Conducting a Statewide Dual-Purpose Program for Pesticide Applicators and County Extension Agents

Introduction

Like many states, the Florida Cooperative Extension Service employs Extension agents with a diverse range of educational and experience backgrounds. These Extension agents are expected to serve a varied clientele, many having very specific needs. Although our Extension agents have completed academic degree programs having excellent subject matter training, they are at times challenged with a lack of opportunities to acquire new subject matter skills (Bennett, 1979).

A fundamental obligation of Extension specialists with statewide responsibilities is to provide training opportunities for county Extension agents to learn new subject matter. Varied approaches have been used at practically all land-grant universities to accomplish training of Extension agents (Brown, Gibson, & Stewart, 2008; Lakai, Jayaratne, Moore, & Kistler, 2012; McCann, 2007). University of Florida Cooperative Extension has used both traditional and distance learning formats in providing in-service training to its county Extension agents (Brodeur, 2009).

Distance technology using Polycom or Blue Jeans has been well documented in Florida for educating pesticide applicators (Fishel, 2014; Fishel, Ferrell, Vallad, Price, Cherry, Mizell, & Duncan, 2010; Fishel & Langeland, 2011). This format has been identified to reduce the amount of travel time and expense for county faculty and state specialists for professional development training programs for county Extension faculty in Florida (Vergot, 2004). Because certain aspects of the same subject matter that is relevant to agricultural pesticide applicators is also applicable to agricultural and horticultural Extension agents, our goal was to offer a distance education program to meet the objectives of both audiences.

Methodology

Each year, our efforts were to design an agenda with agricultural/horticultural topics appealing to the professional development needs of our Extension agents and meet state requirements for continuing education of licensed pesticide applicators. Solicitation for host sites, either at county Extension offices or Research and Education Centers, and publicizing the event were conducted from November through January. Pesticide applicators registered for the program by contacting their local host site to make reservations, and county Extension agents taking the class for in-service training enrolled through the University of Florida IFAS Program Development & Evaluation Center on-line system. Campus faculty and invited faculty from other universities served as instructors. All speaker presentations were delivered via Polycom or Blue Jeans to University of Florida county Extension offices and Research and Education Center host sites using PowerPoint format. On February 27, 2013, and February 26, 2014, the program was delivered to either 19 (2013) or 12 (2014) satellite host sites throughout the state.

To determine knowledge change, a pre- and post-test with either 13 (2013) or 11 (2014) multiple-choice questions relevant to topic content was developed. All questions contained four possible responses, with only one correct response. The pre-test was administered by host site coordinators to all audience members immediately preceding and the post-test immediately following the program. Pre- and post-tests were paired and graded to obtain means, standard errors, and percentage score improvement (Table 1). Because program content and questions were different each year, data are presented by year.

Table 1.
Difference in Knowledge Scores

2013 (n = 68)
Pre-Test (%)	Post-Test (%)	Difference (%)
62.7	81.3	+18.6
Sd = 2.6	Sd = 2.0
2014 (n = 65)
Pre-Test (%)	Post-Test (%)	Difference (%)
66.7	79.0	+12.3
S2 = 2.3	S = 1.8
2

A separate two-part survey was developed with the first section's objective to measure the attendees' perception of program satisfaction and value. This section used a 5-point Likert scale (5 = very satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 3 = unsure, 2 = dissatisfied, and 1 = very dissatisfied) to ascertain opinions (Table 2). A second portion of the survey included a segment for determining future programming needs of this audience (Table 3). Data for both sections are presented combined for both years. This article reports and discusses selected findings from the survey.

Table 2.
Value and Satisfaction Perceptions

Element	Response Mean1	S2	n
Time Use	4.1	0.8	136
Topics	4.0	0.7	135
Presentations	4.0	0.7	137
Handouts	4.1	0.9	128
1Mean was based on a 5-point scale where 5 = very satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 3 = unsure, 2 = dissatisfied, and 1 = very dissatisfied. 2Standard deviation.

Table 3.
Future Agricultural/Horticultural Program Priority Needs

Responses	Rank	Topic
53	1	Importance of timing and placement of fertilizers for vegetables
50	2	Disease control
47	3	Interaction of nutrients with each other and with soil moisture, pH
45	4	Pest control in organic vegetable production
43	5	Overview of commonly used commercial fertilizer blends

Results and Discussion

Pre-test scores (>62%) of this audience participating both years indicate that they have some baseline level knowledge of current agricultural/horticultural production technology. A comparison of pre- and post-test scores serves as a measure of this audience's short-term learning of agricultural/horticultural technology that was presented during each 1-day event. Their post-tests scores clearly indicate that by the end of the program they had increased their knowledge of the presented information. The improvement in their test scores were 18.6% and 12.3% for 2013 and 2014, respectively. Although this is a measurement of short-term learning, a follow-up evaluation would be needed to better determine any long-term benefit. Pre- and post-tests are relatively easy assessment tools to develop and collect data and are commonly used by Extension professionals in diverse programs (Chapman-Novakofski, DeBruine, Derrick, Karduck, Todd, & Todd, 2004; Guion, Turner, & Wise, 2004; Lippert, Plank, & Radhakrishna, 2000). They also document impact, which is necessary for satisfying both administrative and funding agency purposes.

The majority of the participants expressed satisfaction in the time they invested by attending the program (mean = 4.1). Likewise, they had a positive reception of the topics and the presentation content and delivery (mean = 4.0). Apparently, participants perceive receiving handout materials as a positive (mean = 4.1). This may be due to the fact that handouts assist their learning during the program, but, from an Extension educator's view, it is encouraging to think they may use the information for future reference.

This portion of the survey asked the attendees to mark their top five choices for the next in-service training program. Respondents were also given an option to list other topics they felt needed to be addressed. Of 23 potential choices, the five most popular topics are presented. These five topics were ranked more highly by a relatively large margin over the 18 other potential choices. The highest ranking topic, the importance of timing and placement of fertilizers for vegetables, was identified as a key component of the 4R nutrient stewardship program (Norton & Roberts, 2012; Snyder, Bruulsema, Casarin, Chen, Jaramillo, Jensen, Mikkelsen, Norton, Satyanarayana, & Tu, 2010). Extension personnel have long used such needs assessments to address local audience issues (Etling, 1995).

In summary, it is an efficient use of resources to conduct an Extension program that addresses more than a single audience, when possible, and this can provide benefit to all participating. Extension agents benefit in several ways: a savings of travel time and expense, the opportunity to learn new knowledge from Extension specialists, and an opportunity to make clientele contacts by hosting a program site for their local audiences. In the case with this program, pesticide applicators also gain new knowledge while earning continuing education to meet state licensing requirements.

References

Bennett, C. (1979). Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science, & Education Administration (ES C-575).

Brodeur, C. (2009). University of Florida IFAS Program Development & Evaluation Center (PDEC). Retrieved from: http://pdec.ifas.ufl.edu/

Brown, A. S., Gibson, J. D., & Stewart, D. L. (2008). An assessment of Virginia Cooperative Extension's new Extension agent training program. Journal of Extension [Online], 46(4) Article 4FEA7. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008august/a7.php

Chapman-Novakofski, K, DeBruine, V., Derrick, B., Karduck, J., Todd, J., & Todd, S, (2004). Using evaluation to guide program content: diabetes education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(3) Article 3IAW1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/iw1.php

Etling, A. (1995). Needs assessment: A handbook. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(1) Article 1TOT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995february/tt1.php

Fishel, F. (2014). Partnering with private industry to deliver continuing education to Florida's licensed pesticide applicators. Journal of Extension [Online], 52(1) Article 1TOT10. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2014february/tt10.php

Fishel, F., Ferrell, J., Vallad, G., Price, J., Cherry, R., Mizell, R., & Duncan, L. (2010). Perceptions of Polycom programming for delivery of continuing education to Florida's licensed pesticide applicators. Journal of Extension [Online], 48(2) Article 2TOT4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010april/tt4.php

Fishel, F., & Langeland, K. (2011). Pesticide applicator profiling: using Polycom distance delivery for continuing education and characterizing Florida's licensed applicators. Journal of Extension [Online], 49(2) Article 2TOT7. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/tt7.php

Guion, L. A., Turner, J., & Wise, D. K. (2004). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an elder financial abuse program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(3) Article 3FEA6. Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/a6.php

Lakai, D., Jayaratne, K. S. U., Moore, G. E., & Kistler, M. J. (2012). Barriers and educational strategies to develop Extension agents' professional competencies. Journal of Extension [Online], 50(4) Article 4RIB1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2012august/rb1.php

Lippert, R. M., Plank, O., & Radhakrishna, R. (2000). Beyond perception: a pretest and posttest evaluation of a regional Internet Extension inservice training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(2) Article 2FEA2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/a2.php

McCann, B. M. (2007). The effectiveness of Extension in-service training by distance: perception versus reality. Journal of Extension [Online], 45(1) Article 1FEA4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/a4.php

Norton, R. M., & Roberts, T. L. (2012). Nutrient management to nutrient stewardship. Proceedings of the Australian Agronomy Conference. Retrieved from: 16th "Capturing Opportunities and Overcoming Obstacles in Australian Agronomy," Armidale, October 2012

Snyder, C., Bruulsema, T., Casarin, V., Chen, F., Jaramillo, R., Jensen, T., Mikkelsen, R., Norton, R., Satyanarayana, T., & Tu., S. (2010). Global crop intensification lessens greenhouse gas emissions. Better Crops 94(4): 16-16.

Vergot, P. (2004). Using Web-based interactive video to enhance University of Florida IFAS Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(3) Article 3TOT2. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/tt2.php