Outreach Family Life Education: Strengthening Families through Community-Based Programs, Study notes of Business

Download Outreach Family Life Education: Strengthening Families through Community-Based Programs and more Study notes Business in PDF only on Docsity! 3 CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES F amily life education (FLE) that takes place in communities is a unique type of education. The business of outreach FLE involves taking family science principles and practices to the general public—indi- viduals, couples, parents, whole families—in varied educational settings outside the traditional classroom. Some outreach family life educators are employed as fi eld agents or as university campus-based specialists within the Cooperative Extension System. Others may work in social work or other human service agency contexts or as media representatives. Those with an entrepreneurial spirit may develop their own FLE business and market their programs nationally. Still others may hold traditional university positions that include some outreach expectations. To succeed in educating the public about family life requires a somewhat different skill set than teaching students in traditional classroom settings. With these skills, family life educators become more effective ambassadors of family science scholarship to citizens of the world. This text endeavors to provide a comprehensive response to the fol- lowing need: There is knowledge and skills that family life educators need to be most helpful and effective in work with their clientele. To arrive at the response, we fi rst generated a content outline that represented our 4 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION collective experiences totaling nearly three decades as family life Extension Service specialists at several universities. We sent the content outline to other specialists and colleagues and incorporated their ideas. Since this fi rst edition was published in 2005, many FLE scholars, practitioners, and students have used the book in their work and studies and have provided us with ideas to improve upon what we fi rst developed. We have incorpo- rated their ideas into this second edition. The result is what we hope is a practical, how-to reference volume on effective outreach FLE that you will use for years to come. This fi rst chapter provides a foundational and philosophical discus- sion of FLE in outreach settings. We begin with a brief discussion of the defi nition and history of outreach FLE, as well as the role universities and communities have played in the movement. We next turn to a discussion of contemporary developments also making FLE history, including evolu- tion in how knowledge about families is disseminated and the various roles family life educators can play in communities. Finally, we discuss elements pertinent to the development of a working philosophy of outreach FLE. At the end of the chapter, you’ll have the opportunity to create a personal philosophy of FLE in outreach settings, integrating the various perspectives presented in the chapter. l DEFINING FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION Much effort has been expended to defi ne FLE, with defi nitions dating back over 40 years (Arcus, Schvaneveldt, & Moss, 1993b). Overall there has been little consensus reached on a specifi c defi nition and greater consensus reached on aims or principles underlying FLE (Arcus et al., 1993b). Moreover, no attempt has been made to distinguish FLE taking place in high school and college settings from FLE taking place outside these environments. We defi ne outreach FLE as any educational activity occurring out- side a traditional school classroom setting, usually involving adults, that is designed to strengthen relationships in the home and foster positive indi- vidual, couple, and family development. Such education comprises many topics—from marriage education to parenting skills, from stress and anger management to strategies for adapting following divorce—and occurs in many venues. For example, an outreach FLE might hold a 6-week marriage education program in the town’s community center for interested couples and place important follow-up readings on the program’s website. This kind of FLE is any form of education that has as its goal to “strengthen and enrich individual and family well-being” (Arcus et al., 1993b, p. 21) and falls Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 7 (Buboltz & Sontag, 1993) perspective brought many disciplines to bear on the problems pronounced in families. Cooperative Extension The Morrill Act also set the stage for an educational delivery system that would transmit knowledge about families to the masses, which came to be known as the Cooperative Extension System. This system, created by Congress through the passage of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914, provided a major federal thrust in the furtherance of FLE in community settings. So enthused was President Woodrow Wilson about the new system that he called it “one of the most signifi cant and far-reaching measures for the edu- cation of adults ever adopted by the government.” Its purpose was “to aid in diffusing among the people of the U.S. useful and practical information on subjects related to agriculture and home economics, and to encourage the application of the same.” Extension work was to consist of “giving practical demonstrations in . . . home economics to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through fi eld demonstrations, publications and otherwise.” The underlying philosophy was to “help people help them- selves” by “taking the university to the people” (Rasmussen, 1989, p. vii). Thus, land grant institutions became known as universities for the people of the state: The teaching, research, and outreach done there was primarily to benefi t the masses in the state (Lerner, 1995). The land grant idea was committed to applying the best science possible to the practi- cal problems of families. Extension home economics agents, later known as family and consumer science agents, were hired to be the conduits through which information about family life could be communicated to the local communities, through the carrying out of community-based FLE programs. Some states hired family living agents, in addition to family and consumer science agents, whose specifi c charge was to carry out FLE pro- grams. Today there is a county agent in most of the over 3,000 counties of the United States who have at least a partial charge to promote strong family living through extension programs. These agents often carry out their responsibilities in this area in collaboration with other like-minded professionals. FLE programming is carried out through a specifi c curricu- lum designed for target audiences, fact sheets, bulletins, pamphlets, vid- eos, newspaper series, online learning modules, and other various means. During the late 1980s, Cooperative Extension in the family area was zero funded by the Reagan administration, later to be restored due to a public outcry of support. 8 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION Areas of family life emphasis within Cooperative Extension have evolved over the years to meet the needs of the constituency. Beginning in the 1980s, programs became more focused on interdisciplinary national initiatives than disciplinary programs (Rasmussen, 1989). For example, fam- ilies underwent radical changes over two decades that culminated in the 1980s, which brought about increased stresses and risks for family disrup- tion and dislocation. Complex issues such as these demanded a compre- hensive, interdisciplinary response. During this time, family and economic well-being received increased emphasis among local family life educators affi liated with Extension. Concern for limited-resource families, defi ned as families at risk for not meeting basic needs, received increased programmatic emphasis in the early 1990s and continues today. This increased emphasis has led to adopt- ing teaching strategies and practices that are best suited to meet the com- plex needs of limited-resource families, such as peer support, professional/ paraprofessional teaching efforts, one-on-one home visits, and working in small groups (Cooperative Extension System, 1991). Other recent emphases in the Extension System have included a focus on children, youth, and families who possess greater risks for not meeting basic life needs. The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) initia- tive has received federal funding since 1991. Since that time, CYFAR has supported programs in more than 600 communities in all states and territo- ries. Other major family life efforts have been made in the area of parenting education. In 1994, the National Extension Parent Education Model (Smith, Cudaback, Goddard, & Myers-Walls, 1994) was developed. This model made an important contribution to guiding the development of community-based parenting education programs. Web-based FLE to both professionals as well as clientele has also rapidly advanced with the advent of the Children, Youth, and Families Education and Research Network (CYFERNet), making research-based FLE resources available at the click of a mouse. While tra- ditionally, marriage education programs in communities have been offered through the church, more programs are being offered though community adult education and extension programs and other nonreligious settings (Stahmann & Salts, 1993). Other University-Based Outreach Efforts In addition to organized efforts within the land grant university system, other outreach activities have been established at universities of recent date that have also contributed to what FLE is today. Perhaps most prominent Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 9 in this movement has been the explosion of service learning and intern- ship opportunities that, while helping the student, richly benefi t the com- munities that receive the associated services. Service-learning pedagogies, of which internships are a type, enhance traditional modes of learning and actively engage students in their own education through experien- tial learning in course-relevant contexts. But they also foster lifelong con- nections between students, their communities, and the world outside the classroom (Crews, 2002). These experiences enable students to contribute to the well-being of families within the context of their service-learning assignments. For example, students in the School of Family Life at Brigham Young University can select from more than 300 family- and youth-serving agencies in surrounding communities and in other parts of the United States and the world. Some examples of these agencies include writing for FLE websites, designing and marketing FLE curricula, and visiting families one- on-one to offer direct services. Community Movements In addition to developments within the land grant university system, outreach FLE was also fostered by the contemporary expansion of parent- ing education volunteer groups and community organizations. Certainly one of the earliest aspects of FLE is actually the growth of parenting education (Brock, Oertwein, & Coufal, 1993). For example, the National Congress of Mothers was founded in 1897, renamed the National Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher Associations in 1908, was dedicated to promoting the notions of mother love and mother thought (Bridgeman, 1930, cited in Lewis-Rowley et al., 1993). In addition, the Society for the Study of Child Nature had also grown to several chapters and by 1908 was consolidated into the Federation for Child Study. Among other things, this organization performed FLE functions such as distributing information on children, pro- moting lectures and conferences, and cooperating with other like-minded groups (Bridgeman, 1930, cited in Lewis-Rowley et al., 1993). The federal government began to realize the value of these efforts when, in 1909, the fi rst White House Conference on Child Welfare took place, becoming the fi rst of many for continued governmental support and funding of family parenting programs (Tilsen, 2007). Expansion of FLE continued into the 1920s with the growth of parent- ing education. In 1924, the Child Study Association held a conference that invited the participation of 13 smaller organizations. The outgrowth of this conference was the National Council of Parent Education, which had as 12 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION Hispanic. Practical approaches for working with diverse audiences will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8. Professional Associations and Professionalization of Family Life Education In 1938, the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) was estab- lished as a “multi-disciplinary non-partisan professional organization focused solely on family research, practice and education.” One of its key missions is to promote the fi eld of family life education. Thus in 1984, NCFR created guidelines, standards, and criteria for the certifi cation of family life educa- tors. NCFR now administers an internationally recognized credential—the Certifi ed Family Life Educator (CFLE). Approximately 100 college and uni- versity Family Science degree programs in the United States and Canada use the NCFR Family Life Education curriculum standards as guidelines for their undergraduate and graduate students. Professionals holding certifi cation are expected to be able to demon- strate competence in 10 substance areas, including the following: Families and Individuals in Societal Contexts; Internal Dynamics of Families; Human Growth and Development Across the Life Span; Human Sexuality; Interpersonal Relationships; Family Resource Management; Parenting Education and Guidance; Family Law and Public Policy; Professional Ethics and Practice; and Family Life Education Methodology (see Appendix B for more details about these 10 content areas and guidelines for practice). Ordinarily, those desiring CFLE status fi rst complete coursework at one of the approved schools. At completion of coursework in the 10 content areas, graduating students may apply for Provisional Certifi cation. After an additional equivalent of 2 years of full-time work experience related to family life education (which can be accumulated over 5 years), profession- als may apply for Full Certifi cation. In 2007, NCFR did a practice analysis survey and created another avenue to receive CFLE status: the CFLE exam. The CFLE exam can be completed in lieu of completing coursework at an approved university. For details on CFLE and the application process, see www.ncfr.org under “CFLE Certifi cation.” The fi rst Certifi ed Family Life Educators were approved in 1985, and currently there are 1,425 practicing Certifi ed Family Life Educators (Bredehoft & Walcheski, 2009, p. 14). In 1996, NCFR created the Academic Program Review to recognize university and college degree programs that offer coursework necessary to complete the certifi cation courses. In 2002, 235 incomplete family pro- grams in the United States and Canada offered undergraduate, master’s, Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 13 and doctoral programs. As of 2008, there are 83 approved schools with 101 complete undergraduate and graduate programs in the United States (Bredehoft & Walcheski, 2009, p. 15). Web-Based Family Life Education An overview of the history of FLE is not complete without some discus- sion of the role of evolving technology in FLE. For example, individuals are increasingly turning to the Internet for all kinds of information, including matters of personal and family well-being. Because the Internet is a pow- erful medium that has much to offer family life educators (Elliott, 1999; Hughes, 1999; S. N. Morris, Dollahite, & Hawkins, 1999), over the past few years, many family life educators have developed websites (Elliott, 1999). In fact, currently hundreds of FLE websites are available (Elliott, 1999). Some argue that this medium of FLE has revolutionized the manner in which FLE is disseminated to the masses (Smith, 1999). Limited evaluation data suggest that web-based FLE can positively benefi t its audiences (Steimle & Duncan, 2004), even rivaling more traditional means of educational delivery in mar- riage education (Duncan, Steed, & Needham, 2009). But whether it is an adequate substitute for face-to-face FLE is still largely unknown and an important area of needed research. With the advent of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and Twitter and recent data suggesting Internet populations are spending an increasing amount of their browsing time at these sites, we expect the role of the Internet in FLE to increase. Much has yet to be learned about reaching the next generation of FLE participants, who are marvelously literate in technology, which, according to some observers, is “literally changing the dynamics of informal social relations, the exchange of information and support within social networks and affecting learners’ skills, expectations and development” (Walker & Greenhow, 2008, p. 3). Using technology in FLE will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12. EVOLUTION IN THE DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC l KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FAMILIES The fi eld of family sciences emerged during the 1920s largely with the belief that problems plaguing the family could be addressed through sys- tematic research. The ideal envisioned the university as the institution that 14 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION could, through research, address the real-life problems and concerns per- taining to children, youth, and families. Doherty (2001) explains, “[Family science] embraced a vision of making the world better through the work of University-trained professional experts who would generate new knowl- edge and pass it on to families in the community” (p. 319). What evolved, according to Doherty, was a “trickle-down model of research and prac- tice” (p. 319). According to this model, scientifi c knowledge for families is generated by university researchers, who then transmit this knowledge to practitioners (e.g., family life educators), who then, in turn, disseminate the information to the masses. The strength of this model, according to Doherty, lies in its ability to address problems scientifi cally when experi- ential knowledge about a topic is relatively lacking or when the issue is so hotly debated as to prevent a more objective view of an issue. The weak- ness of this model is that it ignores the collective wisdom of families and communities garnered through experience, although it is from families that much of what we call research data is generated. In addition, instead of being seen as partners in knowledge generation, this perspective relegates families to the “role of consumers of academic knowledge” (p. 321). There are other dangers inherent in the traditional model of research generation and dissemination. Historically, researchers have failed to engage and partner with communities in the research process, neglecting to study the issues of greatest interest to them (Lerner, 1995). Without community/ family collaboration in the research process, research that becomes avail- able to pass on to communities can become increasingly irrelevant to the needs of real families, causing the vision of scientifi c information benefi ting families to go unrealized. In fact, Richard Lerner (1995) argues that much of the research generated by universities is of little value to communities. Furthermore, this top-down model of knowledge dissemination has been criticized as being inadequate at best, evidenced by the fact that the prob- lems targeted still continue to plague children, youth, families, and com- munities (Lerner, 1995), even many of the same problems that experts were trying to fi x when they fi rst had a vision of a better world, made better with their discoveries. A new model of taking family scholarship is emerging, critical to effec- tive FLE in community settings. Scholars are now arguing that effective FLE will integrate the best scientifi c information with the knowledge, lived experience, culture, and expertise of community clientele (Doherty, 2000; Lerner, 1995; Myers-Walls, 2000). To accomplish this requires a community- collaborative approach where there is extensive interface of the worlds of families in communities and institutions where scientifi c knowledge about these families is generated (Lerner, 1995). Families and professionals become Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 17 the growth of the total person. Humanist adult educational philosophy is based on the assumption that human nature is essentially positive and that each person possesses unlimited potential; therefore, humanist educational goals are bent toward the holistic development of persons toward their full- est potentials. Learning is essentially a personal, self-directed endeavor, and while disciplinary knowledge is important, it is bent toward the ultimate goal of self-actualizing individuals (Elias & Merriam, 1995). Learners know best what their learning needs are. Collaborative learning, experimentation, and discovery are all a part of learning methods used. The learner’s back- ground and individual experiences are taken into account. Educators with a humanist philosophy act more as facilitators of individualized learning than as disseminators of fi xed knowledge. In fact, the educator is “a colearner in the educational process, and assumes an egalitarian relationship with learn- ers” (Price, 2000, p. 4). A standardized curriculum might not even exist, making evaluation of outcomes more diffi cult. After welcoming participants to a parenting workshop, family life educators working from this approach would have parents generate the list of topics to explore what would be most benefi cial to them. A related philosophical orientation that fi ts with a facilitator approach is the progressive philosophy, perhaps the most infl uential educational philosophy in adult education (Price, 2000). This educational philosophy stresses holistic, lifelong, and life-wide education and an experiential, problem- solving approach to learning as opposed to didactic, passive learning. The experiences of the learner become paramount in determining areas to be learned and problems to be solved. The educator is primarily a facilita- tor of the learning processes through guiding, organizing, and evaluating learning experiences within which she or he may also be actively involved. Thus, learning is collaborative between the learners and instructors (Price, 2000). Family life educators following this philosophy in a class for married couples might present problem scenarios, then have participants identify possible solutions to the problems or have them try out solutions they gen- erate for a time and report back to the group. The Critical Inquirer Approach Educators using a critical inquirer approach use questions to help participants think critically about the issues that are presented. This perspective acknowledges that participants have a responsibility to contrib- ute meaningfully to their society and thus need to critically assess issues about them (Czaplewski & Jorgensen, 1993). This approach is tied to a 18 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION critical/humanist philosophical orientation, which, like traditional humanis- tic approaches, promotes self-actualization of the learner. Yet for a critical/ humanist, personal fulfi llment is achieved through “becoming an autono- mous, critical, and socially responsible thinker through an emphasis on rationality” (Tisdell & Taylor, 2000, p. 8). Family life educators might use a critical inquirer approach to help participants evaluate proposed or existing public policies designed to strengthen families. The Collaborator Approach Falling somewhere in between expert and facilitator approaches, in terms of responsibility for content and methods (Myers-Walls, 2000), is the collaborator approach. This approach recognizes that both family life educa- tors and participants bring specialized knowledge to the learning experience. The educator brings research-based principles to the learning environment, and the participants bring their own lived experience regarding these prin- ciples. The collaborative educator brings a prepared agenda and curriculum, but these materials are fi tted around the needs of participants. Participants are encouraged to contribute ideas for the agenda, but the educator main- tains some control over the schedule and content of the discussion. After presenting the agenda for a Principles of Parenting program, collaborative family life educators might ask, “Are there any additions you’d like to make to the program, any topics you’d like to see covered that aren’t listed?” The Interventionist Approach Interventionist-oriented family life educators are change agents; they seek cognitive, attitudinal, and behavior change, even transformation of participants through education. They believe that education for family life goes beyond simply learning for knowing but extends to learning for living (Mace, 1981). Such professionals are not mere knowledge transmitters or dis- cussion facilitators (Guerney & Guerney, 1981). Interventionist approaches can be traced to both behaviorist and radical educational philosophies. For example, a behaviorist philosophy centers on changing behavior though the shaping of the environment to promote the desired behavior. As noted by Elias and Merriam (1995), a behaviorist-oriented educator is a “behav- ioral engineer who plans in detail the conditions necessary to bring about desired behavior” (p. 88). Such educators extensively use behavioral or learning objectives, model desired behavior, provide behavioral reinforce- ment for achieving the desired behavior, and use systematic instructional Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 19 design. Learners are engaged in step-by-step learning of desired behaviors, receiving instructor support and evaluation through the processes. Family life educators working from this perspective with couples might teach and demonstrate Five Steps to Handing Confl ict, then have couples practice the skills with the aid of a personal coach, who provides both reinforcement and corrective feedback. Radical educational philosophies form the basis of educational strate- gies aimed at bringing about social change and combating social, political, and economic oppression of society. Developers of this approach (Freire, 1971; Mezirow, 1995) saw the traditional liberal forms of education as limit- ing and paternalistic, because it treats knowledge as a gift of the learned to those who are not. One such approach deduced from the radical philo- sophical traditions is transformative learning, which promotes increased self-awareness and freedom from constraints, necessary to help create social equity for the oppressed and for real learning to occur (Christopher, Dunnagan, Duncan, & Paul, 2001). In this context, educators are libera- tors, not facilitators, who help learners become social activists. This kind of learning occurs in three steps (E. Taylor, 1997): (1) Learners engage in criti- cal self-refl ection about assumptions and present approaches, (2) learners transform or revise their perspective, and (3) learners actually adopt new ways of behaving, consistent with their renewed perspective. Family life educators working from this philosophy with a group of parents might ask their participants to refl ect on the approaches they use to parent their chil- dren and refl ect on what is effective and ineffective. The family life educa- tors might then discuss a variety of helpful approaches with the group and have parents create parenting plans to try in the coming week. The Eclectic Approach Educators coming from an eclectic approach would use elements of all the approaches, depending on the situation. For example, family life educators might wisely use an expert approach to teach others about a topic where little or no experiential knowledge exists or about a topic that is more controversial and needs an expert voice to set the record straight with empirical data (Doherty, 2000). An interventionist approach may be the best approach when working with oppressed and marginalized families who need to realize they have a voice, great opportunities, and unlimited potential. Which of these approaches do you most readily identify with? Some research shows most family life educators organize and deliver their 22 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION and objectives can be created. Preceding goals and objectives are a sense of vision and mission. For example, what value does education about fam- ily life have in society? David Mace (1981) envisioned FLE as something that originates from a cloudburst of information that becomes part of the knowledge base of a learner, which then produces personalized insight that leads the learner to experiment with new behaviors in family relationships. When family members coparticipate and mutually reinforce such action, the result is shared growth of members. Thus, does FLE in communities exist to be a catalyst for such a process? Guerney and Guerney (1981) refl ected on whether family life educators could be considered “interventionists.” That is, do family life educators take some “clearly defi ned” action “designed to induce some change” (p. 591)? The Guerneys argue that if family life educa- tors believe that their purpose goes beyond mere knowledge transmission to “changing attitudes/values and behavior,” they should “class themselves . . . as interventionists and be willing to stand up and be counted as such” (p. 592). This kind of “intervention” is distinguished from the focused, brief intervention strategies and family therapy that constitute the domain of the clinical professional and is outside the scope of FLE (Doherty, 1995). Thus, an important question at the heart of the purpose of FLE for outreach pro- fessionals is, “How ‘interventionist’ should FLE be?” Beliefs About the Content of Family Life Education There is no shortage of family-strengthening ideas to teach others. For example, there are literally hundreds of parenting books designed to impart advice to eager readers who want to do the best by their children. Some works are based on sound scholarship, others on clinical impressions, and still others on the simple convictions of the authors. What should be taught in FLE settings? How do you decide what to teach? Of what value is university- based theory and research? Even the best research has limitations in its application to individual/family needs. Much research has been completed with a disproportionate amount of White, middle-class participants. Thus, the data may have systematic bias. Participants in FLE programs also bring with them a rich array of personal experiences. How can the rich learn- ing that is the lived experiences of individuals, families, and communities become part of the content of FLE? Our personal values may also lead us to choose certain materials to teach certain ideas while ignoring or giving limited exposure to others. For example, if your personal values dictate that teens should avoid having sex outside of marriage and you are called upon to give a 45-minute talk at a high school assembly, your selected material may likely be quite different Historical and Philosophical Perspectives ● 23 than it would be if you valued the full, unlimited, but responsible sexual activity of teens. Beliefs About the Process of Learning for Families and Individuals Within Families There are many ways to share information about family life in com- munity settings. We can teach in small or large groups; through media channels such as radio, newspapers, magazines, television programs, and videos; through newsletters, publications, the Internet, and leafl ets; and through one-on-one meetings in homes or an offi ce. How do individu- als and families learn most effectively? From a family systems approach, it can be argued that the best learning for family strengthening will occur as a full family group. New knowledge can be co-learned and reinforced at home. However, when any member of the family is missing, newly learned attitudes and behaviors are at risk of being sabotaged by the missing mem- ber. Still, one person behaving positively can infl uence the others. In addi- tion, individuals and families differ in terms of their primary learning styles and sensory modalities (Powell & Cassidy, 2007), which effective educa- tion must account for. What learning processes invoke positive change in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors? How important are learning goals and evaluation in these processes? What assumptions do you hold about learners? Are they lights to be lit or cups to be fi lled? CONCLUSION l Family life education in outreach settings has a long history. It is evolving from an expert top-down approach to addressing family problems to a col- laborative, strength-based, community-strengthening model that integrates scientifi c knowledge from family sciences with the values and experiences of families in communities. It is expanding its reach into increasingly diverse audiences using a wider range of technology and refi ning its professional core. There are many philosophical bases from which we can craft FLE and varied approaches associated with these philosophies. Generally, the best strategies are community-collaborative in nature, but each approach discussed may have a role depending on the circumstances. Crafting a philosophy of FLE has the potential to purposefully guide and direct our efforts. Following are exercises to help guide you in writing your personal philosophy and approach in FLE. 24 ● FOUNDATIONS OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION l EXPLORATIONS 1. Follow the guidelines below and design your own working philoso- phy of family life education. Address the questions in your discussion. • What are my beliefs about the family and the nature and quality of family life and the human experience? • What is a “family”? How important are families? What values do I hold regarding families and the human experience? What does it mean to be human? • What are my beliefs about the purpose of FLE? • What is the nature of FLE? What value does FLE have in com- munities? Is it to provide insight, skills, and knowledge? Is it to change behavior? How “interventionist” should FLE be? • What are my beliefs about the content of FLE? • Of what value is university-based theory and research to families? Of what value is the lived experience of individuals, families, and communities, and how can it become part of the content of FLE? How do my personal values regarding families and the human experience infl uence the content I select? • What are my beliefs about the process of learning for families in outreach settings? • How do individuals and families learn most effectively? What teaching strategies have the greatest impact? How important are learning goals and evaluation in these processes? What assumptions do I hold about learners? 2. Describe what you are like as an FLE. Different FLE settings may necessitate different approaches, but most of us will fi nd a place where we are most comfortable and effective. Review the various approaches dis- cussed in the chapter. Which approach best describes you and why?