Partnership Programming: A Strategy for Successful Training Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Trainers today are faced with the imperative need to review their current programming practices and develop programs that are more collaborative and more assuring. Partnership programming offers a powerful tool for conducting successful training programs. The concept of partnership programming and its application in the Rural Education and Development Association's (REDA) leadership training program demonstrates its versatility. The purpose of this paper is to explicate the importance of partnership programming as a safe guard for survival of training programs. The paper draws on the REDA 5 experience in partnering with other programmers to survive the menace of competition and declining enrollment. The literature on partnership and collaboration provided the theoretical data while the researcher's observations of REDA's leadership training program and interviews with the stakeholders of the program (ie., the participants, funders, facilitators, and the organizers) provided the empirical and research data for this paper. In recent times, the survival of many organizations depends on partnership. In the face of competition, many training organizations have begun to seek strategies for survival. Many educational institutions, business organizations and government establishments are either folding up or merging. A significant feature of this trend is a shift from competitive or independent goals to mutually integrated or complementary goals. While the internal resources of many organizations are fast dwindling, and hence insufficient for the accomplishment of independent goals and aspirations, a pool of resources among related organizations, therefore becomes a necessity, if not the rule. According to Beder and Smith (1977), the key to these strategies is the formation of cooperative relationships with external individuals and organizations for their mutual benefit. A typical organization which has experimented with programming partnership is the Canadian Rural Education and Development Association (REDA) based in Edmonton, Alberta. Certainly, the challenges facing REDA's leadership training program requires another look at its traditional approach to planning. For a long time, the program always had lived with certain glitches and frustrations as a result of the intense competition for participants among various providers of leadership development programs. On many occasions, REDA has had to confront the problem of declining enrollment. For example, between 1976 and 1994, the program was cancelled nine times (Sogunro, 1996). Where the programs had not been cancelled, the attendance had been discouraging. This situation called for a collaborative arrangement with some of REDA's competitors. REDA had since initiated some collaborative efforts which have resulted in the design of a new approach to its leadership program, and the formation of a partnership referred to as Alberta LEAD Program (i.e., Alberta Leadership Education for Agricultural Development Program). The Alberta LEAD program represents a partnership relationship between three organizations: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Faculty of Extension of the University of Alberta, and REDA. The Alberta LEAD program was established to foster self-reliant industry organizations through the development of effective leadership skills. This paper draws the lessons from REDA's leadership training program to help organizations, especially those concerned with human resource development, to appreciate the value of using the concept of programming partnership as a tool for planning successful training programs. Perhaps because programming partnership per se is a relatively new concept, the literature with direct focus on it is sparse. However, before going any further, it might be helpful to start off with defining this new concept. Meaning of Programming Partnership As defined by Padak, Peck, Borthwick, and Shaklee (1993), partnership refers to people working together under certain guidelines and constraints to address an agreed upon mission (p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,029 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».