October 2006
Volume 44 Number 5

Research in Brief

Distance Education: Perceived Barriers and Opportunities Related to Extension Program Delivery

Darrell A. Dromgoole
District Extension Administrator
Coastal Bend--District 11
Corpus Christi, Texas
d-dromgoole@tamu.edu

Chris T. Boleman
Assistant Professor & Extension Specialist
Department of Agricultural Education
College Station, Texas
ct-boleman@tamu.edu

Texas Cooperative Extension

Introduction & Theoretical Framework

As Extension begins to develop educational program delivery strategies that include distance education, one of the most challenging aspects is to establish a culture among county Extension educators to integrate this educational program delivery strategy into ongoing programming to ensure added value to program delivery strategies. County Extension educators could view this educational strategy as a competitor to traditional program delivery efforts, fearing that the lack of interaction with the learner will lead to less effective learning experiences, and learner connectivity could potentially affect the quality of educational programs in the future.

Campbell (1995) notes that "higher education [including Extension education] faces the challenge of expanding the reach, quality, and effectiveness of instruction within the context of shrinking resources as well as organizing itself to serve students [Extension clientele] regardless of where they reside" (p.73). As Extension faces these challenges, distance education becomes paramount to the effectiveness and the accessibility to Extension programs.

The theoretical underpinning for the study reported here is Rogers' diffusion of innovation literature. Distance education is like any other innovation. Rogers (2003) defined an innovation as "an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption" (p. 34). The characteristics or attributes of distance education that affect the rate of adoption are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 2003).

The primary audience that must adopt or reject distance education initially is county Extension educators. The adoption or rejection of this innovation largely depends upon the attributes of the innovation itself and the characteristics of the county Extension educators that must adopt this innovation as an element of Extension educational delivery. Murphrey and Dooley (2000) stated that "how people perceive and react to these technologies is far more important than the technical obstacles in influencing implementation and use" (p. 40). Therefore, the study focused on the perception of Extension educators as it relates to the adoption of distance education in Extension educational program delivery.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of the study was to determine what Extension educators perceive as advantages and obstacles associated with implementing distance educational strategies in Extension District 11. Four research questions were developed to guide the study:

• Research Question 1: What are the perceived obstacles related to utilizing distance education?

• Research Question 2: What are the perceived advantages associated with distance education?

• Research Question 3: What subject matter topics do Extension educators perceive to have the highest value in terms of being delivered through distance education?

• Research Question 4: What subject matter topics do Extension educators perceive clientele will be most receptive to learning at a distance?

Methodology

A Delphi research technique was used in the descriptive research design. Linstone and Turoff (1975, p.3) define Delphi as "a method of structuring a group communication process, so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem." The Delphi technique uses experts to predict change in a more qualitative sense versus a quantitative sense (Kaynak, Bloom, & Leibold, 1994). A Delphi technique allows for the exploration of creative ideas revealing highly reliable data that can be used for decision making (Rowe & Wright, 1999).

The Delphi technique is designed for the systematic solicitation of expert opinion and involves anonymous forecasts made on two or more rounds by a panel of experts. These individuals receive feedback between each round. As initial responses are made separately, new ideas are highlighted which other participants may not have previously considered. Responses obtained from the participants are then collated and fed back to respondents in a more specific form. The respondents are then asked to provide a more specific response if their first statement is not clear or is too general. The objective of each round is to gradually work toward a consensus among the participants that forms the basis of or outline of the major objectives that need to be addressed.

Round one contains a number of open-ended questions. Round 2 and subsequent rounds typically involve more closed questions that use Likert-scaling techniques to help quantify and prioritize the most important objectives. The Delphi for this study involved three rounds, so steps 3-5 were repeated once.

Round one was initiated in November 2003 by identifying participants, who included 51 district-based Extension educators in Extension District 11 who were e-mailed the four following open-ended questions.

• Please list the perceived obstacles you envision in utilizing distance technology in program delivery.

• Please list advantages that you would perceive regarding the use of distance technology in program delivery.

• Please list web based modules that you would like to see developed to strengthen county educational programs.

• Please list some disadvantages that you would perceive regarding the use of distance technology.

These questions were sent electronically two times in following Dillman's Technique (2000). Round one resulted in a total of 43 responses (84.3% response rate). The responses to this initial survey were compiled, and the results were used to develop a more specific Likert survey used to measure county- and district-based educators' perceptions related to distance educational program delivery. The open-ended responses were analyzed and coded using qualitative research methodology outlined by Dooley and Murphy (2001).

Round two used a Likert scale survey in December 2003 to prioritize and rank the listing responses identified in round 1. Procedures outlined by Dillman (2000) were used for electronic mailing and data collection. This included one follow-up notification to participants who had not responded. Round 2 data were analyzed using SPSS 11.0 for Windows software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

Results

Audience Description

The 51 county- and district-based educators who were surveyed in the study consisted of county Extension agents, district-based subject matter specialists, Extension associates, and Extension program managers. A total of 43 county- and district-based educators responded (84.3% response rate), consisting of 56% male and 44% females. Those responding by professional responsibility consisted of 17 Agriculture and Natural Resources county Extension agents, 12 Family and Consumer Sciences county Extension agents, 1 Marine county Extension agent, 1 Natural Resources county Extension agent, 1 Family Consumer Science 1890 program Extension agent, 5 district-based subject matter specialists, 1 Extension associate, 1 Extension program manager, and 4 4-H and Youth Development county Extension agents .

In terms of age, 35% were 30 years of age or less, 16% were 31 to 40 years of age, 19% were 41 to 50 years of age, and 30% were over 50 years of age. 16 of the respondents (37%) held bachelor's degrees, with five having taken courses toward a master's degree; 22 of the respondents(51%) held master's degrees, with three having taken courses toward a Ph.D. or doctorate; and 5 (12%) held a Ph.D. or doctorate.

Research Question 1

Table 1 shows that of the perceptions of Extension educators related to six statements dealing with concerns/obstacles associated with distance education, Extension educators are most agreeable that connectivity problems from their clients' homes is a concern/obstacle (M= 4.14, SD = .83), clientele do not have computers/technology to learn at a distance (M=3.84, SD= .97), and clientele do not have competencies associated with technology to access programs delivered at a distance (M=3.44, SD= 1.10). Likert scale was defined as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No Opinion, 4= Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree.

In addition, Table 1 notes that Extension educators have a lower concern regarding clientele interaction with Extension educators (M= 3.42, SD=1.20), the cost of developing high quality programs that can be delivered at a distance (M= 3.09, SD = 1.17), and that clientele will not accept a distance education method (M=3.00, SD=1.13).

Research Question 2

In evaluating Extension educators' perception of the advantages of distance education, they indicated that saving money and potential expansion of programs are major advantages of distance education. Specifically, Table 2 reveals that savings in travel time (M=4.31, SD =.52), savings in travel expenses (M=4.21, SD=.57), program availability to people in different places (M=4.07, SD = .74), programs' availability to larger, more diverse audiences (M=3.93, SD= .96), and opportunity for multi-delivery systems (M=3.90, SD= .73) as perceived advantages. Likert scale was defined as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No Opinion, 4= Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree. Table 2 displays all mean values for the remainder of responses.

Research Question 3

Table 3 shows that district-based Extension educators value lawn, ornamental, household gardening (M=3.65, SD=.80); beginning rancher/new landowner (M=3.57, SD=.82); continuing education units-pesticide training (M=3.55,SD=.81); general horticulture (M=3.55, SD=.77); information on water--urban and rural (M= 3.52; SD=.76), Master Gardener trainings (M=3.48, SD=.87); and ag/wildlife exemptions(M=3.45, SD=.83) as potential program topics that would be most usable by target audiences. Likert scale was defined as: 1= No Value, 2= Limited Value, 3= Average Value and 4= Much Value.

Table 3 shows moderate levels of value for clientele as perceived by district-based educators for money management (M=3.41, SD=.83), 4-H recordbook training (M=3.41, SD=.88), basic human nutrition (M= 3.36, SD=.95), individual 4-H project training (M=3.35, SD=.84), plant diseases (M=3.33, SD=.88), financial management of farm and ranch (M=3.31, SD= .89), and club manager training (M=3.29, SD= .90). Likert scale was defined as: 1= No Value, 2= Limited Value, 3= Average Value and 4= Much Value.

Lower value topics perceived by respondents were general women's health (M=3.23, SD=.92), health and fitness for adults (M=3.23, SD=1.10), environment stewardship of land (M=3.23, SD=.89), foreign animal disease (M=3.15, SD=.82), mold problems in home (M=3.14, SD=1.10), basic beef cattle management (M=3.12, SD= .89), diabetes education (M=3.09, SD=1.07), Texans Building Character (M= 3.07, SD=.91), youth leadership (M=3.00, SD= .88), parenting (M=3.00, SD= .98), and youth health and fitness (M=3.00, SD= 1.02). Likert scale was defined as: 1= No Value, 2= Limited Value, 3= Average Value and 4= Much Value.

Research Question 4

Table 4 reveals that general horticulture (M=3.32, SD=.67), lawn, ornamental, and household gardening (M=3.31, SD=.71); pesticide continuing education units (M=3.26, SD=.86); recordbook training (M=3.26, SD=.68); Master Gardner Training (M=3.19, SD= .96); beginning rancher/new landowner (M=3.11, SD=.80), and information on water (M=3.11, SD=.74) are subject mater topics Extension educators perceive clientele will be most receptive to learning at a distance. Table 4 displays all mean values for the remainder of responses. Likert scale was defined as: 1= Low Likelihood, 2= Some Likelihood, 3= Moderate Likelihood and 4= High Likelihood.

In order to gain a better perspective of programs Extension educators suggested would be both likely and valuable to potential audiences, the ranked mean values of both these topics were combined and added together to calculate a combined ranking sum. Table 5 shows that lawn, ornamental, and household gardening; beginning rancher/new landowner; pesticide continuing education training; general horticulture training; information on water (rural and urban); Master Gardening training; and recordbook training rank the highest in terms of value and likelihood.

Conclusions and Recommendation

The conclusions of the study indicate that Extension educators in one district in Texas perceived the following in regard to distance education.

1. Clientele connectivity is an obstacle in utilizing distance education.

2. Clientele don't have technology to learn at a distance.

3. Clientele have a lack of competencies associated with technology to access programs delivered at a distance.

4. Clientele are reluctant to accept distance education methods.

5. That costs to develop high quality programs to be delivered at a distance are an obstacle.

In addition, Extension educators in the study perceived the following educational topics to have the highest value and that these would be topics that clientele will be most receptive to learning at a distance:

1. Lawn, ornamental, and household gardening.

2. General horticulture.

3. Pesticide continuing education training.

4. Beginning rancher/new landowner.

5. Water education.

These results strongly suggest that Cooperative Extension can in fact develop online educational programs for our traditional and non-traditional clientele. More important, Extension educators appear comfortable with this method of delivery if it matches the appropriate targeted audience and subject matter.

It is important to note that as technology improves and Cooperative Extension clientele adopt these technologies, we continue to train and communicate clearly to Extension educators best practices associated with program delivery utilizing technology. Our educational impact will be maximized if programs are delivered to clientele using technologies embraced by Extension educators.

References

Campbell, J. R. (1995). Reclaiming a lost heritage. Ames. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method ( 2^nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dooley, K. E., & Murphy, T. H. (2001). College of agriculture faculty perception of electronic technologies in teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, Volume 42, pp. 1-10.

Draves, W. A. (2000). Teaching online. River Falls. Wisconsin: LERN Books.

Kaynak, E., Bloom, J., & Leibold, M., (1994). Using the Delphi technique to predict future tourism potential. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 12 (7), 18-29.

Linstone, A. H., & Turoff, M., (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Murphrey, T. P., & Dooley, K. E. (2000). Perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats impacting the diffusion of distance education technologies in a college of agriculture and life sciences. Journal of Agricultural Education. 41 (4).

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.

Rowe, G., Wright, G., (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting. 15, 353-375.

A Comparison of 4-H and Other Youth Development Organizations in the Development of Life Skills

Sarah E. Maass
County Extension Agent, 4-H Youth Development
Kansas State Research and Extension
Emporia, Kansas
semaass@oznet.ksu.edu

Carolyn S. Wilken
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
cswilken@ifas.ufl.edu

Joy Jordan
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
jcjordan@ifas.ufl.edu

Gerald Culen
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
grculen@ifas.ufl.edu

Nick Place
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
nplace@ifas.ufl.edu

Introduction

During the last two decades, numerous studies have been conducted with current 4-H members or alumni exploring life skill development associated with 4-H (e.g., Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; McKinley, 1999a, 1999b; Seevers & Dormody, 1995). Life skills are learned competencies known to assist individuals with leading constructive and rewarding lives and include decision-making, accepting differences, teamwork, self-responsibility, cooperation, and communication (Hendricks, 1998). Four-H has been quite successful in the development of life skills of its members (Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; McKinley, 1999a, 1999b; Mustian, 1988). Yet 4-H members concurrently participate in a variety of youth development organizations (i.e., vocational, church youth groups) that share a similar mission of life skill development (Maass, 2004).

The question of how other youth development organizations, in their own programming, also enhance an individual's life skill development remains unclear. Little research has been done to better understand how 4-H alumni perceive the influence of life skill development in dual membership in 4-H and other youth development organizations. With the single exception of Mustian (1988), no research has been identified that asked 4-H alumni to describe the influence of both 4-H and other youth development organizations on life skill development.

This article shares the results of a survey of how high-achieving 4-H alumni who concurrently participated in 4-H and other youth development organizations attribute the development of 36 life skills to 4-H and other youth development programs using the following research question: How do 4-H alumni compare 4-H with other youth organizations in contributing to the development of life skills?

Methodology

A cross-sectional, quasi-experimental research design was used for the study. A survey was originally mailed to 444 alumni of the Oklahoma 4-H Program. Following Dillman's (2000) recommendations, a thank you/reminder postcard was mailed 2 weeks following the initial mailing; 2 weeks later non-responders were sent a replacement survey. Fifty surveys were returned undeliverable, and nine were unusable (i.e., excessive missing data, mother completed survey), yielding 223 usable responses resulting in a 58% response rate.

Life skills, the dependent variable, were measured using the Life Skills Inventory (LSI) (Maass, 2004), comprised of 36 items drawn from the Indiana 4-H Impact Study (McKinley, 1999A), the National 4-H Impact Study (Ladewig & Thomas, 1987), the Targeting Life Skills Model (Hendricks, 1998), the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Life Skills Evaluation System (2001), and public speaking (Seevers & Dormody, 1995). An expert panel of eight state and district 4-H specialists reviewed the survey for face and content validity. The panel's suggestions and recommendations to improve the clarity, readability, content, and layout of the questionnaire were incorporated into the final questionnaire.

The survey asked the 4-H alumni to respond to questions regarding the following aspects of their 4-H careers:

• 4-H experiences;

• Influential aspects of 4-H;

• Participation in other youth development organizations;

• Life skill development attained through participation in 4-H and other youth development organizations;

• Current community involvement; and

• Demographics.

This article reports specifically on the comparison of perceived life skill development attained through participation in 4-H and other youth development organizations (OYDO).

Figure 1 displays the items that comprise the Life Skill Inventory (LSI) used to assess the respondents' attribution of life skills. The respondents were asked the following: "Reflect back on your organizational experiences. In the first column answer the following question, 'Through 4-H I learned toƒ'. In the second column, use the strongest influence according to question 5 (other than 4-H) to answer the following question, 'Through _________________I learned toƒ' (Maass, 2004).

Figure 1
Life Skills Developed Through 4-H and Other Youth Development Organizations

The LSI was created by summing the scores for each of the 36 life skills included in Figure 1. The LSI yielded a Chronbach's alpha of 0.96 suggesting that these items measured a single unidimensional latent construct (i.e., life skills).

Sample

Oklahoma 4-H Alumni (4-H members between 1969 and 1998) were identified as high achieving and included in this study if they had participated in one or more of the following activities:

• National 4-H Congress;
• National 4-H Conference;
• Oklahoma 4-H Key Club;
• State officer;District officer;
• State 4-H ambassador;
• State Hall of Fame winner;
• State project winner;
• and State scholarship winner.

SPSS (2001) was used to run all data analysis. Table 1 summarizes the demographic make-up of the sample. The average age of respondents was 37.5 years (SD = 8.43 years). More than 90% of the respondents had participated in 4-H for 8 years or more (range 4 to 10 years, 0 = 9.08; SD = 1.057). The majority of respondents had multiple 4-H offices at the local, county, and state levels and participated in 4-H activities, events, and competitions from the local to the national levels. Almost 90% of respondents identified themselves as Caucasian and 10.5% as Native American; nearly 62% of the respondents identified themselves as rural (living on a farm while in 4-H); and 67.3% were female, 32.7% male. More than 90% had completed some education beyond high school.

Findings

The positive influence of 4-H programs on the development of life skills has been well documented. This project sought to better understand how 4-H alumni attribute their life skills to membership in 4-H and OYDO. Participants were asked to reflect on experiences in 4-H and OYDO and describe the influence each had on 36 life skills. Nearly all respondents (92.6%, or n = 206) reported that they had been a member of an OYDO in addition to 4-H. Among this sample, participation in religious organizations was most frequently identified (65.9%), followed by athletics (58.3%), student council (45.7%), Future Homemakers of America (34.5%), and Future Farmers of America (21.1%).

Ranking of Life Skills

Table 2 displays the mean, standard deviation, and rank for each of the 36 life skills as attributed to 4-H and OYDO.

The top five life skills most influenced by participation in 4-H were public speaking, community service volunteering, self-discipline, self-responsibility, and teamwork. The five life skills least influenced by 4-H participation were identified by the respondents as stress management, healthy lifestyle choices, conflict resolution, personal safety, and disease prevention. The top five life skills most influenced by participation in OYDO included character, self-discipline, accepting differences, cooperation, and social skills. The five life skills least influenced by OYDO were healthy lifestyle choices, keeping records, disease prevention, public speaking, learning to learn, and decision-making.

Comparison of 4-H and Other Youth Organizations on Individual Life Skills

Results of paired t-tests that compare the influence of 4-H with the influence of OYDO for each life skill and are displayed in Table 3.

Significant differences were seen between the influence of 4-H and the OYDO in 30 of the 36 life skills. Based on the size of the t-score, respondents attributed the greatest influence to 4-H (compared to OYDO) on the following life skills: keeping records (t=17.30, p< .001), public speaking (t=17.08, p< .001), healthy lifestyle choices (t=11.99, p< .001), learning to learn (t=10.80, p< .001), and leadership (t=10.46, p< .001). Although the t-scores were significantly smaller, respondents more strongly attributed OYDO with influencing the life skills related to stress management (t=-3.46, p< .001), character (t=-2.5, p< .05), personal safety (t=-2.12, p< .01), and resiliency (t=-0.76, p< .05).

A paired t-test was used to compare respondents' 4-H LSI summary score with their Other Youth Organizations LIS summary score. Results of this analysis suggest significantly higher attribution of life skill development to 4-H than to OYDO (t = 9.925; p ≤ .001).

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of the study reported here was to assess the long-term effects of 4-H participation on the development of life-skill competencies among 4-H alumni. These findings reinforce previous research that has established a link between participation in 4-H programs and the development of life skills (Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; McKinley, 1999a, 1999b; Mustian, 1988). The study also asked respondents to compare the influence of 4-H and OYDO on the development of life skills. Triangulation of the data from the perspectives of: 1) ranking within 4-H and within OYDO, 2) between group comparisons of each of the 36 life skills, and 3) a between-group comparison of the sum score for the LSI strengthens and deepens our understanding of the data.

Youth development organizations share a mission of helping youth develop into society-ready adults. Professionals and parents will be pleased to learn that the respondents in this sample ranked self-responsibility and self-discipline as life skills strongly influenced both by 4-H and OYDO. Teamwork and cooperation were among the highest ranked life skills influenced by 4-H; character, accepting differences, cooperation, and social skills were among the top five life skills respondents attributed to OYDO. Given the fact that 92% of 4-H alumni participated simultaneously in multiple youth organizations (Maass, 2004), it is clear that youth develop life skills through participation in a number of youth programs.

While the missions are similar, the approaches taken are often different. Four-H programming uses activities and events as formats for the development of life skills. Respondents identified public speaking as the life skill most highly influenced by 4-H participation. Community service volunteering was also highly ranked (2nd) as influenced by 4-H; 45% of the respondents reported that they presently volunteer with 4-H; more than half volunteer with church; and others report volunteering in a variety of community service activities.

Because all 36 life skills have been identified as important (Hendricks, 1998; Seevers & Dormody, 1995), it is critical to know which life skills respondents ranked as being least influenced by 4-H. Each of the bottom five, stress management, healthy lifestyle choices, conflict resolution, personal safety, and disease prevention have a wellness component that seemed to be missing in the programs participated in by the respondents. This ranking could be a result of the historical period in which the respondents were 4-H members or could be a sign that wellness, although very highly emphasized in today's society, needs additional programming by 4-H leaders, volunteers, and state specialists.

These results suggest that alumni of the Oklahoma 4-H program attributed the development of 26 of 36 identified life skills to 4-H and 4 of 36 to OYDO to which they belonged. It is also important to note that there was no significant difference between 4-H and OYDO in the attribution of several emotional and interpersonal life skills such as conflict resolution, empathy, managing feelings, nurturing relationships, concern for others, and accepting differences. The statistical lack of difference can be interpreted in two different ways: both 4-H and OYDO are doing well in this area or neither type of organization is addressing the emotional and interpersonal life skills identified in the research as critical to youth development. These findings suggest that 4-H promotional materials should emphasize the value of 4-H programming and the development of key life skills of adolescents.

Overall, respondents attributed their total life skill development, measured using the LSI to the Oklahoma 4-H program rather than to the OYDO in which they participated. These findings support the work of Boyd, Herring, and Briers (1992), who found that teen 4-H members had significantly higher perceptions of their development of leadership life skills when compared to non 4-H members. Miller and Bowen (1993) also found that the participation in 4-H or other clubs had a solid influence in regard to the development of competency, coping, and contributory life skills.

Limitations to this research include generalizability beyond the 4-H Oklahoma program, particularly to more non-traditional or urban 4-H programs. The use of retrospective data puts a period of time between respondents' 4-H experience and current lives yet provides the benefit of time and maturity not allowed when interviewing current 4-H'ers. Memories may become blurred over time, and in this sample of high achieving 4-H'ers, there may also be a halo effect for 4-H.

Recommendations

Additional research comparing 4-H and OYDO is important to 4-H programming. Two earlier studies (Ladewig & Thomas, 1987; Morris, 1997) evaluating 4-H programming, but not directly comparing 4-H and OYDO, have suggested that OYDO may be more effective than 4-H in the development of leadership life skills.

The following recommendations for 4-H programming are offered.

1. Program for the full range of life skills as shown in Table 3.

2. Recognize that OYDO have different strengths in the development of life skills. Therefore, 4-H and OYDO enhance one another. Acknowledge that youth today are more involved than they were in the past; collaboration among youth organizations is vital.

3. Add public speaking to the Targeting Life Skills Model.

4. Develop 4-H promotional materials that emphasize the development of life skills.

5. Inform state and federal policy makers about the high correlation between long-term 4-H participation and entering into higher education.

This research compared the influence of 4-H and other youth organizations on the development of 36 life skills. Results suggested that while respondents credited 4-H with influencing the development of most of the identified life skills, they credited other youth organizations with influencing development in different life skills. Four-H programming can be enhanced by developing collaborations with other youth organizations.

References

Boyd, B. L., Herring, D. R., & Briers, G. E. (1992). Developing life skills in youth. Journal of Extension [On-line] 30(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a4.html

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hendricks, P. A. (1998). Developing youth curriculum using the targeting life skills model. Iowa State University.

Ladewig, H., & Thomas, J. K. (1987). Assessing the impact of 4-H on former members. The Texas A&M University System.

Maass, S. E. (2004). A study of life skill development of Oklahoma 4-H alumni during the years of 4-H participation 1969-1998. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

McKinley, S. K. (1999a). 4-H alumni perceptions regarding the impact of the Indiana 4-H program. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

McKinley, S. K. (1999b, October). 4-H alumni perceptions regarding the impact of the Indiana 4-H program. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of Extension 4-H Agents, Pittsburgh, PA.

Miller, J. P., & Bowen, B.E. (1993). Competency, coping, and contributory life skills development of early adolescents. Journal of Agricultural Education 34(1). Retrieved July 13, 2002, from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae/pdf/Vol34/34-01-68.pdf

Morris, C. (1997, October). Self-perceived youth leadership life skill development among Iowa 4-H members. Paper presented at the Galaxy Summit Extension Conference, Cincinnati, OH.

Mustian, R. D. (1988). Impact study, 4-H: Assessing the impact of 4-H on former members in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University.

Richey, P. G. F. (2000). An analysis of leadership life skills development through 4-H in the north Texas district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University — Commerce.

Seevers, B. S., & Dormody, T.J. (1995). Leadership life skills development: Perceptions of senior 4-H youth. Journal of Extension [On-line] 33(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/rb1.html

SPSS. (2001). Statistical package for the social sciences for windows release». Chicago, IL.

Targeting Life Skills Model, Iowa State University Extension. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2002, from http://www.extension.iastate.edu/4H/lifeskills/previewwheel.html

Washington State University Cooperative Extension. (2001). Life Skills Evaluation System. Retrieved June 5, 2003 from http://ext.wsu.edu/lifeskills/

Perceptions of Youth Risk and Safety Education: A Survey of Farm Safety Day Camp Participants and Their Parents

Glen Arnold
County Extension Co-Director, Agriculture
Arnold.2@osu.edu

Dee Jepsen
Program Director, Agricultural Safety & Health
Columbus, Ohio
Jepsen.4@osu.edu

Jason Hedrick
County Extension Co-Director, 4-H & Youth Development
Hedrick.10@osu.edu

Ohio State University Extension

Background

In many agricultural communities across Ohio, the focus on youth safety and reducing farm related accidents continues to be a priority. As our society and technology change, the number of families that live on farms today is decreasing. According to the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio had more than 98,000 family farms in 1976. Today, Ohio has less than 78,000 family farms in operation. However, this trend has not eliminated the incidence of farm-related injuries occurring to children. According to the National Agriculture Statistic Service (NASS, 2001), there were 22,648 agriculture-related injuries, which occurred to children or adolescents under the age of 20 who lived on, worked on, or visited a farm in 2001. Of all the children injured in farm related accidents, just over 48% of them lived in the Midwest. In Ohio alone, there were 35 farm-related fatalities involving children from 1993 to 2002 (The Ohio State University, 2002).

In response to these statistics and public concern, Ohio State University Extension has coordinated nearly 75 farm safety camps throughout Ohio. Reaching over 13,000 youth since 1997, these day camps attempt to bring farm safety issues to the forefront.

Even though many of today's children do not live on farms, most will have the opportunity to visit a friend's or relative's working farm sometime in their young life and are often times unaware of the safety precautions that need to be exercised while there. It is imperative that youth be made aware of the unique dangers present on the farm.

One successful strategy used to educate youth about these dangers is the Farm Safety Day Camp. These camps are designed to bring about awareness to children of the hazards found on a farm and help them learn how to avoid farm related injuries. Many farm safety camps employ teaching stations that are designed to actively involve youth and visually reinforce a safety behavior. Many safety camps utilize local community resources for planning, teaching, and financial support.

The purpose of the study reported here was to gather input from children who had recently attended a Farm Safety Day Camp and also gather input from their parents to measure the effectiveness of the program. A survey was administered to participants and their parents several weeks after the day camp experience. The Putnam County, Ohio Farm Safety Day Camp program had been an annual countywide school field day for 3rd graders for the past 4 years. Participating school officials and teachers were familiar with the event. Both public and private schools participated in this half-day field trip to a working farm. Schools were scheduled to attend either a morning or an afternoon session. To accommodate all interested 3rd-grade classes in the county, the program was offered for 2 consecutive days. Group sizes ranged from 15 to 30 students, with a typical group consisting of 25 students.

Based on input gathered from a local Farm Safety Day Camp planning committee, six study objectives were identified. They were as follows.

1. Determine the amount of exposure 3rd-grade students had to six common rural hazards,

2. Quantify any injuries the students sustained from such hazards,

3. Determine students' self-efficacy for following safety rules,

4. Determine if parents can validate students' self-reported data in the areas of risk assessment, injury assessment, and self-efficacy of following safety rules,

5. Determine the importance of the safety day camp to the students' parents, and

6. Solicit input on which topics the parents felt should be taught at future safety day camps.

Methods

In March of 2003, all 3rd-grade classes of the 13 elementary schools in Putnam County, Ohio participated in the Farm Safety Day Camp. Over 600 students participated in the event.

Two survey instruments, one for students and one for parents, were developed by the researchers for the study. Permission was obtained from teachers and parents to administer the surveys on the school field trip release form. It was explained to youth and parents that the survey was voluntary and they did not have to participate. The student survey was administered in the 3rd-grade classrooms 8 weeks after their Farm Safety Day Camp experience. A written set of instructions accompanied the survey asking the teachers to administer the surveys during the same week.

The student survey was designed to answer the following research questions: 1) How much exposure do 3rd-grade students have with six common agricultural hazards? 2) How many injuries do 3rd-grade students report having from the six selected injury agents? and 3) How sure are 3rd-grade students that they can follow safety instructions? Face and content validity were established by having 9-year olds review the instrument and circle any words they didn't understand or questions that did not make sense to them. Accordingly, several minor revisions were made. A Cronbach's Alpha of the questionnaire was .76.

A survey was also developed for the parents of 3rd graders to complete. Students were asked to take the parent survey home and bring it back to school within 1 week. Teachers facilitated the distribution and collection of student and parent surveys.

The parental survey was developed to answer the following research questions: 1) Can parents validate students' self-reported data in the areas of risk assessment, injury assessment, and self-efficacy of following safety rules? 2) How important is the Farm Safety Day Camp experience from a parent's perspective? and 3) What topics do parents wish to see taught at future safety day camps? During instrument development, content validity was addressed by having a 3rd-grade teacher, who is also a parent of a 9-year old child, review the questions for clarity and appropriateness of the answers. A Cronbach's Alpha was performed on the two rating scales, eliciting a .70 and .83 reliability.

Results

The day camp participants represented a census of all 3rd graders for Putnam County, Ohio. Of the 600 students attending the day camp, 536 completed the survey, yielding an 89% response rate. Of those 536 student surveys, 466 parent surveys were returned to the classroom teachers, representing 87% of the possible student-parent matched responses. Demographic descriptors indicate the population was 94% Caucasian and an equal split of boys and girls (n=268 respectively). Almost all campers reported they visited farms (94%). Approximately 53% of students indicated they lived in rural areas, 41.5% in the country and 11.4% on a farm. About 47% of the students lived near towns (14.6%) or in towns (32.5%).

Exposure to Hazards

Youth were asked to self-report their amount of risk related to certain hazards by quantifying the amount of contact they experienced with the hazards on a weekly basis. For each of the six agricultural hazards, students scored themselves on a 3-point scale, with 0 indicating no contact with the hazard, 1 indicating contact 1-2 days a week, and 3 indicating contact 3 or more days a week. Contact with the hazard included all possible places for exposure, including their homes and other places they spend time (e.g., grandparents, babysitter, or neighbors).

Student risk scores ranged between 0 (no contact with hazard) to 18 (high level of frequent exposure). Students had a mean of 3.3, and their scores were distributed between the range of 0 and 12 (Figure 1). Most of the population reported no-to-low exposure to the risks, with the lawn mower and yard/garden chemicals as the highest reported hazard they faced.

Figure 1.
Student Self-Assessment of Risks to Hazards

Comparing students who live on a farm to all other types of residents, farm children were more likely to report higher levels of risk. Boys were also more likely to report a higher level of risk than girls.

Parent data was used to validate student risk assessment. Parents were asked to report the amount of exposure their child had with the hazards identified on the student survey. Using the same 3-point scale as the children, parents' responses were paired with student responses (Table 1).

A comparison between students' and parents' opinion of exposure level was conducted using a paired t-Test analysis for each of the 3 groups relabeled: No Exposure, Minimal Exposure, and Maximum Exposure. Compared to the parent data, students had a tendency to under-report their exposure level when they felt they had no contact with the hazard, while the students in the Maximum Exposure group over-estimated their potential risk. No statistical significance (p-value = 0.4518) was found between the parent and student responses in the Minimal Exposure group.