February 2004
Volume 42 Number 1

Ideas at Work

Developing a National Web-Based Learning Center for Natural Resource Education

Samuel W. Jackson
samjackson@utk.edu

George M. Hopper
ghopper@utk.edu

Wayne K. Clatterbuck
wclatter@utk.edu

University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee

Introduction

Over the last 20 years, the development of new technologies for information retrieval and transfer has greatly outpaced what anyone expected. In the early 1990's, few people knew what the Internet was, and even fewer had access to it.

Times have changed, and in the United States today, an estimated 186 million people have access to the Internet in their homes and to its wide range of resources (Nielsen NetRatings, 2004). This low-cost way of providing information to an increasingly larger audience is a valuable tool for both Extension clientele and educators, especially those interested in natural resource education.

Background

Extension education has traditionally focused on face-to-face, county-based programming, where typical natural resource Extension clientele have been rural residents who live on the land they own. Today, however, the increasing number of landowners who are not traditionally associated with Extension, specifically absentee landowners, makes it difficult to reach landowners through workshops and meetings. In light of this fact, many states have begun searching for educational alternatives. The current dominance of the Internet, convenient and cost-effective, has made it another logical delivery method for Extension programming.

Although the Internet provides us with another tool in Extension education, in no way does it replace the roles a county agent or state specialist play in interacting with clientele. The Internet is simply another tool through which Extension can interact with its clientele. Web-based learning will not replace traditional Extension, but will provide increased access to knowledge and information to a much more broad audience in a cost-effective manner.

The first steps of the transition to online Extension education and programming have been made by using the Internet to provide continuing education and training to Extension agents. Many state Extension programs have planned, provided, and/or participated in online continuing education since the mid-1990s (Muske, Goetting, & Vukonich, 2001; Lippert, Plank, Camberato, & Chastain, 1998; Lippert & Plank, 1999; Lippert, Plank, & Radhakrishna, 2000).

Web-based educational material for general Extension clientele has developed more slowly. Today, with increased public access to computers and the Internet, Web-based learning has begun to develop at a more rapid pace, and several successful online programs have been developed for Extension clientele (Swann & Einstein, 2000; Jenkins, 2002).

In natural resource Extension, a national program that oversees the development of online information is needed to utilize the best content from a variety of sources to make complete and accurate information available to the user. In the US, there is no such online program.

The Development of a National Center

With funding from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), the National Web-Based Learning Center for Private Forest and Range Landowners has been established to provide a nationally organized Web destination for Internet users interested in forest and rangeland management issues.

The Center, housed and coordinated by the University of Tennessee, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries Extension, will allow users to participate in an interactive educational process. Regionally based information will be available for landowners and clientele across the country to access through online tutorials, educational modules, articles, and references covering a host of natural resource topics and issues.

The primary objective of the Center is to create an interactive learning environment through the development of regional Web-based learning modules to present natural resource management information to nonfederal forest and range landowners. These modules will be designed to educate users on topics related to forest, range, wildlife, and fisheries management and will contain features such as digital video, interactive graphics, text, references, and assessment tools. All of the modules are designed to allow users to learn and proceed through the information at their own pace.

Another objective of the Center is to use interactive technology and resources to increase the teaching capacity of Extension educators. Within a secure portion of the site, Extension educators will be able to download prepared computer-based presentations and handout materials that have been developed in conjunction with the online learning modules. These resources will make the modules and topics usable in traditional clientele workshops and other programming needs at a local level. There will be a discussion forum, email list-serve, and file sharing features to allow educators from around the country to share information and discuss issues and problems that arise.

To guide the development of the Center, a National Advisory Board has been assembled (Table 1). The Advisory Board will oversee and guide the design, content, and organization of the Web site. Additionally, an independent evaluator will be used evaluate the Center in design, content, functionality, and impact

Development of modules and Extension educator material is conducted by subcontracting with both 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. Thus far, two rounds of content development have been held, and 16 different content modules are in development. The Center is working with approximately 67 individuals from 18 institutions around the country in this effort. Over $210,000 has been allocated to these groups for development of the interactive content modules. Table 2 illustrates the breadth of coverage these modules entail.

When these and other modules, as well as the design of the Center's Web site, have been completed, they will be made available for public access. The National Web-Based Learning Center for Private Forest and Range Landowners will be available to the public at http://www.forestandrange.org/ by mid-summer 2004.

Conclusion

The National Web-Based Learning Center for Private Forest and Range Landowners will be a valuable online learning tool for Extension clientele and Extension educators. The Center will provide increased Internet user access to well-organized and accurate natural resource information online, delivered in a cost-effective and convenient manner.

This increased knowledge and management will bring both economic benefits to landowners as well as biological benefits to the resources.

References

Jenkins, D. H. (2002). Forestry at the fringe: Virginia's Woodland Options Web-based course for landowners. Forest Landowner. 61(5):50-53.

Lippert, R. M., Plank, C. O., Camberato, J., & Chastain, J. (1998). Regional Extension in-service training via the Internet. Journal of Extension [Online], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/a3.html

Lippert, R. M. & Plank, C. O. (1999). Responses to first time use of Internet in-service training by Agricultural Extension Agents. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Edu. 28: 53-56.

Lippert, R. M., Plank, C. O., & Radhakrishna, R. (2000). Beyond perception: a pretest and posttest evaluation of a regional Internet Extension in-service training. Journal of Extension [Online], 38(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/a2.html

Muske, G., Goetting, M., & Vukonich, M. (2001). The World Wide Web: a training tool for family resource management educators. Journal of Extension [Online], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a3.html

Nielsen. (2004). NetRatings [Online]. Available URL: http://netratings.com/news.jsp?section=dat_to&country=us [Accessed 20 January 2004].

Swann, D.L. & Einstein, M. (2000). User analysis and future directions of the Web-based Aquaculture Network Information Center. Journal of Extension [Online], 38(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/iw2.html

An Effective 1-Hour Consumer-Education Program on Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Toward Functional Foods

Brenda Killackey-Jones
Department of Health and Kinesiology
Divajone@Rochester.rr.com

Roseann Lyle
Professor, Department of Health and Kinesiology
Rlyle@Purdue.edu

William Evers
Professor, Department of Foods and Nutrition
Eversb@Purdue.edu

Marlene Tappe
Associate Professor, Department of Health and Kinesiology
Mtappe@Purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Interest in functional food has expanded rapidly since the early 90s, as evidenced by the increasing number of scientific meetings on functional foods (Wrick, 1995). Yet there is no category in US dietary regulations for functional foods. The definition proposed by the American Dietetic Association (ADA) states that the ADA recognizes a functional food a, "...any potentially healthful food or food ingredient that may provide a health benefit beyond the traditional nutrients it contains" (ADA, 1999, p. 1278).

A nationwide public opinion survey conducted by the American Dietetic Association (2000) found that only 21 % of American had heard of "functional foods." Most American consumers that had heard of "functional foods" could not give the correct definition. In recent years there has also been a media flood of information for consumers about the diet-disease link. For these reasons, there is a need to provide accurate and current information about functional foods to consumers.

The Functional Foods Educational Intervention

Purdue Extension decided to fill this gap by creating an education intervention, based on recommendations of the American Dietetic Association and the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, to educate Indiana residents about functional foods.

The main educational objectives for the program were as follows.

Program participants will be able to:

1. Identify a healthful diet;

2. Define "functional food";

3. Identify Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized health claims;

4. Demonstrate knowledge of the FDA and Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) regulatory capacity involving functional foods; and

5. Identify specific functional foods and their possible health benefits.

Program Design

A quasi-experimental design was used to assess the retention of program content. Subjects received the intervention in small groups staggered over a 10-month period in different counties throughout Indiana. Program participants also answered questions about the educational objectives and their consumption behaviors and attitudes towards functional foods.

The program questionnaire was distributed before the education intervention, immediately following the intervention, and again 6 weeks later.

Program Specifics

A 31-slide PowerPoint presentation, accompanying script, and additional handouts were created for this intervention and distributed as a CD to Purdue Extension county educators who led the interventions. Materials were designed based on recommendations of the American Dietetic Association and the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Educators also completed a short series of questions eliciting how closely they followed the program instructions, such as whether they used all of the slides, handouts, and script.

The Results

Two hundred eighteen participants attended one of 11 education sessions conducted from March 2001 to January 2002 at Purdue Extension locations across Indiana.

All educators responded that they followed the script most of the time or completely. All educators, but one, reported showing all of the slides in the presentation. All but one group (n=11) reported using all of the handouts included in the program.

The majority (99%) of participants were female. Because women are more responsible for teaching food and health practices in the family, reaching this population was particularly important (IFIC, 2000a). Most (68%) subjects were over 56 years of age. Sixty-four percent were married, 36% had one or two children, and 36% had three or four children. Thirty-seven percent had high school degrees as the highest education attained, and 32% had an annual household income of $20,000 to $40,000.

The hypothesis that a functional food education program would increase knowledge of functional foods was supported. Out of a possible seven correct answers, participants answered approximately five correctly at posttest 1, a significant improvement from approximately four correct answers at the pretest.

After 6 weeks, participants answered approximately 5.25 questions correctly. It should be noted that this improvement also could be due to the influence of other sources of functional food information or the return rate (~53%).

It was hypothesized that a functional food education program would change attitudes regarding functional foods. The only significant change was a slight decrease in score between the two posttests. However, the mean attitude assessment was high on all three assessments, indicating a generally positive attitude towards functional foods.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations can be made.

1. Because this program was successful at improving knowledge, similar education interventions should be employed to address other important nutritional topics.

2. Education interventions should be designed utilizing reputable sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture.

3. The intervention developed for this study should be employed with other populations to assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in a more diverse group.

4. Future studies should focus on older, less educated, and lower income individuals because they had lower knowledge scores on average.

References

Wrick, K. L. (1995). Consumer issues and expectations for functional foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 35(1&2), 167-173.

American Dietetic Association. (1999). Position of the American Dietetic Association: functional foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 1278-1285.

American Dietetic Association. (2000). American's food and nutrition attitudes and behaviors -- ADA's nutrition and you. [On-line]. Retrieved December 29, 2000: http://www.eatright.org/pr/2000/010300a.html

International Food Information Council. (2000a). Background of functional foods. [On-line] Available at: http://ific.org/

Rediscovering the Potential of In-Depth Training for Extension Educators

Millie Ferrer
Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
mferrer@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Anne M. Fugate
Project Coordinator
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Daniel F. Perkins
Associate Professor
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
dfp102@psu.edu

Janice Easton
CYFAR Project Evaluator
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Introduction

In an effort to save time and money, Extension has been exploring distance education as an alternative to traditional in-service training. Distance education alternatives like videoconferences, Internet classes, and self-study courses have been shown to be effective in various ways--they certainly save time and money and often provide a satisfactory learning experience for county agents (Fitzpatrick, Duncan, Williamson, & Smith, 1997; Lippert, Plank, Camberato, & Chastain, 1998; Smith & Wolford, 1997).

However, in the exploration of distance education, Extension should not forget the potential of the face-to-face in-service training for facilitating the integration and application of more complex knowledge and skills. Florida Extension's CYFAR (Children, Youth and Families At Risk) project team has been reminded of this potential in the implementation of the Florida Innovators Program.

Florida Innovators Program

The Florida Innovators Program (FIP) is a two-part professional development program through which Family and Consumer Sciences and 4-H county agents develop community-based programs for at-risk audiences. The first part of FIP consists of a series of five workshops, which address topics such as risk and protective factors, evaluation for hard-to-reach audiences, program sustainability, collaboration, cross cultural communication, and technology. A significant part of each workshop is devoted to working on individual community projects through a logic model approach.

The second part consists of the agents' implementation of their projects, with a $4,000 seed grant. Because of the in-depth nature of the workshops, each FIP cohort group consists of only four or five agents, plus program assistants if they will be assisting with the project.

FIP was implemented as part of Florida Extension's USDA CYFAR state-strengthening grant, as one strategy to address the grant objective of increasing capacity for developing community-based programs for at-risk audiences. FIP was patterned after the Kellogg National Leadership Program (KNLP), which has a successful, 21-year track record of capacity building (Sublett & Beineke, 1998). Like KNLP, FIP is an intensive program with 7.5 days of training, between-workshop assignments, and the integration and application of knowledge.

The participating agents, who have had from 2 to over 26 years of Extension experience, have responded very positively to this in-depth training approach, calling it "invigorating," "refreshing," and "the best training I've ever been to." In describing the benefits of the FIP model, one agent summed up the comments made by most of the participants:

[The workshops] helped put what I already know and what I am learning into perspective. In the past I have gathered information in bits and pieces, but the practical application and follow-through in these trainings helped to integrate the information.

The participants attribute their positive experience to several program characteristics, which together foster an environment of rigorous and supportive guided practice. Table 1 lists program characteristics identified by participants as strengths of the FIP workshops. These same characteristics have also been cited by leaders who have emerged during the KNLP's 21 years of leadership development (Sublette & Beineke, 1998).

As of August 2003, 23 FCS and 4-H agents have participated in the workshops. Eighteen agents have implemented 16 projects (two agents are working on one project together). Examples of projects include a parenting program at a housing authority, a child-care center, a support program for children who have lost a loved one, and afterschool programs for elementary- and middle school-age children.

Evaluation of FIP, which includes group and individual interviews after the workshop series and review of the developed projects, indicates that the approach is building capacity, as defined by the CYFAR initiative. For example, FIP helps develop a common vision for children, youth, and families at risk; in a post-series interview, the interviewer noted that when asked to discuss "at-risk," FIP participants had "an excited discussion in which they shared similar definitions. It was clear they had given this a considerable amount of attention and thought."

FIP also promotes working with diverse audiences and with other agencies or organizations. Of the 16 FIP projects that have been implemented, the majority involve working in new communities with new agencies and organizations.

More important, FIP provides training that agents can apply not just to their grant project, but also to any programming effort. One agent said, "I've used what I've learned over and over in my Plan of Work. When I start a new project, I look at it from all angles, where I used to just dive in. Also, my scope of evaluation has improved. I have a better understanding of how important it is throughout the program." Another agent stated, "A lot of our in-service trainings are subject matter related. This is more programmatic--it's helping us become better professionals."

Despite the FIP model's success, there are obvious barriers to its replication. First, the model requires a definite commitment of travel funds and agent time that Extension services are trying to save through distance education. It also calls for small group interaction, which takes time and would be difficult to facilitate in a larger group. Finally, because each workshop session builds on the previous session, if an agent decides to leave (two agents left Extension while in the FIP program), it is difficult to bring in a replacement.

However, the results of FIP do highlight the value of face-to-face in-service training as an environment in which in-service participants can apply what they have learned and receive immediate feedback. This application is especially important if the information to be learned is theoretical or complex and, therefore, more easily lost in the pace of day-to-day programming. Further, the characteristics of FIP that participants have cited as strengths of the program suggest ways to realize the potential of in-depth in-service trainings.

Conclusion

Due to the constraints of time and money, there continues to be a need to explore distance education alternatives to find the most efficient and effective methods of in-service training, whether for the updating of content, the introduction of new materials, or the development of process skills. However, Extension should also be willing to invest in in-depth in-service training when it is the best method for the desired outcome.

References

Fitzpatrick, J., Duncan, S., Williamson, S., & Smith, T. (1997). An evaluation of two modes of self-paced agent in-service training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35 (1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997february/rb5.html

Lippert, R., Plank, O., Camberato, J., & Chastain, J. (1998). Regional extension in-service training via the Internet. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36 (1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/a3.html

Smith, J., & Wolford, M. (1997). Agent in-service alternatives provide multiple benefits. Journal of Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35 (3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/iw1.html

Sublett, R., & Beineke, J. (1998). Leadership lessons and competencies: Learning from the Kellogg National Fellowship Program. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting: Leaders/Scholars Association [On-line], 21-26. Available at: http://www.academy.umd.edu/ila/pdfs/LeadersScholars.pdf

4-H Site-Based Youth Development Programs: Reaching Underserved Youth in Targeted Communities

Jennifer A. Skuza
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Urban Youth Development Office
Minneapolis, Minnesota
skuza@umn.edu

Youth-serving organizations and the practitioners can play a critical role in the lives of young people by providing intentional learning environments and by encouraging positive youth development in community contexts. Yet the very youth in most need of these supports are often left outside the programming circle (General Accounting Office, 1998; Pittman, 1991; Pittman, Irby, Tolman, Yohalem, & Ferber, 2001). This gap can be explained in part by inadequate systematic efforts to reach underserved audiences, by the narrow scope of programs, and by the lack of within and cross-sector collaborations (Pittman, 1991). One way to reach underserved youth is by offering tailored site-based youth development programs in targeted communities.

Site-Based Youth Development Program

How do you reach underserved youth? The response is simple: "Bring programs into the communities where youth have fewer opportunities and work to involve the youth in programming efforts!" The work that follows is more complicated because it entails intentional strategies designed to engage and retain underserved youth. Pittman (1991) asserts that youth-serving organizations need to increase their efforts to fill a full-range of youth needs by working in new ways.

Site-based youth development programming is an innovative delivery method used during nonschool hours within Minnesota Urban 4-H Youth Development. Its aim is to reach underserved youth with accessible, high-quality, educational youth development programming. Each site is a public or subsidized housing neighborhood with a community center serving as the hosting location for each 4-H program.

The program is designed to reach young people ages 5-19 years. The programming is divided into two age categories: 5-12 years and 13-19 years, with each group meeting separately on a weekly basis through the entire year. The different age groups also come together for intentional cross-age learning experiences.

The site-based youth development programs are organically developed. This means they are developed from the community up rather than from the program down. Residents of the community (youth and adult) provide input into the program-development process. In turn, each site-based program reflects the community in terms of design, methods, and curricula. This delivery method is intended to keep youth development work fresh and relevant while reaching a more comprehensive range of needs.

Youth Teaching Youth

Each neighborhood has numerous organizations working with younger children but few reaching adolescents. Pittman, Irby, Tolman, Yohalem, and Ferber (2001) indicate heavy emphasis on school-based academic achievement overshadows other learning opportunities for adolescents. In turn, older youth not involved with school activities have fewer organized opportunities available to them. In response, Urban 4-H Youth Development developed a youth teaching youth (YTY) component within the site-based programs, and it has become a part of the program delivery system.

Pittman (1991) indicates that youth-serving organizations need to make systematic efforts to reach underserved and marginalized audiences. Here, adolescents are prepared to lead lessons and activities with younger children in their neighborhoods. YTY serves an important role, because it creates intentional learning and leadership opportunities that would not otherwise be available to these adolescents.

A common challenge in youth programming is attracting and retaining adolescents for sustainable periods of time. YTY has overcome this challenge. Over 50 adolescents participate each year. The presence of the adolescents also attracts young children to the program. The programming for younger children has also reached maximum capacity of 150. The adolescents serve as role models and many of the younger children aspire to be in their positions when they grow older.

Occupying Critical Nonschool Hours

The Urban 4-H Youth Development team has carefully crafted a programming schedule to meet the needs identified by individual communities. For instance, in the site-based programs, younger children meet weekly at neighborhood community centers on days when other programming is not occurring. Similarly, the YTY groups meet weekly to plan and prepare for their leadership and teaching roles.

Then, during school breaks (winter holidays, spring break, and summer break), the two groups come together at each site for more intensive programming that is designed to be cross-age. The older youth lead activities and teach sessions with the younger children. The programming is intentionally expanded during school breaks because these are unoccupied hours, and in many cases, fewer programs and services are available.

Collaboration

Site-based youth development programming requires collaboration. A partnership exists between Urban 4-H Youth Development and housing agencies in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Each housing site provides facilities, volunteers, and program supplies, as well as access to other resources (e.g., transportation, scholarships) through their extended partnerships.

Collaboration also exists internally. For instance, Urban 4-H Youth Development collaborates with the metro Extension Simply Good Eating program. Staff, educational materials, program supplies, and other resources are shared through this partnership. As shown by program evaluations, the programming is effective and efficient.

By engaging these agencies and organizations, the reach and impact of programming is increased without duplicating programs or inflating costs. Benson (1997) referred to these types of collaborations as strengthening the first ring of support--youth-serving systems. The collaborations can bring broader attention to youth development work, coordinate efforts necessary to maximize opportunities for young people, and reduce barriers that have historically isolated and insulated youth from educational opportunities.

Summary

Youth-serving organizations and the practitioners who work in them are important to the lives of young people. During critical hours, they extend learning through rewarding growth and development experiences. They also foster caring environments that optimize the development of young people in community settings. Pittman (1991) recommends strengthening the role of youth-serving organizations to reach underserved and marginalized youth, to extend programs and services to underserved youth, and to develop within and cross-sector collaboration.

Urban 4-H Youth Development in Minnesota has shown that this is possible. More youth are reached with greater impact by a strengthened and targeted youth-serving system. In turn, the 4-H program is enriched, its youth development initiative is reinforced, and the urban community is invigorated by the wealth of experiences its partners and participants bring to the effort.

References

Benson, P.L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

General Accounting Office. (1998).

Pittman, K. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth serving and community organizations. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Pittman, K., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2001). Preventing problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing priorities or inseparable goals? Takoma Park, MD.: The Forum for Youth Investment, International Youth Foundation. Available at: http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/preventproblems.pdf

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.