Research In Brief

Delivering Short Seminars and Workshops to Farmers and Ranchers with Low Bandwidth On-line Technologies

Bart Beaudin
Team Leader, Information Dissemination, Education and Training
High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety
Colorado State University
Internet Address: beaudin@lamar.colostate.edu

Introduction

Cooperative Extension needs to continue to embrace the use of the Internet (Tennessen, PonTell, Romine, & Motheral, 1997). LaPaglia (1998) reports that more than one-third of the readers of Farmer- Stockman are accessing the Internet and have access to resources such as real-time weather reports, veterinary and livestock information, advice, and commodity and futures market prices.

Extension has traditionally delivered short seminars and workshops face-to-face to constituents, and now may be the opportunity to expand offering of programs over the Internet. The aim of this exploratory study was to bring together what has been learned from other fields delivering on-line courses and to provide a series of recommendations for agents planning to deliver on-line instruction. The research questions for this study were:

• Which low bandwidth on-line technologies do on-line instructors recommend to teach concepts when delivering short (1-3 hour) seminars and workshops?
• What are the relationships between on-line instructor characteristics (gender, experience, and training) and the extent to which they recommend various low bandwidth on-line technologies when teaching concepts?

Review of the Literature

The on-line instruction literature was reviewed, and no data-based studies were found that investigated low bandwidth methods for delivering on-line instruction. However, several authors (Bates, 1995; Driscoll, 1998; Hall, 1997;) see the availability of bandwidth (network capacity) as a serious problem in the offering of on-line learning. Hall (1997) suggests that limited bandwidth causes long waits for downloads over the Internet and that this in turn negatively affects learning. From the Extension perspective, O'Neill (1999) sees the "wait time" for downloading information from a Web site as an issue.

The most common ways to design Web-based content over the Internet are to use Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Dynamic HTML, Java, Active-X, and Plug-ins (Hall, 1999). HTML is an electronic document that contains special instructions that tell a Web browser how to display the text, graphics, and background of a Web page. Dynamic HTML is used to provide visitors the opportunity for interaction with the displayed information. Java and Active-X are small programs that expand the interactive capabilities of Web pages. A plug-in is a software module that adds specific features to a site (video, sound, etc.).

Alvear (1998) says that Java effectively eliminates the need for plug-ins, external applications, or Active-X controls. He goes on to predict that Java applets (small programs) will be all that is needed as long as the user has a Java enabled browser. Regardless of what is left to use, HTML is still the key ingredient for creating Web-based learning.

Bates (1995) sees bandwidth as being an expensive venture and suggests alternative formatting should be considered. Driscoll (1998) adds that design options are very limited when there is a concern about bandwidth. However, Hall (1999) predicts that the bandwidth issue will be resolved by within 18 months. Hall's optimism, however, doesn't take into consideration older computers and owners reluctant to download plug- ins.

Method

Study Participants

A purposive study sample was established from various international distance education listserves. Tracking the postings to the listserv allowed the researcher to conclude that the membership included experienced on-line instructors. A request for study participation was sent to the listserv, and willing participants were linked to the on-line questionnaire.

Data Collection Instrument

A 35-item on-line questionnaire was developed to measure the level of recommendation of specific low bandwidth on-line technologies for delivering factual information (concepts) through short on-line seminars and workshops. Respondents were asked to assume that the target audience:

1. Connects over unstable telephone lines at a 28.8 baud rate at best,
2. Has a 14" monitor limited to 256 colors,
3. Uses a 4.0 Browser, and
4. Is not willing to download plug-ins or request a CD.

Reaction rating scales were presented, with ratings from 1 = very low recommendation to 6 = very high recommendation. DeVellis (1991) suggests that either an odd or even number of choices can be used for the response scale, depending upon the phenomenon being investigated and the goals of the investigator.

A six-point Likert scale was chosen for this study to force respondents to take a position as to whether they would recommend a specific technique. Content validity was established by the use of a panel of on-line instructors not part of the study. The last seven items on the questionnaire collected information related to the on-line instructional designer's background and experience.

Data Collection Design and Procedures

An email message was posted to several international distance education listserves requesting the participation of on-line instructors who design on-line instruction. The email explained the purpose of the study and insured confidentiality and anonymity.

The baseline sample size used to establish the response rate was calculated using the study participants and the total number of visitors to the questionnaire site. In this case, the main assumption for deriving a reasonably accurate sample size is that listserv members usually respond to messages posted and that qualified non-participants visited the site but did not complete the questionnaire.

Analysis and Results

The questionnaire was the only means of data collection for the study. The purposive sample consisted of 153 on-line instructors who had experience designing on-line instruction. A response rate of 78% (153/195) was achieved using the total number of possible respondents who visited the questionnaire site. In retrospect, the response rate cannot be verified because some of the visits to the questionnaire site may not have been from experienced on-line instruction designers. The results of this study are thus only generalizable to the survey participants and should not be construed as representing opinions and beliefs of all on-line instructors.

The study population consisted of 87 females and 66 males, with 80% of the respondents being over the age of 40. Approximately 69% had been designing on-line courses for less than 2 years. Sixty-eight percent had participated in formal training in instructional design, and only 48% had received training in writing hypertext markup language (HTML) code. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents had received formal training in using authoring languages, and less than 10% received training in writing CGI scripts or dynamic hypertext markup language (DHTML).

The first research question of the study was designed to identify which low bandwidth technologies designers of on-line instruction recommend when designing short on-line seminars and workshops. Table 1 presents the mean rank order of on-line technologies designers of on-line instruction recommend.

The top-two-recommended low bandwidth means for delivering factual information included the simple presentation of text and graphics. Interaction was incorporated in the top-rated choice by using asynchronous discussion. Asynchronous discussion is a discussion in which the participants are not on-line at the same time. The third-ranked combination of technologies also included asynchronous discussion.

The second research question investigated the relationships between on-line instructor characteristics and the extent to which they recommend various low bandwidth technologies. A series of independent variables (gender; age; experience designing on-line courses; formal training in instructional design, writing HTML code, writing CGI scripts, and designing on-line instruction using course authoring packages) were identified, and data were collected in an attempt to explain why some low bandwidth technologies were recommended over others.

There were no major significant differences between how females and males rated the various technologies using the Independent Samples t-tests. One exception occurred in the ratings of "Web-Based Training with Asynchronous and Synchronous Discussion" (p =.020 and df = 145 at the .05 level of significance).

Age ranges were transformed into two categories, and no significant differences were calculated using Independent Samples t-tests.

Experience designing on-line courses produced a significant finding at the.05 level for the rating of "Web Page with Asynchronous Discussion" (p =.032 and df = 145). The less experienced respondents rated this low bandwidth technology more highly than experienced respondents. None of the other six low bandwidth technologies rated produced significant differences between how respondents rated them.

Whether respondents received formal training produced no significant differences in how they recommended the technologies, except for those respondents who had training writing HTML code. Four of the seven technology choices produced significant t-tests at the .05 level. Each of these choices had "Web-Based Training" as a component.

Discussion and Recommendations for Practice

The purpose of this exploratory research was to identify what experienced designers of instruction would recommend for delivering short seminars and workshops when the delivery modality was restricted to the use of low bandwidth technologies. The results of the study are not generalizable beyond the study population. However, there are ideas that may assist Extension agents in deciding which technologies to use for their target audience.

The following presents a highlight of the results and possible implications for practice.

1. The most useful finding of this study was the ranking of the various low bandwidth technologies. The top-two-ranked technologies suggest that Extension agents view the use of a Web page as an important component when delivering short seminars and workshops.
2. One assumption in the study was to keep graphics to less than 50 Kilobytes on a Web page. This can be accomplished by processing any graphics through a program that reduces the file size.
3. Asynchronous (delayed time) discussion was the preferred means of interaction over synchronous (real time) discussion, according to the mean ranks presented in Table 1. It is recommended that Extension agents focus on using email and listserves with workshop participants to allow for interaction.
4. Incorporating the use of synchronous discussion received the lowest rankings of respondents when low bandwidth is an issue. Extension agents are recommended to not use the real-time "chat room" as a delivery method. Those institutions using WebCT from their Web site may wish to experiment as the technology becomes more reliable.
5. The top low bandwidth technology ranking for delivering seminars and workshops was the "Web Page WITH Asynchronous Discussion." When the results were controlled for experience in designing on-line courses, the less experienced designers rated the top-ranked recommendation higher than did their more experienced counterparts. Extension agents viewing themselves as experienced might want to incorporate a mix of technologies.
6. When results were controlled for formal training in writing HTML code, it appeared that those who had formal training were more likely to recommend "Web-Based Training." Extension agents who wish to use this form of on-line delivery method may want to pursue formal instruction in writing HTML code to gain a better understanding of WBT.

Extension agents remain a key link to farmers and ranchers. By providing on-line seminars and workshops delivered using low bandwidth technologies, that link will be enhanced.

References

Alvear, J. (1998). Web developer.com guide to streaming multimedia. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bates, A.W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge.

Driscoll, M. (1998). Web-based training: tactics and techniques for designing adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass / Pfeiffer.

Hall, B. (1999). Five common questions - and the answers. Inside Technology Training, 3(2), 42-43.

Hall, B. (1997). Web-based training cookbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

LaPaglia, A. (1998). A cooperative ladder to the web. Farmer-Stockman, October, 8-9.

Tennessen, D.J., PonTell, S., Romine, V., & Motheral, S.W. (1997). Opportunities for Cooperative Extension and local communities in the information age. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(5). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/comm1.html

The Use of Focus Group Interviews to Evaluate Agriculture Educational Materials for Students, Teachers, and Consumers

Patricia A. Nordstrom
Project Assistant
Dairy and Animal Science Department
Internet address: pxn105@psu.edu

Lowell L. Wilson
Professor Emeritus of Animal Science

Timothy W. Kelsey
Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics

Audrey N. Maretzki
Professor of Food Science

Charles W. Pitts
Professor of Entomology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Only a small percentage of today's population is involved in production agriculture. This is possible because of the advances made in the fields of biology, genetics, and chemistry, and the practical application of these advances by agricultural scientists. However, as a result of the smaller agricultural population, the agricultural literacy of the general public is at a very low level.

This, in turn, leads to the public's questioning of agricultural production methods, animal well-being in farm animal systems, the environmental impact of agriculture, the utilization efficiency of resources in agriculture, and the safety of the food supply. It also possibly contributes to agriculture's poor image (Coulter, 1985; Guither & Curtis, 1983; Jamison & Lunch, 1992; Mallory & Summer, 1986).

Many rural areas are experiencing population growths, and many of these new rural residents are unfamiliar with agriculture and do not know what to expect in farming communities. At the same time, agricultural production is becoming more concentrated. This increases the amount of manure and the potential for problems with such things as odors, flies, and groundwater contamination. The combination of these two trends has led to conflicts (Jones, et al., 2000).

Primary concerns the public has about animal agriculture are food safety and environmental issues (Nordstrom, et al., 1999). To address these concerns, educational materials were developed. According to Mawby (1984), "by educating Americans in the wise management of food supplies and related renewable resources, we can anticipate more knowledgeable decision-making about agriculture in the future."

Purposes and Objectives

The purpose of conducting the focus group discussions was to evaluate educational materials about animal agriculture. The objectives were to:

• Ascertain if the materials developed adequately addressed the identified concerns of the public regarding animal agriculture;
• Determine the audiences most suitable for the materials; and
• Identify effective methods of dissemination.

Methods and Procedures

Using focus groups to evaluate publications, slide shows, and videos allows participants to view and react to materials, making it possible to obtain insights that would not have surfaced in other forms of research (Sevier, 1989). Five focus group discussions were conducted in the current study. Calder (1977) recommends that when "trying to get someone's perspective" and there is a high degree of moderator-imposed structure, only a few groups (three to four) are necessary.

Random purposive sampling was used to choose the individuals to participate in the focus groups. According to Lincoln & Guba (1985), the intent is not to generalize to a broad audience. Individuals who had previously been involved (completed a survey in an early part of the study) in the project were invited to participate in the focus groups. Individuals were randomly chosen from those who had responded to the invitation.

Participants were given the option of meeting during the day or in the evenings and were assigned to groups based on those preferences. The discussions were held at restaurants, and either lunch or dessert and coffee were provided, depending on the time of the discussion. The materials were mailed to the participants 2 weeks prior to the discussion to allow them to read the materials and formulate comments.

The focus groups were conducted by a moderator and assistant moderator. To preclude the introduction of bias into the discussion, the moderator had no formal association with the project (Erlander, et al., 1993). The materials to be evaluated and the list of discussion questions were provided to the moderator 2 weeks prior to the scheduled discussions. To allow first-hand knowledge of the discussion, the assistant moderator was one of the project researchers who subsequently would be involved with the data analysis.

The focus group discussions were audio-recorded, with notes also taken by the assistant moderator. At the conclusion of each discussion, the moderator and assistant moderator reviewed the discussion and notes.

Analysis of focus group data follows a prescribed, sequential process that is verifiable and that permits researchers to arrive at similar conclusions (Krueger, 1988). Analysis begins with considering the original intent of the study. If the study is narrow, then elaborate analysis may not be necessary. Krueger (1988) suggests considering analysis as a continuum consisting of raw data (statements made by the participants), descriptives (summary statements of the respondents' comments), and interpretation (building on the summary statements and presenting the meaning of the data).

After the tapes and notes were transcribed, the transcripts were reviewed for similar ideas and themes. Morgan (1988) feels a theme is verified when two or more groups include it in their discussion. A summary report was complied from the review of the transcripts.

Findings

Adequacy of Materials

Did the materials adequately address the concerns of the individuals? Food safety was identified as a primary concern, and the educational materials addressed these issues by discussing the recent Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) legislation enacted by the federal government; the farm-to-table continuum of animal-based food products; and the steps that consumers can take to ensure they are not causing contamination by improper handling. The consensus among the groups was that the materials did address their concerns, but that there was too much information provided at one time.

Suggestions included dividing the information into modules and adding additional graphics to increase readability. Livestock producers felt that more information was needed to explain the steps they take to ensure they are providing a safe, high-quality, wholesome product to the consumer. Producers also suggested more emphasis be placed on the various intermediate steps food products go through after leaving the farm and before reaching the consumer. Producers maintained that the public was generally unaware of the logistics of moving food from the farm to consumers.

Availability of Materials

There was agreement among the groups that the educational materials should be available to all sectors of society. The focus groups felt the materials presented to them were suitable, but strongly recommended the above-mentioned revisions. The suggestion was to make the information available not only as stand-alone material for older students and adults, but also as a study guide for elementary and middle school science teachers.

As a reflection of the strong feelings that everyone should have access to this information, it was mentioned that elementary and middle school students were being left out, thereby creating a void of science-based information about agriculture. Several of the producers expressed their concern that younger students were not knowledgeable about agriculture. Further, participants felt that placing an emphasis on educating students in their early stages of education (elementary and middle school) could reduce the efforts necessary to educate adult members of the public.

Dissemination of Materials

The focus groups were asked how to make this material available. For school-age children, natural channels of dissemination, such as schools, in-school 4-H programs, and county Extension offices, were discussed. Because there are no mandatory educational requirements for adults, providing them with information would require different dissemination methods. Use of the media (television, radio, newspapers) was recommended as a dissemination tool. Suggestions included distribution at supermarkets, agricultural fairs, and county Extension offices, as well as through news releases, articles in local newspapers, and inclusion with animal-based food products.

Conclusions

The use of focus groups proved to be a valuable tool in this project. Not only were the objectives met through the data collected during the discussion, but insight was also gained about (1) how livestock producers feel they are perceived by the public and (2) how the public perceives the agricultural industry.

This study demonstrated that livestock producers and non-farm individuals feel very strongly about the need for science-based information about agriculture. It also underscored the point that the materials must not be biased, or they will be deemed "propaganda" and discounted by the target audience.

Further, if an increase in agriculture literacy and awareness is the objective, the study revealed that educational materials should be developed for all sectors of society, though targeting youth should be a goal. Middle-school-age children appear to have already shaped their perceptions of agriculture (Holtz-Claus & Jost, 1995), making it important for agricultural education programs to start in elementary schools. This can be achieved by wider use and enhancement of the in-school 4-H programs. A continuing effort should be made by Extension personnel to include in-school 4-H programs in the science curricula of elementary schools.

Though the project was identified to the participants as a study being conducted with partial funding by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, several of the non-farm participants indicated that their first impression of the project was that it was anti-agriculture. These non-farm participants defended agriculture as an industry, maintained that livestock producers are valuable members of society, and expressed admiration for the dedication it took for livestock producers to continue to work in an area as uncertain as agriculture. This was in contrast to the opinion of many of the producers, who felt that the public did not appreciate what they were doing and the difficulties they face.

Though differences in perceptions between farm and non-farm populations were not specifically examined in this phase of the project, the researchers found this phenomenon significant and believe it would be an interesting area to study in the future.

References

Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative research. Journal of Marketing Research. 14:353-364.

Coulter, K.J. (1985). The agricultural image. NACTA Journal. 29:19-22.

Erlander, D.A., Harris. E.L., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA. Sage Publications.

Guither, H.D., & Curtis, S.E. (1983). Changing attitudes toward animal welfare and animal rights: The meaning of the US food system. Extension Committee on Policy (ECOP), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Holtz-Claus, J., & Jost, M. (1995). Using focus groups to check youth perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995june/a3.html

Jamison, W.V., & Lunch, W.M. (1992). Rights of animals, perceptions of science, and political activism: Profile of American animal rights activists. Journal of Science, Technology, and Human Values. 17(4):438-458.

Jones, K., Kelsey, T.W., Nordstrom, P.A., Wilson, L.L., Maretzki, A.N., & Pitts, C.W. (2000). Neighbors' perception of animal agriculture. Professional Animal Scientist. (in press).

Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA. Sage Publications

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. p.210.

Mallory, M., & Summer, R. (1986). Student images of agriculture: Survey highlights and recommendations. Journal of the American Association of Teachers in Education. 27:15-17.

Mawby, R.G. (1984). Agricultural colleges must take the lead in ending ignorance about farming. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 28(11):72-75.

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Nordstrom, P.A., Wilson, L.L., Richards, M.J., Fivek, M.L., Ruffing, M.B., & Coe, B.L. (1999). Student attitudes toward animal-derived products and services and how they affect society and the environment. Journal of Agricultural Education. 40(4):10-19.

Sevier, R. (1989). Conducting focus group research. The Journal of College Admissions. p 4-9.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000october/ent-rb.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.