North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

The Cooperative Extension Service has traditionally used a variety of methods for the delivery of educational programs. For example, the demonstration was shown by Seam Knapp to be an effective deli-very method at the beginning of the 20th century (Rasmussen, 1989), and this method continues to be a key method of program delivery (Bruening, 1991; Gor, 1988; Richardson, 1989). Yet, even though demonstrations, newsletters, meetings, and personal consultations may continue to be seen as key means of program delivery by Extension, some audiences may not find such methods practical for their use (Clement, 1994).

In today's society, with pressing social, economic, time, and other personal demands, audiences must be targeted in order to provide information effectively, Ritter and Welch (1988), made this point when they indicated that their market research make it obvious that many traditional means of delivery were not suitable for some audiences. For example, Obahayujie and Hillson (1988), found that part-time farmers in Virginia hold a much greater preference for personal visits than do full-time farmers, but considerably less preference for using the telephone to obtain information than the full-time farmers. In a Missouri study, Okai (1986) found that small farmers also held preferences for personal visits, and were positive regarding Extension publications as a means for receiving needed information.

Program delivery preferences of targeted audiences in North Carolina who ident-ified themselves as part-time farmers were compatible with the previous studies cited, with personal visits most preferred newsletters and demonstrations second and third respectively. The self-directed learning methods found most popular were bulletins, pamphlets and video cassettes (Richardson, 1983).

Reaching Small and Part-Time Farmers

While full-time farmers can generally be expected to desire and seek information from multiple sources, small or part-time farmers often find their options for receiving information more limited due to time, physical energy, lack of clout with input and supply dealers/representatives, or feeling a sense of being unimportant to information providers. Anecdotal informa-tion from Extension agents underscores the difficulty of providing information to these audiences via popular delivery modes such as meetings, tours, demon-strations, telephone calls, and office visits. Also, while studies have shown that one-on one consultation has been effective for the individuals involved, Extension agents are finding this means of delivery increasingly difficult due to overall public demands for information, fewer personnel, and difficulty in contact-ing these individuals at convenient times.

A Better Way?

Even though difficulties have been encountered by Extension in effectively reaching small and part-time farmers, this audience is regarded as an extremely important, valuable contributor to indiv-idual and community social and economic well being as well as stewards of the environment.

Therefore, creative ways to reach these audiences effectively have become a challenge. Both creative and efficient means of delivery were thought to be potential answers to difficulties in reaching this audience. Thus, a special program delivery project was developed which sought to fit appropriate subject matter to the needs of the target audiences, and to develop innovative delivery means for reaching those audiences.

Project Objectives

This project sought to determine responsiveness of small and/or part-time farmers to selected program delivery methods, and to determine if selected non person-to-person program delivery methods are effective for providing needed information to small and part-time farmers.

Focus of Project

The project was designed to develop self-directed instructional guides and learning modules written specifically for self-directed use by small part-time farmers. The modules were designed to include basic information relating to a specific subject, and to contain multiple program delivery methods which would allow the farmers to gain a greater perspective than through written information only.

Project Implementation

The project was implemented in six North Carolina counties representing all regions of the state. Subject matter was insect scouting (two counties), strawberry production (two counties), beef production (one county), and peanut disease control (one county).

Part-time and small farmers were randomly selected in each of the participating counties. Six individuals in each county received the information via the learning modules which contained non person-to-person delivery methods. The modules also contained various forms of "low-tech" methods. The delivery methods included audio cassettes, fact sheets, miniature booklets, photographs, notebooks, posters, and video cassettes. One of the modules included fact sheets, large color photographs contained in a notebook with an introduction and instructions, plus a mini-audio cassette for actually guiding insect scouting. Another included a notebook which contained a table of contents and individual sections.

Fact sheets and color photographs showed each item that was described in the written materials. Audio cassettes for each section were included in which the Extension agent verbally explained the content. Another contained a notebook with limited number of fact sheets and one audio cassette for explaining the materials. A color poster was included which the farmer was encouraged to post in a conspicuous location at the home or farm. Finally, the other module contained an exclusive notebook that had fact sheets, photographs, pamphlets, and a video cassette which provided the information in an instructional format. A novelty item was also used in this module, which contained basic information on a refrigerator magnet.

Results

The thirty two farmers who participated in the project were positive in their reception of the non person-to-person delivery methods. For those methods, the notebooks, audio and video cassettes, miniature booklets, and fact sheets were especially well received by the farmers as excellent means for receiving Extension information.

Of the 32 program participants, 30 demonstrated an increase in knowledge at the conclusion of the educational programs as compared to their knowledge at the beginning. On locally developed tests which contained from 11 to 15 questions, average knowledge gains of participants ranged from 15% to 60% for the counties involved.

Conclusion

Evaluation of the program included pre and post tests that were developed for each subject area. These were adminis-tered to the participants at the beginning and end of the program. With the data obtained, plus observation by agents and anecdotal information received from the farmer participants, it was concluded that appropriate development of educational materials of a non person-to-person nature will be a valid means for Extension educational program delivery for this audience. Altogether, one of the greatest indicators of the acceptance of the modular educational format for program delivery was that more than one-half of the farmers indicated a willingness to pay for these types of materials in the future.

Appropriate packaging of information into learning modules and making them available to this audience for their self-study appears to be a highly desirable mode of program delivery for both the farmers and Extension. This means of program delivery was found to be much more efficient and successful in educating these audiences than expending considerable time and other resources through person-to-person methods in which specific technology is transferred, but few long-term educational results anticipated.

References

Bruening, T. B., 1991. Communicating with farmers about environmental issues. Journal of Applied Communications, 75(1):34-41.

Clement, D. M., 1994. Barriers that keep clientele from using extension information and program delivery preferences. Unpublished Master of Education paper. NC State University, Raleigh, NC.

Gor, C. O., 1988. Sources of Information on new and/or innovative farming practices and how they are accessed by farmers in Nez county in Idaho. Unpublished Master of Science thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Obahayujie, J. and J. H. Hillson, 1988. Now hear this delivery method for farmers. Journal of Extension, 26:1:21-22.

Okai, M. N., 1986. The delivery of agricultural information to small farmers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Rasmussen, W. D., 1989. Taking the university to the people. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa

Richardson, J. G., 1989. Extension Information delivery methods, detecting trends among users. The ACE Quarterly, 72(1):23-27.

Richardson, J. G., 1993. Clientele preferences for receiving information from extension: a North Carolina study. Paper presented to the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Ritter, E. M. and D. T. Welch, 1998. Reaching and teaching. Journal of Extension, 26(3):5-7.

Previous Page
Next Page

Return to Table of Contents
Return to Title Page