UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

Case Study 1: Updating Practitioners in University Continuing Education

Group #4: Anitra Patrick, Carol Jones, Gia Johnson, Jeff Patty, Samantha Hughes
EDLD 8135 Educational Planning Dr. Devon Jensen
Georgia Southern University

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

Abstract
The following information was derived from a case study analysis of the College of Pharmacy at State
University. The goal of this paper is to analyze this particular case study topic to consider the
outcomes from a program planning perspective. The analysis will also identify which of the three
most commonly held philosophical viewpoints the participants most likely followed, and consider
alternative program planning viewpoints that might produce better results in the future. In conducting
this review, the group will identify and interpret the relevant facts, identify critical issues and root
problems, apply theory to decision-making and identify inherent inconsistencies with the theory,
generate solutions from alternative perspectives, and select an appropriate, action plan. In this
particular case study, the group believes the participants most closely followed The Naturalistic
Viewpoint, but with some elements represented from The Classical Viewpoint as well. The group
chose to conduct the analysis from the administrative perspective; particularly from the employees
vantage point, as they seemed to steer most of the decision-making for the planning committee.

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

Updating Practitioners in University Education

Background
This case study details the State Universitys College of Pharmacy annual seminar. The
purpose of the annual seminar is to offer practicing pharmacists with educational opportunities, to help
pharmacists meet mandatory licensing renewal requirements, and to provide up-to-date and new
information vital to the profession. The College of Pharmacy is committed to public service and
education, which enhances the pharmacists ability to practice. Additionally, they need to meet the
regulatory requirements of the profession by providing the proper structure, continuing education
hours, and topics necessary to maintain professional licensure. The College of Pharmacy also has a
goal of featuring local faculty and leadership of the college, furthering the marketing and economic
interests of the college.
Traditionally, the seminar is held annually during alumni weekend because the college wants to
draw in the largest crowd possible. The chosen topic for the annual seminar also has to be broad
enough so that enough people will take part. The topic and the presenters are imperative to the success
of the seminar. The topics, goals, and agendas need thorough planning in order for the College of
Pharmacy to sponsor a successful program as they have in years passed, but also with the goal of fully
covering all expenses from the profits of the seminar.
Although the planning takes much work, time, and effort, the determination was made that a
planning committee was essential to the success needed for the annual seminar. There are three main
members of the planning committee associated with the college, as well as a few local pharmacists.
Bob, the director, is not a pharmacist, but has a long career in planning and administration. Carl, is a
third generation pharmacist and is the Coordinator of Continuing Education. Richard, a former
practicing pharmacist and now a full professor, was selected as the program director for this years

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

annual seminar. For the first meeting of the planning committee, only two of the three panelists were
able to participate. For the second meeting, all three people were in attendance and by then some of
the decisions were already chosen for the planning committee by the college employees. The
employees chose the location and the topic for this years seminar, You and Your Patients Heart:
Update on Cardiovascular Disease and Therapy. All committee members, with little discussion,
accepted the chosen topic and site for the conference.
Critical Issues and Root Problems
While planning this seminar, the committee encountered many critical issues that needed to be
addressed and accompanying problems. The critical issues were: demonstrating the leadership of the
college by featuring faculty speakers who were experts on the subject matter, encouraging alumni
participation by holding the event during alumni weekend when alumni participation would be the
highest, creating a format that supports the goals of the Continuing Education program by setting a
price that would cover conference production costs with conference fees, and meeting the required
American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) certification requirements and professional
re-licensure requirements. The root problems of planning the seminar were centered on containing the
cost of the program and capturing acceptable attendance seminar attendee levels from nearby
practicing pharmacists and returning alumni. The planners knew from past experience with seminars
that it was vital for them to break even to cover all the associated costs of hosting the seminar.
Budgets could not handle another negative year in which the college had to pick up the costs. The
group also wanted to offer enough CE hours to fulfill the licensure requirements that participants had
to meet during the year, which was an essential element in attracting attendance. Additionally, the
committee also ensured the maximum participation rate and thus maximum revenue generated by
selecting a topic that had broad interest to attendees, offering the most credit hours possible by

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

tailoring the seminar content. Previous seminars were not structured with enough hours to make it
worthwhile for participants to attend a one-day conference. The content provided to the participants
had to meet the regulatory requirements of the profession as outlined by the ACPE, which included
course objectives and pre and post seminar self-assessment inventories.
Educational Planning Theory and Inconsistencies
The primary planners, Carl, Bob, and Richard, for the most part followed the Naturalistic
Viewpoint as decisions were made for the annual seminar. These decision details were made primarily
based on past experiences. The planners had several key factors that were set in concrete in their
minds, so as decisions arose around these constraints, the planners conformed the program to comply
within these guidelines. The planning process includes several variables. First, the College of
Pharmacy administrators made decisions based on feedback and observations from past seminars.
There was also an advisory committee comprised of the college administrators and other experienced
pharmacists that were assembled to help steer planning decisions. This committee was formed with
the intention to provide valuable insights into what the constituency of pharmacists attending the
seminar would most benefit from in regards to topics of interest. The college employees made most
decisions and many were already decided before the full committee met. Many of the ideas presented
to the committee garnered little discussion and for the most part the outside members of the committee
went along with the suggested ideas. This seminar has become a way to carry out more than educating
the nearby pharmacists, however, as the annual seminar has also been used to attract alumni to come
back to the school for alumni weekend. Additionally, the college uses all the events surrounding the
weekend as a way to encourage positive public relations and marketing for the school.
While the planning of this program had many positive aspects, there were some inconsistencies
with the planning model. The program content decisions were made before the decision-making

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

committee even convened. From the Naturalistic Viewpoint, there is a strong emphasis on deliberation
and practicable reasoning. The next inconsistency was that the planners tried to fit the presentation
material into a specific duration, which posed some difficulty for the planners to accomplish. Finally,
the colleges administrators did not allow the events location as a discussion point. The seminar
location is a very important aspect of the seminar and perhaps discussion about the location might
have resulted in not only different ideas, but possibly attracted additional attendance.
Alternative Solution of the Case and Action Plan
Based on alternative perspectives, there are other solutions that could have been carried out in
this planning process. The classical view suggests that program planners could have taken a slightly
different approach, such as asking what the program purpose would be. This question was asked
before the committee was formed. When the committee was created, it would have been beneficial if
the decisions were decided at the meeting with the full committee to keep the program consistent and
everyone on the same page. The critical viewpoint also suggests that it is important for planners to
make judgments that foster dialogue. Attempting to fit the amount of presentation materials selected
by the committee into a specific duration could not realistically allow adequate time for much dialogue
among participants. This beneficial measure would have allowed for question/answers sessions after
each presentation, so that everyone had the opportunity to really delve into each particular subject.
Although the college wanted to highlight their own teaching faculty, allowing the possibility for some
outside experts might have captured more attendees attention and allowed for a broader subject matter
base. The critical viewpoints model claims to have an implicit moral standard by which planners
should abide. If the planning committee followed a strict standard, some of the decisions might have
allowed for a different approach or ideas from the other members of the committee from outside the
organization. Instead, the agendas of the college, as well as the regulatory and licensing requirements,

UPDATING PRACTITIONERS IN UNIVERSITY CONTINUING EDUCATION

took precedence over the decision-making process of the entire committee in matters such as seminar
topics, and even where the event would be held.
Conclusion
The program was considered a success for the annual seminar. Carl and Bob both believed this
to be a truth. At the level of 75 participants, the program broke even, but the seminar actually pulled
in 101 participants, with only 15 people leaving before the afternoon was over. All the evaluations
were positive and everyone affirmed by their responses that they had learned new information.
Finally, the dean acknowledged pleasure with attendance and the program overall. There were
actually a couple of contacts made for the Presidents Club, which was a goal for the weekend to offer
visibility and maintain alumni connections. Although the program was considered a success, there are
some recommendations that could improve future seminars. First, the program planners could
involve a larger audience/committee for planning the program, as Bob, Carl, and
Richard made many of the decisions locally. They could have conducted an overall
assessment of the program details for possible weaknesses and areas they could improve on.
Additionally, more program planning meetings might have provided additional ideas well before the
conference. Another recommendation that would possibly benefit future seminars would be to survey
participants ahead of time to select topics of interest. The planners could also consider bringing in
more subject experts to reach a larger audience. The seminar weekend accomplished most of the goals
of the College of Pharmacy of State University. The question remains, however, could the conference
be an even greater success for the college, if a true planning committee was truly given the scope to
think outside the box?