August 2004
Volume 42 Number 4

Tools of the Trade

Good Intentions, Muddled Methods: Focus on Focus Groups

Beverlyn Lundy Allen
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
blallen@iastate.edu

Nancy Grudens-Schuck
Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Education and Studies
ngs@iastate.edu

Kathlene Larson
CD-DIAL Research Coordinator
Department of Sociology
katelar@iastate.edu

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Introduction

Focus groups are often employed in program planning and community development. However, familiarity has been accompanied by uses of focus groups that appear to be inappropriate, incorrect, or excessive.

This critique arises from our practice as campus faculty and staff with Extension appointments in sociology and agricultural education. Each of us conducts focus groups and teaches focus group methodology. We found ourselves bewildered by the wide range of quality in focus group practice in Extension. Our response was an educational project. This article:

1. Discuss contemporary challenges of focus group practice; and
2. Describe the first phase of an educational initiative--a series of methodology briefs.

Problems and Challenges

Focus groups were once innovative. Contemporary professionals and their clients, however, are well acquainted with focus groups. Many have participated in focus groups, served as moderators, or hired focus group experts. Familiarity is a sign of methodological maturity. It has not changed the value of focus groups, but familiarity may have changed the climate for usage (Archer, 1993; Gamon, 1992).

Focus groups are a form of qualitative research. Krueger and Casey (2000) define a focus group as "a carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment" (p. 5). Focus groups can be used to collect information as part of a needs assessment (before a program begins) or to evaluate a current program (after it has begun).

There are many examples of successful focus groups in Extension; many staff members are to be commended. Journal of Extension articles describe applications of focus groups to needs assessment (Duncan & Marotz-Baden, 1999; Malek, 2002); evaluation (Nordstrom, Wilson, Kelsey, Maretzki, & Pitts, 2000); program marketing (Archer, 1993; Duncan & Marotz-Baden, 1999); and youth perceptions of agriculture (Holz-Clause & Jost, 1995). Less attention, however, is paid to the art and science of focus groups (Archer, 1993; Gamon, 1992). Extension needs to address issues of focus group methodology.

Evidence

We arrived at our conclusion through interactions with Extension professionals, community partners, colleagues in non-profit associations and industry, and graduate students. Our observations were complementary. Grudens-Schuck asked adult returning students in a graduate Extension evaluation course in 2002 if they wanted to devote several weeks to focus groups. The students responded enthusiastically. Many had been placed into focus groups as moderators, transcribers, or analysts with no prior training. They did not want to "fake it" any longer.

Similarly, Extension staff sometimes find themselves involved in focus groups as designers and/or moderators without having received proper training. Allen responded to a request to do a 1-day focus group training to help professional staff deliver a new program. Staff insisted that they needed "just the basics," but likely needed more. Larson has received more than one request to conduct a single focus group to predict voter response on a bond issue. A single focus group can't do this. Our examples are reflected in a recent interview of focus group expert Richard Krueger:

Focus groups look easy, but they are hard to do. Too often people do focus groups without adequate preparation, training or thought and consequently the results can be flawed. They then blame focus groups, but it is really because it hasn't been done well (Grudens-Schuck, 2003, p. 2).

Improvement

The challenge was on our doorstep. We decided to address collectively issues of quality in focus groups. Reasons for improving practice included:

1. Eliminating waste of precious resources on inquiry that was poorly managed, and
2. Avoiding damages and delay that accrue as a result of inquiries that produce misleading information.

We committed to writing a series of briefs to clarify issues related to focus group practice. Our first two focus group briefs are completed, available in print and on the Web. The learner can move back and forth between briefs to control the amount of information provided. The publications are not the only form of education that will be used. Admittedly, it is not the most effective, but short briefs enhance the value of training and are important in the transfer of learning (Caffarella, 2002). Writing the briefs together also has helped to shape ideas about training.

Brief #1: Can You Call It a Focus Group?

The first brief <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1969A.pdf> builds the case among professionals for paying attention to the issue of quality. The brief suggests damage that may result from poor-quality information, including erosion of credibility of educators. We included examples of inappropriate practice, such as using focus groups to:

1. Assess pre-post content knowledge gains,
2. Bring a group to consensus, or
3. Develop allegiance for a particular idea through persuasion.

The brief contains a table to distinguish focus groups from other types of group discussions (such as town meetings or strategic planning). The brief also provides a list of questions to use with clients to clarify whether focus group methodology is the best choice for the task at hand.

Brief #2: Focus Group Fundamentals

The second brief  <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1969B.pdf> summarizes key concepts of focus group methodology. For some, fundamentals are unnecessary; for others, they are essential. The brief emphasizes duties of the moderator. It suggests outright that educators may not want to place themselves in this role without training or support.

The piece also educates about the composition of the group because local practice tends to mix freely people with different levels of power who know each other (making open discussion difficult) or invite everyone (thereby biasing the conversation toward people with an activist orientation). There are legitimate processes that convene mixed groups (such as action research or strategic planning), but these choices bring the activity outside the realm of focus group methodology.

References

Archer, T. M. (1993). Focus groups for kids. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 31(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/tt2.html

Caffarella, R. S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duncan, S., & Marotz-Baden, R. (1999). Using focus groups to identify rural participant needs in balancing work and family education. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 37(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/rb1.html

Gamon, J. A. (1992). Focus groups: A needs assessment tool. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 30(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992spring/tt2.html

Grudens-Schuck, N. (2003, September). How have Extension evaluators contributed to evaluation in general? A conversation with Richard Krueger. Extension Education Evaluation Topical Interest Group, American Association of Evaluation. [On-line]. Available at http://danr.ucop.edu/eee-aea/conversationwithrichardKrueger.pdf

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

Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Malek, F. (2002). Using focus group process to assess the needs of a growing Latino population. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 40(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/tt2.html

Nordstrom, P. A., Wilson, L. L., Kelsey, T. W., Maretzki, A. N., & Pitts, C. W. (2000). The use of focus group interviews to evaluate agriculture educational materials for students, teachers, and consumers. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 38(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/rb2.html

Tips for Designing Publications for Underrepresented Audiences

Patreese D. Ingram
Associate Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
 pdi1@psu.edu

Marney H. Dorsey
Graduate Assistant, Agricultural and Extension Education
 mhd104@psu.edu

Sanford S. Smith
Extension Specialist in Forest Resources & Youth Education
sss5@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Extension professionals often develop brochures, fact sheets, and other types of publications that offer valuable information to various audiences. Developing a product that meets audience needs, helps accomplish a goal, or solves a problem is sometimes challenging and may present hidden complexities (Bly, 1989). As the need to develop publications for underserved communities continues to grow, so does the importance of special considerations in the writing and design process. Audience background and experience should be considered in all phases of development. The following are helpful points to bear in mind.

Culture

A key to designing publications for underrepresented audiences is to consider the culture of the audience. This requires special attention to audience preferences and involves taking a few extra steps to learn about your audience before creating the publication. Look for opportunities to talk to individuals from your audience. Preferences, traditions, values, and expectations can vary greatly among people who have been categorized as belonging to the same group. For example, although Japanese, Hmong, and Filipinos can all be lumped under the "Asian" umbrella, there are many cultural differences among these groups. The same may be true of Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Guatemalans, who may all be considered "Latinos."

Written Content

Present the information in a simple manner. The level of difficulty should be similar to that of material that the reader normally reads for pleasure (USDA, 1998). Write as if you are speaking to the reader. Additional special considerations may be needed for low-literacy audiences or those who use English as a second language.

• Present only the most important information.
• Use headings and subheadings to signal to the reader about upcoming information. Break up large amounts of information into easy-to-read sections (Agriculture Communicators in Education, 2001).
• Use short sentences and short paragraphs. Sentences should be no more than 25 words, and paragraphs should be no more than 60 words.
• For audiences that use English as second language, it is preferable to write in their native language. If that is not possible, consider using materials written for lower literacy levels in their second language.
• Set quotes or phrases of information off to the side of the main body of text. Use buzzwords to draw the reader in or to notify them of information.
• Leave an adequate amount of white space along the margins and throughout the publication. This is especially important for low-literacy audiences. Avoid overcrowding each page with words.

Graphics

Carefully consider the use of graphics and images, including pictures of people, illustrations, tables, charts, and drawings, in your publication. Sometimes a well-designed graphic can clarify the message being presented or even replace large blocks of text. Special attention should be given to the selection of images of people. Again, culture and audience preference plays an important role in deciding what is an acceptable image or graphic to include. The following are some points to consider.

• Seek specific feedback regarding potential images you intend to include in your publication. If at all possible, use pictures of people and backgrounds that are representative of the intended audience. Although difficult to find only 10 years ago, today clip art designed for specific audiences is increasingly available.

• Show various types of families in your publications. Include pictures of two-parent families, single-parent families, multi-racial families, and families that depict grandparents raising grandchildren, among others.

• Show images that reflect a variety of different types of residences. Family residences are typically depicted as a singe family home with a porch and private backyard. For some of your intended audiences, a picture of an apartment building, a row house, a duplex, or a mobile home may feel more like home.

• Show people in a variety of occupations, including those that are non-traditional. An example might include a male nurse, a female engineer, or a person with a disability in a job most often held by people without visible disabilities.

Conclusion

The suggestions in this "Tools of the Trade" may help to increase the effectiveness of publications designed for members of underrepresented and other non-traditional audiences. These are only a few tips to aid in the development of audience-sensitive publications.

One of the most important tips to follow, however, is seeking counsel from members of the intended audience. Partner with local agencies that regularly work with your target audience, and share your materials with several people from the target audience (Bairstow, Berry, & Driscoll, 2002). Their feedback can be invaluable in creating an effective publication and in avoiding unintended faux pas.

References

Agriculture Communicators in Education. (2000). Communicator's handbook. Gainesville, FL: Maupin Publishers.

Bairstow, R., Berry, H., Driscoll, D. (2002). Tips for teaching non-traditional audiences. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34 (6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/tt1.shtml

Bly, R. (1989). The six most deadly causes of direct mail disaster. Direct Marketing, 52(14).

USDA (1998). Unlocking the barriers: Keys to communicating with under-served communities. United States Department of Agriculture Office of Communications, Office of Outreach. Washington DC.

Teaching a Forage Crops Course to Extension Agents via Distance Education

Edward K. Twidwell
Extension Specialist and Professor
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
etwidwell@agctr.lsu.edu

Bradley C. Venuto
Research Agronomist
USDA-ARS
Grazinglands Research Lab
El Reno, Oklahoma
bvenuto@grl.ars.usda.gov

Distance education via compressed video is an increasingly popular method of teaching college agricultural courses. This technology provides student access from remote off-campus locations. These courses have been well received, and student performance is similar to that in conventional classroom settings (Latour, 2003; Diebel, McInnis, & Edge, 1998). In 2000, an opportunity arose to teach a Forage Ecology and Management course over distance education to 30 Extension agents. This article discusses the experiences of the agents and instructors and presents an evaluation of the utility of this method of enhancing agent education.

Course Rationale and Methodology

In the spring of 1999, the LSU Agricultural Center developed a specialization program for Extension agricultural field agents. This program allowed agents to take five graduate-level courses in a given field of study, such as agronomy, animal science, horticulture, etc. Upon completion of the courses, the agent was granted "specialty status," with the potential of serving as a specialization agent for a multi-parish area. The forage course was selected as a core course for specialization in agronomy or animal science.

Because many of the agents had a 3- to 4-hour commute to campus, the course was taught in the spring semester of 2000 via distance education from a studio classroom located on the LSU campus. Agents had access to the class from seven remote sites throughout Louisiana.

The course consisted of 10 lecture sessions (one 3-hour block on Thursday evenings), two problem sets, one field trip, one group project, one mid-term, and one final exam. All lectures were tape-recorded, and notes were sent out via e-mail prior to each lecture. A course evaluation was given, and 90% were returned.

The problem sets were designed with the agents' current Extension responsibilities in mind. They were scenarios that were somewhat unfamiliar to the agents and were intended to improve problem-solving ability in the field of forages. The group project involved dividing the class into eight groups, with each group developing a 30-minute oral presentation. Each group had to analyze a forage-based production system that was unfamiliar to them. The Internet had to be the primary source of information.

Prior to the course, the instructors attended a 3-hour technical training session. However, a technician was present to assist the instructors and correct technical problems. Each location had a coordinator to assist with technical problems. The mid-term and final exams were proctored by the coordinators.

Agent Background and Response

Approximately half (52%) of the agents were specializing in agronomy. Most of the agents were over 25 and had M.S. degrees, primarily in vocational education or Extension education. Although many of the agents had some prior professional experience with forage crops and were able to apply this experience to the class, 24% had not taken a college-level class within the past 5 years.

The majority of the agents indicated that the course was well organized (84%) and the topics were adequately covered (68%). The agents agreed it was helpful to have class notes prior to each lecture (92%). This allowed the agents to concentrate on lecture content rather than note taking. The agents indicated that they could apply the information learned from this course (88%). The majority of the agents indicated that the exams and problems sets were fair measures of student performance (96%).

The class was divided on the value of the group project, and only 44% thought it was worthwhile. The class was also divided as to the effectiveness of the distance education technology, and, when asked which type of setting they preferred, most (80%) chose the traditional classroom. However, a majority of the agents (68%) indicated they would take additional courses taught over distance education.

Challenges and Benefits

Challenges

1. It was difficult for instructors to assess, in real time, student attention and understanding of the lecture material.
2. Although this technology is interactive, the instructors observed that agents were reluctant to use the technology to ask questions. Attempts to encourage interaction were not highly successful.
3. Several students had difficulty maintaining their attention on a video screen for long periods.
4. The agents didn't appreciate the requirement to use the Internet as their sole source of information for course assignments, although these types of exercise have shown some positive benefits in other courses (Agarwal & Day, 1998).
5. Some agents were reluctant to present group projects orally to the entire class.

Benefits

1. Instructors, particularly those with research and teaching appointments only, can benefit by teaching and getting to know agricultural agents.
2. The course did successfully provide agents with formal training. The agents performed well and indicated that they would use information gained to assist in extension programs.
3. The agents' familiarity and use of the Internet for information access was enhanced.
4. The oral presentations provided the agents an opportunity to gain experience in using remote broadcasting. This experience could be quite valuable in the future as the use of technology is expanded to reach clientele groups (Schmidt, Swistock, & Sharpe, 2003; Swistock, Sharpe, & Dickinson, 2001).

Summary and Recommendations

Maintaining student focus and interaction can be difficult. The instructor needs to be very familiar with the equipment and should vary the lecture presentation as much as possible. When using PowerPoint or overhead notes, switch the camera back and forth to the lecturer. Stop and ask questions periodically to stimulate interaction.

The instructors would not have changed the group project. This was stressful for some agents, but data collection and presentation are an integral part of an Extension agent's responsibility. The problem sets could have been improved and modeled more closely to real-world case studies.

Despite challenges experienced by both the instructors and agents with the long distance education technology, this course was deemed a successful experience by both groups.

References

Agarwal, R., & Day, A. E. (1998). The impact of the Internet on economic education. Jour. of Economic Education 29(2): 99-110.

Diebel, P. L., McInnis, M. L., & Edge, W. D. (1998). Student use and perceptions of distance education technologies. NACTA Journal 46(3): 28-33.

Latour, M. A. (2003). Test comparison between teleconferencing vs. traditional classroom lectures for an introductory animal sciences course. NACTA Journal 47(1): 5-7.

Schmidt, K. L., Swistock, B. R., & Sharpe, W. E. (2003). Distance education of Pennsylvania pond owners. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/rb2.shtml

Swistock, B. R., Sharpe, W. E., & Dickinson, J. (2001). Educating rural private water system owners in Pennsylvania. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a7.html

The Internet as a Tool for Long-Term Program Evaluation: Locating "Lost" Individuals

Brenda K. Bryant
Professor of Human Development
bkbryant@ucdavis.edu

Juliana L. Raskauskas
Graduate Student in Education
jlraskauskas@ucdavis.edu

University of California, Davis
Davis, California

The Need for Long-Term Program Evaluation

Where are they now? That is a question when one considers long-term, follow-up evaluation of Extension programs (e.g., 4-H programs). The Internet can be a useful tool in this regard. Cooperative Extension has always aimed at making enduring changes to the benefit of our nation's citizenry. Long-term follow-up studies are an uncommon method of program evaluation. Locating former program participants, especially youth participants later in their adult lives, can be a challenge. The Internet is a tool to find former youth and adults long after their participation in Extension programs.

The Benefit of Comprehensive Record Keeping

Good record keeping at the time of program participation is key to locating participants later on. A full record would include each participant's full name, including middle name, birth date, and comparable information for other family members, when reasonable. Locating female participants is particularly challenging due to name changes at time of marriage. Having the names of other family members, especially male relatives, can be helpful in this regard. Finally, to make follow-up of participants complete, it is important to document deaths because the dead are "missing data" of a particular kind.

Useful Web sites for Locating People

(All web sites reported here were retrievable as of August 29, 2004.)

Publicrecordfinder.com--www.publicrecordfinder.com/vitalrecrds.html

This site provides links to birth, marriage, and death records organized by state and county. Unfortunately, not all states and counties are represented at this time.

Anywho.com--www.anyonewho.com

This site can be used identify city of residence from entering an individual's name. This is useful when tracking someone to a new location.

The Ultimate White Pages--www.theultimates.com/white (Does Reverse Searches)

This site allows one to search the phone books of several search engines simultaneously.

Bigfoot.com--www.bigfoot.com

This Web site provides phone listings, addresses, and e-mail addresses and is a good source for doing whole country searches by name.

InfoUSA--www.infousa.com (Reverse Searches Possible)

In many cases, this Web site provides listings for all household members who receive marketing materials, so sometimes one can find wife information when the phone book listing is in the husband's name.

Intelius--www.intelius.com

This site provides birth date, current residence, past residence, age, full name, and phone number information. Because the site is based on many different sources of public information, it is one of the most up-to-date and accurate of the public record databases. It also provides an "as of" date to let you know how current their information is.

US Search--www.ussearch.com

Free searches include name, approximate age, and current/past city and state of residence. Assistance by phone is also available.

Ancestry.com--www.ancestry.com

This site is designed for genealogy research.

SS Death Index--www.daddezio.com/favorites/ssdi-death-index.html

This site is a national death index that allows one to search by name or date of birth. It provides state of birth/death, date of birth/death, and maiden name when applicable.

USGen Web Project--www.usgenweb.com

In addition to identifying the dead, the published obituaries on this site often provide information for locating relatives and obtaining the married names of women.

OnlineDetective--www.onlinedetective.com

Offers software and consultation on doing searches. Only PC users can benefit from this site. The option of personal consultation is an unusual benefit.

Google--www.google.com

Mamma--www.mamma.com

Because these are highly powerful general Internet search engines and filter possibilities do not exist, searches using these engines often generate long lists of site possibilities. Because it is very time consuming to sort through a long list of sites, these search engines are best for finding people in public or high-profile jobs.

Cautionary Notes

Although providing a list of Web sites makes the process of locating individuals appear simple, this is not entirely true. Several cautionary notes are worth mentioning.

1. Information may be stored by the initial of the first name and not the full first name. Try both methods of entering the "first name," even when first name is requested. Different names can appear using the two methods.
2. Locating an individual can be a multi-step process. For example, step one may be to find the state or city, and then, once the city of residence is known, the second step is to locate a specific address.
3. It will be important to double check findings to be confident that one has the correct individual. It may be surprising how many people share a name. Birth date or age is an excellent source of confirmatory information because age is often one of the bits of data by which individuals are identified.

Conclusion: Case Study of Locating Previous Participants

By using the sites noted above, we spent roughly 2 hours per individual to locate 168 adults in their mid thirties whom we have not seen for roughly 20-25 years. The only fee service we used was www.onlinedetective. Crucial to locating participants later on was original record keeping. We had obtained full names and birthdates of the 168 children first studied. In addition, we had the same information on their parents and one older sibling. All former participants were found, albeit the deaths of several were documented.

A Web Site to Help Farm Families Communicate About Farm Transfer

Sharon A. DeVaney
Associate Professor
Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
sdevaney@cfs.purdue.edu

Introduction

After conducting interviews with 40 farm families about retirement and succession planning (DeVaney, 2002), I concluded that some families have difficulty discussing farm transfer. Some farmers could not talk to their fathers about slowing down as they grew older. Some older farmers were anxious about losing authority if they began the transfer process. Other sensitive issues were the choice of a successor and dividing assets among siblings. Many of these issues have been mentioned in previous studies (Anderson & Rosenblatt, 1985; Marotz-Baden, Keating, & Munro, 1995).

The Farm Transfer Process

Attorneys who specialize in farm transfer stated that the first step for the farmer was to decide that he was ready "to let go" (DeVaney, 2002). The next step was deciding on a successor. After farmers make those decisions, they need to create a flow of income for themselves and decide how to divide assets. The attorneys said that it was important to help the retiring farmer understand how his estate planning actions would affect the remaining family members. Attorneys also talked about the need for the farmer to make estate plans while he or she was in good health and had enough time to allow for a transfer of property.

Many of the sensitive issues in farm transfer involved situations where a son wanted to take care of his father, but the father wanted to remain independent. In a situation like this, communication strategies using varying levels of control are helpful (Morgan & Hummert, 2000). For instance, older adults in their parental role have traditionally been on the giving end of direct control messages. At the same time, middle-aged adults must constantly reevaluate their level of direction as they negotiate the changing levels of dependence and independence of their aging parents and their maturing children.

Web Site Content

Types of Communication Strategies

To help families deal with sensitive issues about farm transfer, I developed a Web site, Who Will Get Grandpa's Farm <http://www2.ces.purdue.edu/farmtransfer>, about communication strategies. The setting for the Web site is a farm near Delphi, Indiana. The communication strategies are: direct control, indirect control, and no control (Ryan, Bourhis, & Knops, 1991). When the person who is speaking uses direct control, he is demonstrating that he wants to take control of the situation. Using indirect control shows that the speaker is flexible and will share the decision making. Using the third strategy, no control, shows that the speaker is talking about the subject but that he is not attempting to control the situation.

Here are some examples from the Web site. In the first scene, the farmer is speaking to his father. Using direct control, he said, "It is time for me to take charge of the planning." In another version of that scene, the farmer uses indirect control, saying, "I want you to feel comfortable with easing up on the farm work." In the third version of that scene, the farmer displays no control when he says, "I am thinking about planting next year. Do you have any new ideas?"

Research has shown that indirect control is usually the preferred strategy (Morgan & Hummert, 2000). However, in a situation where life is threatened, such as driving when vision or hearing is impaired, direct control could be the preferred strategy.

Conversations Between Family Members

The Web site includes six scenes where family members talk about issues related to farm transfer. The farmer talks to his father, spouse, son, and a brother. In each scene, the dialogue includes the three types of control strategies. The Web site provides the scenes as text that can be read or as video clips. After users view the scenes, there is an interactive quiz to help users distinguish between direct control, indirect control, and no control.

Influence of Attitude, Preparation, Timing, and Behavior

Users are also introduced to the influence of attitude, preparation, timing, and behavior on the communication between family members. For example, the farmer is advised to think about his brother's feelings when he talks to him about farm transfer. Although the brother, who lives off the farm, may have been uninterested in the operation of the farm, he may be more willing to help his on-farm brother talk to the parents when he realizes that his parents won't live forever.

The site is available at <http://www2.ces.purdue.edu/farmtransfer>. It's free, and no password is needed. The National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) provided funding to develop the site, and USDA-CSREES helped fund the interviews with farm families that provided information for the site's development. The site has also been included on the CSREES Financial Security in Later Life Web site <http://www.reeusda.gov/financialsecurity> as a resource for consumers and educators.

References

Anderson, R. M., & Rosenblatt, P. C. (1985). Intergenerational transfer of farm land. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, 6(1), 19-25.

DeVaney, S. A. (2002). Who gets grandpa's farm? Considering farm succession planning. Small Farms Digest, 5(2), 1-4.

Marotz-Baden, R., Keating, N. C., & Munro, B. (1995). Generational differences in the meaning of retirement from farming. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 24(1), 29-46.

Morgan, M., & Hummert, M. L. (2000). Perceptions of communicative control strategies in mother-daughter dyads across the life span. Journal of Communication, Summer, 48-64.

Ryan, E. B., Bourhis, R. Y., & Knops, U. (1991). Evaluative perceptions of patronizing speech addressed to elders. Psychology and Aging, 6, 442-450.

Use of Personal Digital Assistants for Extension Program Record Keeping

Pete Vergot III
Associate Professor, District Extension Director
vergot@ifas.ufl.edu

Fedro S. Zazueta
Professor, Director Office of Academic Technology
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
fsz@ufl.edu

Howard Beck
Professor
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
hwbeck@ ifas.ufl.edu

University of Florida IFAS Extension
Gainesville, Florida

Introduction

Information Technology (IT) is a strategic asset in the successful completion of the enterprise's mission. Recent advances in technology have led to substantial computing power in small portable devices, making them very useful tools both inside and outside of the classroom (Dominick, 2002). PDAs have been used in Extension for work in agricultural production (Zazueta, Vergot, Beck, & Xin, 2002). This article discusses the use of Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) in Extension program record keeping, focusing on the recent deployment of handheld computers by University of Florida IFAS county Extension faculty.

The project aimed to reduce the excessive workload on county Extension agents due to reporting requirements. A pilot to assess effectiveness in the use of handheld computers by Extension faculty was initiated in the fall of 2000.

Methodology

The PocketPC-FAS software allows the collection of accountability related data in the field. These data include items such as educational contacts, mass media, volunteers, and materials used by county Extension faculty. Information entered into the PocketPC is synchronized with the desktop and transmitted using the Internet to a central object database. Reports are generated from the database to satisfy reporting requirements at individual, organizational, county, state, and federal levels. The project was carried out in the following stages.

Selection of a Working Platform

A review of available devices in multiple platforms was conducted. Pocket PC devices were selected as the primary platform due to:

1. The small learning curve required for individuals already familiar with MS Windows, MS Explorer, and MS Outlook,
2. Easy integration with MS Windows platform, which is the enterprise level system used by University of Florida IFAS
3. The high quality of the interface at the time, particularly the color display, and
4. System performance at the time.

The specific hardware chosen was Compaq's Pocket PC.

Selection and Training of Participants

A group of 15 County Extension Directors in the Northwest Extension District agreed to be part of a pilot on the use of PocketPC devices in Extension programming and record keeping. The pilot included extensive training and participation in a software development program. The main application used was a PocketPC version of the Faculty Accomplishments System, (FAS).

Software Development/Deployment

The pilot group was part of the PocketPC-FAS software development team, participating in software requirement specification and beta testing.

Results

PDA's were readily adopted by county Extension faculty. Most frequent uses of the Pocket PCs are e-mail, tasks, contacts, notes, and calendar. These were followed in frequency of use by word processing and spreadsheet applications. Other applications included recording clientele contacts of individuals, groups, mass media, volunteers, and materials developed for posting to FAS and downloading and storing Extension publications.    

Problems most often mentioned by Extension faculty in the use of Pocket PCs are:

1. Short battery life of the devices,
2. Synchronization problems with the desktop,
3. Limited Internet access (lack of wireless service and modem problems), and
4. Memory limitations found in some of the early models of the Pocket PC.

Adoption

Personal information management software with custom software developed to address county Extension agent needs resulted in a rapid adoption rate. After the early adopter group that piloted the use of the devices in fall of 2000, rapid adoption took place from May through September of 2001, reaching a penetration of 80% of the county Faculty in the University of Florida/IFAS Northwest Extension District. Thereafter, the adoption rate slowed and reached 87% penetration in August 2002.

Future Plans/Advice to Others

The success of this project was most likely due to the following:

1. Training was given a very high priority,
2. Technical support was readily available,
3. Users participated in the decision of what software applications to develop (identifying what is useful) and participated in the software development, and
4. Administration gave strong support.

In the immediate future, other software applications are to be developed following the same model of having the county Extension faculty decide on the application to be developed and participate directly in software specifications and beta testing.

Costs and Resources Needed

PDAs were purchased for each of the 15 County Extension Directors at a cost of $550 each.

The IFAS IT office developed the PocketPC-FAS software for the project. Over the course of the project, a graduate student assistant was hired as a programmer under the supervision of a faculty member in IFAS-IT. Training was conducted by the District Director, IFAS-IT faculty, and some of the very early adopters. One technical staff member was equipped with the device to provide support. In addition, the IFAS Help Desk was provided with devices and training.

References

Dominick, J. (2002). Ready or not--PDAs in the classroom. Syllabus, September. pp. 30-32.

Zazueta, F.S., Vergot, P. III, Beck, H. W., & Xin, J. (2002). The use of PDAs in agricultural Extension programs. Proceedings of the Second Congress of the Asian Federation of Information Technology in Agriculture (AFITA), Beijing China.

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.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.