was Richard, however, who maintained that including congestive heart failure as a
topic was in keeping with the learning objectives of the event, even though it was a topic often
covered at similar events, so long as the topic focused on new knowledge.
Select and plan out an appropriate action plan
The classical viewpoint utilizes a six steps in the planning process for adult learners. A
short survey should be sent out to all of the possible attendees to determine their interests so that
their needs can be met. A committee will be formed that consists of the continuing education
group as well as at least six members of the pharmacists that have attended previous

Case Study 1 Analysis: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

presentations. At a future presentation, a plan to select different committee members will be

discussed to broaden the level of involvement and encourage participation from the students.
Future conferences will take place in the modern continuing education space located on
campus. The new location will provide a better environment that will be more conducive to
understanding and retaining the material. The committee will discuss and evaluate the topics
from the survey and develop the communication method best suited for each topic. All the
committee members will have input into the process, and a majority vote will make final
decisions. If at all possible, some elements of the conference will be hands on which will help
with the learning process, as well as break up the conference and reduce boredom.
The committee will determine who should present the topics. Presenters may be a mix of
university faculty, practicing pharmacists, external experts, and manufacturers representatives.
The committee will develop the written materials with the input and direction of the presenters.
To meet the regulatory guidelines and to ensure the outcomes of the conference, the attendees
are presented with a pre and a post questionnaire on the material presented. Pre and post testing
will allow the determination of the baseline of the participant's and the delta change after the
presentations. The post-conference questionnaire can be used to solicit future topics and potential
committee members.