Tools of the Trade

County Agent–A Book Review

While some of us were reading Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys, Virginia McDonnell was writing County Agent, a "career romance for young moderns."

Designed as a career aid for young people, County Agent centers around Lisa Merrill, a home economics senior at Cornell University who considers a position opening in a rural county in the Adirondacks as a favor to her advisor. A city girl, she would train with the experienced "home demonstration agent," Emily Briggs, and the county agricultural agent, Randy Drake.

Story

During Lisa's first visit to Warner County, the car stalls in the mountains, and she narrowly escapes a massive flood that washes out the main bridge and the community's main source of income, a paper mill. Lisa is very hesitant to take the assignment–until she discovers how useful she is in the disaster's aftermath. Then, as luck would have it, the university retracts the offer, hoping to fill the vacancy with someone more experienced.

Lisa finishes her coursework, graduates, and makes a case for the position. Unfortunately, the training period is cut short when Miss Briggs dies–the result of a head-on automobile collision.

But Lisa persists, establishing a home health care team, allowing women to train her in cleaning techniques while she teaches them food budgeting and leadership skills. She sends out several newsletters, writes a news column, and hosts a television show–all while managing a "swirl" of visitors, telephone calls, 4-H club meetings, and appointments.

Lisa finds ways to help the people in her community survive until a new business is attracted to the area. Though it is not apparent at first, she realizes the true source of influence in the community. In the end, Lisa comes "full circle" (the title of the last chapter), risking her reputation and her life, allowing the community to both rescue her and itself from demise.

Significance

McDonell skillfully incorporates several definitions of Cooperative Extension and includes a fairly complete Plan of Work with both long- and short-term goals. Ethel W. Samson, an Associate Professor of Cornell Cooperative Extension and personnel leader at the time of the book's publication, provided the technical background for the book.

Veteran Extension educators (Family and Consumer Science agents, especially) may identify with Lisa's early experiences and concerns. She is continually compared to the previous agent and matched up with Randy Drake. She is told how to cook on several occasions by several women in the community. The secretary is continually taking situations into her own hands, and the members of the Extension board threaten to quit nearly every week. One of her co-workers remarks, "It takes time for them (the people) to change their ways. Sometimes it is pretty discouraging. Sometimes I wonder if I am making any progress at all or if I am a complete failure."

Young people may not choose to read the book because of its dated career aspects, but the romantic aspects of the book and its discussion of making difficult decisions and gaining independence from family and schoolmates are interesting.

Though it may be difficult to purchase County Agent, which was printed more than 30 years ago, it is still possible to through interlibrary loan from your community or university library. It's not only an interesting read, it's potentially a significant one, allowing us some insight into the evolving image of Extension and of women in popular culture.

Reference

McDonnell, V. (1968). County Agent. New York, NY: Julian Messner.

First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently–A Book Review

After a few pages, First, Break All the Rules introduces the reader to a whole new pattern of thought in regards to how volunteers are selected, trained, and evaluated. The principles discussed are targeted toward private enterprise, but they are easy to adapt to various systems, including Extension and the evaluation of Extension volunteers.

As educators we believe that through training everyone can improve their performance. After all, we work within the university system and an educational setting. Our maxim is that education can help lead to the solution of most problems. We believe that, if we study long enough and train hard enough, eventually we will obtain the goal we seek.

Talent vs. Skill

It turns out, though, that this tenet is rejected by the most successful managers in business. After studying the results of the Gallup interviews, the book's authors, Buckingham and Coffman, found that great managers distinguish between talent and experience, or skills. They define talent as "a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied."

Buckingham and Coffman compiled the Gallup organization's results from interviews of more than 400 businesses, 80,000 managers, and more than one million employees conducted over a 20-year period. The Gallup study determined that these managers believe that people cannot overcome a weakness in talent. If they do not have the talent for math, for example, they will never be great math teachers or great engineers.

Why? Because they believe individuals are unique and that people will be true to themselves and their unique nature. The authors state that these managers say, "People don't change that much. Don't waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in. That is hard enough."

Thus, great managers aren't overly concerned with a potential employee's skills. When interviewing a potential employee, a great manager would direct the interview toward the talents that are necessary to be very successful in the position for which the candidate is being interviewed. An outstanding manager would already know which talents the job required. The interview would be based on scenarios designed to elicit open responses that would help the interviewer determine whether or not the prospective employee's talents matched the talents of those already successful in the job.

Evaluating Volunteers

The best managers are touted as both performance and people oriented. However, they do not accept low or average performance because the end result is what makes or breaks their companies.

The measures of performance described in First, Break All the Rules can be applied to volunteers. In the past, 4-H agents have not used performance measures to evaluate volunteers. Perhaps we chose not to use performance measures with volunteers because we are educators, not managers. It may be that we do not treat volunteers as paid staff. In fact, many university policies are different for faculty, staff, and volunteers, so it is relatively easy to fall into this line of thought and action.

Some of the possible volunteer performance measures that we could identify and use are:

• Number of returning 4-H members, not counting those who move away;
• Number of satisfied parents;
• Number of youth who expand their program area to include county, regional, state, and national programs; and
• The way youth and volunteers feel they are treated in the program (as resources, or as objects?).

If other performance measures come to mind, jot them down now, before you forget.

The goal of great managers is for all of their employees to answer all 12 of the following questions with a score of five or four on a five-point scale, with five being high. Any division of the operation that has employees scoring three or less, is in trouble or is headed for trouble. This will be demonstrated in higher absenteeism, higher employee turnover, and, of course, lower productivity.

Read the following questions, substituting "volunteer" for "employee," etc. Ask yourself how the volunteers with whom you work would score and what that would indicate about you as a manager.

1. Do I know what is expected of me? (If the employee answers with a four or a five, this self-score would indicate that he or she knows the goal, how it is measured, and how he or she plans to reach the goal. An answer of one indicates that the employee does not know the goal or objective or how it is measured and has no idea how to reach it.)
2. Do I have the right materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?
9. Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
10. Do I have a best friend at work?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
12. This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

How will your volunteers answer the questions? Do they feel as if they belong? Do they believe they are making a difference in your organization, in meeting your organizations mission statement? Are their views, ideas, and suggestions listened to, supported, or adapted?

We all have one or more volunteers whom we would like to clone. Think about them. What makes them special volunteers? What are their recurring patterns of thought and behavior, i.e., talents? Can they be identified through interviews? Are the right kinds of questions being asked of potential volunteers? Are different talents needed for different levels of volunteering? For example, do great project club volunteers automatically have the talent needed by community club leaders or middle management volunteers?

While the principles promoted by Buckingham and Coffman will take some adaptation to work for the 4-H Youth Development program volunteer, I believe the effort will be well worth it. As an Extension 4-H Youth Development Agent, I couldn't help but think that perhaps because of our current system I am limiting my volunteers and not providing them with the necessary tools for success in our county 4-H program.

Questions kept coming to mind:

• What kind of talent are we looking for in 4-H volunteers?
• Do we give our volunteers measurable performance standards and standards of excellence?
• How do we–or do we–measure our clients' satisfaction?
• How can Extension agents use the interviewing tips to understand new volunteers and place them in the best fit for their talents?

I believe there are benefits to using performance measurements when evaluating volunteers. It will provide accurate data that can be shared with decision makers to support a request for additional or continued funding to support a program. When used properly, volunteers will become ambassadors for the program. They will market and sell a program in which they believe and in which they feel they are making a difference.

Measuring performance does not have to be an all-absorbing, all-encompassing task. First, Break All the Rules provides some simple strategies that can be used to measure performance. After reading this book, perhaps you will agree.

Reference

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Recommended Energy Studies in the Food Processing and Packaging Industry: Identifying Opportunities for Conservation and Efficiency

Introduction

The food processing industry provides approximately 93% of the food purchased by wholesale suppliers and about 60% of the food consumed by U.S. households (Connor & Schiek, 1997). Although the energy usage (2.6% of the 1992 shipments value) in the canning industry is not as high as in processes such as corn milling operations, the energy usage (2.6% of the 1992 shipments value) is significant and worthy of study for improvements in efficiency and savings. Extension professionals, consultants, and food processors can work together in these energy studies to prevent potential critical energy shortages in the future.

The cost of energy is a significant part of the total cost of processing foods, especially at the unit operations level, such as in pasteurizing or commercial sterilization (thermal processing) of foods, where various forms of energy may be used. Heating and cooling are two unit operations where energy consumption is critical. Heating is particularly important due to the requirements of having steam at different temperatures and pressures to achieve acceptable food safety levels.

When considering opportunities for energy efficiency and savings in the food processing industry, food safety is the most important factor, and it cannot be compromised. For example, in canning, an adequate supply of energy by steam or hot water is necessary to obtain the right temperature during the process time in order to achieve commercial sterility.

Optimizing energy use and efficiency can be accomplished by energy audits. However, these audits require data, information, and educational materials that are not readily available to the food processor. Several factors make energy assessments difficult. For example, a canned product requires unit operations such as heating, cooling, mixing, pumping, and packaging (Singh & Heldman, 1993; Lopez, 1981). In addition, various forms of energy may be used, including steam, electricity, gas, or fuels (Figure 1). Team efforts between industry professionals and universities can achieve the development of energy audits to fulfill the need of energy efficiency and cost savings.

Objectives

The following are recommended objectives to any parties interested in studying energy in the small food processing industry.

1. To study energy usage by representative small or medium size processing plants.
2. To identify critical areas and factors to improve the efficiency of selected processing systems.
3. To develop model energy audit questions that small and medium food processing companies can use for self-auditing and energy assessment.
4. To develop educational materials (manuals, videotapes, CD¹s, etc.) about Energy Conservation and Efficiency for the food processing industries.
5. To provide training workshops about energy conservation and efficiency for the food industry.
6. To develop educational materials to be used in "Train the Trainer" workshops.
7. To use the existing Extension Service network through land-grant universities to transfer the generated knowledge.

Recommended Methodology

1. Proposals should address the energy consumption in selected food processing plants by calculating the total energy consumed expressed in an equivalent energy unit per pound of product on at least a 6-month or 12-month basis. All energy inputs will be included and converted to a selected equivalent basis (Nelson, 1994).
2. The total energy usage should be compared to the energy consumed by individual unit operations (Figure 1) in a selected process or processes. The ideal selected plant should consider only one type of food at a time, in order for the energy account to be balanced. Each unit operation will be ranked by the amount of energy consumed. Factors affecting energy efficiency should be studied and identified, including the energy used by non-processing equipment. Appropriate computer software packages could be used for monitoring, measurements, and accounting purposes.

   
   Figure 1 - Typical commercial canning operations indicating common sources of energy in each operation.

3. The main tool to perform the energy and material balances is the development of a process flow diagram, known in engineering practice as the "Process Flow Sheet." This flow sheet in its final and detailed form represents a blueprint for processing, energy savings, and general improvements (Ulrich, 1984). A general model flow sheet should be developed for use by small companies.
4. An energy audit form to be used in small plants should be developed based on general principles extracted by the energy study. The interested parties should also develop educational materials as the energy study is performed.
5. It is also recommended that training workshops be developed and delivered once the educational materials are completed.

Potential Collaboration

Currently, the Food Science and Human Nutrition department at Clemson University, through the Cooperative Extension Service, is seeking opportunities to work with other land-grant universities, small food processors, canneries, and other professionals willing to participate in this kind of study to collect data, analyze results, and implement workshop recommendations.

References

Conner, J. M., & Schiek, W. A. (1997). Food processing: An industrial powerhouse in transition (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lopez, A. (1981). A complete course in canning; Book 1, basic information on canning (11th ed.). Baltimore: The Canning Trade, Inc.

Nelson, K. E. (1994, Sept.). A practical guide to energy. Chemical Engineering. 122-128.

Singh, R. P., & Heldman, D. R. (1993). Introduction to Food Engineering. (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press, Inc.

Ulrich, G. D. (1984). A guide to chemical engineering process design and economics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Using Pre- and Post- Tests to Evaluate the Achievement of Short Course Learning Objectives

Introduction

The Oregon Forest Institute for Teachers (OFIT), a 6-day in situ educational workshop, is designed to help K-12 classroom teachers understand the management of our forest resources and to share with them materials and activities they can use in their own classrooms. OFIT was modeled on a California program (Forestry Institute for Teachers) that began in 1995 and is based on a set of educational goals for teacher education institutes developed by a national taskforce of the Society of American Foresters (SAF).

Twenty-four teachers attended the first OFIT in August, 1999. The results of the trial run were very encouraging. Instructors and participants alike were pleased with the outcomes of the first program. However, as with all first attempts, there was room for improvement. The steering committee, an eclectic group of professional forestry educators, felt that we had not adhered to the educational goals in designing institute activities and that we had no real measure of how well our educational goals had been achieved.

Content Themes and Measurable Objectives

To address this issue prior to the 2000 program, the steering committee prioritized clear themes based on the SAF goals, developed measurable learning objectives, and designed learning activities to meet these objectives. Finally, the steering committee agreed that we needed an evaluation that would enable us to measure if our learning objectives have been achieved.

During the following year, the OFIT Steering Committee met with much success. A six-person curriculum sub-committee clarified the program content themes and learning objectives. The three major themes were defined as follows.

1. Forest Systems: Oregon's forests are complex, resilient, and varied ecosystems.
2. Forest Values: Competing demands for a wide variety of values influence the management of Oregon's forests.
3. Forest Management: Sustainable forest management can be achieved through diverse objectives, perspectives, techniques, and regulations.

Specific, measurable learning objectives were then developed under each theme. These objectives take the form of action statements prefaced by the phrase: "Upon completing OFIT, participants will:"

1. Forest Systems
   1. Identify major human and environmental components of the forest system.
   2. Illustrate changes in the system over time.
   3. Describe the interaction between a system's parts.
   4. Describe the variety of forests across the state.
2. Forest Values
   1. Identify and describe the wide variety of values placed on forests.
   2. Illustrate the competing values that underlie a forest issue.
   3. Compare and contrast the major types of forest landowners and managers.
3. Forest Management
   1. Identify and describe how changing science and technology are used in forest management.
   2. Identify various ways the public is involved in influencing forest management.
   3. Give examples of plans, policies, or rules that regulate forest practices.
   4. Identify and describe the work of a variety of professionals that are involved in managing forests.

These educational themes and learning objectives were used in designing OFIT 2000. The 6-day workshop was broken into three segments representing the themes. Within a theme, specific activities were selected to address each of the learning objectives. The underlying themes, learning objectives, and curriculum were thoroughly reviewed and accepted by the steering committee.

Results

Thirty-seven K-12 teachers attended OFIT 2000. Participants represented a diversity of institutions, community sizes, and opinions. During the program, OFIT participants were asked to participate in several forms of evaluation, including daily questionnaires, an end-of-week survey, and a pre- and post-test.

The pre- and post-course test was designed specifically to measure and document changes in a participant's understanding of forests and forestry. Participants put their names on the tests so we could measure specific changes in individual scores.

The pre-test and post-test consisted of identical questions. The nine test questions were fashioned directly from the 11 learning objectives. To answer each fill-in-the-blank question, participants were asked to list four items. Participants were awarded one point for each correctly filled-in blank. A perfect score was thus 36 points. Two learning objectives not covered in the pre-test and post-test were left out because they could not be easily measured using this type of question.

Participants were asked general questions like, "list four major human or environmental components of a forest system," "list four ways that a forest system changes over time," and "list four types of professionals that are involved in managing forests."

All tests were scored at one sitting, in as objective a manner as possible. Thirty-five of the thirty-seven students participated in both tests. One student left OFIT 2000 before the post-test was administered, and one student asked not to participate in the post-test.

Pre-test scores ranged from 10 to 35, with a mean of 23.0 out of 36. Post-test scores ranged from 23 to 36, with a mean of 31.7 out of 36.

A t-test for matched groups or paired t-test was used examined the null hypothesis that the pre-test and post-test score populations are the same. This hypothesis was rejected at the p=.01 level. The alternate hypothesis that the score populations are different was accepted. We conclude that the increase in the mean score from 23.0 to 31.7 is a statistically significant increase.

Conclusion

Paired t-tests and many other statistical tests useful in program evaluation are explained clearly by Fitz-Gibbon and Morris (1978). Fitz-Gibbon and Morris provide simple worksheets to calculate the paired t-statistic. Most statistics software packages also can perform paired t-tests. However, we have found it much simpler to develop a simple spreadsheet based on the formulae provided by Fitz-Gibbon and Morris.

This form of evaluation assures us that the OFIT 2000 learning objectives have been achieved. Participants showed increased knowledge and understanding in the three thematic areas of forest systems, forest values, and forest management.

Achieving these learning objectives was only one of the aims of OFIT 2000. Feedback through the other evaluations indicates that our other institute objectives (like creating a community of forest-literate K-12 educators) were also met.

This experience has shown that the success of a workshop or short course can more easily be ascertained by developing measurable learning objectives, teaching to the objectives, and measuring the learning with pre- and post-tests.

References

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L.. 1978. How to calculate statistics. Sage Publications/Beverly Hill. 142 pp.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001april/ent-tt.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.