Volume 34 Number 4
|
August 1996 Volume 34 Number 4 |
|
|
Editor's PageDear Reader- Once again, I believe you are receiving a Journal full of useful information and exciting ideas. Many of the articles reflect the change in Extension and the audience with whom we work. A frequent lament among Extension workers is the cry "no one knows about Extension!" But is this really true? See the article "Public Perception of Extension" for some interesting figures and comments. Some of it may surprise you. For many Extension professionals struggling to find their place in a university rewards system that tends to favor research, the commentary by a Washington State University official may give them food-for-thought. The editor has long believed that the European countries formerly under the domination of the old Soviet Union could use Extension. A Cornell faculty member has written how educational materials first used in New York were adapted and used in Slovakia. Her article may inspire others. A reminder to authors and would-be authors. The editorial office of the Journal of Extension will be closed from Sept. 12 through Sept. 30. Part of that time, the editor will be in Rhode Island for the 1996 Extension Family and Consumer Science Association meeting.
Leonard J. Calvert, Editor Extension Journal, Inc.Extension Journal, Inc. is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers. Board of Directors:
Judith Jones, President, Virginia, Southern Directors Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, Arizona
The Scholarship of Extension
For its 1992 annual meeting, Beta Chapter, Epsilon Sigma Phi, asked Don Bushaw, then Vice Provost for Instruction at Washington State University, to share his ideas about the scholarship of Extension. Bushaw's topic was "Just where does Extension fit today in the complex set of missions of the land grand university?" Now that I have retired from WSU Extension and become increasingly involved in my local community, I have come to regard Don's perspective even more. I believe Don's point of view merits revisiting and discussion within the larger profession as Extension endeavors to contribute to good thinking for decisions and actions in our communities.
James S. Long
Donald W. Bushaw Have you ever attended a professional meeting where of the dozens of presentations, one really stands out and seems to set the tone for much of the rest of the meeting? I've had that experience several times. For example, in the spring of 1989 I attended the national conference of the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) in Chicago. For reasons that I no longer remember, I attended a session at which one R. Eugene Rice was to speak. He spoke. He was not a dazzling speaker, perhaps, but what he had to say made very good sense. He suggested that the idea of scholarship was often interpreted too narrowly, especially when it came close to being identified with original research. He went on to say, with viewgraphs and flipcharts, that the domain of scholarship could be divided into four complementary and approximately equally important parts: the scholarship of discovery (research), the scholarship of integration (compilation and synthesis), the scholarship of application, and, finally, the scholarship of teaching. From that moment on I heard references to that talk everywhere I went in the conference, from the podium, from the floor, in the halls. I met Professor Rice and told him so; he was pleased. At that time, Rice was temporarily at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Princeton, and was working with the late Ernest J. Boyer, president of the foundation and prolific writer and speaker on higher education. It was Boyer whose name appeared a few months later as author of the slender book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate (Princeton University press, 1990), which presented an expanded version of the ideas we had heard from Rice in Chicago. In Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer wrote: "Here, then, is our conclusion. What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar--a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching. We acknowledge that these four categories--the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching--divide intellectual functions that are tied inseparably to each other. Still, there is value, we believe, in analyzing the various kinds of academic work, while also acknowledging that they dynamically interact, forming an interdependent whole. Such a vision of scholarship, one that recognizes the great diversity of talent within the professoriate, also may prove especially useful to faculty as they reflect on the meaning and direction of their professional lives" (pp. 24-25). In this book and elsewhere, Boyer discusses in spirited detail the four scholarships and the rich relationships among them. In particular, he suggests that the longstanding and weary competition among teaching, research, and service is misguided-- that a scholarly community, and indeed a scholarly person, is able in suitable proportions to accommodate all three, along with a fourth dimension, integration. In particular the tension between teaching and research, in words of the title of a recent book on this subject, is "the wrong issue" [Leslie H. Cochran, Publish or Perish: The Wrong Issue (Step Up, Inc., 1992)]. The Rice-Boyer conception of scholarship has received a great deal of attention. Last year my colleague Robert V. Smith, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School at Washington State University, returned from a national meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools, where the resistance to the broadened conception of scholarship might have been expected to be most severe, and told us that everyone was talking about it with considerable enthusiasm. And once sensitized to this point of view, you see it everywhere. Moreover, you see numerous kinds of interplay among the four scholarships. I'll offer you a few examples. Teaching and research. As every Extension person knows, good teaching is based on research. But as those of you who are concerned with Education with a capital E well know, teaching is also the subject of much research. Research can also be used as a teaching device, as in the National Science Foundation's various undergraduate research programs. And now we see the widely adopted "classroom research," promoted especially by Patricia Cross and Tom Angelo, in which teachers use simple research techniques to improve their own teaching as they go along. Research and application. Again, the idea of basing application on research-based knowledge is hardly news in this company. But application-based research is also of immense importance, in many ways. We all know that some of the most important research questions, and occasionally some very valuable research answers, are suggested in the course of doing practical applications of established knowledge. Donald Schn's idea of "research-in-action," also called "reflection-in-action," gives an especially provocative slant on this. "When someone reflects- in-action," Schn says in his book "The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action," (Basic Books, 1983), "he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case. He does not separate thinking from doing . . ." (p. 68). Application and integration. Extension's "multidimensional approach to problem-solving" seems to me to be an excellent example of this. In Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer mentions the Morrill Act of 1862 and 1890 and the Hatch Act of 1887, but surprisingly he does not mention the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. But those who are familiar with Extension will recognize a strong affinity between Cooperative Extension and the Rice-Boyer vision described in the passage I read to you a minute ago. It is a little awkward to use the term "professoriate" in the connection, but here at Washington State University, at least, the term "faculty" fits just fine. I have not found an explicit reference to Cooperative Extension in Scholarship Reconsidered but listen to this language from section 2 of the 1990 version of the Smith-Lever Act: Cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the development of practical applications of research knowledge and giving of instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or improved practices of technologies in agriculture, home economics, and rural energy, and subjects relating thereto . . . You noticed that I slipped in some emphasis there--emphasis on "applications," "research," "instruction," and on an interesting combination of subjects that certainly call for "integration" from time to time. So the law says that the work of Cooperative Agricultural Extension shall occupy all four quadrants of the Rice-Boyer conception of scholarship. The same point can be made another way. In your own recent brochure WSU Cooperative Extension: Mission, Goals, and Accomplishments (1991), I found the following items listed under the heading "Strengths": Unbiased research-based information. Practical education to meet local needs and solve local problems. Interdisciplinary approach to address human issues. It is the same refrain with slightly different notes. In the past few decades, a mystique has developed in universities, liberal arts colleges, and other institutions that tends to set the values of research for its own sake above all other values. As a sometime mathematician, I acknowledge the value of research for its own sake and hope that we will never stop doing it--if only "for the glory," as one famous mathematician put it, "of the human spirit." But study after study and survey after survey have shown that even in the research universities, the majority of faculty and academic administrators believe that we have gone too far in this direction, and that a better balance between the scholarship of discovery and the other kinds of scholarship is much to be desired. (How we got into the present imbalance is a complicated and not entirely edifying story which I will not try to tell here, except to suggest that money and vanity may have had something to do with it.) The Rice-Boyer vision of scholarship, as anticipated in the 1914 legislative charter of Cooperative Extension, provides a clear and sensible framework within which to achieve and maintain this balance. * I am grateful to James S. Long for suggesting that I put together some thoughts on this subject and for his subsequent support. Public Perception of Extension
Paul D. Warner
James A. Christenson
Don A. Dillman
Priscilla Salant How many U. S. adults are aware of Extension? What proportion use its services? And how does the public rate Extension's programs? By answering these questions with survey data from 1995 and 1982, this article provides insight into how the public's awareness of Extension, program use, and funding priorities have changed over a period of 13 years. The past decade and a half have brought major changes to Extension. Many states have re-organized the structure of Extension, reduced staff, and introduced interdisciplinary teams and partnerships to implement programs. They have increasingly used outcome-based evaluations in pursuit of greater accountability, reached out to new clientele, and begun delivering services using communications technologies rather than face-to-face methods. The critical question in whether these efforts have changed people's perceptions and use of Extension programs. To answer this and other questions, a random sample of the general public was surveyed by telephone in 1995 (Dillman et al.,1995). Interviews were completed with 1,124 adults, a cooperation rate of 60 percent. Questions about Extension were included in a larger study on the land-grant universities and the education and training needs of the respondent(Christenson et al.,1995). In 1982, the same questions about perceptions and use of Extension were included in another national telephone survey. Question wording in the 1982 and 1995 surveys was identical. In 1982, interviews were completed with 1,048 adults, a cooperation rate of 70 percent. Hence, it is possible to compare the results of the two surveys to assess changes that might have occurred. Samples of the size used in both surveys yield a sampling error precision of plus or minus three percent (Warner and Christenson, 1984). Data from both samples were weighted for educational level of the respondent based on Census figures for 1980 and 1990.
When asked if they had ever heard of the Cooperative Extension Service, 45% said they had. That is a slight increase over the 1982 figure of 40%. Respondents were then asked whether they knew of Extension programs in agriculture, home economics, 4 -H, or community development. Of the four program areas, 4-H has the greatest visibility (69%). About half of the respondents are aware of agriculture and home economics programs and 38% have heard of community development. There are some differences in the level of recognition reported for each of the program areas today compared with that reported 13 years earlier; however only with 4 -H and community development is the difference more than just a chance occurrence. The awareness level for 4-H and community development have each declined by 8%. The level of overall awareness of Extension remains high over the 13-year period, with 6 out of 7 people in each study aware of at least one program area or the organizational name the Cooperative Extension Service.
The greatest recognition of Extension or its programs was found among people in the south and midwest regions, among those with more education, among rural and farm residents, and among persons over 40 years of age. Interestingly, every farm resident in the 1995 sample was aware of Extension.
When asked if they or a member of their immediate family had ever used the services of Extension, 26% said they had. That is identical to the results of the earlier study. The greatest rate of use can be found in the midwest and southern regions, among those living on farms, among whites, by middle-aged persons, and by persons with higher educational and income levels. The lowest level of use was found in the northeast, by persons living in cities, by minorities, by young people, and among persons with low levels of education and income.
Eight percent of the respondents or their family members used the services of Extension in the year previous to the study. This compares with 12% reported in 1982. Like the results for ever used, one-year's use was higher in the south and midwest, among rural and farm residents, by middle age persons, and by those with higher income and educational levels. Similarly, as with ever used, those not using Extension in the previous year tended to reside in the northeast or west, live in urban areas, be younger, and have a lower educational and income level.
When asked how they would distribute $100 of tax money among the teaching, research and Extension functions of land-grant universities, respondents of the 1995 survey said on average they would spend $45 teaching students on-campus, $30 on outreach, and $25 on research. The distribution did not differ by respondent age, education, region of the country, income, or ethnicity. Respondents were then asked whether less, the same or more funds should be spent on the seven base programs: (1) nutrition and health, (2) natural resources and environment, (3) leadership and volunteer development, (4) 4-H and youth, (5) family development and management, (6) community and economic development, and (7) agricultural production and marketing. A similar question was used in the 1982 study, but the subject areas were different so a direct comparison is not possible. Generally, there is support for the same or more funding in all seven areas. No more than 27% want to spend less in any area. However, there are some differences in where the public wants spend additional tax dollars. Those receiving the greatest support for more funds were in the areas of family and youth and natural resources. There is also strong support for increased spending on nutrition and health and economic development (jobs). These priorities are consistent with the public's perception of critical issues facing the nation. Significantly greater support for programs in family development is found among women, youth, and Blacks. For youth programs, more spending support can be found among persons of low income and educational achievement levels. More young people want increased spending for programs on natural resources and the environment. There is greater funding support for community and economic development among young people, town and city residents, and Blacks, but not by the elderly and those with higher incomes. Increased spending support for nutrition and health is found among women and Blacks. Support for increased spending on agriculture is greatest among persons with a high school education or less, those with low incomes, and persons residing in rural areas or living on farms. And those wanting more spent on leadership and volunteerism are more likely to live in urban areas.
The high level of similarity of results of the two surveys conducted 13 years apart give credibility to the findings. The new results are not drastically different than those of over a decade ago. Some critics in the 1980s concluded that Extension had outlived its usefulness and would not be around in the 90s. So it is reassuring that Extension still exists and continues to serve the needs of clientele. However, the findings are also unsettling, since changes made in program directions and target audiences are not found to be reflected in the 1995 responses. Even though programs have targeted under-served audiences, urban residents, the young, and persons with low levels of income and education remain the least likely to be aware of Extension or use its services. As was found in 1982, Extension continues to have a fragmented image. Three out of the four program areas have greater visibility than does the organization itself. In its marketing efforts, Extension must do a better job of building the linkages between the program identities and the overall organization. There have not been substantial changes in the patterns of awareness and use of Extension in the 13-year period. However, the two indicators "awareness" and "ever used" are long-term measures and as a result wouldn't be expected to change very quickly. Awareness of 4-H and community development decreased and should stimulate some discussion as to why that occurred. No doubt, staff cutbacks in some states are related to the declines. One year's use, in contrast, ought to provide a more accurate reflection of the current situation. While long-term use patterns remained unchanged, annual use declined from 12% to 8%. This decrease should raise concern about where Extension is headed and warrant regular monitoring to determine whether this is a trend. The study shows that the public values the multiple functions of land-grant universities. Although classroom teaching is seen as most important, there is also substantial support for providing off-campus educational and technical assistance and for conducting research. What is probably surprising to many university faculty and administrators is the extent of support for outreach. This provides a strong endorsement for the efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service and other continuing education programs. The topics on which the public wants additional funding should not come as a surprise. Extension is expected to address the most critical societal problems, and right now those are our families, our youth, the environment, health care, and jobs. Anything else is considered less important. Likewise, it is expected that a sample that is 75% urban would rate agriculture somewhat lower than the other topics. Leadership and volunteerism is critical to the success of programs in the other subject areas, and yet the public may not fully appreciate its importance. It also is less tangible than the others. However, as we examine the differences, we should not lose sight of the fact that there was a strong expression of support for all seven base programs. The findings demonstrate that support for different aspects of the Extension program is found among different individuals. For example, support for increased funding for programs in family development and nutrition and health is greater among women than men. And that young people support funding for community development programs more than do the elderly. Extension offers a wide variety of educational programs to a diverse public. It is to be expected that individuals would find different parts of the program more useful than others depending upon their specific needs. However, over the years we have operated as if Extension is the same thing to all people. And, we have expected Extension's lifelong supporters to rally around the organization no matter what programs were being emphasized. With programs now being designed to address specialized needs and targeted toward specific audiences, future support will need to be developed through coalitions of individuals with very different needs and expectations. Our success at building that alliance of supporters may well determine Extension's future.
Christenson, J.A., Dillman, D.A., Warner, P. D., and Salant, P. (1995). The Public View of Land Grant Universities: Results from a National Survey. Choices, (3rd quarter), 37-39. Dillman, D.A., Christenson, J.A., Salant, P., and Warner, P.D. (1995). What the Public Wants from Higher Education: Workforce Implication's from a 1995 National Survey (Pullman: Washington State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Technical Report #95-52). Warner, P. D., and Christenson, J.A. (1984). The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview.
This article addresses the issues of how people's perception and use of Extension have changed over a 13-year period. Telephone surveys of the U.S. population in 1982 and again in 1995 asked about the awareness and use of Extension. In addition, the 1995 study documented desired spending support for the seven base programs. Awareness of Extension has remained high, although buoyed by 4-H's high visibility. Annual use of Extension registered a decline. Funding support was found to be the greatest for programs in youth and family issues, as well as in natural resources.
Clients Reach Higher Levels of Cognition Through Publications
Kristina M. Boone
Keith L. Smith
Extension, like many educational organizations, uses publications to teach clients, especially when personal contact isn't possible. Studies dealing with classroom texts and publications have been conducted, but research has not focused on media used in non-formal education. No studies have focused on cognition achieved from reading Extension publications. However, educational principles based on achievement of higher cognitive levels have been influential in Extension teaching. Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956) has long guided Extension education. Yet the taxonomy has not been applied to publications directed toward adult learners in non-formal learning situations, such as those where Extension operates. Based on review of studies critical of Bloom's Taxonomy, the Newcomb-Trefz Model (Newcomb & Trefz, 1987) was developed and reduced the cognitive levels to four: remembering, processing, creating, and evaluating. The learner moves through the lower levels to achieve higher levels of cognition. The lower levels in the model are remembering, followed by processing where some higher cognition begins. The higher levels include creating and evaluating, the highest level.
The purpose of this research was to determine whether cognitive change was accomplished after agricultural Extension clients in Scioto County, Ohio, read two publications. The objective of the study was to determine differences in levels of cognition after subjects in the treatment groups read the publications. Treatment groups were compared to control groups to determine differences in resulting cognition.
This study used a Solomon Four-Group experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The study participants were selected from an agriculture mailing list of The Ohio State University Extension, Scioto County office. An instrument, using multiple-choice items, was written to measure level of cognition using descriptors taken from work by Newcomb and Trefz (1987). Content validity was established by a panel of experts from the Ohio Water Resources Education Project and The Ohio State University. For reliability, 17 agricultural Extension clients in Richland County, Ohio, pilot tested the instrument, resulting in a Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of .60, an acceptable reliability for research at this stage (Nunnally, 1967). An alpha level of 0.10 was set a priori. Data were gathered in July and August 1993. The treatment was two publications describing the surface- and ground-water resources in Scioto County. These publications included learning objectives in the first paragraph of each. Members of the treatment groups were asked to read the publications and not to take the post-test until they had done so. The control groups did not read the two publications during the experiment. Because pre-test effects were determined to be negligible using a t-test, post-test scores from the pre-test/post-test group and post-test-only group were collapsed. Thus, further comparisons were made between the control and treatment groups using t-tests.
Forty-three farmers participated in the study and averaged 25 years in farming. Most had attended some college, and the average age was 49. One participant in the pre-test/post-test control group was functionally illiterate and the instrument was read to this person. Summing all the participants, the average percentage of correct answers was 60 percent, while the treatment group averaged 73 percent correct and the control averaged 47% correct. The percentages reflect the difficulty of the test (Table 1).
Treatment groups performed significantly better than control groups in total cognition and at the cognitive levels of remembering, processing, and creating in the Newcomb-Trefz Model. At the remembering and processing levels, the treatment group scored means of 4.05 and 3.86, respectively, out of a total possible of 5.0; while the control group scored 2.43 and 1.67, respectively. At the creating and evaluating levels, the treatment group scored means of 3.18 and 2.09, respectively, out of a total possible of 4.0; while the control group scored 2.29 and 2.11, respectively. From the total possible of 18.0 from all cognitive items, the treatment groups' mean was 13.18, while the control group's was 8.48. At the cognitive level of evaluating, significant differences were not found among treatment and control groups. Differences between treatment and control groups in mean scores at the processing level were greatest, indicating that the publications operated most effectively at the processing level. Table 2 presents the post-test scores of treatment and control groups at each level of cognition and in total cognition.
Results of this study show that the treatment group answered significantly greater numbers of questions correctly than the control group. The treatment group scored significantly higher than the control group on the cognitive levels of remembering, processing, and creating, but no significant differences were found at the evaluating level. This study indicates that Extension publications can contribute to learning. Optimally, publications are more effective if they are combined with interaction with an educator. However, this study indicates that the publications alone can help clients achieve higher levels of cognition. These publications also may be used to improve cognitive abilities as well as knowledge. With the terrific information resources becoming accessible to many citizens through the electronic technology, Extension must ensure that its information and media communicate with and educate clientele. Extension will continue expanding to other audiences with subject matter and technologies that are not traditional to Extension (Prawl, Medlin & Gross, 1984). Print media, especially publications, serve as the basis for most of these new technologies, such as CD-ROM, World-Wide Web postings, and internet transmissions. While many of these technologies are not restricted to print formats, it is important to remember that most Extension clients will ask for printouts of the material, as opposed to reading it directly from the CD or the posting on the web. Thus, publications should be in the forefront of increasing cognition with clientele groups and should not be disregarded for the newer technologies that recently captured attention. Much more research has focused on newer educational technologies than on text, but the excitement about these new technologies tends to give way. The boom of research on video instruction faded as computer-aided techniques took off, and the latter is now being replaced by the World-Wide Web. Print, however, remains the most utilized educational media with non- classroom audiences, leading one to the conclusion that its effects on learning should be studied. To advance the level of educational quality, Extension should draw on research in the area of cognition and text and utilize elements in publications found to enhance cognition, such as graphic organizers, learning objectives, and adjunct questions (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Duchastel, 1982; Stewart, 1989). Further, the publications using these elements should be studied with clientele groups, especially because research into text using these elements has been conducted primarily with elementary and secondary students in class room settings. Extension publications also should be written to help learners move through all the Newcomb Trefz levels, bearing in mind that cognition on the evaluating level may be difficult to attain.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Textual display techniques. In D. Johassen (Ed.), The technology of text (Vol. 1) (pp. 167-191). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Newcomb, L. H., & Trefz, M. K. (1987). Levels of cognition of student tests and assignments in the College of Agriculture at The Ohio State University. Proceedings of the Central Region 41st Annual Research Conference in Agricultural Education (pp. 26-30). Chicago, IL Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Prawl, W., Medlin, R., & Gross, J. (1984). Adult and continuing education through the Cooperative Extension Service. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia, Extension Division. Stewart, A. (1989, February). Structure and organization in instructional text--A cognitive perspective on practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Building Bridges: Leadership Development for the 21st Century
Brenda S. Seevers
Kathryn Treat
Merriyn Cummings
Susan Wright
New Mexico State University
The food and agricultural system, including the Cooperative Extension Service, is changing and must continue to change to keep up with our fast-paced society. Future Extension educators must be people who understand and can lead change (Patterson, 1991). Horner (1994, p. 15) noted that, "The Extension educator is the linkage between citizen and policymaker, between academia and the 'real world,' and between learners and leaders." He also stated that "Extension educators are 'natural prime-movers'... they can link leaders-in-learning to leaders in the 'real world'" (Horner, 1994, p. 18). There appears to be a decline in the pool of potential Extension educators that parallels the decline in higher education enrollments in food and agricultural science programs. Demographers predict that by the year 2000 today's minorities will be tomorrow's majority. According to racial and ethnic data from the 1990 Census, 38.2 percent of the New Mexico population is of Hispanic origin, 8.9 percent American Indian, 2 percent Black, and 12.6 percent races other than Anglo. The current county Extension faculty in New Mexico is 27 percent Hispanic and 2 percent American Indian (NMSU, 1992a). Enrollment in the College of Agriculture and Home Economics at New Mexico State University is 22.4 percent Hispanic, 4.7 percent American Indian, and .7 percent Black (NMSU, 1992b). The profiles of the current Cooperative Extension Service faculty and the potential future professional pool lack the ethnic diversity of the New Mexico population. Positive experiences such as internships and professional mentoring provide opportunities that improve the educational retention rate on college campuses and thus increase the pool of all applicants in the food and agricultural sciences.
The "Building Bridges" Leader/Mentor Project, focused on leadership development and increasing cultural diversity, was a cooperative effort by educators in the College of Agriculture and Home Economics at New Mexico State University and the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service. The three-year project was initially funded by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Higher Education Challenge Grant and the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service (NMCES). Continued support for the project has been provided by NMCES. The purpose of the project was to develop a model leadership intern experience emphasizing minority group involvement. The major goals of this project were to provide an undergraduate experiential leadership development opportunities that:
increased work force participation of minority groups provided opportunities for leadership mentoring and role modeling, and enhanced employability and career success in the food and agricultural sciences. Project Development and Implementation Curriculum Development A national study by Hahn (1979) was the basis for the conceptual framework for the curriculum and evaluation components of this research. Hahn identified specific competencies every Cooperative Extension professional should possess. The competencies fell into seven clusters: commitment to the job, communication skills, interpersonal skills, positive attitude, program development and direction, problem solving, and self- confidence. These clusters were the basis for development of the project's internship objectives and activities and seminar curricula. Two major curricular resources were developed during the first year: A Mentor Handbook and an Intern Experience Notebook. The Mentor Handbook included a description of project goals; definitions, expectations, and benefits of mentoring; expectations of the student intern; and guidelines for intern supervision and evaluation. The Intern Experience Notebook included explanations for the planning, accomplishing, and recording of documentation for the following intern objectives: To analyze leadership practices used in CES or community programs To analyze interactions among CES personnel To develop a variety of communication skills necessary for leadership in teaching, media presentations, volunteer recruitment, and personal interactions with diverse audiences To give evidence of the leadership role of county faculty in establishing and maintaining community/county/state linkages and networks To plan, execute, and evaluate a leadership development program, activity, or event that meets a county need for youth, adults, or families. To evaluate the "Building Bridges" Leader/Mentor Project. The Intern Experience Notebook provided interns with the necessary forms and information to complete project objectives. Other curriculum efforts included the development of pre- and post-field experience seminar materials.
A variety of recruitment and promotion techniques including pamphlets, posters, and letters were utilized to encourage diversity in the pool of intern and mentor applicants. All applicants had to be enrolled as an undergraduate, meet a minimum Grade Point Average (2.5), have completed 21 credit hours of technical subject matter courses in agriculture or home economics disciplines, and have met university basic skills (English, math) requirements. Additionally interns completed an application form. All applicants meeting the academic criteria were interviewed. Although ethnic diversity among interns/mentors was desired, no guidelines or requirements were used to ensure that this occurred. Potential mentors also completed an application form and were selected based on statements of commitment to the project goals and a letter of recommendation from the immediate supervisor. Seven interns and seven mentors each were selected in 1994 and six interns and mentors were selected in 1995. Interns selected for the project received six credit hours, a tuition waiver, a living stipend, and travel reimbursements. Each mentor's county Extension Service office received a stipend to use as appropriate. The ethnic composition of the student interns and mentors during the first two years was two Hispanic and eleven white mentors and six Hispanic and seven white interns. There were seven male mentors and six female mentors and four male interns and nine female interns. Each student was assigned to a county other than his/her home county to encourage an appreciation of the diverse entities of the state. Interns and mentors were matched based on common interests, when possible.
Students participated in eight-week internships in New Mexico county Extension offices during the summers of 1994 and 1995. Prior to the on-site experience, mentors and interns participated in three activities: an orientation meeting for each group held in January/February, an intern visit to the county CES office during the semester Spring Break, and a one- week intensive pre-internship leadership seminar on campus in May. During the orientation session, interns were administered the 30-item Youth Leadership Life Skills Development Scale (Dormody, Seevers, & Clason, 1993) to assess perceived leadership skill level. During the five-day leadership seminar, topics on diversity, careers in food and agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service, communication strategies, leadership, volunteers, and teaching methods were addressed. Mentors and interns interacted during the leadership seminar to establish goals and plan activities for the internship. In June and July, interns spent eight weeks in county Extension offices under the guidance and supervision of their mentors. As they completed the required activities meeting project objectives, interns worked across program areas and with agents involved in home economics, agriculture, and 4-H programs. Some of the required activities included: attending a variety of meetings; working with an Extension specialist; preparing media releases; responding to clientele requests for assistance; recruiting a volunteer; interviewing a public official; and planning, executing, and evaluating educational/leadership programs. All required activities were documented and analyzed using the forms provided in the Intern Experience Notebook. University project personnel communicated regularly with mentors and interns by phone, electronic mail, and county visits at the midpoint of the internship. All project personnel have family and consumer science backgrounds as well as Extension experience. At the end of the internship, students returned to campus to participate in a two-day, post-field experience seminar to identify and discuss key learnings and experiences. Interns prepared poster presentations of highlights to share with campus administrators. Also, two post assessments of the leadership skills inventory were administered to assess changes in and perceived gains on the 30 leadership skills.
Evaluation of this three-year project used multiple approaches. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to evaluate process and results. Components evaluated were intern performance, leadership development, and the overall project. Intern Performance A standard academic grading scale was used to communicate intern performance. Final evaluations were based on the quality of required items, including. the Intern Experience Notebook, weekly reports, participation in pre-and-post seminars, mentor and intern checklists, and narrative evaluations. The completion of the Intern Experience Notebook comprised half of the intern's grade. Weekly reports provided regular contact and an assessment of progress toward completion of required assignments. An evaluative checklist of 19 competencies was developed for this project based on Hahn's (1979) work. This checklist, as well as a narrative evaluation, were completed by interns and mentors at the end. Leadership Development The Youth Leadership Life Skills Development Scale (YLLSDS)(Dormody, Seevers, Clason, 1993) was used to measure intern status on 30 leadership scales. Content and face validity for the YLLSDS had been previously established by a panel of experts. Reliability assessment for the scale produced a Cronbach's coefficient alpha of .98 Comparison of pre-and-post assessments indicated change in the frequency with which interns perceived they practiced each skill. A second post assessment, utilizing the same scale, asked for interns' perceptions of gains in leadership skills as a result of the internship.
Project evaluation forms were developed for mentors and interns. Respondents were asked to evaluate the perceived value of 34 different components of the program including recruitment procedures, orientation efforts, seminar topics, and aspects of the internship itself. In addition, participants rated each of the required activities in the Intern Experience Notebook in terms of the quantity of work expected. Additional qualitative assessments were gathered through written comments on each component, responses to questions about the worth of the program, and suggestions for improvement. Quotes from interns were captured on videotape during post seminar sharing.
Intern Performance Students enrolled in either six credits of Agricultural and Extension Education or Home Economics Education. Final evaluations of student performance ranged from A to C for six credit hours. Completeness, accuracy, and quality of assignments were factors in grading the intern's performance. Leadership Development Each item on the YLLSDS was rated by the intern using the following scale indicating frequency with which the skill was exhibited: 0 = rarely, 1 - sometimes, 2 = often, and 3 = almost always. The differences between pre-and post-internship values were calculated and averages determined for each of the 30 items. In 1994, increases in frequencies were seen for 26 of the items from pre-to-post internship assessments. In 1995, increases in frequencies were found for 16 of the 30 items. The 1995 group of interns rated themselves significantly higher on the pre- assessment than the 1994 interns, thus accounting for fewer frequency gains in year two. The leadership life skills with the largest changes in frequency from pre-to-post internship are shown in Table 1. The interns also rated each of the items in terms of amount of gain they perceived they acquired in each skill during the internship. The following scale was used for this rating: 0 = no gain, 1 = slight gain, 2 = moderate gain, and 3 = a lot of gain. The leadership life skills gains with the greatest perceived gains for the two years are found in Table 2. Perceived gains reflect growth in self-confidence and perceived competence in the leadership role. Frequency of skill occurrence and perceived level of gain were deemed important since leadership development was identified as an important overall project objective.
Interns and mentors were asked to rate the value of 34 project activity components. Examples of project activities rated included recruitment procedures, orientation efforts, seminar topics, and the internship itself. In addition they rated each of the required internship objectives and accompanying experiences in terms of the quantity of work expected. The percentage of responses given to each evaluative descriptor can be found in Table 3.
Mentors and interns also shared opinions regarding the value of the overall program, program continuation, and suggestions for improvement. Comments supported the following conclusions:
A summary of qualitative and quantitative data indicated that mentors and interns perceived the project as a successful experience. Recommendations and suggestions from mentors and interns included:
The "Building Bridges" project, now in its fourth year in New Mexico, is an important investment in the future. Because of the perceived value of the internship and the potential impact on the future work force in New Mexico agriculture, the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service committed the financial support (approximately $3500 per intern) for this project to continue in 1996. During the 1996 year, eight interns with seven mentors were selected and placed in Extension offices throughout New Mexico. Twenty-one students have successfully competed the "Building Bridges" project. These students are in various stages of career development, but almost all have chosen to stay in some area related to food and agriculture. One student received early admission to a veterinary school, one is currently working for NMCES, two have interviewed for NMCES positions, one is in graduate school, and 15 are 1995-1997 graduates who have indicated career interests in teaching, Extension, or continuing a graduate degree in a food or agriculture area. Positive experiences such as this will ensure competent professionals for the 21st century.
Dormody, T. J. & Seevers, B. S. & Clason, D. L. (1993). The Youth Leadership Life Skills Development Scale: An evaluation and research tool for youth organizations. (Research Report 672). New Mexico State University. Horner, J.T. (1984). "Developing effective agricultural leaders." Journal of Extension, 22 (Nov-Dec): 15-18. National Research Council (1996). NRC Report on Land-Grant College. The National Research Council's Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land-Grant University System. Electronic transmission of a prepublication report. May 17, 1996. New Mexico State University. (1992a) Data from Personnel Office New Mexico State University (1992b). Data from Associate Dean, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Patterson, T. F. (1991). "Tomorrow's Extension education- learner, communicator, systemist." Journal of Extension, 29 (Spring): 31-32. U. S. Bureau of the Census, (1990). Computer Tape, PL94- 171: 1990 - New Mexico. Released March 1991. Characteristics of Farmer-To-Consumer Direct Market Customers: An Overview
Ramu Govindasamy
Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing
Marketing is one of the greatest single problems facing Northeast farmers. Production of good quality produce is a necessary condition but not a sufficient criterion for profitability. Most agricultural products go through several hands before reaching the consumer. As a result, costs involved in handling, storing, transporting, and distributing food products also increases. It is often contemplated that some of these cost increases are unnecessary or that more of the middleman's profit should go to the farmer. Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing is a way by which farmers sell their products directly to consumers (Henderson and Linstrom, 1982). Farmers sell their products directly to consumers through several outlets. The most familiar types of outlets are pick-your-own (PYO) farms, roadside stands, farmers' markets and direct farm markets. PYO operations are farms where retail customers harvest their own agricultural products. Roadside stands are mostly temporary structures erected by the farmer to sell his or her produce. Farmers' markets, on the other hand, are places where farmers bring their produce to be sold, while direct farm markets are structures located at the farm used to sell their own produce. Items frequently sold through direct marketing outlets are fruits, vegetables, flowers, nursery products, eggs, and dairy products (Nayga, Fabian, Thatch and Wanzala, 1994). Farmers view direct marketing as an alternative market outlet to increase their income while consumers see it as a means of gaining access to fresher, higher quality foods at lower costs (Nayga et al., 1994). Consumers also derive cultural and social benefits from direct contacts with farmers, visits to farm and nature (Linstrom, 1978). There is a need to document various characteristics of direct marketing consumers to better serve the needs of the consumers efficiently.The needs of consumers can be met by analyzing the direct marketing consumer behavior and purchasing patterns. The purpose of this research is to determine how well farmer-to-consumer direct markets serve the needs of the consumer by providing an overview of characteristics of direct marketing patrons.
A survey of New Jersey direct marketing consumers was conducted in October of 1994 to collect information on characteristics. Questionnaires were mailed to 500 consumers of direct marketing facilities, identified by Rutgers Cooperative Extension. Of the 500 questionnaires, 198 were returned. Seventeen of these 198 were returned because of incorrect address, or the consumer moved with no forwarding address. Two other questionnaires were received after the compilation and analysis of the data had already begun and were not included. The number of usable questionnaires was 179.
Type of Facilities Utilized and Consumption of Variety of Fresh Fruits and /or Vegetables in Household Consumers were asked to reveal what type of direct markets were visited to purchase fruits and/or vegetables in 1994 and in the past five years. Table 1 provides percent of respondents who visited various types of direct markets. In 1994, roadside stands rank first as the most visited direct market, followed by pick- your-own, then direct farm market, and, finally, farmers' markets. In the past five years, ranking of the direct markets in terms of number of visitations did not change compared to 1994. Percent of respondents who visited direct markets during the past five years was higher than those who visited in 1994. For those who did not shop at any of the four types of direct markets, "distance/not available" in the area was the most common reason cited for not shopping.
Over the past five years, consumption of fruits in the household has either increased or stayed the same for most respondents. Approximately 2% noted a decrease in consumption of fruits. Similarly, about two-third respondents indicated an increase in consumption of vegetables in the household in the past five years. About 26% indicated that they consumed the same amount as five years ago and 2% indicated a decline in their household consumption of vegetables. In regards to variety, 81% of respondents indicated that their family is consuming a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. Number of Visits and Amount Spent at Direct Marketing Facilities Respondents visited the direct marketing facility on an average of 1.46 times per month for a pick-your-own facility. On average, for roadside stands, farmers' markets and direct farm markets, respondents visited 2.16, 1.68, and 1.85 times per month, respectively. More than two-thirds of the pick-your-own respondents implied that they had visited a PYO facility at least once per month. Approximately, half of the respondents visited the roadside stand facility at least once during the month, and one-fifth visited twice. More than half of farmers' market patrons said they visited approximately one time during the month, and more than one-fifth visited the facility twice. More than half of direct farm market respondents indicated visiting the facility once a month. Approximately one-fifth of the respondents visited twice, and more than one-fourth visited at least three times. For pick-your-own operation, one-third of the respondents stated that their number of visits had increased from the previous year. Approximately half indicated that their number of visits had stayed the same, while 14% indicated a decrease in visits to pick-your-own facilities. Likewise, one-third of the respondents indicated an increase, 15% indicated a decrease and 50% indicated no change in the number of visits to roadside stands. Again approximately one-third of the respondents of farmers' markets and direct farm markets facilities indicated an increase in the number of visits compared to the previous year. Roughly half of the respondents indicated that their number of visits stayed the same and 14% and 11% indicated a decrease in the number of visits to farmers' markets and direct farm markets. In summary, majority of the respondents visited direct markets either one or two times per month. Roadside stands were visited most frequently compared to other outlets. About half of the respondents indicate that their number of visits to direct markets will be unchanged. The average dollar amount spent at direct marketing facilities ranged from $11 to $19. PYO consumers who responded spent the most with an average of $15.81, followed by an average of $15.48 spent by farmers' market respondents. Direct farm market patrons and roadside stand patrons spent an average of $13.93 and $11.01, respectively. Expectations of Quality, Variety and Price As Compared to Supermarkets In regards to quality, 92% of respondents expected better quality produce at direct markets than at supermarkets, while 2% count on worse and 6% expect the same as supermarkets. About half of respondents anticipate more variety of produce at direct market facilities than at supermarkets, while 35% expect less and 16% count on the same amount of variety as supermarket. Prices are anticipated to be lower at direct markets according to 74% of consumers who responded. About 15% of the respondents expect higher prices at direct market facilities than at supermarkets and 11% do not expect any difference between direct markets and supermarkets. Uses of Produce, Consumer Intentions to Visit Direct Markets and Methods of Recognition Of the respondents who described their uses of produce, 96% indicated using it for fresh consumption, 12% froze their produce, 13% canned it, 7% preserved it, and 37% had other uses. It should be noted that some respondents had more than one use of produce purchased from direct markets. Of the nine other uses for their produce, the following were indicated: cooking, drying herbs, and saving. When asked if they intended to visit New Jersey direct markets in 1995, 73% of the respondents replied yes. The primary sources of information reported to locate direct markets were Rutgers Cooperative Extension leaflet, passing by, newspaper, and word of mouth. Other sources of direct markets reported were book, New Jersey State Agriculture Department, Town Landmark, and New Jersey Tourism Board. Common fruits purchased at direct markets were apples, peaches, strawberries and blueberries. Other fruits mentioned were melons, watermelons grapes, plums, bananas, nectarines, grapefruits, cherries, blackberries and pears. Common vegetables purchased at direct markets were sweet corn, tomatoes, peppers, and broccoli. The other vegetables mentioned were snap beans, carrots, potatoes, lettuce, eggplant, cauliflower, zucchini, squash, cucumbers, green beans, lima beans and spinach.
Majority of the respondents fell under the age category of 36-50 years old. This was followed by the 21-35 age group, the 51 -65 age group, and the over 65 age group. Of the respondents who revealed their gender, approximately 77% were female. Most of respondents either had some college, a bachelor's degree, some graduate/professional school or graduate/professional degree. The ethnicity of 80% of the respondents was Caucasian. The remaining 20% was made up of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian and other ethnicity. The respondents households mostly consisted of two adults and one or two children. The ages of the adults ranged from 19 to 95. The annual household income of 32% of the respondents was at least $70,000, while 15% was between $60,000 - $69,999 and 16% indicated their income was between $50,000 - $59,999. Twelve percent of the respondents had household incomes between $40,000 - $49,999 and 14% of the respondents had household incomes between $30,000 - $39,999. Only 10% of the respondents indicated that their incomes below $30,000. The majority of the respondents consider their neighborhood to be suburban. Only 17% think of their neighborhood as an urban area and 9% regard their neighborhood a rural community.
Direct marketing of agricultural products helps producers increase net returns in addition to retaining agricultural lands in or near suburban and urban areas. Farmers view direct marketing as an alternative way to capture more of the consumer's dollar, while consumers welcome the opportunity to get fresh, high quality produce at lower costs. A mail survey of direct marketing consumers was conducted in 1994 to document the characteristics of customers. The survey indicates that more than 60% of respondents visited one of the four direct marketing facilities in 1994 with roadside stands being visited most often. Similarly, more than three-quarters of respondents had visited direct marketing facilities in the past five years. The average consumer visited the roadside stand 2.16 times per month, direct farm market 1.85 times, farmers' markets 1.68 times, and pick-your-own facility 1.46 times per month. The average amount spent per visit was $11.01 at roadside stand, $13.93 at direct farm markets, $15.48 at farmers' markets and $18.81 at pick-your-own facilities. These results identify several avenues for Extension programming to potentially improve both the profitability of direct marketing operations and the quality of service to their customers. For instance, the number of visits made by the consumers to a direct market facility can be improved by strategically locating the operation. Extension educators may work with the marketer to identify a suitable location for a direct marketing facility. Provision of a wider variety of fruits and vegetables may not only increase the demand on the consumer side but also increase the profitability of the operation. Consumers are interested in "one-stop" shopping for most of their needs. Extension educators may also help direct marketers identify the needs of consumers. The quality of the produce provided by the direct marketing operations play an important role in attracting customers. The number of visits to direct markets can also be improved by the provision of most commonly demanded fruits and vegetables such as apples, peaches, strawberries, tomato, pepper and sweet corn.
Henderson, P.L., & Linstrom, H.R. (1982). Farmer to Consumer Direct Marketing: Selected States, 1979-80 (Statistical Bulletin No. 681). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Linstrom, H.R.(1978). Farmer to Consumer Marketing, (Report No. ESCS-01). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service. Nayga Jr., R.M., Fabian, M.S., Thatch, D.W., & Wanzala, W.N. (1994). Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing: Characteristics of New Jersey Operations (Publication No. P-02453-1-94). New Brunswick: Rutgers University, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. DAIRY-MAP: A Cooperative Program Brings Individual Attention to Dairymen
James W. Smith
Janet I. Rodekohr
University of Georgia How can a team of educators serve a small target group scattered throughout a large geographic area? University of Georgia Extension Service dairy specialists tackled that question to reach 600 dairy farms in 95 of Georgia's 159 counties. Many counties have fewer than five dairies, so a traditional dairy meeting is not a practical teaching tool for county Extension agents. The dairy specialists initiated Dairy Herd Analysis meetings in 1987, offering personal visits to individual dairymen in selected counties. The county agent scheduled visits with producers, who were encouraged to bring up any topic for discussion with the team of two or three specialists. The concept of these meetings worked well, so the dairy scientists expanded the idea in 1994 and offered it statewide, calling it DAIRY-MAP (Dairy Management Analysis Program). DAIRY- MAP continued the one-on-one discussion with producers and added additional information for producers enrolled in the Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) program. DAIRY-MAP focuses on specific management problems for each producer, applying DHI information to evaluate and analyze dairy herd management. Most dairy producers enrolled in DHI use the information to make decisions daily. They routinely use lists of cows to pregnancy check, cows to breed, and cows to dry off. Fewer producers use DHI information to analyze and evaluate herd management. But the accessibility of DHI data has created new educational opportunities. By electronically downloading data, Extension educators can create reports and graphs that help producers look at herd data more critically. Herd data is available for downloading from the Dairy Records Processing Center located at North Carolina State University, Raleigh. This data is used to generate two reports and a series of 19 graphs. This information is assembled into a report that is presented to the producer at the beginning of a DAIRY-MAP session. A herd summary comparison report is often used to initiate discussion and focus attention on management strengths and weaknesses. The report compares a herd's performance with other herds of the same breed and similar size in the Southeast. For each of 23 management parameters, the current values for the herd are listed along with the mean, top 25% and top 10% values for regional herds. This report answers the question of how a herd compares with other herds in certain critical management areas. A second question concerns how a herd has performed over a period of time. A series of 19 graphs shows management trends for the past 18 months. Graphs provide the opportunity to quickly isolate management trends as well as further investigate weaknesses uncovered by the comparison report. A three-month herd summary report summarizes specific management variables in an attempt to answer questions related to current herd performance. It provides a framework for discussion of current management concerns. The success of DAIRY-MAP is dependent upon cooperation between specialists and agents. Agents are responsible for contacting interested producers. Since few counties have a large number of dairies, direct mail and personal contact work best. Specialists provide support materials to assist agents in advertising DAIRY-MAP. Materials include a sample letter announcing the program and a sample newsletter/news article. A brochure summarizes key aspects of the program. Agents schedule sessions at 90-minute intervals, usually in the county Extension office, although some meetings have been held at the farm. A schedule listing producer's name, time of session and any specific management concerns is mailed to the specialist, preferably a week before the meeting. Agents are encouraged to call each producer the day before the sessions as a reminder. Agents and producers are asked to evaluate DAIRY-MAP sessions, providing specialists with input on program improvement. Producer evaluations can be incorporated into impact statements. DAIRY-MAP is an ideal method to collect material for an impact statement because it gives baseline data to track the progress of specific producers. DAIRY-MAP is a time intensive educational program requiring advance preparation. Visits with individual producers by specialists mean that the total audience for a day will be small. An alternative in counties with more dairies is a group meeting. Reports and graphs are provided to individual producers showing data for their farm. Examples are used to describe management trends. Individual consultations, if desired, are arranged for a later date. DAIRY-MAP is an example of the land-grant concept at work. It shows the delivery of practical, research-based information through the county Extension agent and its application by specific producers.
Using Community Development Simulations in Divergent International Contexts
Mildred Warner
Anna Belajova
Community issues programming challenges Cooperative Extension educators to cross traditional programmatic lines to address linkages between environmental, social, economic and political issues (Deller, et. al. 1994). Simulations are an effective mechanism to introduce the complexities of community issues to Extension clienteles. It is a challenge to develop simulations complex enough to model reality yet flexible enough to accommodate the unique and creative options that players devise. In an Extension environment of increasing cultural diversity, educational tools must be robust for use in widely divergent contexts. Since the breakup of the Soviet allied states, Cooperative Extension has enjoyed numerous opportunities to share pedagogy with Eastern European colleagues. A key challenge has been the need to develop materials that are both culturally sensitive and demonstrate alternative approaches to community development in a market driven context. This paper provides a comparative review of experience with the Community Land Use and Economics Simulation (CLUES) in New York and in Slovakia to demonstrate the importance of a flexible and open ended simulation design.
The CLUES simulation was developed to model the complex interaction between social, environmental, political and economic forces at the community level (Eberts, et. al., 1994). It was field tested with community leaders and other academics from the northeast U.S. in 1991-1994 and further adapted for use with college and 4-H student audiences. The CLUES simulation was first tested in a non-U.S. context in March 1995 with a group of central and eastern European graduate students at the University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovakia. It was translated into Slovak (Belajova and Acs, 1996) and used with sophomores at the university in February, 1996. Structure of the Simulation The simulation divides the players into five teams representing key sectors of a local economy. Primary (agriculture), secondary (light and heavy industry), and tertiary (consumer goods, specialty services and business services) sectors are reflected among the teams. The Simulation Manager represents the outside world - national government and outside competition. Economic aspects of play demonstrate the importance of competition and monopoly in determining prices, wages and the distribution of wealth in the community. There are two political groups in the simulation - a planning board and a community council that include representatives elected from each team. The need for community planning is demonstrated through decisions about extension of utilities, land use changes, siting of new public facilities and environmental, economic or social crises. Community budgeting is a critical feature of the simulation as the Community Council grapples with rising costs of public services, need for new investment, and inequities in the incidence of local taxes.
A simulation can provide an opportunity for players to experiment with different regulatory options in tax and fee structure, land use controls, and service provision. It also provides important experience in what it means to be part of a competitive market economy. In Slovakia, local communities are faced with radical transformation both of their economies and of their political systems. Uncertainty prevails and local leaders are challenged to negotiate this rapidly changing regulatory and economic landscape. The CLUES simulation can help Slovak citizens understand the challenges and complexities of community development and allow them to experiment with new policy forms, necessitated by their highly unstable economic and political environment. The effects of Slovakia's economic and political transition are felt most keenly at the local level. State subsidies comprised 70% of local budgets in 1992 (before independence) but today account for only 26%. At the same time, local government responsibility for service provision has widened. This local budgetary crisis is coupled with a radically transforming economic system as Slovakia privatizes state and cooperative enterprises and a new entrepreneurial sector emerges. Direct business support for social and community welfare was a standard feature under state socialism. In 1989 agricultural cooperatives gave the same level of subsidy as the national government now gives to support culture, sports and social services. Today, declining revenues and competitive market pressures are reducing the level of such private sector supports. Politically, opportunities for democratic participation have widened but local communities, accustomed to central planning and control, are only beginning to explore wider options for local planning.
The simulation is a particularly useful extension tool in a context where laws and regulations are shifting as these can be changed with ease, providing the players an opportunity to deal with the impact of such changes on local economic and political processes. Differences in the way Slovak and U.S. players approach the CLUES simulation are related to their differing historical experiences. The simulation's success as a cross- cultural community development extension tool was based on its flexible and open-ended design. Important differences between Slovakia and the US were successfully accommodated in the economic, planning and visioning aspects of the simulation. Although players in both Slovakia and the U.S. have little direct personal experience with investing, the competitive aspects of play come more naturally to U.S. players. The Slovak teams were slow to challenge monopolies, so the Simulation Manager encouraged price competition by bringing in outside competition. Community financing is a key constraint in the simulation. CLUES was designed around U.S. notions of taxation and bonding, but could accommodate the more creative public-private partnerships designed by Slovak teams. These included direct business subsidies and loans to finance infrastructure and social services. New forms of public finance in Slovakia will undoubtedly include some level of direct private sector support and CLUES demonstrated the limits market competition will place on firms' ability to continue this tradition. Inequality in wealth distribution, a key challenge for U.S. players, was addressed head-on by Slovak players. The Community Council showed greater sensitivity to the lower class team and explored alternative public financing options whose incidence was more progressive. The lower class team itself moved quickly and successfully to reduce its costs or raise its wages early in the simulation. Among U.S. players the lower class worker team often has trouble developing a survival strategy or convincing the community to address its concerns without a major crisis (such as going on strike). Planning and visioning were addressed quite differently by U.S. and Slovak players. Debriefing between rounds of play proved critical to ensuring the simulation's relevance in both contexts and demonstrated fundamental differences in the way the game was played. The simulation was designed to demonstrate the importance of community planning in the context of a market driven economy. U.S. players, who gravitate toward the competitive aspects of the simulation, often assume "winning" means acquiring the most wealth. This focus on competition makes it difficult for players to recognize the structural features of income inequality. Only after several rounds of play do players begin to realize a purely competitive, unplanned development strategy yields a distribution of wealth and level of amenities below the minimum desired for community well-being. Slovak players, accustomed to high levels of services and social equality, moved first to resolve structural inequalities by changing the taxation system and upgrading wages. The challenge for Slovak groups was to understand the complexities of price and wage competition in a free market economy. To achieve their goals of enhanced community well being they were forced to grapple with the complexity of market interaction - competition and private investment - in order build sufficient private wealth to provide the basis for future community investment.
Simulations can be useful in a cross cultural context because they provide an opportunity to practice aspects of community development with which the players have relatively less experience - community planning in the U.S. case and market competition in the Slovak case. Key to success in using simulations with diverse audiences is an open ended design flexible enough to accommodate creative and unique solutions proposed by players.
Belajova, Anna and Daniel Acs, 1996, "CLUES: Planning for Your Community," Dept. of Regional Development, Univ. of Agriculture, Nitra, Slovakia. Deller, Steve, John Gruidl, Steve Kline, Alice Schumaker, Norman Walzer, Mike Woods and David Patton, 1994. "Assessing Programs to Build a Community Action Agenda," Paper presented at Communities in Transition Conference, Ohio State Univ. Columbus, OH, November 1994. Eberts, Paul, Mildred Warner and D. Guy Burns, 1994, "Community Land Use and Economics Simulation," CaRDI, Cornell University, Ithaca. NY.
The Mellon Foundation provided support for the faculty exchange visits and translations which were the foundation for this collaboration. Daniel Acs translated the simulation into Slovak. Paul Eberts and Alan Feldt created the original game on which the Slovak version was based.
Changing for the Future
Angela J. Huebner
Carol Benesh Oh the times they are a changing! Who would have thought that over 130 years later Extension would be where it is today? It's encouraging to know that our organization is able to change with the times. Examples of these organizational changes are evidenced in the new partnerships Extension continues to form with other organizations at the community, state, and federal level. While you may be aware of the Children, Youth and Families at Risk initiative that funded 96 community-based projects in 450 communities, the fifteen state projects to strengthen Community Programs, and four electronically linked National Networks, there are some exciting new additions to the list. One of the most recent endeavors includes a new partnership at the National level with the Department of the Army--the USDA-Army School-Age and Teen Project. Specifically, The Army School-Age and Teen Project (ASA&T project) is a national collaborative effort between the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Army. In March 1995, the Community and Family Support Center of the Army signed an interagency agreement with the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA, to provide new program operational materials, training, and technical assistance for both school-age and teen programs to over 44 Army installations located within the United States, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. CSREES, through Kansas State University, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Auburn University has subcontracted with over 25 other universities for Cooperative Extension professionals to implement the pilot project. The project is funded through September 1997. Kansas State University is developing a web site that will allow Internet access to the materials used in the project. While such an agreement may appear to be business as usual, it is a bold step for Extension to forge a partnership with another government agency outside of USDA. From a strategic planning perspective, this partnership offers an opportunity for CSREES to position itself as an organization that provides a central function for the national government. This central function is the provision of training and resources to other essential government organizations regarding issues related to children, youth and families. Because Cooperative Extension is located within the Land- Grant University system, the training and resources it can provide come from well-evaluated, research-based materials. Cooperative Extension is able to expand its target audience to include other government agencies by relying on the strength of the entire Cooperative Extension system, the Children, Youth, and Families National Networks, and other technological advances including e-mail and expanded Internet access. In addition to the obvious benefits the Army will receive, this type of partnership has exciting implications for the Cooperative Extension System at the national, state and county levels. At the national level, this project provides Extension with the opportunity to expand its own National Juried Curriculum Collection Library of curricula materials and programs. This expansion means that more high quality programming materials will be available for use by the entire System. Building on the foundation of Internet access established through the National Networks, these materials will be available for downloading to any State or County office. From a State and County perspective, this project provides an opportunity for Extension personnel to market curricula materials developed in their state to a global audience. An additional benefit at the state and county level is the formation of local partnerships between Extension personnel and Army installation staff. As part of the ASA&T project, school-age and teen specialists make contact with Extension personnel located in counties with pilot project installation sites. They invite county extension agents to co-facilitate or to participate in training sessions offered to installation staff. Such partnerships at the local level are particularly useful because they facilitate the sharing of the rich resources found within both systems--Army and Extension. For example, Army installations may want to offer 4-H programming as part of their School-Age Services Programs or Youth Services Programs; reciprocally, installation may be able to offer young people in local 4-H programs access to recreational opportunities available on the installations (e.g. stables, swimming pools, ropes courses, etc.). The USDA/ARMY School-Age and Teen Project is just one example of how our organization can and has adapted to meet the growing needs of our society. It is our hope that USDA and Cooperative Extension continue to show such flexibility and insight in planning well into the future. PASSing the Financial Management Interest Exam
Freddie L. Barnard Effective financial management is essential to the success of any agricultural business. However, a problem often faced by Extension educators teaching financial management is getting, and keeping, the interest of meeting participants. The challenge for Extension educators is to identify ways to PASS the "interest exam" that is given, and graded, by Extension clientele who attend Extension meetings on financial management. A financial management workshop conducted by Extension specialists at Purdue University did receive a PASSing grade from agricultural producers. The program, "Financial Management and Performance Assessment for Modern Agriculture," used data from a simple case study to illustrate the concepts and principles discussed. The presenters emphasized four features that helped them PASS the interest exam: Performance-based analysis, Action- oriented learning, Simple case study, and System of financial analysis. Performance-based analysis uses financial and production performance measures that can be compared to either industry benchmarks or to the performance of agricultural businesses with similar operating characteristics. Data were presented from various sources to develop appropriate benchmarks for selected financial and production measures. Participants used the comparative data to identify strengths and weaknesses for the case farm and then suggested production, marketing, and financial alternatives for improving the financial performance. Action-oriented learning is essential in today's fast-paced world. Agricultural producers simply do not sit for long periods of time and listen to lectures. Instead, they are, and like to be, active. The workshop used a case study approach to focus on the basic financial statements: balance sheet, income statement, statement of owner equity, and cash flow statement. The amount of time spent lecturing was limited to 30 minutes on each financial statement. For the remainder of the time, participants either completed the financial statements for the case study or discussed the answer key for the case study. Consequently, participants were actively involved throughout the entire workshop. Simple case studies can often be more effective teaching tools than complex case studies, particularly when the main teaching points are establishing and understanding the relationships among financial statements and financial ratios. Participants can easily get bogged down in details when using complex case studies. The objective of the workshop was not to make participants accountants, but rather to facilitate their understanding of the information reported on financial statements and how to use that information to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an agricultural business. System approaches are used throughout agriculture to evaluate performance, including financial performance. The DuPont Financial Analysis System was used to link production, financial, and marketing decisions to financial performance through financial ratios. Various production, financial, and marketing alternatives were identified for improving the financial performance of the case farm. The impact of each alternative was then assessed using the DuPont Financial Analysis System. Establishing the link between the production, financial, and marketing decisions and the impact on financial performance was essential for understanding the financial performance of the case farm. The challenge of getting, and keeping, the interest of meeting participants will always be a challenge for Extension educators who present educational programs on financial management. However, the features discussed in this article helped this workshop PASS the "interest exam" and may prove useful to other Extension educators considering financial management workshops. California Issues New Book on Community Intervention
Alvin D. Sokolow How university educators and researchers tackle community problems is the focus of a new book entitled "Community and University: Case Studies and Commentary on University of California Cooperative Extension Interventions." Based on case studies of projects in six different California regions, it examines the risks and opportunities of applying university expertise to controversial local issues. It is publication 3371 of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis. Several commentaries compare the six cases and offer general lessons about making the transition from traditional disciplinary knowledge to the less structured and predictable world of local conflict. The lessons are useful for outreach educators, program developers, community leaders, and field representatives of outside organizations. Among the ricks discussed in this analysis are the career uncertainties faced by university people, especially those trained in the "hard" sciences, who get involved in public issues that are not amenable t the application of scientific information and principles. Then too, the credibility of both individual educators and their universities can be challenged by contact with community controversies. On the positive side, however, is the realization that universities--especially land-grant institutions--have the obligation to direct their knowledge and skills to off-campus problems. Increasingly, public universities are being judged by how well they serve the needs of statewide, regional, and community constituencies. Much of the book is focused on the strategies for engaging effectively in public policy work at the community level, including aspects of project selection, timing, and collaboration with local actors. The case studies were written by county advisors and campus specialists of the University of California Cooperative Extension, who directed recent projects. The community issues they describe deal with water quality, farm animal facility siting, public lands, Hispanic leadership, military base reuse, and Native American reservations. Copies of the 160-page book are available for $12 from Communications Services-Publcations, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, 6701 San Pablo Ave. Second Floor, Oakland, CA 94608-1239 or on the World Wide Web at http://pubweb.ucdavis.edu/documents/ccp/ccp.html
Professional Opportunities with an International Perspective
Barbara G. Ludwig
Satish Verma Are you interested and/or involved in international development work? Are you teaching or doing research/Extension work with an international perspective with implications for transfer in other regions and countries of the world? Would you like to know more about developments in research, teaching, and practical experiences in agricultural education and Extension education in the United States and other developed and developing countries? Would you like to share your research, teaching, Extension, and practical developmental experiences with professional colleagues in the U.S. and abroad? If you said yes to any one or all of these questions, the Association for International and Extension Education (AIAEE) and the Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education (JIAEE) are potentially satisfying avenues for professional, job- related, and personal growth needs through involvement, learning, networking, and publishing. AIAEE is 12 years old, has over 200 members and organizes an annual conference in March-April with about 50 refereed paper and poster presentations. Because the association was initiated by faculty at land-grant universities, a large share, 65%, of the membership is U.S.-based. But, in a given year, as many as 25 other countries on the average are represented, which gives the association its international character. Furthermore, the substantial number of U.S. and foreign graduate students at U.S. universities adds a refreshing mix of cultures and viewpoints. Another strength of the association is the unique interaction between the disciplines and professions of agricultural education, and Extension education with an international perspective. The association publishes a professional journal. The purpose of JIAEE, a refereed publication, is to enhance the research and knowledge base of agricultural and Extension education from an international perspective in both developed and developing countries. The journal is published twice a year, spring (April) and fall (October). Two volumes - four issues - have been published. Articles so far have focused on philosophical themes, theory, research and application. Opinion- and-thought-provoking commentaries, and specific techniques, materials, technologies and book reviews are planned for future volumes. The journal's first two volumes indicate the broad scope of published articles and the interests of authors and readers. Articles have dealt with research and practical experiences in practically all geographic regions of the world have been reported, from Africa/Mideast (Iran, Kenya, Malawi, Somalia and Zimbabwe) to Asia (China and India) to Europe (Greece and Russia) and Central/South America (Honduras, Mexico, Venezuela and the countries of the Amazon forest). A number of interesting themes and issues have been presented, including collaborative work among agencies, efforts and potential of non-governmental organizations, value of indigenous knowledge systems, sustainable development, considerations of curriculum, attitudes, and barriers in global education and international agriculture, empowering women for development, human capacity building through people empowerment in centrally controlled economies. Authors of published articles include university/college faculty and graduate students, and personnel of agencies, foundations and NGOs. If you are interested in becoming a member, subscribing to the journal or just learning more, contact one of us and we will be glad to send you information. Environmental Stewardship Through Operation Quackback
Robert F. Richard
Howard Cormier In the last three years, rice farmers and landowners in 13 south Louisiana parishes (counties) have improved their standing as environmental stewards among the public, thanks largely to a program called Operation Quackback. The program began in Vermilion Parish, a coastal parish and prime wintering area for large numbers of migrating waterfowl, which is the state's largest rice producing parish with 91,860 acres in production in 1995. This situation led the local Extension staff and the local rice growers' association to combine forces for a unique program. Operation Quackback started in 1993 as a collaborative effort of the Vermilion Parish Extension agent, the Vermilion Parish Rice Grower's Association, and the Vermilion Parish Farm Bureau. The goals were simple: 1. Provide wetland habitat for various waterfowl; 2. Reduce red rice and other weed seeds through the foraging behavior of waterfowl; and 3.Demonstrate the farmer's concern for environmental and conservation issues. The Extension agent and president of the Rice Growers Association developed a brochure explaining the program and encouraging farmers to enroll. Vermilion Parish farmers have long held water on rice fields during winter months to provide habitat for ducks and geese. They realized that waterfowl helped remove old rice stubble, ate red rice, and provided sport for hunters. According to wildlife biologists, good habitat is the most important factor in wildlife conservation and restoration. Operation Quackback seeks to provide habitat. Farmers who hunt are encouraged to hunt mornings only so waterfowl can return and rest undisturbed in the afternoons. Operation Quackback does not limit or restrict farmers' use of their land, but does encourage balanced use for the benefit of wildlife. Publicity includes roadside signs indicating the farmer is participating in the program. The signs are provided free-of- charge by the sponsoring organizations. Rewards for farmers are mainly intrinsic. The program has no enforcement component. Farmers are requested only to inform the local Extension office as to how many acres they intend to enroll in the program. Landowners receive nothing for their participation other than the knowledge that they are being environmental stewards. The program became statewide in the spring of 1995, under the sponsorship of the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center's Cooperative Extension Service, the Louisiana Rice Growers' Association, and the Louisiana Farm Bureau. The program has grown from eight farmers in Vermilion Parish enrolling 1500 acres to 68 farmers in 13 parishes enrolling 45,000 acres in the fall of 1995. Vermilion Parish had 40 farmers enroll 14,00 acres in 1995. In addition to the visible environmental benefits, ducks and geese help to control red rice and weeds through their foraging. They are also better prepared to make the return flight to northern breeding grounds. The Extension Service has been an active player in the program, securing publicity, promoting the program at educational meetings, and facilitating the collaborative effort needed by involving the parish Rice Growers Association, parish Farm Bureau, as well as state and federal wildlife agencies. Operation Quackback allows farmers involved to increase their understanding of the environmental impact of their cultural practices and at the same time show the general public and decision makers that they are indeed good neighbors and good stewards of the land.
This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/ent.html.
Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
