Partnership Programming: A Strategy for Successful Training Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".