August 2006
Volume 44 Number 4

Tools of the Trade

Developing Youth Voice in Service Learning Projects

Jacklyn A. Bruce
Assistant Professor
Jab743@psu.edu

Nicole S. Webster
Assistant Professor
Nsw10@psu.edu

Tracy S. Hoover
Associate Professor
Tsh102@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Introduction

Given the rising number of organizations requiring young people to complete service learning activities, it is imperative that educators know if these programs are facilitating the process of learning and development. Because a standardized template does not exist for the implementation of service learning activities, it is difficult to measure how individuals (youth and adults) perceive service learning within youth organizations. Research was conducted to collect preliminary information with the intent to provide a template for educators to use when incorporating service learning activities into their curriculums.

What the Researchers Found

The research team conducted two separate focus group interviews with a pool of young people currently involved in service learning projects through formal academic programs and in extra curricular organizations. In this case, respondents were able to articulate or identify:

• Effective service learning programs including working with participants or community members, educating everyone involved, and learning outside the classroom.

• Service learning is an activity done for the greater good.

• Service learning is a method of learning and teaching with the greatest intent to help, educate, and support other people.

• Young people should have an active and consistent voice in the planning and implementing of service learning activities.

Participants identified service learning activities they were currently involved in or had been a part of in the past years. They identified these activities as annual events that were incorporated into the standard framework of "service" activities done within their school or community organizations.

All respondents felt that their roles in the planning of service learning activities within their organizations were voluntary. They described their involvement as student leaders who organize, plan, and implement the service learning activities or programs. Their comments supported the idea that young adults have the responsibility to be leaders "who step forward and volunteer" and are the voices to drive service related activities.

However, some respondents expressed that in some cases, adult participation overshadowed participation of youth. In these cases, youth perceived adults as "taking over" the ideas of the youth and not allowing the young adults to have a voice in any major decisions. They believed that the adults gave them limited amounts of power and limited access to information in order to make decisions. In these cases, they felt that youth and young adults do not have a voice are not a part of the process.

Respondents emphasized their leadership role in service learning activities as individuals who evaluate the effectiveness and quality of the program. They played an active role in data summary and discussing how to make changes. Although they had expressed the role of adults as a hindrance in other parts of the service learning program, they positively acknowledged the role of adults during this process. The young adults realized the importance of the adult voice during this process despite their interpretation of adult involvement in other parts of the service learning process.

Tools for the Future

The findings of this study emphasize how important it is for educators to incorporate youth voice in the decision-making process of activities within their respective youth organizations. Young people should be active participants who are heard and valued within all aspects of the program.

Adult leaders of youth should be provided with educational opportunities that will maximize their effectiveness as educators. Volunteers should be trained in methods of working with youth that will emphasize the importance and positive impact of youth voice and leadership. Several studies provide evidence that those youth organizations successfully retaining older adolescents offer increased chances to participate in leadership, decision making, and relevant service activities (Kirshner, & O'Donoghue, 2005; Pittman, Tolman, & Yohalem, 2005; & Walker, Marczak, Blyth, & Borden, 2005).

Similar to their adult counterparts, youth should receive educational opportunities in working with different types of people and in various methods or techniques for positive decision making. Simultaneous training will strengthen the framework in which all individuals are working from within the organization.

Educators of all types, formal and non-formal, need to ensure that programs that are provided to youth are developmentally appropriate for the participants. If educators make certain that youth programs are quality programs, fit for the audience that is being addressed, youth taking on leadership responsibilities including decision making will follow naturally, progressively gaining greater levels of responsibility (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). This will provide youth with the "room to grow" to take on the kinds of decision making discussed by young people like those in the research study described above.

Finally, service learning as a method of teaching and learning should continue to be incorporated into all levels and types of programming done in Extension. In continuing this integration, youth and adults need to be educated on all relevant facets of service learning from definition to implementation.

References

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. (2002). (Eds.) Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Kirshner, B., & O'Donoghue, J. (2005). Youth-adult research collaborations: Bringing youth voice to the research process. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development--Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.

Pittman, K., Tolman, J., & Yohalem, N. (2005). Developing a comprehensive agenda for out-of-school hours: Lessons and challenges across cities. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development--Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.

Walker, J., Marczak, M., Blyth, D., & Borden, L. (2005). Designing youth development programs: Toward a theory of developmental intentionally. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development--Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.

Student Focus Groups Reveal Impacts of 4-H Program

Robin Galloway
4-H Youth Development Faculty
Oregon State University Extension Service
Corvallis, Oregon
robin.galloway@oregonstate.edu

Kenneth Peterson
Curriculum & Instruction Professor
Portland State University School of Education
Portland, Oregon
petersk@pdx.edu

Michael Dalton
Project Director
Oregon State University College of Education
Corvallis, Oregon
michael.dalton@oregonstate.edu

As Extension professionals, we need to evaluate programs to know that what we're doing is having a positive and productive impact. This article summarizes how student focus groups validated perceived program strength for 4-H Wildlife Stewards (4-H WS).

Background

The concept of 4-H WS is to promote science learning and environmental stewardship among youth. Sustainable wildlife habitat sites are created on school grounds through a partnership of 4-H, trained volunteers, and school staff. To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, a series of focus groups was conducted with students.

Focus Group Methodology

We used focus groups as described by the American Statistical Association (1997):

Focus groups are . . . in-depth, qualitative interviews with a small number of carefully selected people brought together to discuss . . . . Unlike the one-way flow of information in a one-on-one interview, focus groups generate data through the give and take of group discussion. Listening as people share and compare their different points of view provides a wealth of information--not just about what they think, but why they think the way they do.

Focus groups are a form of qualitative research. When designing the questions we considered:

• How to obtain student perceptions of their involvement
• Asking each group the same questions
• Pre-approval by the university Institutional Review Board.

Focus groups were held spring 2005 to hear the views of 4th - 6th grade students who had been involved with 4-H WS for 2 years. School principals, teachers, and parents supplied names and gave permission for inclusion of the project. Five to seven students participated at six different schools in four counties.

The same moderator was used for each school. Children's responses were recorded on audio and video tape, and with a human note-taker. We learned that two video/audio cameras are essential to ensure complete information when there are technology failures! Each child was encouraged to participate as fully as he or she wanted and to tell us his or her opinions on each question.

Students-Reported Results

Students self-reported that 4-H WS is a positive and attractive educational experience that greatly enriched their school science education. Participants could name and describe science concept attainment that was uniquely fostered by 4-H Wildlife Stewards. They said that their attitudes toward science, school, and each other were improved as a result of participation.

Value of Schoolyard Learning Expressed

Focus group dynamics varied by school, depending on whether students were in the same home classroom. At all locations, there was agreement about the value of "place based" educational themes. Schools are the place where 4-H WS programs enabled students to get outside, do hands-on science, get involved in their neighborhoods, do work which helped the environment and school, and learn about nature. Many basic educational theories were validated. For example, they studied things they cared about--now at home and later in life.

Reality Increases Learning

Occasionally, students appeared to enjoy the opportunity to educate the grown-up facilitators, e.g., informing us that adults should become aware of how chemicals can enter water systems. In several cases, youth cited increased pride in their schools as a result of their outdoor habitats. They took care of habitat areas and became more aware of the appearance of the outdoor components of their schools, and how other people saw them.

In the groups we strove to ask questions in a permissive, non-threatening environment, encouraging students to be candid. When students were challenged that outdoor learning was not as important as school science, they disagreed. They pointed to increased learning because of the reality they encountered. They said that classroom learning was enhanced by the 4-H WS activities.

The moderator visited the school's habitat before the session began. That allowed her to jog the students' memories by reminding them of details regarding their own schoolyard. Children reported specific, memorable, thematic activities like community or butterfly gardens, stream rehabilitation, or cataloging trees. There were strong payoffs and outcomes described by students involved.

Participants could name and describe science concept attainment that was uniquely fostered by 4-H Wildlife Stewards. In the give and take of focus group discussion, participants described concepts and specific learnings tied to local activities and settings. Youth mentioned concepts about the personal nature of scientific inquiry, adaptation, and the role of ecology in neighborhood life.

Academics and Attitudes Revealed

Encouraging participants to expand on their comments provided additional insights. When a child would start talking about something not on the routine questions, we asked for more information. From this we found unexpected support for separate standardized achievement testing programs (e.g., state benchmark tests) at some schools. Students said that their testing was improved because they recognized major concepts such as nutrient cycles or environmental interaction.

In addition to the science content, the focus groups were designed to reveal attitudes. Students said that their attitudes toward science, school, and each other were improved as a result of being involved with the 4-H WS experience. A common theme was that students saw science to be LESS distant, unlikable, fearful, difficult, boring, and inaccessible. The willingness to report these issues varied between classmates, their comfort levels with each other, and the recorded process.

One question explored the relationship between 4-H WS science and classroom science. Some teachers used 4-H WS as an integral part of their classroom science program, while others used it as an adjunct. Several groups said that 4-H WS replaces "chapters in books" or kits. Students could think of even more connections that could be made with classrooms, e.g., writing or art assignments that could be done outdoors.

Conclusion

Student focus groups told a powerful story about the effectiveness and impacts of the 4-H Wildlife Stewards program. Auditory and visual feedback from students on their experiences served as an invaluable evaluation tool. In their own words, students demonstrated the value of classic Extension methodology: doing, reflecting, and applying knowledge.

References

4-H Wildlife Stewards, Oregon State University: www.wildlifestewards.4h.oregonstate.edu

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Keeping Teens Involved Through State 4-H Exchanges

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

Situation

A University of Idaho study of Idaho youth (Goodwin, Barnett, Pike, Peutz, Lanting, & Ward, 2005) indicates how important 4-H is to the positive development of young people. The research indicated that youth who participated in 4-H for 2 or more years are significantly better at avoiding risky life style choices than youth who did not participate in the program. Teens involved in 4-H are also more likely to take on leadership roles in their clubs, schools and community. The study also showed that 4-H members in Idaho are more likely to have a positive view of their role in the community and the future. These youth are more likely to have better relationships with adults and report that adults look at them as valuable assets to the community,

Idaho 4-H Enrollment, A 5-Year View 2000-2004, (Idaho State 4-H Office, November 2004), reports a decline in teenage 4-H members by grade. Figure one shows the number of youth by grade participating in 4-H. In 2004, there were 22,560 members in grades third to fifth, 9,115 members in grades sixth through eighth, and 4,378 members enrolled in grades ninth through twelfth. Traditionally, youth development programs like 4-H have lost participation from older teens due to school activities, work requirements, and family responsibilities. Creative programs that keep teens involved in 4-H are especially important because they encourage individuals to have a positive self-identity and give them the confidence to become positive role models for younger children.

Figure1.
Idaho 4-H Youth by Grade Distribution

The Exchanges

State-to-state 4-H teen exchange programs provide an opportunity to visit different regions of the United States. While on an exchange, teens experience different cultures, participate in educational and fun activities, share in leadership opportunities, and learn to be involved and active in community programs.

Exchange programs are a great opportunity to experience life in a different part of the nation or even the world. Since 1997, 4-H teens, adult volunteers, and University of Idaho Extension faculty from Minidoka County have traveled to visit other places as well as host youth and adults from Kansas, Montana, Indiana, and Minnesota. Plans are underway to visit Texas, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire in 2006.

Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association members and advisors coordinate, raise funds, and participate in the exchanges. The first exchange involved six Minidoka County teens and one adult who traveled to Kansas by passenger train in 1997. The following year teens and adults from Kansas visited Idaho and learned about the culture and community. The 2005 Idaho exchange involved 15 teens and six adults from Minnesota. Many of the Minidoka County teens hosting the group were part of the exchange that traveled to Minnesota the previous summer.

Youth and adults from both states enjoyed becoming reacquainted and sharing their respective states customs and cultures. While in Idaho for 7 days, the group of Idaho and Minnesota 4-Hers visited the state capitol in Boise, toured the Minidoka Irrigation District, visited historical buildings, learned how to cook in Dutch ovens, participated in a local radio program, and shopped for souvenirs. The group also toured area sites of interest, including the University of Idaho Fish Culture Experiment Station, an alligator farm, Shoshone Falls Dam and power plant, a planetarium, and the Pomerelle Ski Resort. Youth enjoyed spending time with their host families, attended a melodrama, went cosmic bowling, made pottery, floated the Snake River, and had lots of opportunity for good food and new friends.

Fundraising

Fund raising is an important part of state-to-state exchanges. The Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association maintains individual accounts for the teens who are active participants in fundraising activities. Thirty percent of the net profit from each fundraiser is deposited into the general account, with the remaining 70% divided among the teens who helped with the event. Fund raisers include:

• "Get Your Goat" activity
• Pie sales
• July 4th rodeo food booth
• Silent auctions
• Livestock jackpot shows
• County fair community dance

Many committee leadership opportunities are available, enabling more teens to build organizational and leadership skills. Teens also receive additional funds in their accounts if they are association officers, serve on committees, teach workshops, or volunteer to help at the county fair. Teens can use the money in their account to fund any 4-H activity, including state-to-state exchanges, State Ambassador Conference, National Congress, and camp. Successful fund raising allows many teens to participate who otherwise could not afford to and creates less of a burden on individual family budgets.

Developing Life Skills

Exchange programs are not limited to developing new friendships and enjoying sightseeing opportunities. Fund raising, promotion, and planning create many opportunities for teens to sharpen their leadership, communication, and organizational skills. As a result, teens who participate in exchanges have also become active in state and national leadership positions and have been awarded national scholarships and trips. Exchanges are fun and an effective tool to develop strong life skills such as accepting differences, problem solving, and teamwork.

Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association members are active in their project clubs, in schools, and in their communities. The state-to-state 4-H teen exchange program has created interest in 4-H programs for older youth and strengthened the entire county program. As a result, there are more experienced teen youth able to mentor younger members. Involvement in 4-H by older members has encouraged more youth to participate in 4-H club work and non-traditional 4-H activities.

The Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association currently has 44 active members, or 28% of 4-Hers 13 and older. Sixty percent of these teens have participated in activities beyond the county level, including state-to-state exchanges, leadership activities, state teen conference, 4-H State Ambassadors, and national trips. Approximately 90% of the teens who become involved in the Minidoka County 4-H Teen Association continue to be active 4-H members until they graduate from high school. The Idaho study reports that youth like these continue to receive what they need to succeed in life: the confidence, compassion, and connections with caring adults to make contributions to their communities.

References

Goodwin J., Barnett C., Pike M., Peutz J., Lanting R., & Ward A., (2005). Idaho 4-H impact. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(4). Article 4FEA4. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005august/a4.shtml

Idaho State 4-H Office, (2004). Idaho 4-H enrollment, A 5-year view 2000-2004.

Altering Adult-Based Beef Quality Assurance Curriculum for Youth Education

John Yost
Extension Agent, Fayette Co.
Washington Courthouse, Ohio
yost.77@osu.edu

Stephen Boyles
Beef Specialist
Columbus, Ohio
boyles.4@osu.edu

Ohio State University

Background

Youth educators are often faced with the challenge of adapting materials to a youth audience. As the complexity of the materials increases, so does the challenge of determining a method for presenting it to youth.

There is a need to educate youth producers on the importance of responsible livestock management. Efforts have been made to inform youth about the importance of avoiding chemical residues (Goodwin, 1998; Nold & Hanson, 2001), and making ethical decisions (Goodwin, 1996; Goodwin, Murphy, & Briers, 2002). This article describes the youth application of adult materials on cattle handling.

Methods

A handbook and miniaturized corral kits were created to provide a hands-on, learning module for adults. A scenario for a program is as follows.

1. The program is held in an auction facility.

2. Participants hear lecture on corral design.

3. Participants are divided into three groups.

4. Teams utilize one of the kits to develop a corral.

5. Everyone comes back together.

6. An evaluation form is distributed.

7. The teams defend their designs.

The challenges to overcome were: 1) modifying the program so it is applicable for all project species and 2) ensuring equal participation by all youth participants. The scenario of the program is as follows.

1. A pre-program evaluation is given to test initial skills.

2. A presentation is given related to the evaluation questions.

3. Participants are divided into groups of 10 based on 4-H/FFA project species.

4. Each group is given a sheet of "flip chart" paper and a felt marker.

5. Groups draw the type of facilities they need for their projects.

6. The groups are asked to present their facilities. No critiquing allowed.

7. A post-program evaluation is given.

Instrument

The study was composed of 273 4-H and FFA youth ranging in age from 8 to 19 years old. Participants were engaged in livestock projects. The instrument was administered as a pre-program and post-program evaluation (Table 1).

Statistical Analysis

The correct answers by each student were calculated within each question for both pre- and post-test surveys. A one-way ANOVA was used.

Results

The percent correct answers increased for all questions except for question 5 relating to flight zones for animals (Table 2). Changes were also seen in the number of youth identifying all possible correct answers for each question.

While a specific question may indicate an overall improvement, there may be a decline in percent correct answers for one or more answers within a question. There was a 10.5% improvement in the percent of correct answers for question 1. Answer A increased 22.3%, and answer B increased 20.5%, but there was a decline in successful responses for answer C of Æ10.2%. With the exception of answer 1C, all negative changes were not significant. Participants increased their knowledge of safe animal handling.

Conclusions

The format of the program provided a means for participation by all members. There was observable interaction of older and younger participants during the drawing sessions. The younger participants had an opportunity to learn from the more experienced youth and yet provide equal input on the drawings. Each member is encouraged to voice contribution to the project. Through development of the facility and presentation of the drawing, members are able to develop their communication, teamwork, and leadership skills.

References

Goodwin, J. L., Murphy, T., & Briers, G. (2002). Measuring the ethical cognition effects of a videotape livestock show ethics eeducation program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/rb2.shtml

Goodwin, J. L. (1998). Quality assurance: Strengthening the chain of wholesome food production [Videotape]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Instructional Materials Service.

Goodwin, J. L. (1996). The line in the sand [Videotape]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Instructional Materials Service.

Nold, R., & Hanson, D. (2001). Effectiveness of quality assurance training for youth. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/a4.html

Culture and Parenting: A Guide for Delivering Parenting Curriculums to Diverse Families

Lenna L. Ontai
Family Specialist in Cooperative Extension
lontaigrz@ucdavis.edu

Ann M. Mastergeorge
Adjunct Professor and Researcher
ammastergeorge@ucdavis.edu

University of California, Davis

Introduction

Extension has a long history of providing resources for practitioners and educators who work with parents and families. These resources are often in the form of curriculums based on parenting research conducted largely with white, middle-class families. As a result, many current materials focus on a narrow range of acceptable behaviors and practices in parenting, with little information about how these practices may vary appropriately for diverse audiences. As the cultural make-up of parents in Extension classes changes, there is a need for practitioners and parent educators to have access to information on how culture may shape parenting values, goals, and behaviors.

To begin to understand how diversity issues are addressed or neglected in current parenting curriculums and practices, the Families with Young Children Workgroup at the University of California <http://groups.ucanr.org/kids/> conducted a two-part needs assessment that 1) used interviews with local collaborators and agencies that work directly with parents and 2) systematically reviewed commonly used parenting curriculums. The interview questions asked practitioners to reflect on parenting topics they saw as varying among different cultural and ethnic groups with which they work.

Practitioners expressed an awareness of cultural variations in parenting practices across a range of parenting domains (e.g., discipline, communication, feeding) and saw that these variations resulted in a range of acceptable and appropriate parenting behaviors. In other words, practitioners who were interviewed did not express that there was one optimal set of behaviors for parents to raise healthy children. Instead, some practitioners said that they commonly alter or amend curriculums they are using to reflect these variations. For instance, one practitioner who commonly works with Hispanic and Latino parents said with regards to gender roles " . . . Hispanic families don't think it is appropriate for boys to do chores that involve things like cooking and cleaning, so we don't even include those things if it is in a curriculum we are using."

In contrast, the review of commonly used parenting curriculums delivered a different message. Instead of talking about a range of parenting behaviors that may be practiced by different cultural groups, curriculums tended to advocate for one type of practice or behavior. Furthermore, it was usually the case that the perspective taken was for practices common to white, middle-class families. This can make it difficult for practitioners to choose an appropriate curriculum when working with non-white, middle-class groups of parents or diverse groups of parents.

This is compounded by the fact that different cultural groups may also be looking for different types of information when attending parenting classes. For instance, some practitioners reported that Hispanic parents tend to use the groups for on-going support and resources rather than for certificates or units. Thus, curriculums are commonly tailored by the staff to meet the perceived needs of the clientele. These practitioners expressed the need for resources that address diversity across common parenting domains (e.g., discipline, communication) rather than another curriculum because the diversity of groups can vary greatly and the variation among common practices can vary even among one cultural group. Because these curricular variations are not addressed in commonly used curriculums, practitioners felt a guide would be useful to help them support and inform parents around pertinent parenting issues.

Culture and Parenting Guide

In response to this need, the Families with Young Children Workgroup at the University of California developed a guide for practitioners and educators. The goal was to draw upon the extensive body of research on culture and human development to provide background information that would allow practitioners and educators to understand how diverse family contexts may shape parenting values and goals.

For example, practitioners and educators may be surprised when a Latino mother consults with not only her husband but also her parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins when making major decisions about her children. While it is common for parent educators to talk about "family decision making," it is usually in reference to the mother, father, and children, but not to extended family members.

Implementing a shared language and acknowledging the diversity of appropriate parenting practices builds a sense of trust and acceptance between the educator and client. Giving educators access to background knowledge rather than a prescribed curriculum allows them to use the knowledge effectively across a variety of contexts, while acknowledging the enormous diversity of cultures represented across the population.

Culture and Parenting: A Guide for Delivering Parenting Curriculums to Diverse Families allows educators to draw upon research-based information to evaluate the cultural sensitivity of programs and services they offer families. The guide is structured around areas typically addressed in parenting curriculums: communication, discipline, emotional bonding, family structure and roles, gender role development, play, and sleeping arrangements.

Each section contains a brief review of the main research findings related to parenting goals. These findings are also translated to provide exemplars regarding the range of parenting behaviors that may result from different cultural belief systems.

Because the goal of the guide is to encourage educators to review the curriculums and methods they use, checklists for each section are provided. The checklists encourage educators to think about how culture may shape parenting behaviors in each area, and to develop an understanding of alternative behaviors that they may observe in families they serve.

Conclusion

As the population of families continues to become increasingly diverse, services that support them must be equipped to address this diversity appropriately. While there is a wealth of parenting curriculums available, there is a lack of resources available that guide educators on how to address diversity in parenting behaviors of their clientele. The culture and parenting guide provides practitioners and educators with a supplement to existing parenting curriculums. It is designed to encourage reflection on the implementation of curriculums they are using and to promote critical thinking about how culture may shape parents' values, goals and behaviors with their children.

To download or order Culture and Parenting: A Guide for Delivering Parenting Curriculums to Diverse Families, visit <http://groups.ucanr.org/kids/>.

Building Trust in Local Community Organizations: Where Do We Start, and How Can We Make a Difference?

James Barnes
Director and Assistant Professor
Delta Rural Development Center
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
jbarnes@agcenter.lsu.edu

Sheila Haynes
West Carroll Parish Chair and Extension Agent
shaynes@agcenter.lsu.edu

LSU Agricultural Center
Oak Grove, Louisiana

Introduction

For decades, social science research has emphasized that a positive relationship exists between trust among citizens in a local region and that region's economic performance or prosperity; citizens who trust one another exchange ideas, goods, and services within local community boundaries, all of which bodes well for local economic development (Granovetter, 1985; Putnam, 1993a; Coleman, 2002). Therefore, building trust in local community organizations represents a viable strategy for economic development (Putnam, 1993b). Trust, or social capital, refers to the mutual confidence that no party involved in the exchange of goods or services will exploit others (Cohen & Fields, 1999). That is, if citizens in a community hold each other accountable for their actions over time, a foundation is built that allows for the development of trust. Thus, accountability precedes the development of trust and the economic prosperity of communities (Holland, 2002; Knack & Zak, 2005).

But from a practical, Extension perspective, where do we start to work in local communities to build trust? And how can we make a difference in the development of trust at the local level? In this article, we propose that the process should begin by working with local board members who govern a wide variety of community organizations, such as hospitals, schools, chambers of commerce, agricultural cooperatives, and water districts. We propose that Extension professionals should begin work with boards for a simple reason: board performance affects the allocation of resources and therefore the structure of investment incentives in communities.

Board performance, however, depends on the presence of trust among members. Great, high-performance boards have members who hold each other accountable and, in doing so, create a foundation for relationships based on trust (Sonnenfeld, 2002). Board members who struggle for power and focus more on discussions rather than decisions at meetings are likely to spend greater resources required for decision making. The result is the process of decision making, and the quality of decisions, becomes stymied. Simply put, great boards have members who trust each other, and trust serves as the glue that binds them together while they strive to improve the organizations in which they govern.

The Tool

The easy task is to realize that building trust among board members is essential to effective decision making. The difficult task is deciding what should be the first step taken to help build trust. We recommend focusing on improving accountability for new board members and reinforcing the importance of accountability among seasoned members.

In what follows, we provide a list of 22 questions that every potential member should consider before joining any board--the board member accountability and expectations (BMAE) tool. Truthfully answering these questions can prevent misunderstandings (and potential conflict) among existing and new board members. These questions provide a beginning tool for improving accountability among board members. The fundamental key point is: the more clearly defined the expectations of board member service, the more clearly we can determine accountability, reduce conflict, and provide a relational foundation suitable to build trust among board members. The BMAE questionnaire tool asks each potential board member the following.

1. Do you have industry-specific experience that will help this board?

2. Do you understand what is expected of you in terms of attending meetings, involvement in the decision-making process, service on committees, and other responsibilities?

3. Do you understand the financial health of the organization?

4. Are you familiar with board member term limits and history of turnover?

5. Do you know of recent conflicts among members?

6. How familiar are you with the board members who currently serve?

7. Do you know the majority of current board members?

8. Have you read through the last 12 months of board minutes to understand some of the problems of the organization?

9. Do you understand the process for replacing board members?

10. Do you understand how the board evaluates its performance on an annual basis?

11. Do you understand how the board will evaluate your performance on an annual basis?

12. Does this board provide you with sufficient resources to improve your skills as a board member?

13. Does this board engage in meaningful strategic planning?

14. Have you read the strategic plan the board has produced?

15. Do you understand how often the chief executive office or director of the organization has been replaced?

16. Are you expected to make any financial donations?

17. Would there be conflicts of interest if you join the board?

18. Were you asked to join this board without viewing by-laws?

19. Were you asked to join this board without understanding the day-to-day operations of the organization?

20. What is the personal cost in time and other resources you will have to devote to service?

21. Is there a new member orientation process that explains your basic responsibilities as well as liabilities for being a board member?

22. Have the board members been recently involved in any lawsuits for ethics violations or other infractions?

Conclusion

Much of the social science literature on trust and governance supports building trust in local community organizations as a viable strategy for improving economic development of organizations and regions. If the social science research is correct, sizable economic gains await each organization, community, and region that invests time and other resources aimed at building trust. Extension professionals can begin working with existing boards using the BMAE tool (questions 1-22) (Barnes, Woods, Frye, & Ralstin, 2004). The tool can be used to strengthen accountability and build trust among members by reducing potential miscommunications about new board member expectations.

References

Barnes, J., Woods, M., Frye, J, & Ralstin, S. What is a healthy board?

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, F-929.

Cohen, S. & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in silicon valley. California Management Review, 41(2), 108-130.

Coleman, J. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, S95-S120.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

Holland, T. (2002). Board accountability: Lessons from the field. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 409-428.

Knack, S., & Zak, P. (2005). Building trust: Public policy, interpersonal trust, and economic development. Supreme Court Economic Review (forthcoming).

Putnam, R. (1993a). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4, 37-44.

Putnam, R. (1993b). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sonnenfeld, J. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 9, 1-8.

Evaluation of an E-Learning Online Pecan Management Course

Eric T. Stafne
Assistant Professor and Extension Horticulturist
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
eric.t.stafne@okstate.edu

B. Dean McCraw
Professor Emeritus
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
dean.mccraw@okstate.edu

Phil G. Mulder
Professor and Extension Entomologist
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
phil.mulder@okstate.edu

Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma

Introduction

In February 2004, an online pecan management course was launched to educate pecan growers and assist them with decision making (OSU Online Pecan Management Course, 2004). The interactive course was designed for both experienced pecan producers and first-time pecan producers. The original concept was to complement the Pecan Short Course taught at Oklahoma State University (OSU) as a way of saving classroom instruction time. It would dramatically decrease the number of personal contact hours for instructors and also cater to those individuals who have an interest in pecan production but cannot travel to take the Pecan Short Course. Because the course is offered online, there is no restriction based on state, region, or country. Anyone is eligible to participate in the online course as long as the registration fee is paid (currently $75).

Tabulated Usage

Since the inception of the course in February of 2004, only 24 persons have paid the registration fee. Fifteen persons registered in 2004, and only 9 in 2005. Registrants represent 11 different states. Of the 24 total registered users, 11 are from Oklahoma, 3 from Texas, 2 from Arkansas, and one each from Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Missouri. Participants in the 2005 Pecan Short Course were allowed free access to the course; however, only 18 of the 37 students registered. The design of the online course did not allow for feedback in the form of surveys or number of page hits.

Perceived Problems

The Oklahoma Pecan Growers' Association (OPGA) has a membership of over 400. Oklahoma is typically in the top 5 pecan producing states in the United States and is in the top 3 states for number of pecan farms. Because it is an Internet-based course, growers from any state have access to the site. Why, then, is the participation level so poor for this online course? A list of potential problem areas is given below:

1. Low computer literacy of pecan growers,

2. No or poor access to Internet,

3. Long download time of pages,

4. Experience level of grower precluding further education,

5. High perceived cost, and

6. Potential users lack of awareness that it exists

Potential Solutions

Computer literacy of pecan growers is a large obstacle because many of the pecan growers are older and have not used the technology extensively. A recent contracted mail survey done in 2003 on behalf of the OPGA and the OSU Cooperative Extension Service indicated that 41% of pecan growers in Oklahoma are over age 64 and 67% are over age 55. The survey also indicated that 43% of respondents have no Internet access and another 21% use the internet only once a week or once a month. Another 51% of survey respondents indicated that they had no interest in taking an online pecan course.

Although pecan growers are usually well educated (nearly 50% have a college degree), their age and opportunity to learn new technological advances have been limiting factors. There exists recalcitrance, especially in older individuals, to learn new technology. The online course was designed to be user-friendly, so hands-on demonstrations at venues such as Extension and commodity group conferences could boost participation.

Many pecan growers in Oklahoma and other pecan-producing states live in rural areas that may have no access to the Internet or only limited access through dial-up connections. Most of the pages within the online course have photos that inhibit fast download times. The frustration level of trying to download each page of the course could be another factor in the low registration. The solution to this problem is difficult. Conversion of the course to text-only is not a viable option to maintain the desired educational outcome. However, new technologies such as satellite-based Internet access are being developed that may allow even rural growers the opportunity to experience the course in the future.

Because many pecan growers have a farming background, it is possible that they believe further education is something they do not need. Often growers only engage Extension personnel when there is a problem to be solved, not for preparatory or preventative measures such as education. The way to combat this misconception is to present seasoned growers with brochures and hands-on demonstrations during field visits or annual conferences.

Potential participants can access a limited number of pages to familiarize themselves with the course set-up and allow them to gauge whether or not they wish to pay the registration fee. The cost for the online course is currently $75 for one year's worth of access. Perhaps potential users believe that there is sufficient free material about pecans on the Internet so that they do not need to pay for the online course. The difference is that the online course reinforces learned material through self-assessment quizzes. It is also a "one-stop shop" for pecan educational resources that cover a wide range of topics.

The online program should be dynamically advertised so that more people know where to find the page. This could be accomplished through more far-reaching Extension publications. An article in Pecan South magazine introduced the course to readers and included all necessary registration information (Mulder, 2004), that likely led to the diversity observed in terms of different state participation. Follow-up articles in key producer publications are needed for reinforcement and to reach a broader audience. Brochures are available upon request; however, they are not distributed at meetings or shows and are not available online as a first introductory information source for what potential registrants can expect.

Conclusions

The online OSU Pecan Management course has not been effective as an educational tool for the pecan growers of Oklahoma and other pecan growing states for several reasons. Yet, the number of states represented by the current registrants suggests that an opportunity exists for more extensive utilization of the course. However, the online course has been in existence for two years and the low registration numbers indicate that a more active approach is needed to improve enrollment. If the online course continues to draw insufficient interest, other options such as offering a CD version may make the course more tenable. A broader spectrum of advertising the online course through publications and word-of-mouth needs to be done to reach the intended audience.

References

OSU Online Pecan Management Course. (2004). Retrieved Dec. 21, 2005, from http://pecan.okstate.edu

Mulder, P.G. (2004). Pecan e-learning reaches the Internet. Pecan South 36(11):4.

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.