Research In Brief

Ripple Effect Training: Multiplying Extension's Resources with Veteran Master Gardeners as MG Trainers

Introduction

Nationally, the Master Gardener program is one of the most popular volunteer programs offered through the Cooperative Extension Service. However, training these volunteers requires a substantial investment of time and money by Extension (Meyer & Hanchek, 1997; Ruppert, Bradshaw, & Stewart, 1997).

The program has grown substantially in Oregon over the past 23 years, and in 1999 over 940 new Master Gardeners received 48-66 hours of initial training at 17 different sites throughout Oregon. Just as the Oregon Master Gardener program is gaining popularity, a reduction in faculty available to train Master Gardeners and reduced travel budgets for existing faculty have made it difficult to effectively deliver training on a statewide basis.

In many states, Master Gardener programs are looking at ways to improve program efficiency (Dorn, Relf, McDaniel, & James-Deramo, 1999; Schrock, 1997; Stack, 1997). One method is to adopt a train-the-trainer model, which can be an effective way to multiply the training capacity of an organization (Woods & Cortada, 1998). The Ripple Effect training was designed to train veteran Master Gardeners with an interest or experience in teaching to assume some of the training duties in their respective counties. If provided with well-designed curriculum materials and instruction on how to use them, veteran Master Gardeners could deliver training on a county level that was of the same high quality as training provided by Extension agents and other professionals. This train-the-trainer model in the Extension Master Gardener program can offer numerous benefits, including:

• Reduced training expense and teaching time for Extension faculty;
• Increased volunteer commitment and participation in Master Gardener training;
• An advanced training opportunity for veteran Master Gardeners;
• Availability of curriculum materials for future training; and
• Improved retention of veteran Master Gardeners.

Materials and Methods

In September 1998, 41 veteran Master Gardeners, representing all but one county in Oregon with a Master Gardener program, attended a 2-day Ripple Effect train-the-trainer seminar. The agent or program assistant in charge of the local training selected Ripple Effect Trainers (RE Trainers) based on their suitability to trainers (i.e., previous teaching experience, interest in teaching adults, and horticulture background). During the seminar, RE Trainers learned to deliver two 3-hour training modules. They learned how to use the curriculum materials on vegetable gardening and herbaceous ornamentals, including annotated slide sets, handouts, hands-on activities, entry/exit quizzes, and teaching evaluations. RE Trainers also received training on effective teaching strategies for the adult learner. They delivered the training modules in their respective counties during the 1999 winter training period.

RE Trainers completed a self-efficacy evaluation in September 1998, after completing the 2-day Ripple Effect training seminar and again in February 1999, after they had delivered the modules in their respective counties. The self-efficacy evaluation was in a Likert scale format and measured the confidence in their abilities to:

• Deliver the training in their county,
• Manage the classroom,
• Field questions during the training,
• Be effective and perform in the classroom, and
• Deliver specific information related to the topics of vegetable gardening and herbaceous ornamentals.

Throughout the winter 1999 training, new Master Gardener trainees (MG trainees) evaluated the RE Trainer who delivered the vegetable gardening and/or herbaceous ornamentals modules in their county. They used the same evaluation tool as is used for other Master Gardener instructors, such as Extension Agents, Specialists, horticulture professionals, and veteran Master Gardeners.

Statistical analysis consisted of analysis of variance and mean separation was completed using Tukey's studentized range test with (P≤0.05) using SAS (SAS Institute, 1987).

Results

Forty RE Trainers completed the first self-efficacy evaluation, and 18 completed the follow-up evaluation for a 45% response rate.

Table 1 illustrates the data associated with the self-efficacy evaluation. In general, the RE Trainers had a high level of confidence prior to delivering the training modules in each of the categories evaluated; confidence levels did not change after they delivered it. The only significant difference in their confidence was in their ability to field questions from the MG trainees. Although their confidence level was high prior to delivering the training, after completing the process, they felt even more confident that they could address the questions posed by MG trainees.

Self-Efficacy Evaluation Questions	Before	After
Ability to deliver training in your county	4.6a	4.7a
Ability to manage the classroom	4.5a	4.6a
Ability to field questions from students	4.4a	4.7b
Evaluate your effectiveness in the classroom	4.3a	4.4a
Evaluate your performance in the classroom	4.3a	4.4a
Mean separation between columns by Tukey's studentized range test, (P≤ 0.05). *Likert-type evaluation with a scale of 1-5, where 1=not at all confident, and 5=completely confident.

Another important component in evaluating the effectiveness of this program is examining how the MG trainees perceived the training they received from the RE Trainers. To assess this, the overall class evaluation scores for the RE Trainers (n=18) were compared to the overall class evaluation scores for Extension agents and state specialists, professionals in the horticulture industry, and veteran Master Gardeners with previous training experience (n=53, 6, and 6, respectively) from the 1999 winter training (Table 2). There was no significant difference (P£ 0.05) in the overall class evaluation scores between the four groups.

Instructor Classification	Score*
RE Trainer	4.4a
Oregon State University Extension Agent or State Specialist	4.6a
Horticulture Professional	4.4a
Veteran Master Gardener	4.3a
Mean separation within columns by Tukey's studentized range test, (P≤0.05). *Based on an average of question 11 'Overall rating of the class' from the OSU Extension course evaluation form. Scale: 1=poor; 5=excellent.)

Discussion

Using veteran Master Gardeners to train new Master Gardener volunteers is a viable method of delivering some courses in the Oregon State University Master Gardener annual winter training. The new MG trainees rated the overall quality of instruction they received from the RE Trainers to be of the same high quality as that received from the three other categories of instructors, including Extension agents and state specialists.

Additionally, the RE Trainers felt the initial training and orientation they had in using the annotated slide sets and other curriculum material prepared them to deliver the training in their respective counties. After delivering the training in their counties, they had an increased confidence level in their ability to field questions from the MG trainees.

Capitalizing on the skills and talents of veteran Master Gardeners is a useful way to enhance the overall quality of the Master Gardener Program. It offers veteran Master Gardeners an opportunity to have more ownership in the program and provides another avenue for their continued involvement. It also relieves some of the financial concerns that are a result of decreased faculty and budget resources available to deliver the training each year.

The keys to making this type of project successful in the Master Gardener program are:

• Teaching skill and enthusiasm of the veteran Master Gardener (RE Trainers);
• Quality teaching materials and orientation on how to use them;
• Preparation by the RE Trainer before delivering the training; and
• Support of the project from the Extension agents.

Based on the success and support of this project, similar projects will be developed and implemented by the Oregon State University Extension Master Gardener Program in the future.

References

Dorn, S., Relf, D., McDaniel, A., & James-Deramo, M. (1999). Survey of Virginia Master Gardener volunteer management. HortScience, 34(3), 466.

Meyer, M.H., & Hanchek, A.M. (1997). Master Gardener training costs and payback in volunteer hours. HortTechnology, 7(4), 368-370.

Ruppert, K.C., Bradshaw, J., & Stewart, A.Z. (1997). The Florida Master Gardener program: History, use and trends. HortTechnology, 7(4), 348-353.

SAS Institute. (1987). SAS user's guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Cary, N.C.

Schrock, D. (1997). Master Gardener training in Missouri by interactive television. Proceedings International Master Gardener Conference, Sacramento, California.

Stack, L.B. (1997). Interactive television delivers Master Gardener training effectively. HortTechnology, 7(4), 357-359.

Woods, J. & Cortada, J.W. (1998). The 1999 ASTD Training and Performance Workbook. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Impact of a Community Leadership Program on the Volunteer Leader

In A House Divided: Six Belief Systems Struggling for America's Soul, author Mark Gerzon describes how polarized beliefs around community issues keep citizens from coming together to find ways to mutually address their community problems (Gerzon, 1996). Gerzon suggests that we must address this struggle: "Democracy is a process, not a productŠ We must all take responsibility for leadership. No knight on a white horse will save America; but we and our neighbors can" (Gerzon, 1996). To do so, however, requires a set of community leadership skills.

Oregon State University Extension seeks to address this need through the Family Community Leadership (FCL) Program. This master volunteer program recruits, trains, and supports adults in becoming effective community leaders. An FCL volunteer is an adult who receives an initial 24 hours of community leadership training, participates in ongoing training as a member of a team, and practices these new skills through a minimum of 200 volunteer hours of community involvement. Community leadership skills taught in the FCL training program include:

• Group process skills;
• Facilitation and meeting management skills;
• Communication, diversity, and conflict management skills; and
• Teaching and presentation skills.

The FCL Program is not new to Extension. It began in 1982 as a Kellogg Foundation-funded pilot to involve women in local public policy decision-making. Thus, many of the first participants were Extension Home Study Group members (Bolton, 1991). In Oregon, the FCL Program has evolved from these roots to become a strong local leadership development program, attracting a broad cross-section of community adults to learn about the process of community leadership.

How much of an impact has the Oregon FCL Program had on building community leadership skills? An evaluation of the impact of the FCL Program on the volunteers in an urban/rural tri-county region of Western Oregon provided some answers to this question. In 1998 FCL volunteers in Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties responded to a post-pre survey questionnaire about the impact of the FCL Program on them and their community involvement.

Background

The goal of the Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties FCL Program is to build the capacity of communities through increasing leadership and group process skills among citizens. More specifically the program objectives are:

• To recruit, train, and support a group of twelve new adult volunteers annually.
• To involve the volunteers in a tri-county team whose purposes are:
  1. to provide support and ongoing training for volunteers, and
  2. to respond to requests from the community for leadership training and facilitation.

As a master volunteer program, FCL trains community volunteers who, in turn, conduct training sessions on leadership skills or provide facilitation for a variety of community groups to enhance the groups' effectiveness. The types of community groups that request training include volunteer grass-roots citizen groups, such as school parent/teacher organizations and Habitat for Humanity, as well as agency staff such as Head Start teachers and city department heads. FCL volunteers usually facilitate a problem-solving or action-planning process, or conduct training in various topics related to group process.

Thus, there are two target audiences in the FCL Program: 1) the adult volunteer who is interested in developing leadership and group process skills, and 2) community groups who can benefit from the facilitation and training by FCL volunteers. While an examination of the community-wide impacts of FCL would be of interest, the study reported here focused on the program impacts for the volunteers themselves.

From 1993 to 1995, one Extension agent devoted 40% of her time to the program. During this period, the program grew from 14 active volunteers to 50. In 1997, the tri-county FCL team members responded to 112 requests for training and facilitation from 50 different community groups, involving 1,518 community members. The volunteers worked in teams and sometimes worked with a group more than once.

Study Methods

A post-pre method of self-report evaluation was used as a means of documenting behavior change, because it was fairly easy to develop, use, and analyze, and this method has been found to give credible results. The post-pre method features a retrospective pretest after an educational intervention as a means of minimizing a response-shift bias. The respondent answers the evaluation questions with the same frame of reference for both the pre and post questions (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). For this study a post-pre survey questionnaire was designed to address the following questions.

1. In regard to the FCL volunteer, how has the program affected the following attributes:
   • level of community involvement?
   • facilitation skills and their confidence level in regard to facilitation?
   • presentation and training skills?
   • level of knowledge about group process and decision making?
2. What do the volunteers do differently as a result of participating in the FCL Program?
3. What do the volunteers see as the greatest impact of the FCL Program on them?

The post-pre evaluation is a reliable method used to assess knowledge-based behavior change after the intervention, which in this study was a combination of training and practice in the community. A separate volunteer database provided information on how long the volunteer respondent had been in the program and how many volunteer hours they had reported to the FCL Program. This database was cross-referenced with the survey responses to help analyze the data from the perspective of how active the volunteers were.

A sample of convenience, the population was comprised of 64 volunteers who had participated in FCL over the 5-year period from 1993 to 1998. Of these, two had died, and six had moved out of the program with no further contact, leaving 56. The survey questionnaire was mailed with a stamped return envelope to all of these volunteers. A tea bag was enclosed with the survey as an incentive to take a break and have a cup of tea while filling out the survey. Two weeks later, a reminder letter was sent to those who had not yet returned their questionnaire. A total of 30 questionnaires were returned, for a return rate of 54%.

Findings

Two-thirds of those who returned the survey were either "very active" or "new" volunteers. A third of the returns were from "inactive" or "slightly active" volunteers. A "very active" volunteer was one who had been active in the team meetings and had been involved in more than three FCL community events within the last 6 months. A "new" volunteer was a person who had completed the State Training Institute within the last year. A "slightly active" volunteer was a person who had participated in no more than two events in the last 6 months and was marginally active on the team. An "inactive" volunteer was a person who had not participated in any FCL activities in the past year except for an occasional team meeting.

Of the 26 who did not return the survey, 4 were new volunteers who had not yet become involved in the community, 3 were very active volunteers, 10 were slightly active volunteers, and 10 were no longer active in the program. Thus, the data from the survey were biased toward more active or new volunteers (Figure 1).

Community Participation

Sixty percent of the respondents (18) reported an increase in community participation since becoming involved in the FCL Program. Thirty percent (9) showed the same level of participation before FCL and after. None showed a decrease in participation. Three respondents did not answer the question.

Among all respondents, the number of hours that they were involved in the community increased by an average of 7.2 hours per month, or 64%: they averaged 11.2 hours per month of volunteering in the community before joining FCL and 18.4 hours after joining FCL (Table 1).

	Participant Only	As a Leader	Percent of Time as a Leader
Before FCL	11.2 hours/month	6.4 hours/month	57%
Now	18.4 hours/month	16.5 hours/month	90%

Leadership

Not only were FCL volunteers more active in the community, they also reported an increase in taking on leadership roles in the community. Two-thirds (20) reported an increase in involvement in community leadership. Before their FCL training, volunteers reported an average of 6.4 hours per month in a community leadership role. Since FCL training, volunteers reported an involvement averaging 16.5 hours per month in a leadership capacity. This was an average increase of 10.1 hours per month, a 158% increase (Table 1).

When the average overall community participation was compared with the average participation in a leadership role, it showed that before the FCL training respondents averaged 57% of their time in a leadership role. After FCL training, respondents averaged 90% of their community volunteer time in a leadership role.

Facilitation Skills

In response to a self-assessment on facilitation skills before becoming involved in the FCL Program and after, all respondents perceived themselves as increasing in skills and confidence levels (Figure 2). On average, the volunteers moved from a self-rating of "elementary" facilitation skills to a high "intermediate" level of facilitation skills. Overall, new volunteers perceived less change than did the experienced volunteers.

Likewise, confidence in facilitating a group moved from "elementary" to high "intermediate" (Figure 3). Again, the change from before FCL to after was greater with the experienced volunteers. It may be that the longer one is in the program, the greater the perceived increase in facilitation skills.

Presentation and Training Skills

Respondents' ratings of their presentation skills increased from "elementary" to high "intermediate" (Figure 4). The greatest perceived change was among the experienced volunteers.

When volunteers were asked to rate their training skills before the FCL training and since, their average rating moved from high "beginner" to "intermediate" (Figure 5). Effective meetings and problem-solving skills were listed as the training topics volunteers presented most frequently.

Volunteers rated their knowledge of group process and decision-making techniques before FCL to be "elementary" and high "intermediate" after (Figure 6).

Respondents were also asked what they did differently with groups as a result of their experience with FCL. There were five main concepts that emerged from the data about behavioral changes of the volunteers that resulted from their experience with FCL:

1. Increased trust in group process through understanding stages of group development;
2. Improved listening to hear what people are really saying;
3. More awareness and consideration of the different styles and skill levels of group participants (including the ability to vary the process to include all styles);
4. Realization of the importance of and use of the tools and techniques for effective meetings so as to involve all participants; and
5. More preparedness for group meetings and events.

Volunteers were also asked to describe the greatest impact the FCL Program had on them. Five themes emerged:

1. Learning that everyone has talents to be developed;
2. Accepting people for who they are;
3. Trusting in people's abilities to make great decisions and impact their communities;
4. Confidence in speaking to a group; and
5. Co-facilitating with some great people.

Conclusions

While Oregon's tri-county FCL Program cannot be seen as the "knight on a white horse" that unites communities, it can be concluded that this program makes a difference in the lives of those who volunteer as FCL trainers. Specifically this study found that:

• Volunteers markedly increased their levels of community involvement and community leadership;
• and Volunteers saw an improvement in their skills as a result of their training and experience in FCL.

The findings of the study reported here suggest that volunteers who complete training and stay involved to practice their new skills with support from Extension gain more from the educational experience than those who only complete the training. Furthermore, in a time when outcome evaluation is critical in the Extension Service, the post-pre method serves as a relatively easy and reliable method of determining behavior change among Extension program participants.

This type of information is critical for Extension leaders in determining the wise use of resources for the greatest program impact. Beyond the impacts the FCL Program has on volunteers, further study is needed on what impact it has on overall community leadership capacity.

References

Bolton, E. (1991). Developing local leaders: Results of a structured learning experience. Journal of the Community Development Society, 21 (1), 119-143.

Gerzon, M. (1996). A House Divided: Six Belief Systems Struggling for America's Soul. New York: Putnam.

Oregon State University Extension Service. (1998). Oregon Leadership State Training Manual. Corvallis: Author.

Rockwell, S.K., & Kohn H.(1989). Post-then-pre evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 27 (2), Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html

Evaluation of Forestry Programming: Leading to Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

Depending on whose statistics you prefer, forest-based industry ranks as either the second or third largest industry in North Carolina. In some North Carolina counties, forest products and services are the single largest economic development force. Seventy-five percent of this resource base is held in private hands, non-industrial forest landowners.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES) county field faculty serve as the front-line educator and information resource for these North Carolina citizens. On a day-by-day basis, they must respond to citizens' questions and concerns about forestlands. The role of NCCES Extension Forestry is to provide educational opportunities and information to county field faculty in order for them to assist citizens in making wise, informed decisions about their forestlands.

In order for Extension Forestry to accomplish its role, improve its ability to meet client needs, and serve field faculty better, North Carolina State University Extension Forestry conducted a forestry programming evaluation of the 101 field faculty with forestry responsibilities. The objective of this evaluation was to obtain information to improve forestry programming at the county level.

Assessment Tool Development

The evaluation consisted of two parts, a structured survey and a follow-up meeting. The survey was designed to elicit information on:

• Current level of forestry programming being conducted at the county level,
• Factors that historically have been perceived a part of successful county forestry programming,
• County field faculty education level, work load, and assets, and
• Resources that would strengthen programming.

Field faculty were asked to assess at what level they currently conduct forestry programming in their county. The level of forestry programming being achieved is based on the activities being conducted.

• Level 1: Answer clientele questions and provide information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 2: Conduct on-site visits and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 3: Conduct periodic meetings, on-site visits, and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.
• Level 4: Develop landowner association, conduct periodic meetings, on-site visits, and assist clientele by providing information through email, phone, and walk-ins.

Levels 1 and 2 represent more of a reactive level of activity, where field faculty are reactive to request from their clientele. Levels 3 and 4 represent a proactive approach to county programming, where field faculty anticipate educational needs of their clientele and provide them with suitable programming.

To develop a better understanding of factors that affect programming and assist Extension Forestry in its efforts to develop successful forestry programming at the county level, Extension Forestry posed the following survey questions to the field faculty.

• Is forestry programming included in your annual plan of work?
• Do you feel that you receive credit in your annual evaluation for doing forestry programming?
• Do you feel that you have time to do forestry programming in addition to other responsibilities?
• Do you have a forestry advisory committee?
• How many areas of responsibility do you have as a county agent and what are they?
• For each degree you have earned, in which career field did you receive your education?
• Which of the following do you consider to be assets to successful programming in your county? (Circle all that apply)
  • support from Extension specialist
  • support from area forestry agent
  • support from statewide programming committee
  • access to programming tools
• What can Extension Forestry do to strengthen forestry programming in your county? (check all that apply)
  • assist in developing forestry landowner association
  • provide forestry information for county newsletters
  • assist in grant writing
  • provide programming tools through various media, e.g., WWW, email
  • provide in-service training

The follow-up meeting was held within a month of the requested return of the survey. The follow-up meeting gave county field faculty the opportunity to elaborate on their responses and Extension specialists the opportunity to identify assets and resource that strengthen county forestry programming. The meeting also provided an opportunity for Extension specialists to build further on their rapport with county field faculty. A small group discussion format was used, with group representation including both county field faculty and Extension specialists. Discussion began by going over survey responses and included further solicitation of ideas for improving programming at the county level.

Results and Discussion

Survey Results

Extension Forestry requested all 101 field faculty with forestry responsibilities to participate in an evaluation of forestry programming at the county level. Forty-six field faculty responded to the evaluation for a response rate of 45.5%.

The survey requested the field faculty to indicate their current level of forestry programming activity at the county level. Survey results indicated that:

• 30% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 1;
• 22% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 2;
• 46% of the respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 3; and
• 2% were conducting forestry programming at Level 4.

The overall average indicates that respondents were conducting forestry programming at Level 2. At this level, county programming is in a reactive phase of responding to clientele needs of assistance and not in a proactive phase of providing educational opportunities.

Historically, four underlying factors have been known to drive county programming success. The factors are: (a) forestry programming included in the annual plan of work, (b) credit in field faculty annual evaluation for doing forestry programming, (c) field faculty feeling they have adequate time to do forestry programming in addition to other assigned responsibilities, and (d) field faculty have forestry advisory committees to guide their programming needs. Survey results indicate:

• 63% of respondents have forestry as a part of their plan of work;
• 50% of respondents feel they receive credit in their annual evaluation for doing forestry programming;
• 34.8% of respondents feel they have adequate time to do forestry programming in addition to other assigned responsibilities; and
• 28.3% of respondents have forestry advisory committees.

Follow-Up Meeting Results

In the follow-up meeting, field faculty were asked to elaborate on these responses, with time and training receiving the most attention by the respondents. Many of the respondents feel that even though they list forestry in their plan of work and receive credit for doing forestry programming on their annual evaluation, they do not have the time to devote to doing a greater level of forestry programming because of their current level of responsibilities. Survey results indicate:

Respondents average four assigned areas of responsibilities each.

• Maximum number of assigned responsibilities are nine
• Minimum number of assigned responsibilities is one
• Median value for assigned responsibilities was four

Another underlying factor affecting the level of programming activity in the counties is the lack of education and training in forestry. None of the respondents to the evaluation reported having a degree in forestry. The closest related field was horticulture, in which 26% of the respondents reported having a bachelor's degree 22% reported having a master's degree.

Survey results indicate that multiple assigned areas of programming responsibilities and lack of formal education or training in such programming areas make it difficult for field faculty to focus time and effort on conducting more than reactive programming. One would expect that areas of programming in which field faculty lack a formal education and or training are the areas on which field faculty focus less attention. Many of the respondents during the follow-up meeting indicated that the lack of forestry education and/or training in forestry and the many demands on their time are the major hindrance to increasing forestry programming at the county level.

In the survey and follow-up meeting field, faculty were asked to indicate the value of existing resources and identify future resource needs. Respondents indicated the two most valued assets are the day-to-day support from Extension specialists and access to programming tools. Field faculty turn to Extension specialists to answer questions they cannot answer or when they need information for a program. Programming tools include, but are not limited to, bulletins, slide presentations, databases, Web pages, training aids, and demonstration areas. Respondents prefer to receive programming information electronically, usually through email, which is the most preferred method, over other, more traditional methods.

Extension Forestry Response to Results

To overcome the shortcomings in field faculty education, Extension Forestry has stepped up its efforts in developing regional training and distance educational opportunities. The regional training opportunities were implemented in the fall 2000, with distance educational opportunities, such as videoconferencing, web based training, and correspondence courses, being implemented as they are developed. Other efforts include materials for media releases, newsletters, updates for the "Forestry and Forest Products Data Books," and forestry programs.

In response to the survey and follow-up meeting, Extension specialists have offered a long list of programs, short courses, and field days where specialists will work directly with field faculty at the county level. Extension Forestry has also implemented a mentoring program for new field faculty.

Conclusion and Implications

Results of this evaluation suggest field faculty are faced with the day-to-day pressure of lack of time because of multiple areas of responsibility and lack of formal education covering all areas of responsibility. This demand on the field faculty's time and knowledge base underscores the need for a strong internal support system. This strong internal support system will require Extension specialists to play an active part to assist field faculty in overcoming the barriers to proactive programming.

Steps to develop a strong internal support system will include increasing communication between field faculty and Extension specialists, development of resources that improve the efficiency and make it easier for field faculty to conduct programming, and development of educational training opportunities. With a strong internal support system, field faculty will have a greater opportunity to improve their level of programming in the counties.

Evaluating Pork Producers' Acceptance of Distance Education Media

Introduction

Distance education is any instructional situation in which the learner is separated in time or space from the point of origin. It is characterized by limited access to the educator and other learners (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1996). This allows educators to reach a more diverse and geographically dispersed audience, learners who are not accessible through traditional classroom or seminar instructional settings. Participation in this type of education can be self-paced situation and can take place wherever the learner prefers.

Because of the continuum of change within the swine industry, producers have developed a need for educational resources to help them survive in their fast-changing industry. One way to provide these swine producers with the material they need is through distance education, where the educational materials are provided in a more flexible manner. A survey conducted by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) concluded that producers are not willing to travel more than 60 miles to receive educational training (National Pork Producers Council, 1995). Distance education can be delivered to the producers so that they will not have to leave their production sites to be educated, eliminating the loss of additional production hours during travel to gain the knowledge.

Distance education media seem to be a very logical way to solve the educational needs of the swine industry, but some question whether distance education will be accepted by pork producers. Purdue Extension and the Indiana Pork Producers Association joined forces to expose pork producers to the technologies and media of distance education and to display educational material that had previously been developed for distance education.

Materials and Methods

The distance education information was presented to the producers through a tradeshow booth at the 1999 Indiana Pork Conference. In a recent national poll, respondents rated tradeshows as the most useful way of gathering information (Cain, 1999). The booth was located in a 10' x 20' space in a random area of the tradeshow, mixed in among industry suppliers. This allowed the introduction of educational media to the producers in a "non-traditional" education setting.

Producers were exposed to eight different distance education media types: CD-ROM (CD), self-study manuals (SSM), video (V), multi-media kits (MMK), video conferencing (VC), e-chat rooms (CHAT), e-mail (EM), and World Wide Web (WWW). These were available for hands-on interaction for the producers attending the tradeshow. The booth was designed in a horseshoe-shaped layout to allow continual flow through the booth and also allow all producers to see each media type, try those they chose to, and look at the information provided.

Adult learners like to have material to take away from an educational situation for later review (R. J. Russell, personal communication, 1998). To give the producers more information about distance education, a handout was developed for them to take with them and read at their leisure. The handout gave the producers general information about distance education, media used in distance education, and contacts for more information about distance education.

To display the cost benefit of distance education, a "Money Saving Scenario" consisting of Distance Education vs. Live Face-To-Face Education costs was developed (Table 1). This scenario was based around "Employee Management," a video series available from NPPC. The distance education data were taken from the 1998 NPPC price listing for educational material. The Live Face-To-Face education cost was derived from the amount it would take the Extension specialist at Purdue University to deliver the quantity of information found in the video series used in the scenario, along with the estimated cost to replace the labor loss at the farm and travel costs when the employee would leave for the training.

Employee Management Training
Distance Education		Live Face to Face
Video	$85.00	Registration	$40.00
Shipping and Handling	$15.00	Travel	$38.40
	______	Labor Loss	$75.00
Total	$100.00	Total	$153.40
* Scenario shows that Distance Education could provide a $53.40 savings compared to Live Face-to-Face education

A survey instrument was developed to help determine the producers' previous use of distance education and what they would be willing to try as a result of further exposure to different distance educational media. The survey consisted of 11 questions. The questions covered demographics, pre- and post-exposure to distance education media, monetary contribution to educational programs, ranking of media types by preference, evaluation of whether specific questions could be answered adequately through distance education, and distance education as the future for information access.

Upon completing the survey, the producers were able to enter a drawing for Purdue University apparel, by submitting their surveys and detaching an entry blank from the bottom of the surveys. There were 38 surveys completed by people attending the tradeshow. Chi-square analysis and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics were used to determine associations and differences (SAS, 1996). The surveys collected were divided into three different categories: producers, allied industries, and other. Thirty-one producers completed the survey, as did two allied industry and five other.

Results

The medium with the greatest amount of previous exposure was video, compared to the other media displayed (P<.05). Only 25% of the small producers (<100 sows) had previous exposure to e-mail, compared to 60% of the larger producers (P<.05). After exposure to the media in the distance education booth, producers were willing to try a majority of the media except e-chat rooms and multi-media kits (P<.06 and P<.004, respectively). However, producers continued to prefer video for distance educational delivery, with e-mail, World Wide Web, and CD-ROM closely grouped as a secondary preference (Table 2). Producers previously exposed to one type of medium are more likely to try different media (Table 3), and, once producers were exposed to a specific medium they would continue to use that particular medium (Table 4). Additionally, previous exposure to CD-ROM and e-mail nearly doubled the likelihood of producers trying World Wide Web (P<.05).

Factor	Mean Producer Ranking
V	2.82
EM	3.84
WWW	3.97
CD	4.00
SSM	4.57
CHAT	5.21
VC	5.22
MMK	6.20
*V=video, EM=e-mail, WWW=World Wide Web, CD=CD-ROM, SSM=self-study manuals, CHAT=e-chat rooms, VC=video conferencing, and MMK=multi-media kits.

Post-Exposure to:	Will Try	Significance
EM	WWW	P<.008
EM	CHAT	P<.045
CD	CHAT	P<.019
CD	SSM	P<.036
SSM	CHAT	P<.045
SSM	CD	P<.043
SSM	MMK	P<.048
* EM=e-mail, CD=CD ROM, CHAT=Chat Room, SSM=Self-Study Manual, MMK=Multi Media Kits, and WWW=World Wide Web.

Post-Exposure to:	Will Try	Significance
CD	CD	P<.039
VC	VC	P<.011
SSM	SSM	P<.002
* CD=CD ROM, VC=Video Conference, SSM=Self-Study Manual.

Producers were given the opportunity to rank Face-to-Face at Purdue University, Face-to-Face at Regional Site, and Distance Education Media for delivery methods. Producers preferred live face-to-face training with Purdue University Specialists over distance education (Table 5). However, 87% of the producers indicated that distance education would be the future mode for information access (P<.001). Also, 84% of the producers felt their questions would be adequately answered (P<.001) through distance education.

Delivery Type	Preferred, %	Mean Rank
Purdue University	48.6	1.78
Regional	37.5	2.0
Distance Education	13.9	2.38
* P<.001.

Producers were asked what were the limiting factors causing them not to implement distance education into their current situation. There were four components of this question: technical knowledge, technical equipment, technology expense, and technology accessibility. Overall, producers did not indicate any of these components were a limitation in implementing the technology needed for distance education in their personal situations (Table 6). However, small producers (<100 sows) did indicate one limitation for implementation, the lack of technical equipment (P<.05).

Factor of Limitation	No Limitation %	Significance
Technical Knowledge	84	P<.001
Technical Equipment	68	P<.023
Technology Expense	58	P<.330
Technology Accessibility	74	P<.004

Finally, producers were asked how much they would pay for distance education programs. Most producers would prefer to have distance education for free (48%; P<.001), while 42% of the producers would pay $1-50, and 10% of the pork producers would pay more than $50 for distance education programs.

Discussion

These results indicate a justification for using distance education in Extension programming. The producers displayed a willingness to try the technology after being exposed to it and given the opportunity to have a hands-on experience with the different distance education media. They also indicated that there were no limitations for implementing the technology in their personal situations, thus suggesting that distance education has more of an exposure problem than a technology problem.

Producers were asked to rank their preference as to how they would prefer to have their educational training delivered. Even though it was indicated that distance education is not the preferred delivery method of educational material, it is an acceptable form of information access. Distance education has the potential of becoming a preferred delivery method once the producers feel comfortable learning on their own and seeing the benefits of not having to travel and lose those production hours. To achieve this level of comfort, educators and producers are going to have to work together to help close the familiarity gap caused by technological advances.

Although approximately one-half of the producers are currently not willing to pay for distance education, once they have greater exposure to the technology, they should experience the cost savings that distance education has to offer. This is especially true when this educational technology can be used in their own place at their own pace, allowing the producers to get education without sacrificing production hours.

According to the specific cost scenario, there is a savings of approximately $53.40 with distance education, excluding the value of the lost managerial expertise for one day. In addition, the distance education media may be reused by many employees, while a live face-to-face seminar is a one-time occurrence.

Implications

The lack of producer exposure to situations involving distance education could be a reason for the lack of delivery preference for distance education. Producers know their questions will be answered, but may lack confidence in learning on their own or may feel they lack self-motivation to complete a program at their own pace in their own place.

Finally, the producers may feel they will lose contact with the educator. As educators develop materials for distance education, they need to reassure learners; including a contact name, phone number, e-mail address, and perhaps a contact person photo on the developed material will reduce the learners' fear of losing contact with the experts.

Another way to expose producers to distance educational media would be through county or area meetings. The county educators, with the help of state specialists via distance education, could host technology nights to expose the producers to the media and give them an opportunity for hands-on experience. The county or area meetings would be ideal for the comfort level of the producers, due to their local interactions with one another. Also, including the specialists reassures learners that they are still important to the educators and that they will not be losing total contact with the experts.

The authors thank the Indiana Pork Producers for their financial support and assistance in completing this project.

References

Cain, S. (1999, March). Get your money's worth at tradeshows. On Target [On-line]. Available: http://persephone.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/library/ontarget/archive/ot3_99.html

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, D. (1996). Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction. 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.

National Pork Producers Council. (1995). Pork Producers Competencies. National Pork Producers Council National Study. Des Moines, IA.

SAS. (1996). SAS User's Guide: Statistics (Version 6.12 Ed.). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001june/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.