February 2004
Volume 42 Number 1

Research in Brief

Using Technology to Link Researchers and Educators: Evaluation of Electronic Conferencing

Ted G. Futris
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Human Development and Family Science
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
futris.1@osu.edu

Francesca Adler-Baeder
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
adlerfr@auburn.edu

Katherine J. Dean
Graduate Student
Department of Human Development and Family Science
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
dean.198@osu.edu

Introduction

Extension Educators' effectiveness in the field is enhanced by the desire and practice of keeping current in the research related to their work. Many, if not most, rely on conference attendance to learn first-hand from researchers in their field. This, however, is often quite costly, and exchange with the researcher is usually in the form of a didactic presentation, rather than dialogue and discussion.

With this in mind, Ohio State University Extension, in partnership with Alabama Cooperative Extension at Auburn University, conducted a 5-day electronic conference (e-conference) in May 2002. Our aim was to connect educators in the field with top researchers in a selected area of study in direct dialogue to promote up-to-date knowledge, discussion of issues, and agreement on practical application.

Description

The 2002 Family Life E-Conference, Couple Relationships: Research and Extension Programming, included participants from several states (Ohio, Alabama, New York, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Indiana). A panel of experts in couple relationships was invited to participate and provide papers on the latest research and programming available in this field. The panelists included some of the most recognized researchers in the field of couple relationships research and two State Specialists who have focused on programming for couples. (See panelist descriptions at http://hec.osu.edu/couples for more information.)

Participants registered a month in advance and were able to log on to access the papers and presentations 2 weeks before the scheduled e-conference. During the e-conference, participants and panelists could log on at any point during each day and use a bulletin board to "converse" via computer.

Implementation

Approximately 200 hours were spent planning, developing, and implementing the e-conference by two State Specialists, two graduate students, and two technical support staff persons. About 20% of the time (35-40 hrs) was spent in planning (e.g., discussions with colleagues; identifying themes, topic areas of interest, and scholars; recruiting scholars to participate; publicizing). Nearly 45% of the time was spent developing the public Web site (20 hrs), preparing the on-line materials (40 hrs), and designing the course site using Web Course Tools (30 hrs). Ten percent of the time (20 hrs.) was spent on various logistical issues (e.g., registration, technical support). Each day of the e-conference, approximately 5 hours were spent by each State Specialist reading and responding to messages posted on the bulletin board and facilitating the discussion (total 50 hrs).

Participants

Overall, 44 Family and Consumer Science (FCS) Educators participated in the e-conference. Their years of Extension experience ranged from 1 to 33 (Mean (M) = 17.8), and 71.4% identified their primary area or specialization as family life.

Comfort with the Mode of Delivery

Due to the nature of the delivery mode, participants were asked on their registration survey to describe their access to computers, general level of electronic activity, and comfort with using email and the Internet. The participants appeared to be regular and comfortable users of electronic communication technology.

• 97.7% reported that they had their own computer with modem capability.

• 100% reported that they often/very often used email and were comfortable/very comfortable with it.

• 83.7% often/very often used the Internet, and most were comfortable/very comfortable "surfing" (93.0%), finding materials/information on (80.9%), and downloading/printing items from (93.0%) the Internet.

• 42.6% reported that they were comfortable/very comfortable with on-line discussion boards.

Observed Participation Level

WebCT provides tools that assist in tracking the extent to which the participants were involved in the e-conference. These data showed that about 55% of the participants logged on to participate (e.g., read/post messages) at least 3 of the 5 days during the e-conference. During the week, a total of 157 messages were posted on the discussion board (44.6% by participants). Although many participants (65%) did not post messages, the majority were actively involved in reading the messages posted: 55% of the participants read more than half of the posted messages (M = 92.14; Standard Deviation (SD) = 75.0).

Evaluation

Immediately following the e-conference, 30 FCS Educators completed an on-line evaluation (68.2% of those FCS Educators who participated). T-test group comparisons revealed that, compared to those who did not respond, those who did were more comfortable with email, logged on more days, and read more of the posted messages. Thus, the findings presented below reflect the opinions of those who were more active in the e-conference.

Level of Preparation

Table 1 illustrates how prepared the participants who responded to the survey reported they were for the e-conference.

Time Spent Participating

Participants also were asked to give a rough estimate of the amount of time they spent on this e-conference each day. Participants reported that they spent, on average, 9 hours obtaining and reading materials and 6.9 hours reading the messages posted on the bulletin board (M = 1.8 hrs/day). When asked how satisfied they were with the time they spent participating, nearly 70.0% wished that they could have spent more time participating (30.0% were satisfied).

Comfort with E-Conferencing

As described earlier, many participants indicated on their registration pre-survey that they were comfortable with technology. After the e-conference, participants were asked again how comfortable they were using technology prior to participating in the e-conference. A comparison of the participants' pre-survey and post-pre-survey responses showed that their responses were consistent, with one exception.

The single exception was that, on average, comfort scores for participating on an on-line discussion board were higher on the pre-survey (M = 2.4) than on the post-pre-survey (M = 2.0), t(27) = 2.6, p < .01. In other words, of the 30 survey respondents, 46.7% reported on the pre-survey that they were comfortable/very comfortable participating in an on-line discussion board compared to only 20% who said the same on the post-pre-survey. This may be due to participants not realizing their actual skill level with the bulletin board until they attempted to use it during the e-conference.

After the e-conference, 60% of participants reported that they were comfortable/very comfortable with the on-line discussion board (M = 2.7) and the increase was statistically significant from the post pre-survey, t(29) = -6.2, p < .001. Thus, the e-conference experience helped participants feel more comfortable with the on-line learning environment.

Usefulness of an E-Conference

• On a 4-point scale ranging from (1) not at all useful to (4) very useful, most (86.6%) of the participants indicated that the interactive discussion with the panel of experts was useful/very useful (M = 3.3), and 83.4% felt that the interactive discussion with other participants was useful/very useful (M = 3.0). Most important, no one rated the discussions as not at all useful.

• On a 5-point scale, (1) indicating strong disagreement and (5) indicating strong agreement, nearly all of the participants reported that they agreed/strongly agreed that the e-conference:

  • Helped them better understand the issues surrounding couple relationships (86.7%; M = 4.1),
  • Provided them with new ideas for working with couples (80.0%; M = 3.9), and
  • Stimulated them in wanting to learn more about couples (86.6%; M = 4.2).

• Significantly, 90% of the participants agreed/strongly agreed that they will likely use the information learned during the e-conference (M = 4.1).

• A 1-year follow-up evaluation is planned in order to document the ways and the extent to which the information obtained in the e-conference is used in practice.

Satisfaction with the E-Conference

Table 2 provides information on the participants' level of agreement with statements regarding their satisfaction with elements of the e-conference.

In a qualitative section of the evaluation, participants were asked to briefly describe what they liked and disliked about the e-conference.

• Many participants commented that they liked the flexibility, the convenience of the delivery method, and not having to travel.

• Positive comments also were made in reference to the discussion, panel of experts, user friendliness, affordability, and accessibility to colleagues.

• Participants mentioned enjoying the reading materials and being able to keep them for future reference.

• Many noted that, although they did not post questions/comments, they gained much from reading the postings of panelists and other participants.

• While the participants mentioned few things they disliked, some expressed dilemmas in managing time for reading the materials and participating in the discussion along with their other responsibilities.

• A few reported concerns related to length of time needed to read the materials, technical problems, becoming familiar with the format, and the amount of research-focused information that was shared.

Cost Comparison with Face-to-Face In-Service

One of the advantages of using e-conferencing as a mode of professional development is that it is cost-effective. We estimated that the average per participant travel costs would be $95 (meals/mileage). The total expense related to bringing in the panel of 6 experts would amount to $3,720: (1) travel (average flight $300; total $1,800); (2) lodging (average hotel rate $85; total $510); (3) meals (average $35; total $210); and (4) honoraria ($200 each; total $1,200)]. Assuming at least 50 participants register, the per-participant costs would be an additional $74.40. Hence, in-state participants' expenses for an equivalent 1-day face-to-face would have accrued to roughly $170 versus the $25 registration participants paid for the on-line e-conference. (Note: The $25 registration fees covered panelists' honoraria and technology fees.) Travel and lodging expenses would be much greater for out-of-state participants.

Summary and Recommendations

In summary:

• On average, participants spent 16 hours involved in this five-day e-conference.

• The majority of participants were involved in reading the discussions; about a third were the primary participants in the dialogue with the panelists.

• While most participants liked the flexibility and convenience of an e-conference, some participants reported that they struggled to manage their time with competing work demands.

• Nearly all of the participants reported that the e-conference was useful, that they better understood couple relations, and had new ideas for working with couples.

• Most participants indicated that they would participate again.

• This format represents a substantial per-participant savings in cost compared to an equivalent 1-day face-to-face conference.

Through information provided in the evaluation, we are incorporating the following changes/recommendations into the plan for future e-conferences and offer the following to others considering conducting an e-conference.

Many of the readings provided by the panelists were quite lengthy and technical. For future events, panelists will be asked to provide a brief Executive Summary of their topic with a clear "issues and implications for practice" section as the main reading.

The preparation before the conference start date was minimal. In addition to the length of the readings, which may have been a deterrent, we theorized that this may also be due to the term "conference," which tends to be associated with receptive learning, rather than prepared exchange. We made the decision to title future events, "E-Seminars." We believe this implies preparation for exchange. We will also be explicit in our notices that preparation is key to successful use of the e-seminar and will provide the reading materials at least 2 (versus 2) weeks in advance of the discussion start date.

Many participants indicated that they were "very busy and had trouble scheduling time to participate" and wished they had planned for more time to participate. Therefore, we will explicitly suggest to participants that they schedule time each day for participation, rather than relying on "leftover" time in their day.

For greater comfort in the exchange:

• We will encourage researchers to use less technical language in their writing and in their on-line communications.

• We will encourage Educators to raise their comfort level with research language by asking questions about terminology or practices that they do not understand and by reading about research methodology either through formal coursework or informal professional development.

• We will also ask panelists to post questions to further stimulate discussions rather than solely rely on the Educators to initiate dialogue.

• We also anticipate that repeat participation in e-seminars with researchers will enhance educators' comfort level with direct dialogue with researchers.

Conclusion

Several studies report success among Extension Educators in the use of Web-based in-service training (Dooley, Van Laanen, & Fletcher, 1999; Kelsey & Mincemoyer, 2001; Lippert, Plank, Camberto & Chastain, 1998; Muske, Goetting, Vukonich, 2001). This study, however, is the first to document the response to Web-based conferencing that directly connects researchers and educators.

The 2002 Family Life E-Conference on Couple Relationships was favorably received among Extension Educators, suggesting that e-conferences/seminars can serve as a useful, cost-efficient channel for promoting dialogue between researchers and Extension Educators, promoting professional development and positively affecting practice. The recommendations for changes should increase both participation levels and effectiveness of this method of Internet-based information exchange.

For more information and a complete report of the evaluation findings, go to http://hec.osu.edu/couples and, specifically, "Evaluation Results."

References

Dooley, K., Van Laanen, P. G., & Fletcher, R. (1999). Food safety instructor training using distance education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/a5.html

Kelsey, T., & Mincemoyer, C. (2001). Exploring the potential of in-service training through distance education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/rb7.html

Lippert, R., Plank, O., Camberto, 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

Muske, G., Goetting, M., & Vukonich, M. (2001). The world wide web: A training tool for family resource management educators. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a3.html

Educational Needs of Beginning Farmers as Perceived by Iowa Extension Professional Staff

Dan R. Nelson
Southern Regional Director
University of Illinois Extension
Urbana, Illinois
nelsond@uiuc.edu

Larry D. Trede
Associate Professor
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
trede@iastate.edu

Introduction

As farm inputs and equipment have become more sophisticated, it has become increasingly important for farmers to understand the proper applications, limitations, and management of those inputs and tools. Farmers face increased risk both economically and physically if reliable, accurate information is not available in a timely manner. The 1999 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll Summary Report (Lasley, 1999) showed that 89% of Iowa farmers reported that risk levels had increased in the past 5 years and that 87% expected the level of risk to continue to increase over the next 5 years.

This problem is compounded by the increasing need for new farmers to succeed those wishing to retire. Lasley (1996) reported that approximately 16,000 new farmers would be needed within the next 5 years.

In response to this need, the Iowa State University Experiment Station funded research into aspects of beginning farmer education, including needs assessment, program delivery, on-site education, and the development of new models for the delivery of beginning farmer education. In a study of beginning farmers in Iowa, Trede and Whitaker (1998) identified how useful beginning farmers felt various agricultural education providers will be in the future. Because the beginning farmers identified Extension as the educational provider most likely to be useful in the future, it was recommended that both state and local Extension professionals be surveyed to identify their perceptions relative to beginning farmer education.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study reported here was to identify the educational needs of beginning farmers in Iowa as perceived by ISU Extension county directors and field and campus-based specialists who have agricultural assignments. The specific objectives of the study included the following.

• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the usefulness of selected agricultural education providers and media.
• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the design, delivery, and general content of agricultural education for beginning farmers in Iowa.
• Identify and compare the perceptions of Extension professionals regarding the current and future importance of selected agricultural topics.

Methods

Data were collected by self-administered questionnaires mailed to the ISU Extension directors for each county (98) and the ISU Extension specialists with agricultural assignments who were either based on the ISU campus (50) or in field offices throughout the state (52). Because a census survey was conducted, no extrapolation of data was necessary. A total of 152 useable surveys were returned for a return rate of 84%. Non-response error was controlled by comparing early and late respondents (Miller & Smith, 1983). No significant differences were found in any of the groups.

The survey instrument included sections adapted from the instrument used by Whitaker (1998) dealing with the current and future usefulness to beginning farmers of educational providers and media, the perceptions of providers regarding the delivery of beginning farmer education, and the current and future usefulness of selected agricultural topics. The response for each item in these sections used a Likert-type scale with five response categories. It was established a priori that ratings of 4 or above would indicate a perceived tendency to be useful, in agreement with, or important in the future. The final section of the survey dealt with demographic and background information. Prior to its use, the instrument was reviewed by experts at ISU who had experience in beginning farmer education and was found to have content and face validity.

Findings

Of the 152 usable surveys that were returned, 80 were from county Extension directors, 30 were from state specialists, and 42 were from the field specialists. The majority of all three groups were male, were raised on a farm, and had farming experience as an adult. The county directors had a wider variety of majors in college than either of the groups of specialists. A higher percentage of the state specialists had doctoral degrees. The field specialists had the most diverse professional background, with 74% of them having worked 1 year or more outside of Extension or the land grant system, compared to 60% of the county directors and 54% of the state specialists. Forty-three percent of the county directors had prior community college or k-12 teaching experience.

The field specialists spent about 15% of their time with beginning farmers, the state specialists spent 11%, and the county directors spent 7%. Almost all of the respondents indicated that activities were paid for mostly through taxes, but nearly a third of the county directors and field specialists and 45% of the state specialists indicated that farmers also pay additional tuition or fees for activities.

Usefulness of Providers and Media

As might be expected, the Extension professionals rated Cooperative Extension as the most useful among the educational providers (Table 1). The second highest rated provider was parents, siblings, and relatives. The county directors and field specialists gave their third and fourth highest ratings to ISU courses and community colleges. The state specialists gave their third highest rating to agricultural consultants, followed by ISU courses and agribusiness firms.

In the media section, the top ratings went to the Internet, farm publications, and Extension pamphlets. The county directors and field specialists also gave relatively high ratings to Information Services. Two forms of the media, audio tapes and newspaper, were given much lower usefulness ratings overall by the Extension professionals.

Design, Delivery, and General Content of Programs

The Extension professionals as a group very strongly agreed that beginning farmer education should use input from farmers when developing programs and programs should be taught using a variety of instructional methods (Table 2). They also agreed with the use of problem-solving situations involving primarily mental activity and with the development of production agriculture skills. As individual groups, the county directors supported leadership development in agriculture, the field specialists agreed that individualized instruction (site visits, etc.) should be emphasized, and the state specialists supported learning by experience in agriculture.

The professionals showed the least agreement with statements that beginning farmer education should emphasize distance education as a means of delivery and be taught using non-formal rather than formal educational methods. However, even the lowest rated statements had overall mean scores higher than 3.5 on the five-point scale.

Table 3 summarizes the level of agreement with statements about how beginning farmer education should be delivered. The professionals agreed strongly that beginning farmers need to consult a variety of information sources to make competent farming decisions. The next highest support was for year-round programs and on-site, face-to-face instruction. The state specialists also agreed that a series of meetings or workshops with in-depth analysis of a topic should be emphasized.

The three statements that received the least support suggested that single meetings on specific topics should be emphasized, beginning farmers are willing to travel up to 1 hour to attend educational activities, and beginning farmers are willing to pay tuition and fees to attend educational activities. The statement that, if it would reduce their travel, farmers would prefer to attend activities delivered by fiber optic, satellite, etc., received moderate support from both the field and state specialists, but was supported more strongly by the county directors.

Importance of Topics

The Extension professionals rated five topics as important both now and in the future (Table 4). The top three were financial management, records, budgets and analysis; farm markets, marketing strategies, and pricing; and whole farm planning, long-term decision making, and strategic planning. Crop and livestock production practices, technology, and management were also rated as important. Two additional topics were rated as important in the future: technology transfer, computer, GPS, etc., and resource conservation and sustainability. While the other topics were not rated as important overall, all of them had mean ratings higher than the midpoint.

Conclusions and Implications

Several conclusions can be drawn from this study that have implications for Extension, agricultural education generally, and beginning farmer education in Iowa.

Extension professionals generally have farming backgrounds, either growing up, as adults, or both. Many have professional experience outside of Extension. This background should provide a valuable resource to future educational programs.

A high percentage of Extension professionals, especially at the county level, have experience teaching at the community college or K-12 classroom prior to moving into Extension. The interagency professional familiarity should enhance the likelihood of success with partnership programs in the future. Faculty in university agricultural education teacher certification programs should also consider this long-term career preparation when developing future teacher education curricula.

None of the groups spent a high percentage of their time with beginning farmers. Respondent notes provide two possible explanations. Several respondents commented that they don't track time spent with beginning farmers separately. Another individual questioned whether needs of beginning farmers are substantially different from those of established farmers. Further research is needed in this area.

Nearly a third of the county directors and field specialists and 45% of the state specialists reported that they collect tuition or fees for programs that they offer. However, none of the groups felt that beginning farmers are willing to pay tuition and fees to attend education activities. Further research is needed to determine if charging fees substantially limits participation in educational programs offered to beginning farmers.

As might be expected, the Extension professionals had a high opinion of the usefulness of Extension as an educational resource to beginning farmers. However, other educational providers also received mean ratings above the midpoint. The generally high ratings overall suggests the importance of contributions by many providers and the opportunity for partnerships to support beginning farmers. If partner programs are to be developed, further research is needed to clarify interagency differences and strengths and determine how various providers can cooperate to improve efficiency and increase benefits to beginning farmers.

Extension professionals perceived that the Internet will be highly useful to beginning farmers in the future and gave lower ratings to radio and newspaper. This contrasts with the opinion of Iowa beginning farmers, who rated radio and newspaper highly and placed the Internet well down the list (Whitaker, 1998). The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Farm Computer Usage and Ownership (2003) report showed that fewer than 10% of Iowa farmers used the Internet to access USDA/NASS reports, conduct marketing activities, or purchase agricultural inputs.

If the Internet and other innovative media are to be utilized heavily in the future, it may be necessary to help beginning farmers become familiar with those media. Research is needed to determine how farmers can use the Internet and related delivery systems effectively to complement other educational information resources.

Even though the Internet was rated very highly, the Extension professionals gave their lowest level of agreement to the statement that distance education should be emphasized as a means of delivery. With the proliferation of enrollment in both formal and informal distance education programs worldwide, it is clear that many consumers consider it to be a viable alternative to travel and relocation when seeking continued education. Further research is needed to determine what the role of distance education programs should be in future beginning farmer programs.

There was strong support for the use of input from farmers when developing programs. This agrees with research indicating that learner participation in developing the curriculum enhances the adoption of ideas and practices presented (King & Rollins, 1999). The Extension professionals also agreed that beginning farmer education should use a variety of instructional methods and emphasize problem-solving situations. As future programs are developed, advisory committees should be utilized to prioritize instructional material and identify a variety of local problems relevant to beginning farmers.

The topics rated highest in importance both currently and in the future were in the business area of farming. This agrees with the response of Iowa beginning farmers (Trede & Whitaker, 1998). Technology and resource conservation were also deemed to be important in the future. Extension and other educators should take steps to ensure that these topics are emphasized in future research and educational programs.

Extension professionals have perceptions related to beginning farmer education that are both similar and different. Extension should continue to encourage communication between county staff and specialists to improve the mutual understanding of issues, challenges, and opportunities and should capitalize on the advantages of diverse perspectives to provide a dynamic education to beginning farmers in the future.

References

King, R. N., & Rollins, T. J. (1999). An evaluation of an agricultural innovation: Justification for participatory assistance. Journal of Extension {on-line}, 37(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/index.html

Lasley, P. (1999). Iowa farm and rural life poll. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology.

Lasley, P. (1996). Iowa farm and rural life poll. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Sociology.

Miller, L., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension [On-line], 21(5): 45-50. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1983september/index.html

National Agricultural Statistics Service (2003). Farm computer usage and ownership. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/computer/fmpc0703.txt

Trede, L. D., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Beginning farmer education in Iowa: Implications to Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998october/a3.html

Whitaker, S. B. (1998). Perceptions of Iowa beginning farmers toward beginning farmer education. Unpublished masters thesis. Ames: Iowa State University.

School Enrichment: An Investigation of the Degree, Impact, and Factors for Success in Colorado

Suzanne M. Tochterman
Assistant Professor
Colorado State University School of Education
Fort Collins, Colorado
Tochterman@cahs.colostate.edu

Jan B. Carroll
4-H Youth Development Specialist
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension
Fort Collins, Colorado
Jan.carroll@colostate.edu

Douglas L Steele
Vice Provost and Extension Director
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
dsteele@montana.edu

Background

School enrichment is efficient for 4-H in reaching diverse youth in large numbers. The national definition of school enrichment is "groups of youth receiving a sequence of learning experiences in cooperation with school officials during school hours, to support the school curriculum. It involves direct teaching by Extension staff or trained volunteers, including teachers" (National 4-H School Enrichment Survey).

In addition to camps, special interest programs, project clubs, and community clubs, 4-H school enrichment is another way to teach life skills to youth. In fact, school enrichment has become the most widely used delivery mode in providing educational experiences through the 4-H Youth Development program. In 2000, 3,640,115 youth were enrolled as participants 131,912 4-H school enrichment programs units (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2000).

In a 1999 survey conducted among Extension 4-H Youth Specialists (with respondents from 50 states), 86% reported that school enrichment was conducted in their counties. The most important benefits claimed by the respondents were: 4-H has gained credibility in view of the formal education community (92%), students have increased knowledge /skills (82%), and a greater diversity of under-represented youth have been served (80%). The major problems identified included: traditional clientele view school enrichment as something that diverts time and funds from traditional programs such as clubs (32%) and schools want free service without contributing their fair share of funds, supervision, supplies, etc. (27%) (Diem, 2000).

In 1997-1998, 76,590 youth were reported in 4-H school enrichment programs in Colorado, representing 59% of all enrollments. During the fall of 1999, agents in 20 Colorado counties participated in a survey to identify the nature of school enrichment projects that their offices had conducted during the previous year.

Description of the Study

Procedures

Selected 4-H Youth Agents from around the state of Colorado were surveyed as to school enrichment and educational outreach programming. Agents were asked to identify the nature of each of the school enrichment projects that their offices had conducted during the year. A school enrichment project was defined for the purposes of this survey as "a program that takes place during school hours (8am-3pm); it was not camp, or an activity that takes place before or after the school day." Additionally, Agents were asked to describe the impact of the projects as well as the factors that contribute to the success of each project.

Surveys were distributed by email, and follow up was conducted through email and the U.S. postal service, by fax, and by telephone. The findings that follow are a result of the self-reported responses from 20 surveys.

Research Questions

This research study sought to determine:

1. The project titles of school enrichment projects being implemented in twenty counties across Colorado,
2. The role(s) of the person(s) who was/were responsible for carrying out each phase of the project,
3. Role(s) of local school collaborators,
4. Impact or influence of the school enrichment projects being implemented across Colorado, and
5. Factors that contribute to the success of the projects implemented in 20 counties.

Agent Demographics

Of the agents who responded, 16 were men, and seven were women. In one case, one man responded to the surveys for two counties. A total of 23 agents responded. Each of the agents was asked how many years that he or she had served as a 4-H Youth Development Agent. Of the 23 agents who responded, the range in years was 1.5-30 years. Eight of the agents surveyed have been on the job for 4 years or less. Eight of the agents have been on the job between 5 and 11 years. Seven of the agents have been on the job over 16 years. Two of these seven have been agents for nearly 30 years (Table 1).

Results and Discussion

School Focus of Agents

Agents worked in a variety of school settings. School enrichment projects were implemented in early childhood settings and elementary, middle, and high schools. All agents were focused on serving the children and youth of their home state, Colorado, with one agent's efforts including students from a neighboring state, Nebraska. Most agents focused their energies in the elementary schools (80%). Other age groups targeted were middle school (50%), high school (40%), and early childhood (10%). The majority, however, focused on more than one age group (Table 2).

Agents reported that school enrichment projects took place predominantly in public school settings. Several of the agents, however, had access to private school opportunities. A few of the agents (10%) extended their energies into the home school arena. A third of the agents divided their school enrichment efforts between the public and private sector.

School Enrichment Content

Projects mentioned by agents and frequency of mention were:

• Special topics lecture, including agriculture, bees, cattle, farm machinery, leadership, nutrition, owls, rockets, teamwork skills, and wildlife (19)
• Character counts curriculum (7)
• Earth Gardens/Greenhouses (7)
• International 4-H Youth Exchange (IFYE) (5)
• Workforce Development, including Wild about work, Career Day, Future Focus, Host internships (5)
• Science Series Curriculum and Science Fairs (6)
• Agricultural Sciences (7)
• Other (11)

Role(s) of Agents and Others

The majority of the school enrichment work was done by the agent. Frequently, agents acted as consultants by training teachers and instructing them on curriculum uses, and providing instructional materials. Although it was most often the agent who delivered the instructional material, volunteers often presented material as well. Agents in this case served as trainers of the volunteers. Volunteers then went out into the schools and delivered instruction. Finally, agents periodically enlisted the assistance of others from outside agencies, including the FFA organization, Cattlewomen's Association, IFYE Program, etc. to serve as guest speakers at schools.

While each agent took on the majority of the work in carrying out school enrichment projects, only 20% of those surveyed reportedly completed all of the efforts alone. Of the majority who worked with others, 35% of agents reported they enlisted volunteers to assist, 40% of agents collaborated with outside agencies, and 55% of the agents acted as a consultant to the teachers within the local schools. Nearly half of the county agents surveyed were invested in more than two collaborative partnerships.

Local School Collaborators

In order to implement school enrichment projects in the schools, agents reported it was necessary for them to pass the necessary institutional gatekeepers. Each of the agents used different tactics to gain access to the students in the schools within their counties. Agents overwhelmingly reported that it was essential to their success to establish a significant relationship with one teacher in each school building. Over half of the agents reported working directly with one teacher to gain entrance to the school or schools. Others shared that they met one teacher and were invited to give a guest lecture in his/her classroom, creating a reputation

The teachers who used 4-H School Enrichment represented different disciplines. Agents made initial contacts with teachers across the curriculum: physical education, vocational education, special education, science, and English.

Agents were creative and resourceful in their approaches and reported gaining entrance by initiating relationships with teachers, the school superintendent, school board representatives, librarians, and district home-school science fair organizers. Agents reported a variety of different approaches to initiating contact with the various schools, including sending letters to principals, making appointments with school department heads, and distributing pamphlets or letters to teachers in their school mailboxes.

One agent reported that the county 4-H administrative assistant personally calls each school and speaks first with the school secretary to gain access. Two agents reported that their spouses worked in local schools. One agent attended and presented at an in-service teacher-training workshop that was sponsored by the district. One conducted a presentation of school enrichment opportunities available through 4-H at an all-district principals' meeting. Most reported knocking on doors until one opened.

Perceived Impact of School Enrichment

Agents reported their opinion of the influence of the school enrichment projects being implemented in 20 counties across Colorado. Eighty-five percent said that the greatest impact was increased conceptual knowledge for students within the local schools. Eighty percent mentioned the acquisition or review of skills. Forty percent told of strengthened relationships with teachers, while 35% reported that school enrichment activities teach morals and life skills, supplement state curriculum standards, and get the word out about 4-H and the variety of things 4-H can offer. Twenty-five percent said that information was disseminated (Table 3). Several agents reported that additional impacts included recruitment opportunity for 4-H members, increased community awareness for students, and increased school support for 4-H.

Factors Contributing to the Success of School Enrichment

Agents were asked, after describing their school enrichment activities, to respond to the following question, "What factors, in your opinion, contribute to the success of this project?" The response provided most frequently was the collaborative effort among stakeholders, including teachers, agents, community members, volunteers, and other agencies. Collaboration was described as cooperation, teamwork, partnering, group effort, and alliances between and among constituents. Eighteen different partnering agencies were mentioned in the survey by agents.

The second factor most credited for success was teachers' "buy-in" or investment. Without the teachers' buy-in, the school enrichment activities proved impossible for agents to implement. Another factor for success was a school's willingness to invite an agent to come and present to the students. The fourth most frequently mentioned factor for success was that of volunteer participation. Agents' actively involving volunteers greatly contributed to the success of the project. The fifth most commonly mentioned factor for success was the degree to which the agent was able to exercise his or her influence, communication style, resourcefulness and skill/knowledge base. Many other factors for success were also mentioned.

Emergent themes of factors for success that were noted in the between-case analysis were:

• Interagency collaboration;
• Teacher buy-in;
• School buy-in,
• Student interest, energy, enthusiasm, and motivational level:
• Volunteer participation,
• Agent influence, communication style, resourcefulness, skill/knowledge base;
• Student interest, curiosity, energy, and investment;
• Free materials;
• Hands-on-learning methodology;
• Community involvement and investment;
• Supplements the school curriculum;
• Standards of curriculum aligned with state standards,
• Local newspaper coverage; and
• Timing.

Conclusion

In the 20 counties surveyed, agents reported the degree to which they were facilitating school enrichment projects. The data revealed that differences do exist among the counties polled, in the numbers of students served, who are gatekeepers of the schools, and the programming decisions made. Similarities also exist. Most agents agreed that the major impact of school enrichment projects was the increased knowledge and skills that students acquire. Agents also agree that without collaborating with others, school enrichment activities would be nearly impossible.

Questions for Future Consideration and Research

During the analysis of the data and subsequent discussion with agents around the state, several additional questions were generated. They relate to state policy, staffing, and evaluation (Table 4).

The consideration of these questions is important, because Colorado State University Cooperative Extension 4-H Youth Development values relationships with Colorado's schools and welcomes the opportunity to provide educationally sound, research-based, action-oriented curricula for use in school classrooms. The lessons should be educational and interesting for the students and easy for the teachers to use.

Acknowledgment

Funding for this research was provided by the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension 4-H Youth Development.

References

Diem, K. G. (2000). National 4-H School Enrichment Survey.[On-line]. Available at: http://www.fourhcouncil.edu/Revolution/Resources/Enrichment_Survey.asp

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Annual 4-H Youth Enrollment Report 2000 Fiscal Year. Washington, DC: Author.

Identifying What 4-H'ers Learn from Community Service Learning Projects

Jewel E. Hairston
4-H Extension Specialist
Virginia State University
Petersburg, Virginia
jhairsto@vsu.edu

Introduction

There is an ancient Chinese proverb that states, "Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I will remember. Involve me, and I will understand" (Seigel & Rockwood, 1993, p. 67). Community service has always been an important part of 4-H youth development; however, throughout the past 25 years, the community service emphasis has changed. While community service provides positive short-term and immediate impact on youth, it requires little training and explanation (Freeman, 2000) and may thus fall short of developing a true connection to learning.

Four-H therefore challenges leaders and volunteers to take community service to a higher level. To do so it is necessary to conduct community service in a manner that reflects educational growth and development. Community service learning provides a mechanism to do just that.

Community service learning is defined as "a form of experiential learning in which youth apply the subject matter they are learning, along with critical thinking skills, to address genuine community needs (Smith, 1997, p. 3)." It consists of three components that give it educational integrity:

1. Combining community service with thoughtful reflection,
2. Connecting the project to a formal curriculum, and
3. Helping students develop skills and attitudes that lead to civic engagement and caring (Freeman, 2000; National and Community Service Act of 1990, 1991; Smith, 1997; & Youth Service America, 2002).

Virginia's 4-H programs include a statewide goal to develop successful models for community service learning and to contribute to the educational development of youth through meaningful service learning activities. This article presents an assessment of what 4-H youth learned from their involvement in community service learning projects at 4-H Congress. This information can ultimately assist youth specialists in successfully integrating community service learning programming into Virginia's 4-H curriculum.

Program Description

Community service learning projects were conducted at Virginia's annual 4-H Congress to provide meaningful service learning experiences for 4-H youth. Approximately 425 youth (4-H delegates) between the ages of 14 and 17 participated in the projects. Delegates made selections from among 24 different community service learning projects. Projects were held over the course of 2 days.

The projects were designed to follow the steps of the Community Service Learning Cycle. The cycle is based upon the experiential learning model, which emphasizes learning by doing, and includes the following five steps:

1. Assess needs,
2. Plan and prepare,
3. Experience meaningful service,
4. Analyze and generalize, and
5. New application.

The cycle is designed so that after its use, individuals develop skills, knowledge, and experiences that prepare them to begin another more challenging project (Smith, 1997). Reflection, although not listed as one of the five steps, is one of the most important aspects of the model and should be interwoven during the project planning process, during project involvement, and after the project is complete.

Methods

Four-H delegates participated in service learning activities that tie directly to the 4-H curriculum. This component is essential to providing a successful community service learning experience. The project topics, project activities, and 4-H curriculum areas involved in this project are listed in Table 1.

Ideally, 4-H delegates should be involved in all steps of the community service learning cycle when conducting community service learning projects. Because the projects were identified during the conference-planning phase, delegates were unable to conduct steps one and two of the community service learning cycle. Instead, the 4-H Specialist who organized the project conducted these steps. Distance and time constraints made it difficult to include 4-H delegates in these steps. Delegates were, however, given an opportunity to participate in the community service learning project of their choice.

To prepare for the projects, the state 4-H Specialist solicited participation from service organizations within communities surrounding the conference site. The specialist then identified a project leader from within each organization to:

• Guide the project,
• Discuss the nature and goals of the project,
• Explain the responsibilities of the project leader,
• Establish a time frame, and
• Conduct phone interviews to determine whether or not the organization could provide a valuable community service learning experience.

Four-H agents assisted project leaders in supervising each project and conducted service learning reflection with delegates.

Figure 1.
Teens Working on a Beautification Project Along the Appomattox River

Figure 2.
4-H Youth Working on a Garden Project at a Local Elementary School

Figure 3.
4-H Teen Mentoring Youth at the Garden Project

A written reflection instrument was developed to elicit responses to open-ended reflection questions indicating what delegates learned, as well as how they thought, felt, and processed their experiences during the project. Questions from the written instrument were taken from the community service learning publications of Smith (1997) and Decker and Moffat (2000). The instrument was pilot tested by 12 4-H agents who reviewed it for clarity and content. Reflection questions include the following:

1. Did you listen and include everyone's ideas when planning how the work would be done?
2. How does this project relate to projects you have done before?,
3. What are you learning from the experience?,
4. How do you feel as a result of the experience?,
5. What do you think others learned from the project?,
6. What did you learn?,
7. What were the successes of the project?, and
8. What could you have done better?

Under the leadership of a project leader, delegates met at the 24 different project sites, organized responsibilities and workloads, and completed the work experience. The 4-H agent in charge of each project then conducted reflection with the delegates during and after project completion. While the delegates were involved in project activities, 4-H agents discussed sections from the written reflection instrument. Agents asked delegates to address questions from the instrument as they worked. The questions required delegates to think about how and why they made specific decisions about the job they were performing. At the projects' culmination, delegates completed the written reflection instrument.

Written responses obtained from the reflection instrument were transcribed, and content analysis was conducted using Provalis Research Simstat software. This software facilitated the analysis of written reflection responses and allowed