Using Correspondence Study

Providing continuing professional education for field-based Extension personnel is one of the many responsibilities campus- based faculty with Extension assignments (specialists) carry out. When only a limited number of agents work in a particular subject -matter area or the time devoted to a subject is limited, specialists are challenged to try new approaches to support local programming through agents.

To better support field-based horticulture agents working with the greenhouse industry, a specialist developed a direct mail correspondence course on greenhouse crop disease management. A pre-assessment was sent to 17 agents identified by the specialist as having the greatest responsibility for programming with greenhouse industry personnel. These agents indicated they preferred to receive educational support from the specialist through face-to-face inservice offerings or through one-on-one contact. Yet when offered, few participated in such inservices. However, when the specialist offered the inservice as a correspondence course during 1990, 20 agents registered. Developed around greenhouse crop diseases, each of the seven lessons in the course, except the final one, included a worksheet/project on which the specialist provided feedback. These hands-on assignments ensured that learning was applied in relevant settings and evaluated through instructor-provided feedback. Alternative options for specialist/agent (instructor/student) interaction supplemented learning and individualized the instruction.

Through a post assessment, 18 participating agents indicated they thought correspondence-based instruction was viable. Such instruction was perceived as one way to obtain the necessary information in subject-matter areas in which these agents needed to be knowledgeable, but which hadn't been identified by them or their clientele as high-priority program areas. From the participants' perspectives, those features of the correspondence course that enhanced the likelihood of successfully completing the instruction included:

• Substantive content appropriate to agents' needs.
• Reasonable time commitment both to complete the individual lessons/projects and to complete the course.
• Flexibility to carry out learning according to the agents' schedules and at their pace.
• Structure within individual lessons through the assigned worksheets/projects as well as for the course.
• Hands-on learning through the projects that were included in the lessons, thus allowing agents to apply theory and practice through real-life experiences.
• Interactive learning-the instructor provided timely feedback - ensuring open-ended contact between the instructor and the agents.

Participants didn't perceive their interaction with the instructor was restricted or limited. They knew the instructor personally. This individual was their first point of contact on questions about the topics, regardless of the agents' participation in this inservice. Participants also recognized that correspondence instruction avoided scheduling conflicts, at least among the agents.

All registrants, whether or not they completed the instruction, expressed the same reservations about this approach: the difficulty of allocating time to carry out independent learning. Also, it's too easy to procrastinate. This factor and inadequate time management were consistently identified by five registrants as the reasons they'd completed none of the lessons. Lack of time to participate is consistent with other assessments of correspondence-based education.1 Yet, face-to-face instruction doesn't overcome this problem; some agents register for an inservice and then fail to participate or only come for a portion of the program.

Those who completed the inservice indicated they used the information more often and in a greater variety of ways than those who didn't complete all of the lessons. The most frequent use cited by four of the seven who completed all of the lessons was having references on hand to respond to questions from greenhouse industry personnel. Other uses for the lessons agents mentioned included: (1) filed-just in case I might need as a reference, (2) conducted educational programs for greenhouse industry, (3) used items from lessons in newsletters/news releases, (4) developed fact sheets to answer specific requests and questions, and (5) passed lessons on to others.

Time spent developing either face-to-face or correspondence- based inservices may not differ significantly. However, correspondence-based instruction offers the potential to involve graduate students and Extension support personnel in new ways. Agents hired after the inservice have been provided the lessons. In addition, the specialist used the information to: (1) update fact sheets on PENpages, Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences computer-based information retrieval network; (2) write a disease management guide; and (3) prepare educational presentations. From the specialist's perspective, this educational method allowed him to provide agents with the most up-to-date information, yet maximized their flexibility in its study and use.

1. G. Thompson, "How Can Correspondence-Based Distance Education Be Improved: A Survey of Attitudes of Students Who Are Not Well Disposed Toward Correspondence Study," Journal of Distance Education, V (Spring 1990), 53-65.