|
October 2005
|
       |
Ideas at WorkStrengthening Integration of Land Use Research and Outreach Through Innovative Web TechnologyJohn S. Rozum Emily Wilson Chester Arnold University of Connecticut
Cooperative Extension IntroductionLocal land use officials are a critical audience for Extension education and assistance (Arnold, 2000). The University of Connecticut (UConn) Cooperative Extension System has had a focus on educating local land use decision makers since the inception of the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Project in 1991. This program has been the catalyst for local public policy changes in many of Connecticut's communities, inspiring community-driven planning efforts and changes to land use regulations and policy (Rozum & Arnold, 2004). The Connecticut program has also become the coordinating center of the National NEMO Network, a confederation of similar projects in 32 states (Rozum, 2003). The educational foundation for NEMO has always been face-to-face Extension workshops for local decision makers. The research foundation of the program relies heavily on remote sensing (RS) landscape research, mediated through geographic information system (GIS) technology. At the time of the project's inception, RS was virtually unused at even the state level within Connecticut, and GIS technology was just emerging from its infancy as a costly and labor-intensive tool. As a result, NEMO's use of these technologies was mostly confined to inserting carefully crafted images and maps into educational presentations (Arnold Crawford, Gibbons, & Jeffrey, 1993). Today, these technologies are not as arcane to the average citizen. Advances in software have opened up many new and exciting potential applications for geospatial technology in land use planning. Just as important, the digital revolution has made many individuals and local agencies much more comfortable with using computers in general and geospatial applications in particular. However, "technology gaps" still exist--both between geospatial "have" and "have not" communities and with the ability of users to access the proliferating sources of data. With these trends in mind, NEMO has been engaged in a number of efforts that attempt to improve the understanding of and access to RS research data by community officials, thus enhancing the integration of our research and outreach efforts. NEMO's work is done under the banner of the Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR), formed in 2002 as a formal partnership between the landscape research and land use education efforts at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut's Changing LandscapeConnecticut's Changing Landscape (CCL) project demonstrates, for the first time, both the current state of Connecticut's landscape, and how it has changed over the last two decades. The first phase of this ongoing project was released in early 2004, just as debates on "smart growth" legislation were raging in the media and the Connecticut Legislature. As a result, interest both from the public and local and state government has been high, and CLEAR and NEMO principals have been kept busy conducting workshops on project results for a wide variety of clientele groups. Study results have also been incorporated into other, longstanding topical NEMO educational workshops. In the past, these workshops would've been the extent of the access to the research information provided by NEMO. However, the broad interest in the land cover change information convinced the CLEAR/NEMO team to create the CCL Web site <http://clear.uconn.edu/>, which provides project data and information via several methods. For those unfamiliar with GIS technology or spatial information, tables, charts and other graphics summarizing the data are provided on the Statewide Data page. These are accompanied with maps provided in Adobe PDF that can be viewed or downloaded using the freely available Adobe Acrobat reader. At the "Your Town" and "Your Watershed" portions of the site, information is provided for each of the 169 towns and 44 regional watersheds in the state using dynamic Web page technology (Figure 1). This technology enables a level of efficiency for the information provider while allowing a "customized" experience for the information consumer. Figure 1.
For mid-level users who would like to interact with the data but do not have GIS software, an interactive mapping section of the site was created. The interactive map allows users to manipulate data (such as turning data layers on and off, zooming, and panning) and to print their final product all within an Internet browser. NEMO staff have customized the interface to include tools, legends, and links to the other educational resources within the Web site. GIS and RS users are provided with direct access to the data via a Data Download page. The entire study area can be downloaded, along with subset areas of the state of Connecticut. Over 350 downloads have been logged to date, by groups such as regulatory agencies, nonprofit organizations, city planning offices, consulting firms, and academia (Figure 2). Figure 2.
More sophisticated analyses will be added to the CCL project in the near future, continuing to challenge the NEMO team to relate this information in multiple formats. Another project, Focus on the Coast <http://nemo.uconn.edu/coastal/>, has provided a testing ground for additional Web/GIS technologies. These include ESRI ArcReader software, which allows the project team to create downloadable "map packages," and other software, which allows users to connect their desktop GIS systems to data being served by the project. Closing the Technology GapGeospatial technology and information is no different than any other subject matter brought to the community by Extension. Extension professionals wishing to foster understanding and use of the information must go beyond merely providing data and focus on crafting value-added "translation" of these technologies. Our use of geospatial technology has not been a linear evolution from simple to complex uses. Rather, as advances in geospatial technology enable more approaches, the project has diversified its array of informational options to enhance the workshop-based educational toolbox available to communities. This not only improves our outreach services to our clientele, but provides a more direct and integrated connection between outreach and ongoing research. Based on 13 years of work by the NEMO Project and the growing use of this technology for community decision making, we believe this integration constitutes a major enhancement of our project's effectiveness. Through this work and work being conducted by our peers in National NEMO Network, we will continue to foster creativity in bringing geospatial resources and technology to community decision makers. ReferencesArnold, C. L., Jr., Civco, D. L., Prisloe, S., Hurd, J. S., & Stocker, J. (2000). Remote sensing-enhanced outreach education as a decision support system for local land use officials. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 66(10):1251-1260. Arnold, C.L. (2000). Land use is the issue, but is land grant the answer? Journal of Extension [On-line] 38(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000december/comm1.html Arnold, C. L., Crawford, H. M., Gibbons, C. J., & Jeffrey, R. F. (1993). The use of Geographic Information System images as a tool to educate local officials about the land use/water quality connection. In: Proceedings of Watersheds '93, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 373-377. Rozum, J. S. & Arnold, C. L. (2004). Putting communities in charge: A progress report on an educational support system for local land use decision makers. Publication of the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and the Center for Land Use Education and Research. Publ. #041215.1, 35 pp. Rozum, J. S. (2003). NEMO U-3 conference marks growth of NEMO network. Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue #72, September 2003. Pp. 8-9.
Embracing Edutainment with Interactive E-Learning ToolsRobert D. Williamson Ellen P. Smoak North Carolina A&T State
University IntroductionElectronic technology is revolutionizing how we learn, entertain ourselves, communicate, do our jobs, and much more. What does it all mean for Extension practitioners? It means that electronic learning or "e-learning" is sending shockwaves throughout the Cooperative Extension System. It means taking advantage of a global approach to learning. Most of all, it means keeping up with strong competition and re-visioning the Extension role in an electronic era. A shift to adopt e-learning is not universally welcomed, nor is it widely understood. A big reason why some veteran Extension practitioners are hesitant to make the shift rests with them not knowing--"What e-learning is?" and "How to do it." Defining "E-Learning"Today, nearly everyone has something to say about e-learning. The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) online dictionary describes e-learning as a term that covers applications and processes such as Web- and computer-based learning and virtual classrooms. It also includes the delivery of multimedia content via CD-ROMs, DVDs, the Internet, audio- and videotapes, satellite broadcasts, interactive TV, and more. These are learning tools that many people currently use. Valid ConcernsThe evolution of the World Wide Web (WWW) is considered the "new pedagogy of learning" (Muske, Goetting, & Vukonick, 2001). A question that inevitably stirs debates within the academy is "Will ALL people have equal access to electronic information?" The answer depends on which scholar you ask. Before jumping on the "bandwagon of naysayers," let's consider this: now that prices of personal computers (PCs) have dropped, millions of people have one as well as access to the Internet (Ervin & Gilmore, 1999; U. S. Census Bureau, 2000; Fallows, 2004). People who lack access to PCs or the Internet often go to a friend's home, work, library, school, community center, or other convenient place to use one. Therefore, they may not be at a disadvantage. The greatest drawback may be the lack of "face-to-face" contact with learners (Simeral, 2001). Some people have a need for personal attention, mentoring, and monitoring. After three decades of outreach experience, we have observed how youth and adults prefer interactive learning rather than reading lots of technical content. A key reflection, however, is to have the content at a reading level that the target audience clearly understands. This insight holds particularly true for people with low-literacy skills (Smoak & Williamson, 2004). Keeping Pace with E-CompetitorsCan Extension create a position among our e-competitors in the new pedagogy of learning market? Yes, if we learn a few lessons from those who are already in the interactive multimedia industry (Brown, 2001). Is it necessary to put everything online? No! One way to deliver multimedia content is via interactive e-learning tools. Users get choices not even imaginable with bland print materials. Kruse (2004) cites the use of multimedia as a way to optimize all three learning styles: auditory, kinesthetic, and visual. So what are Extension practitioners waiting for? They can't be waiting for the audience--it's already there. The popular slogan "Just Do It!" is good advice to follow. Holding on to traditional mindsets and outreach methods such as peer-to-peer or county-based programming may not be the "best" approach anymore. The preference for electronic delivery of information is going to increase for all audiences (Richardson, Clement, & Mustian, 1997). Extension can use the information age to improve the organization's role without replacing some of the traditional responsibilities of county or state level faculty (Boling & Robinson, 1999; Jackson, Hopper, & Clatterbuck, 2004). The choice is simple: either you accept e-learning and adopt it or risk becoming obsolete. Two PrototypesFantasy PC adventures with lots of "bells and whistles" are more popular than ever before. But rarely do we find examples of how Extension specialists are bridging technical content with entertainment. While there are benefits to be gained from embracing e-learning tools that are interactive, effective, and fun, the challenge is not easy. Our e-learning tools are designed for ages 12 and up. They are:
Both of these e-learning tools:
The reading levels of the tools contain:
Converting to e-learning ToolsDevelopment of e-learning tools is both time and labor intensive! Most importantly, they are quite costly. For example, the "Chopper Ride," cost $26,000 to develop. Reproduction of 3,000 CDs and "mailers" cost an additional $7,000. We learned that similar products can range from $2,500 to as much as $75,000, depending on content, production values, and the programming necessary to pull it together. More than 7,000 copies of the two CDs are in circulation. Thus, the market opportunity is there. Are the benefits worth the investment? In our case--Yes! The CDs have influenced numerous social, economic, and environmental outcomes and impacts. Keep these points in mind as you consider converting to e-learning tools.
Parting WordsThe moral of this article may be best learned from the words of the late Walt Disney who said "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we are curious--and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." We invite you to explore two new paths by requesting copies of The Water Guardian: Chopper Ride and Money Does Grow on Trees. Well folks...that's edutainment! ReferencesAmerican Society for Training & Development (ASTD). Retrieved October 22, 2004 from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.htm Boling, N., & Robinson, D. (1999). Individual study, interactive multimedia, or cooperative learning: Which activity best supplements lecture-based distance education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 169-174. Brown, R. (2001). Thinking in multimedia: Research-based tips on designing and using interactive multimedia curricula. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/tt1.html Ervin, K., & Gilmore, G. (1999). Traveling the superinformation highway: African Americans' perceptions and use of cyberspace technology. Retrieved October 22, 2004 from: http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/29/3/398 Fallows, D. (2004). The Internet and daily life, PEW Internet & American life project. Retrieved September 15, 2004 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/ Jackson, S. W., Hopper, G. M., & Clatterbuck, W. K. (2004). Developing a national Web-based learning center for natural resources education, Journal of Extension [Online], 42(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004february/iw1.shtml Kruse, K. (2004). CD-ROMs for e-Learning: Advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved October 4, 2004 from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_8.htm Muske, G., Goetting, M. & Vukonick, M. (2001). The World Wide Web: A Training Tool for Family Resource Management Educators, Journal of Extension, 39(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/a3.html Richardson, J., Clement, D., & Mustian, R. (1997). Reaching traditional and nontraditional Extension audiences. Journal of Applied Communications, Vol 81, No. 3. Simeral, K. (2001). Keeping a traditional program-delivery method in an "e" world. Journal of Extension, [Online], 39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/comm2.html Smoak, E., & Williamson, R. (2004). Making the connection with low-literacy audiences. In: Proceedings groundwater foundation annual conference and groundwater guardian designation, Nov. 4-5, 2004 Washington, DC. US Census Bureau, (2000). Home computers and Internet use in the United States: August 2000. Retrieved October 7, 2004 from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
4-H Wildlife Stewards--A New Delivery Model for 4-HMaureen Hosty IntroductionOregon 4-H is delivering environmental education in new ways and unleashing a new force and vitality in 4-H volunteers. Today during school, after school, and on weekends, young people are working side-by-side with adult 4-H Wildlife Stewards <wildlifestewards.4h.oregonstate.edu> to transform 49 small plots of land into wildlife education habitat sites. The 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program model, a new model for delivering 4-H education, demonstrates that volunteers trained in building community capacity and how to work collaboratively with schools and community partners is making a difference in the lives of thousands of youth. In August 2001, the 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program was awarded an $896,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to develop this program into a national model and document the educational and scientific impacts of this project on students, teachers, and communities. Today, the program brings new wildlife to local communities and has community leaders excited. The program currently supports 188 active 4-H Wildlife Stewards volunteers. These volunteers assist 376 classroom teachers and over 12,000 youth in 49 schools to create, use, and sustain wildlife habitat sites on school grounds for science learning. Program DescriptionThe mission of the 4-H Wildlife Stewards program is to promote science learning and stewardship among youth and to inspire, educate, and connect communities, schools, and community partners. 4-H Wildlife Stewards complete a 24-hour training course and in return give back 50 hours of volunteer service to a 4-H Wildlife Stewards Member School. The training includes 20 learning modules. Some of these modules include science inquiry, native plants, principles of wildlife, curriculum lessons, site inventory, grant writing, summer maintenance, creating a habitat team, marketing, and vandalism prevention. Schools interested in becoming a 4-H Wildlife Steward Member school must complete a Member School application and complete an annual enrollment report each year. Through the on-site support of 4-H Wildlife Stewards participating elementary and middle school students and teachers have designed and created courtyard ponds; bird and butterfly gardens; bioswales; wetland, woodland and stream restoration projects; and on-site school nurseries. They have installed nest boxes, started worm composting, and created learning shelters. They have also organized community work parties, hosted special events and site tours for the community, conducted science inquiry projects, shared their results through presentations, collected historical data of the site, kept journals of their project, and created interpretive signs and murals, A Different ModelIn many ways the 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program is not unlike traditional 4-H club programs.
In other ways, the 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program is significantly different from traditional 4-H clubs. 4-H Wildlife Stewards:
Fifty-six percent of 4-H Wildlife Stewards Member schools responded to a survey. On average, each week, 42% of students spent 1-2 hours in hands-on learning related to this project, 33% spent 3-5 hours a week in hands-on science, and 25% spent 6-15 hours per week in hands-on science. Building Community CapacityWith a small grant of $1500 in1997, the first class of 14 4-H Wildlife Stewards was trained. How did this small program with a few dollars and a handful of dedicated volunteers spread into a program that has grown almost tenfold? A key aspect is that the program is based on facilitative change, not just skill acquisition. 4-H Wildlife Stewards volunteers are the organizers, dreamers, visionaries, and catalysts for change in their local community. By recruiting and supporting other parent volunteers and teachers, 4-H Wildlife Stewards affect an entire community. As an example, one Oregon 4-H Agent works with 350 club-based volunteers, and these volunteers in turn work with 1,400 youth. Another agent, using the 4-H Wildlife Stewards model, works with 11 volunteers. These 11 volunteers recruit and support 134 teachers and 50 parent volunteers to deliver hands-on science education to 2,843 youth. The 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program Model is validated by the research on school and community connections and further demonstrates that youth outcomes are improved when the many interdependent variables are in place and working toward common goals. Evidence suggests that 4-H Wildlife Stewards volunteers alone cannot drive a successful program. 4-H Wildlife Stewards volunteers must work collaboratively with each of the stakeholders represented in the model shown in Figure 1. Figure 1.
Program ImpactA formative evaluation of the 4-H Wildlife Stewards Program took place during the first 3 years of the grant. The evaluation revealed that the 4-H Wildlife Steward workshops targeting volunteers provided the needed training and information for volunteers, teachers, and schools to work together to create habitat sites on school grounds. Once habitats are in place, they are used as informal science classrooms, allowing teachers to engage students in long-term, inquiry-based investigations. Teachers report that this type of engaging informal science project would not be possible if it were not for the active involvement of the 4-H volunteer who often serves as the catalyst to make the project possible. Follow-up evaluations reveal an increase in parent and community involvement in the school as a result of the program as well and student science interest and knowledge increased. (Arnold, 2004). Through new methods of delivering youth education, 4-H demonstrates that what underlies successful unified programs of change, in the end, is a bedrock belief that change is possible and that people can radically transform their behavior, beliefs, policies, and practices with the right kind of impetus. ReferencesArnold, M. E. (2004). Oregon 4-H Wildlife Stewards program final evaluation report. Corvallis, OR: The 4-H Youth Development Education Program Evaluation Project.
Finding Hidden Partnerships to Create a Teaching GardenStephen B. Renquist IntroductionAmong Master Gardener program coordinators in Oregon there is a common belief that a well balanced program would include a strong winter training schedule, a plant clinic to answer gardening questions from the public, an educational outreach series in the community, and a location to teach or demonstrate good gardening practices. In 2000, after arriving in Douglas County Oregon, I found no public location to teach and demonstrate current horticultural trends, clearly limiting the Master Gardener and Horticultural Extension impact in the community. Most Master Gardener-led demonstration garden projects have typically been funded by local plant sale efforts and through donations by local businesses. Our project was no different. However, the plan for our garden was ambitious, and we needed other sources of funds to complete our plan. After unsuccessful attempts to use our educational purpose to secure additional funding from foundations and other competitive grant agencies, we decided we would need to be more creative to finance our project. Community OrganizerOur vision for the garden was based on demonstrating science-based sustainable gardening practices that promote recycling of organic wastes, judicious use of horticultural inputs, efficient water use, and the right plants for Southwest Oregon. Early in our project we decided it was more important to share the vision of the garden and our teaching message than to ask for money. By sharing that vision at every opportunity, we eventually drew people and other organizations to our project and received support in ways that we never imagined at the start. As we shared our ideas we began to take on the role of a community organizer, a role with a long history in Extension. An article in Journal of Extension, "Rousing the People on the Land: The Roots of the Educational Organizing Tradition in Extension Work" (Peters, 2002) talked about the role of Extension agents as organizers in their communities. Scott Peters concluded "there was, indeed, a mainstream tradition of organizing in the first few decades of cooperative Extension work that was deeply educational and that involved a positive, constructive politics that was (and is) appropriate for Extension educators to engage in." He also included an excerpt from a publication released in the 1930s on the aim of community organizing.
Hidden PartnershipsWhile the horticulture agent and the Master Gardeners were out surveying groups and individuals to discover what they thought about our idea of developing a teaching site, we discovered there were other groups wanting to reach the public with messages that were compatible with our sustainability format. There were also numerous public organizations that could provide important services. We realized that acting as an organizer would help us find hidden partnerships in the community that could help develop our project. It was 2 years before the group located a good site for the garden on county property next to a popular county park. Finding an excellent site and developing a great teaching garden was the result of hard work and finding win-win situations for our community partners. Creating partnerships was simply a result of sharing our ideas with agencies and businesses, being patient, and finding out what we could do for others. The following is a list of OSU Extension partners that were not obvious when our project began and what each brought to our project.
ConclusionExtension agents are accustomed to networking and forming partnerships in our communities to accomplish projects and run programs. However, it was an important self-realization that successful fund raising could be accomplished for a community project like our teaching garden, not by asking for donations as such, but by discovering partners who would find the project useful to meet their needs or goals. These partnerships often create long-term giving to a project, while cash donations are usually one-time gifts. With our partners' involvement we were able to build a 2-acre demonstration and teaching garden with a pavilion and other structures for one-third of our original estimate. These organizations found it much easier to provide valuable services to our project than capital. Don't overlook this potential resource for your next community project. ReferencesPeters, S. J. (2002). Rousing the people on the land: The roots of the educational organizing tradition in Extension work. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support. |
