…but that would be weird, I’m pretty sure.  I just finished compiling our discussion summary for Team One, and I have to say it was made a lot easier by the Caffarella text.  What a nice change of pace it was to read a text where the sentences weren’t so convoluted you had to read them four times in order to gain some sense.  It’s straightfoward and prescriptive.  I decided to read the first chapter also to make sure the second chapter made sense, and it was a common-sense discussion of the types of adult programs, and the types of outcomes achieved by these programs.

If only I had read Caffarella first.  I didn’t.  Instead, I started off with Bates and Poole, and found myself mired in a dicussion of Plato and Socrates.  Now don’t get me wrong – I have a history degree, so I eat this stuff up.  But in a book about program planning?  I could have done without the bizarre anecdotes.  Then I moved to Sork, which began with a discussion of Gauteng, South Africa.  Yikes.  Once you dug a little deeper into Sork, he made a lot of sense.  But not initially…

So, lesson learned.  Maybe if the book has the word “practical” in the title (as Caffarella does), you should read it first.  After I had read the chapter, I used it as  a base for comparing the other two texts, and learned a lot more.  I am quite keen to find out more about program planning, actually.  The whole idea of designing an online course freaks me out.  I’ve tried it once before – assigning homework for grade 9 students that was housed in a D2L shell, and it was basically an unmitigated disaster.  I have to admit that I use a much more critical eye when I look at online courses now.  Imagine me after this course – I’ll be a nightmare!!

Advertisements