June 2006
Volume 44 Number 3

Tools of the Trade

Mobile Wireless Internet Video: Bringing the Specialist into the Field Remotely

Barry L. Bequette
Extension District Director
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension
Twin Falls, Idaho
bequette@uidaho.edu

The Need

Nationwide, Extension has felt the effects of the declining economy. Hiring freezes, reductions in travel, and reduced operational funds are commonplace. While always a priority, the importance of efficiently utilizing operational funds has heightened considerably. The use of technology offers Extension a means to reduce costs and improve outreach efforts. It is a challenge to Extension to integrate both new and existing technology into educational and service programs in order to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and provide clientele with quality advice.

Travel costs comprise a significant portion of operational budgets, and reductions in travel expenditures have lessened the ability of specialists to travel to remote field locations to examine problems in person. Mobile wireless Internet video offers a "low cost" means to bring specialists into the field to assist local agents.

Hardware and Software

The hardware and software described below, with the exception of a few key pieces, are already found in most Extension offices throughout the United States. The widespread use of mobile Internet video and the utility of this technology is dependant only upon the ability of Extension personnel to assimilate and adopt the technology. The costs are very low, and in many cases all of the components are already in place and only require configuration and use (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Components Needed by an Agent "in the Field" for Wireless Internet Video

For the specialist in a stationary location components needed include:

• A relatively fast desktop computer to reside in proximity of the specialist

• A "high-speed" Internet connection

• "Yahoo Messenger" or "MSN Messenger" software application

For the Agent "in the field" components needed include:

• Relatively fast battery powered laptop computer (or Tablet PC)

• USB Wireless Internet adaptor

•  USB Internet video camera

• 300 W DC to AC power inverter

• Wireless router / access point

• 15 db "Hi-Gain" antennae

• Wireless "high-speed" Internet connection (equipment is usually provided with the service and consists of a radio type receiver)

• "Yahoo Messenger" or "MSN Messenger" software application (free)
  
  1. Computer hardware quality changes very rapidly. It is recommended that a computer used for video transmission be less than 2 years old. An ideal configuration would be a 2.4 ghz (or faster) clock speed Pentium IV processor, 400-800 mhz front side bus, 512 MB internal memory, hyperthreading capable and turned on, a minimum 128 MB graphics card, and USB 2.0 ports.

  2. For the best results, it is recommended that the video camera be as portable as possible and USB 2.0 capable.

  3. A 150W power inverter works to power the router and wireless radio; a 300W inverter is needed to also charge the laptop.

  4. A wireless "G" protocol router would provide better quality (i.e., faster transmission) if the laptop was equipped with a wireless "G" adaptor.

  5. The "Hi-Gain" antennae increases the distance and quality of video transmission, but may not be required depending upon the Internet provider service quality.

It is likely most of the equipment listed above already exists in Extension offices and is capable of being used to transmit mobile video. A general cost breakdown for all of the equipment listed above is provided (Table 1).

Note that the two largest costs listed above are the computers. Most offices already have computer equipment capable of handling video transmission. If computer costs are not factored into the expense, mobile video can be realized for less than a $300-400 one-time expense and a recurring cost of $90 per month for wireless T-1 speed service.

Performance

The video quality of this type of connection is stunning. The speed of the wireless connection typically averaged 1200-1400K, and video frame rate was consistently 26-30 frames per second, with little to no distortion or break up. Voice carried over the same signal was clear. As the wireless router was transmitting through outdoor conditions, the laptop was able to maintain a high-speed connection within 300 feet of the vehicle. The vehicle housing the wireless receiver and router was located 15 miles from the main Internet transmission tower; however, adequate signal was received up to 25 miles away. A digital camera in macro mode was used to take "in-the-field" high-quality 4 megapixil close-up photos of disease spots on a leaf. Transfer of each one-megabyte photo took less than 10 seconds.

Recommendation

Wireless Internet video is available in many communities across the nation. While this service is intended for fixed and not mobile applications, use in a mobile environment is cost efficient and readily attainable. Given the low cost of initial setup, current cost of fuel for travel, and interest in time efficiency, mobile video is a viable option for increasing "on-the-spot" specialist input into field diagnostics.

Mission Thanksabunch: Saying Thank You Makes a Difference

Donna R. Gillespie
Minidoka County Extension Educator
District III Area 4-H/Youth Educator
University of Idaho
Rupert, Idaho
donna@uidaho.edu

Situation

Recognizing and thanking contributors is crucial to maintaining community support for 4-H programs. Market animal projects are a large part of many Idaho 4-H programs, and finding ways to retain existing sale buyers and recruiting new ones can be a challenge. In addition, it is important to recognize all 4-H supporters regardless of how much they contribute or what projects they support.

According to the 2000 Idaho census, Minidoka County has lower wages than similar counties in Idaho. Unemployment rates in 2005 have remained high at between 7.1% and 5.5%. Employment in the region is heavily dependent on agriculture and food processing, primarily potato and sugar beets. Simplot, the major employer in the area, announced the closure of their potato processing plant in 2002. This closure displaced approximately 600 employees and had a negative impact on area businesses. It has been estimated that the Simplot plant closure will result in $200 million of economic loss to the Minidoka and Cassia County area. Despite the struggle with economic growth and poor agricultural prices, businesses and individuals in Minidoka County have continued to strongly support 4-H Youth Development programs.

Saying "Thank You"

A program called "Mission Thanksabunch" began in Minidoka County in 2000 in order to thank market animal sale buyers. The program's original intent was to thank buyers, not demand their support. The program offers great opportunities for 4-H youth to personally show their appreciation. Specific instructions, contact information, and a timeline requirement are distributed to county 4-H livestock clubs at least 1 month before the county fair.

Before the Fair

4-H youth enrolled in market animal projects are encouraged to visit a buyer from the previous sale, thank them for their past support, and invite them back to the current year's fair and livestock sale. In addition, they present a gift sponsored by the 4-H/FFA Livestock Sale Committee, along with a sale brochure and breakfast tickets. Youth must also invite one additional business or individual that did not purchase an animal the previous year. Gifts, sale brochures, and breakfast tickets are also provided.

At the Fair

During the county fair, youth have their photograph taken with their sale animal. This photograph is presented immediately after their animal is sold to their buyer with a thank you for supporting the sale and the 4-H program. Wooden buyer plaques and date plaques to be displayed in the buyer's place of business are also presented, showcasing the community support of businesses for the youth program.

After the Fair

Mission Thanksabunch is continued when youth send a "thank you" to their buyer, which must be done before livestock sale checks can be picked up. The sale committee also purchases advertisements in the local newspapers thanking buyers for supporting the sale.

Sale Committee Responsibility

Mission Thanksabunch is monitored and supported by the Minidoka County 4-H/FFA Livestock Sale Committee. The committee is made up of 11 volunteers representing various backgrounds and associations. Representatives on the committee include a 4-H adult and youth, an FFA adult and youth, a fairboard member, and six community members from agriculture, finance, merchant, commercial agriculture, commercial business, and agribusiness.

The purpose of this committee is to assist youth by operating and managing the livestock sale in conjunction with the Minidoka County Fair. With this goal in mind, committee members have agreed to provide financial support for Mission Thanksabunch. In addition, committee members are assigned individual 4-H clubs to contact prior to the county fair to determine whether assigned buyer contacts have been completed.

Program Outcomes

Figure one shows the number of livestock buyers at the Minidoka County Fair has increased from 116 to 152, a 31% increase from 2000 to 2005. Sale receipts for 2005 have increased by 104% for this same period, reaching an all time high of $250,299.32 for 201 animals in 2005. The number of new buyers, which also includes those previous buyers who have not bought in the last 5 years, rose by 43 in 2001, 36 in 2002, 39 in 2003, 33 in 2004, and 26 in 2005. Livestock sale committee members and county 4-H staff agree that personal contact and a sincere thank you from 4-H youth encourages members of our community and local businesses to become and stay involved in supporting 4-H in Minidoka County.

Figure1.
Number of Buyers, Sale Receipts and Number of Animals for Minidoka County Market Animal Sale 2000-2005

Budget

The 4-H/FFA Livestock Sale Committee budgets approximately $2,500 each year to purchase gifts, newspaper advertising, wooden plaques, and cookies and soda for the buyers at the livestock sale. $1,000 has been spent each year for gifts delivered by youth to buyers. These items have included:

• Candy bouquets
• Minidoka County 4-H coffee mugs
• "Glory Be" stuffed animals
• Colored "Glory Be" stuffed farm animals
• Minidoka County Livestock Sale stadium cushions

In addition, the committee sponsors the Buyer's Breakfast each year on sale mornings. In 2005 there was a 34% increase from the previous year in the number of free breakfasts served to buyers. Two hundred and twelve people enjoyed a full breakfast prepared and served by a local 4-H club, an increase from 158 in 2004 and 135 in 2003.

Thanksabunch

Mission Thanksabunch has evolved to include much more than the original intention of just thanking sale buyers. Mission Thanksabunch was started primarily by the Minidoka County Livestock Sale Committee for livestock projects but has crossed over to every aspect of the Minidoka County 4-H program. For example, a local 4-H club now sends Christmas cards to all 4-H supporters each year. The Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association has also become involved by sponsoring a community dance during fair week and helping at fair activities and the livestock sale. The teens also donate a Christmas tree to the Red Cross Caring and Sharing Fair each year, with all proceeds going to support local community needs.

The University of Idaho Minidoka County Extension Office encourages 4-H youth and adults to thank and serve the community by maintaining a list of names and addresses of 4-H supporters and coordinating Mission Thanksabunch. County 4-H supporters are also publicly thanked through programs, signage, and paid newspaper advertisements.

Conclusion

The data support the idea that making the extra effort to say "Thank You" really works in local communities. Even in times of depressed economic growth, local businesses and individuals are willing to support a successful and grateful youth development program. Longtime 4-H supporters, like the manager of the local Les Schwab Tire dealership, says he continues to support 4-H because he appreciates the work ethic that is developed by 4-H kids and feels the fair livestock sale is the best use of his advertising dollars. 4-H alumni, appreciative of his community support, are now doing business with his tire store. Mission Thanksabunch will continue to show the local community how much 4-H youth appreciate their continued support.

Tips for Communicating Agricultural Safety to Children

Charles V. Schwab
Professor
Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
cvschwab@iastate.edu

Laura L. Miller
Communications Specialist
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
lwmiller@iastate.edu

Lynn M. Graham
Assistant Professor Emeritus
Department of Human Development & Family Studies
Wichita Falls, Texas
lg4isu@sbcglobal.net

Safety is not an engaging topic, but it's a prerequisite for agriculture, still one of the nation's most dangerous industries based on deaths per 100,000 workers (National Safety Council, 2002). Farm safety for children is very important because many youth live and sometimes work in this hazard-filled environment, which is linked to an estimated 32,800 injuries and 104 deaths of rural children every year (Myers & Hendricks, 2001; Rivara, 1997).

Several educational resources (Schwab, Miller, & Graham, 2000; Schwab, Miller, & Graham, 2002) for children were created in a response to an identified need from providers of farm safety day camps, in-school programming, and other activities. The production process for these resources has resulted in developing communication strategies for targeting children with agricultural safety messages. This article shares those strategies and characteristics that can be used to shape how others can communicate agricultural safety messages to children.

Characteristics of Younger Audiences

Children are not "little adults." It is not that children have less information than adults, or lack the vocabulary to understand adult information, but that they perceive and react to the world in entirely different ways. Their thinking processes are very different than an adult's because children are not fully developed physically, their eyesight is not as keen, and reasoning/logic skills have not been learned. Therefore, communicating effectively with children is not a matter of "dumbing down" adult information, but creating entirely new messages based on their developmental stages. Because of developmental variations, a different approach is necessary for the 4-7age groups and 8-12 age group.

4 - 7 Age Group

The approach used for this age group is just as important as content. Materials must involve parents because many children in this age group cannot read. The messages also need to educate parents on how to present the information and to have realistic expectations for their child. A distinguishing characteristic for this age group is that perception is a child's reality; they do not separate fantasy, imagination, and reality. Other characteristics are the following.

1. Language: Children have a very literal understanding of language.
   • Children do not understand passive voice. A young child understands "The truck was hit by the car" to mean that the truck hit the car (not that the car hit the truck).
     
   • Avoid prepositions such as near/far, above/beneath, and under/over that are confusing to children. A child told not to go near a Power-Take-Off (PTO) may think he/she is being safe by looking at it from above (from the tractor seat) or even by stepping over it.
     
   • Avoid words with double meanings, metaphors, hyperbole, sarcasm, and contractions. The phrase "take shelter" can cause a 7-year-old to wonder what shelter and why you should take it.
     
2. Relativity: Children lack skills to judge size, speed, and distance.
   • Children's eyesight is not yet developed so they cannot judge the proximity of objects by their relative size. Children have not learned perspective and do not relate size to distance. They do not associate seeing a large truck as closer and the same truck that is smaller when it is far away.
     
3. Thinking processes: Children have a limited attention span and difficulty thinking of more than one thing at a time.
   • Children may not be able to follow complicated directions. Messages and family rules need to be few and simple to remember and follow.
     
   • Children do not perceive secondary hazards. Their immediate action, such as getting a ball from the other side of a fence that happens to confine a bull, is not perceived as dangerous. After all, they see themselves as retrieving a ball, which is not against a family rule.

8 - 12 Age Group

Content is the most important aspect of communication with this age group. Information needs to be offered in short articles to attract and holds their interest in a variety of ways. A distinguishing characteristic for ages 8 through 12 years is that their peers are very important, sometimes causing them to ignore warnings from adults. Other characteristics are the following.

1. Sense of belonging
   • Older children are exploring their independence and developing a sense of identity. They are looking for information to use on their own.
     
   • They are exploring how they fit and their place in society. Age appropriate idioms and slang is very appealing to them.
     
2. Capturing their interest
   • Older children enjoy reading for pleasure, especially mysteries and adventures. Presenting information as stories for them to read and solve is effective. Materials should not resemble those for younger children.
     
   • Older children want to learn new things and find explanations of why things work. They want to solve problems and do things on their own, even see themselves as a hero. They like to be challenged with new vocabulary and technical terms in ways they can understand and use.
     
3. Multiple learning styles and interests
   • Older children need a range of materials to accommodate different learning styles and interests. This includes puzzles, eye-catching visuals, and humor with a message.

Other Communication Issues

Information needs to be relevant to the age of the audience. Information that is very important to an adult audience may not be appropriate for a younger audience. For example, adult safety messages often focus on the use of protective gear for chemical applications--activities that should be off-limits for children. Another example would be messages about replacing and maintaining shields and guards on equipment. These tasks, decisions, and messages are adult issues and have no place in safety materials for children.

Children may be afraid to tell an adult when they get in a dangerous situation. If situations require them to communicate problems, then the safety message must help the child overcome his or her fear of "tattling." The message is that it's OK to tell an adult when something happens because it is the right thing to do.

Children understand communication from their own frame of reference. If the topic is about avoiding animals that can carry rabies, be specific and avoid the term "wild animals." To children, wild animals are giraffes, elephants, and more exotic creatures, not raccoons and rabbits that live outdoors.

Lessons Learned

Safety is not something you learn only as an adult. It is a positive attitude and the ability to make good decisions that develops throughout one's entire life. Safety messages communicated effectively to children start the foundation for them to make good decisions that can be used throughout a lifetime.

References

Myers, J.R., & Hendricks, K. (2001). Injuries among youth on farms in the United States, 1998. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-154. Washington, DC: U.D. Department of Health and Human Services.

National Safety Council. (2002). Injury facts. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council

Rivara, F. (1997). Fatal and non-fatal farm injuries to children and adolescents in the United States 1990-1993. Injury Prevention, 3:190-194.

Schwab, C.V., Miller, L.J., & Graham, L. (2002). The mystery club series. (Available from Iowa State University, Extension Publication Distribution, 119 Printing and Publications Building, Ames, IA 50011-3080. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/pubs/Order.html

Schwab, C. V., Miller, L., J., & Graham, L. (2000). What would you do: Helping children understand farm hazards. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.

Watershed Learning Activity: Coming to Terms with Geographic Scale

Tricia G. Knoot
Graduate Assistant
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
tknoot@iastate.edu

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

Lisa A. Schulte
Assistant Professor
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
lschulte@iastate.edu

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa

Introduction

The concept of geographic scale presents challenges as well as opportunities for watershed educators. "Scale" is at the heart of watershed issues. Stakeholders, such as private landowners, farmers, scientists, and policy makers, can live and work in seemingly the same place, i.e., a particular watershed, but may think very differently about the landscape (Fisher, 2000; Harris, De Lasaux, & Kocher, 2000). A lack of understanding of geographic scale can contribute to disagreement among stakeholders and may diminish the impact of watershed education programs.

This article presents a learning activity about scale for use in watershed education programs. The Watershed Learning Activity helps stakeholders develop an appreciation for the variety of ways that individuals "know" their environment and an understanding of the influence of scale in shaping perspectives on watershed issues.

Diversity and Problem Solving

Extension educators put diversity to work by encouraging stakeholders to share ideas, values, and perspectives through dialogue and partnership projects (Fisher, 2000; Conway, Godwin, Cloughesy, & Nierenberg, 2003). A successful collaborative decision-making process demands that stakeholders not only understand management options, but that they are also aware of the perspectives of other members. Consequently, programs that elicit, rather than avoid, diversity produce better solutions.

Bringing diversity to bear on decision-making, however, is challenging (Conway et al., 2003). Watershed stakeholders may express ideas about the landscape that arise from experiences with land and water that presume a particular scale. Greater awareness of the frame of reference for their experiences can help stakeholders talk more productively across differences.

Conceptual Change Theory

The abstract nature of the concept of scale challenges Extension educators. Consequently, we developed the Watershed Learning Activity, designed according to principles of conceptual change theory from science education (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982).

True conceptual change is hard won. It requires eliciting prior knowledge, engaging in inquiry or discovery activities, and reflecting on results (Posner et al., 1982). Conceptual change theory is a constructivist perspective that presumes that individuals construct their own knowledge rather than receive knowledge passively. Extension educators have applied conceptual change theory to the development of science-based curricula for youth (for example, Williamson & Smoak, 1999), and to pesticide safety educator training (Grudens-Schuck, Cramer, Exner, & Shour, 2003).

Learning Activity

The recommended use of this activity is at the beginning of a workshop series, conference, or as an orientation tool for a new watershed group. The exercise was piloted twice in 2005, first with a group of eight adults, ages 25 to 55, who were familiar with agricultural and natural resources issues, but were not trained in landscape ecology, and second, with a class of graduate students who possessed intermediate knowledge of landscape ecology.

Learning Outcomes

• Attendees will develop a concept of geographic scale consistent with a lay scientific understanding,

• Attendees will value the role of scale in watershed management, and

• Attendees will acknowledge the existence of multiple perspectives on scale.

Materials, Facilities and Time

1. Index cards in two or three different colors.

2. One dark, medium-tip marker per participant.

3. Aerial color photographs (one per participant), at least 5 X 7 inches, of the same location at two (or three) different scales. It is essential that the location be the same, but the area covered by the photographs (i.e., extent) should be different. We used photographs of a well-known local natural area (Figure 1). Free downloads of aerial photographs can be obtained from TerraServer-USA (Microsoft Corporation) at http://terraserver-usa.com.

4. White board or flip charts, with markers.

5. Tape for fastening index cards to board.

6. Room or outdoor area that permits group discussion.

7. Article by Cheng and Daniels (2003).

8. Estimated time for the activity is 40 minutes to 1 hour.

Figure 1.
Aerial Photographs of McFarland Park in Story County, Iowa, at Two Different Scales:
a) 1:10,000 and b) 1:24,000.
Photographs are a courtesy of Iowa State University, Geographic Information Systems Facility - Iowa Geographic Map Server, and the USDA Farm Service Agency.

Directions

Small Group Formation and Silent Writing

Time: Five to 10 minutes

• Form small groups, two to six per group.

• Distribute photographs and cards. Provide each group with a photograph of a section of a watershed at varying scales. Provide Group #1 with Scale A, Group #2 with Scale B, and so forth. Distribute two to five different colored index cards and one marker per person. Each group should have note cards of the same color, but different color from other groups.

• Generate ideas. Direct participants to write one or two words per card that explain how they would "know" (as individuals) the location in the photograph. Do not tell participants that groups have different photographs.

Categorization of Ideas

Time: 20 to 30 minutes

• Collect photographs. Place them where they cannot be seen.

• Categorize ideas. Instruct participants to gather around a table, thus forming one large group. Direct them to place ideas (on cards) into categories by talking together and coming to agreement (per Chambers, 2002).

• Label categories. Ask participants to agree on labels for the main categories (of ideas on the cards). Write the labels on a white board or flip chart. Tape the respective index cards below each category label.

• Discuss categories. Elicit discussion about the categorization process, including disagreement and proposals for changing categories or moving cards.

Discussion

Time: 15 to 20 minutes

• Reveal photographs. Show all photographs to participants. Allow participants to voice insights. There may be surprise at the (mild) deception.

• Discuss location of index cards. Indicate the location of the different colored index cards and associated scale. Point out if categories were composed of ideas from all groups (i.e., from multiple scales) or one group (i.e., from a single scale).

• Discuss implications for watershed education. Direct participants to discuss implications of scale to watershed management. Introduce expert knowledge by reading or showing selections from Cheng and Daniels (2003) (selections below).

Stakeholders involved in place-based planning processes at small geographic scales articulate ways of knowing the place that reference specific place features (p. 844).

Stakeholders involved in place-based planning processes at relatively large geographic scales articulate ways of knowing the place that reference symbolic abstractions and generalizations (p. 844).

Reflections on Implementation

Participants in the first pilot study developed eight categories that were both specific (e.g., farming) and abstract (e.g., human experience), indicating the diversity of ways that people know a place.

1. Farming
2. Structures
3. Human experience / landmarks / orientation
4. Colors
5. Conceptual / hierarchical
6. Combination of woods & water
7. River system / drainage system / water
8. Woods

The participatory process of categorization encouraged the formation of new ideas and also generated disagreement. Confrontations helped the group to examine their beliefs (i.e., critical reflection) and contributed to an appreciation of different ways of knowing places.

Conclusion

Successful collaborative decision-making about watershed issues is more likely to succeed if stakeholders advance their understanding of geographic scale. This learning activity was designed to stimulate learning about scale, leading to better decisions by multi-party stakeholder watershed groups. The activity is anticipated to work in a range of settings for Extension education, secondary education, and the college classroom.

References

Chambers, R. (2002). Participatory workshops: A sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Cheng, A.S., & Daniels, S.E. (2003). Examining the interaction between geographic scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: A case study of place-based collaborative planning. Forest Science, 49(6), 841-854.

Conway, F.D.L., Godwin, D., Cloughesy, M., & Nierenberg, T. (2003). Watershed Stewardship Education Program--A multidisciplinary extension education program for Oregon's watershed councils. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a4.shtml

Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Grudens-Schuck, N., Cramer, J., Exner, D.N., & Shour, M. (2003). The new adult education: Bringing peer educators up to speed. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a2.shtml

Harris, R.R., De Lasaux, M., & Kocher, S. (2000). Process and reality: Working with a local watershed organization to develop a restoration effectiveness monitoring program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/a4.html

Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Williamson, R., & Smoak, E. (1999). Creating a Down-to-Earth approach to teaching science, math and technology. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/iw3.html

A Worm in the Teacher's Apple: Protecting America's School Children from Pests and Pesticides

Jennifer L. Gillett
gillett@ufl.edu

Norman C. Leppla
ncleppla@ufl.edu

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
State-wide IPM Program (IPM Florida)
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Why School IPM?

A Worm in the Teacher's Apple is a comprehensive, easy to read, four-part guide written especially for parents, teachers, school staff members, and school administrators, but it is also a valuable guide for Extension agents involved in School IPM (integrated pest management). The first part of this guide, "Problems." explains the common perceptions about pesticide use and handling, and educates the general public about realities involved with the business of pest control. Most of this material could easily be used by anyone in Extension.

Part two, "Solutions," includes simple diagrams that explain the costs and benefits of IPM and explains several pest management models. The author, Dr. Marc Lame, began his career in Extension and is quick to point out that "IPM is the right thing to do," but he also backs up that statement with ways to determine the overall costs and benefits of School IPM. Part three, "Implementation," details several different school environments and describes plans of action sure to fit almost any size school in America.

Integrated People Management

Lame's novel idea that IPM not only stands for integrated pest management but also reflects the importance of "integrated people management," gets to the heart of IPM in any system. Advice flows about how to increase the awareness of everyone involved in protecting schools, including students. This community effort to make schools essentially pest and pesticide free is the backbone of the "Monroe Model," developed in cooperation with the Monroe County Community Schools Corporation, Indiana <http://www.mccsc.edu/%7Ejjochim/ipm.html>. Monroe County, Indiana achieved a 92% reduction in pesticide use, enabling them to direct their cost savings to hire a district-wide coordinator to oversee pest management in the schools.

The Monroe County IPM Program has now evolved into the "Monroe School IPM Model." By using this model, the emphasis is placed on minimizing the use of broad-spectrum chemicals and on maximizing the use of sanitation, biological controls, and selective methods of pesticide application. This model proves that increased communication and collaboration between pest management practitioners and school administrators; the custodial, maintenance, and cafeteria staffs; teachers and students can lead to a safer learning environment for school children of all ages and in all learning environments. It also enables staff, teachers, and administrators to maintain a safer work environment.

Just Think Pests!

The simple idea of "just think pests" can make every member of a school community more aware of how their activities mitigate or exacerbate pest problems. Armed with the background information provided in the previous three parts, the final one on "Tools" will help Extension agents to establish coalitions that can formulate policies for promoting School IPM. Additionally, the book has seven pages of references covering various aspects of School IPM. Sure to be viewed as a bonus is the logically produced appendix that provides a wealth of information, including a condensed description of IPM, the Arizona IPM in Schools Coalition Pests Monitoring Protocol, the Monroe Model inspection checklist, a memorandum of understanding, and a model Pest Press news letter.

About the Author

Dr. Marc Lame is a pioneer and accomplished leader in the field of School IPM whose enthusiasm for protecting our children is contagious. He not only commands respect as the national expert in the field but also works constantly in schools across the nation to implement the principles he has developed. He serves as a faculty member of Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Bloomington, where he teaches "Environmental Management," "Management Communication," "Environmental Policy," and "Insects and the Environment."

Working closely with Dr. Faith Oi, Dr. Lame readily assists the Florida School IPM Program, associated IFAS Extension programs, and IPM Florida to increase IPM practices in Florida schools (http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu). This very effective team is implementing the Monroe School IPM Model in Brevard County, the first in Florida to adopt this model and one of the largest school districts in the U.S. to embrace School IPM. His book, the first in the field, is full of all the tools anyone could need to become proactive in providing pest- and pesticide-free school environments through the use of IPM. In our opinion, no school or Extension office should be without a copy!

Reference

Lame, M. L. (2005). A worm in the teacher's apple: Protecting America's school children from pests and pesticides. AuthorHouse. 1663 Liberty Drive, Suite 200, Bloomington, IN.

Baseline Data for Your Program?

Nancy Ellen Kiernan
Program Evaluator
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
nekiernan@psu.edu

When considering an evaluation strategy for a state or multi-county program, one of the initial steps program planners should consider is how to collect baseline data. Baseline data establishes a basis for:

• Comparing what was happening before the program with what happens after and
• Extension to claim credit for impact.

When program planners have a state or multi-county perspective, they have the opportunity to develop a broader based sampling plan to collect baseline data. Sampling can reduce the burden on Extension educators and program participants, yet provide a representative profile of the target audience.

How program planners should sample can depend on the design of the program and how the program is delivered. Below are two typical Extension program models and a sampling plan for each. Choose the model closest to your program, and consider the sampling plan.

Extension Program Model #1

Program Characteristics

• The target audience is typically limited in the area, perhaps 100-900 persons.

• Over a 2-3 year period, a series of educational activities are conducted for this target audience.

• The educational activities feature different aspects of the subject matter. Each educational activity in the series has new educational objectives related to immediate impacts, but taken together across all activities, the objectives combine to achieve an extended impact. In a calf and heifer program, for example, the first educational activity may center on calf housing, the second on calf nutrition, the third on calf health, but all are focused on reducing calf mortality, the extended impact.

• The series of educational activities is directed to the same specific individuals in the limited target audience (for instance, dairy farmers in a multi-county area).

Figure 1.
Extension Program Model #1. The diversity of symbols indicates various parts of program over time that, added together, comprise one large program. It indicates a the lack of repetition of the same program.

• "Complete" learning of all skills, knowledge, and practices within the Extension program experience by the participants does not occur in a short time span, as in some programs, because the educational activities are spread over time.

• The target audience is limited enough so that there is likely to be contact information available, for instance, swine producers or childcare providers. This list provides the basis for sampling.

Examples of This Type of Program

• Agronomic Production and Management Practices (Covers variety selection, planting dates, rates and methods, plant protection practices, fertilizers practices, harvest and storage practices)

• Tax Reform for Elected Officials

• 4-H Volunteers

• Dairy and many programs in agriculture

How to Collect Baseline Data

Before the program, collect baseline data by randomly sampling the target audience and measure their knowledge, attitudes, skills, practices, and relevant demographics. After the series of educational activities, return to the random sample; ask the same questions to evaluate the program's impact; then generalize to all program participants.

Advantages for Extension

• No short-term or on-site evaluation for impact has to be conducted during educational activities, reducing the evaluation burden on county educators and participants.

• Collecting baseline data before a program will highlight which topics need emphasis and which should be dropped.

Caveats

• Track who participates in the programs so you will have a measure of their exposure or involvement in the program. This is not difficult. (See http://www.Extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS68.pdf)

• Over-sample when gathering baseline data. Some participants in the baseline study may not participate in the program or might not be in the post-program evaluation.

• Over a long duration, other factors besides Extension influence participants; a control group selected from a group not receiving the program will provide a measure of those influences.

Extension Program Model #2

• Program Characteristics

• The target audience is typically a large group, perhaps thousands, in the area. Many of these programs are for the general public.

• The educational program will take place within a short duration (1 - 6 wks).

• The educational program is repeated over and over again among groups to reach a large percentage of the target audience. Over 2-3 years hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of persons will participate in this program.

• In Figure 2 below, the educational program is repeated 9 times within the 2-3 year period, but could be repeated more.

Figure 2.
Extension Program Model #2. The square boxes indicate repetition of the same program over time. Each box is independent and separate from the other, just like a program that repeats itself many times.

• "Complete" learning within the Extension program experience takes place within a relatively short duration.

• The target audience is so large it is unlikely there would be a contact list, which necessitates a different sampling approach for baseline data than in Model #1.

Examples of This Type of Program

• Water Quality Workshops
• Cancer Prevention
• Estate Planning
• Pesticide Applicator Training
• Health and Nutrition

How to Collect Baseline Data

Before the program begins, consider first, the number of times the educational program will be repeated. Second, randomly select from which of these programs you will collect baseline. In the model above, you might randomly select the 3rd, 6th, and 9th times the program is conducted.

Over time, you want at least 200-300 participants, depending on your analysis and other factors. Once you figure the number of participants for an analysis, it is easy to figure the number of programs at which you will need to collect baseline data.

To evaluate the impact of the programs, go back to the same participants with a post-program measurement at the appropriate time.

Advantage for Extension

• Baseline (and later, evaluation) data do not need to be collected from everyone, but only from participants in randomly selected programs. The burden on county educators and program participants will be reduced dramatically.

Caveats

• If the program is conducted for diverse groups, be sure to consider this when sampling.

• Over a long duration, other factors besides Extension can influence participants; a control group selected from a group not receiving the program will provide a measurement of those influences.

Conclusion

There are many aspects to an evaluation strategy, of which collecting baseline data is an initial step. Understanding how different Extension programs are designed and delivered can suggest different sampling plans to collect baseline data. Planning how to collect baseline data for a state or multi-county program before it is launched can reduce the burden of collecting data for Extension educators and program participants.

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.