Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Output 1: Developed and created participant survey for attendees of the Private Pesticide Safety Education 60 pesticide recertification workshops. The survey was designed to determine the value (measured in various ways) of the workshop for attendees, most of whom are Minnesota farmers. Workshops were held in January and February and survey was mailed out in July. We achieved a 52% response rate. Results shared via a poster at annual meeting of University of Minnesota Extension, and will be further shared with extension educators, government agencies and extension administrators. A peer reviewed publication is planned. Output 2: Working with an evaluation specialist we redesigned the on-site hard copy participant evaluations for our commercial/noncommercial pesticide safety recertication workshops (occupational users of pesticides). Output 3: Redesigned our PowerPoint/ Turning Point audience response devices evaluation questions for Private Pesticide Safety Education Recertification workshops and selected PowerPoint presentations used in all recertification workshops (private, commercial/noncommercial) Outputs 2 and 3 have been shared with extension educators for both formative and summative evaluation purposes, as well as educator annual review/merit documentation. Additionally, results have been shared with Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the state lead agency for pesticide certification. PARTICIPANTS: Amy Mayer, Ph.D. in program evaluation specialist was the lead person in this project. She was hired on a term appointment to conduct outputs 2 and 3 and review output 1. Kassandra Solvie, undergraduate summer intern developed and designed output 1 under guidance from both the pesticide safety education program and University of Minnesota Extension program evaluation team. Tana Haugen Brown is a Pesticide Safety program CoCoordinator with responsibility for Private Pesticide Safety Education and was the over lead for output 1. Dean Herzfeld is Coordinator for Pesticide Safety Education and was overall lead for outputs2 and 3. Additional input/review was provided by large number of educators in the University of Minnesota Extension partners to develop and deliver pesticide safety education and by staff from Minnesota Department of Agriculture, close working partner with pesticide safety education with oversight of pesticide applicator certification in the state. Pesticide Safety Education provided review sessions, Q&A and training with educators on the results of all three output projects. TARGET AUDIENCES: The immediate target audiences of these three output projects were formative evaluation to increase quality of programs offered by the Pesticide Safety Education program and summative evaluation for programs stakeholders (internal and external to extension) to understand program operations and private and public impacts of pesticide safety education. The ultimate target audience are the farmers and professional pesticide applicators who attend pesticide safety education workshops by better designed workshops and presentations resulting in greater behavioral changes to protect pesticide applicators, their co-workers, families and clients; better protect public health and protect food, water , air and nontarget organisms (public goods). PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Output Project 1 has provided insight into learner perceived value of a wide range of presentations made at private pesticide safety education recertification workshops. The most highly rated presentation (value, usefulness and behavioral change) where on personal pesticide safety and on regulatory compliance, two topic areas, given their nature, we expected to be less well received by learners. The open ended comments on the survey provided additional grounding and understanding of the survey results leading directly to a rebalancing of workshop agendas and better ways to construct presentations to address barriers to learner understanding and behavioral change stemming from educational interventions. Output Projects 2 and 3 have resulted in better constructed onsite learner evaluations providing data more relevant to needs of presenters and workshop planners. The results have set the stage for us to further evaluate both TurningPoint audience response technology for evaluation purposes and end of workshop onsite learner program evaluations.
Impacts
Output 1 Outcomes / Impacts: First such survey conducted in Minnesota. Value, usefulness and degree of desired behavioral changes (for safety, health and environmental protection) ratings of each presentations has great value for the program for both summative value (program quality indicator to stakeholders and public) and formative value (insights into development of new presentations). Over all a very high percentage of attendees plan to make one or more behavioral changes per presentation and rated value and usefulness of all but one presentation as high to very high. The importance of this data is hard to overstate in providing accountability to stakeholders and in future program development. Outputs 2 and 3 Outcomes / Impacts: Good design of TurnPoint questions is especially important to obtain desired data using this new technology. The result of these better constructed evaluations has allowed us and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to understand the quality of our workshops and how to better plan future workshops. The results of these two projects have not only improved pesticide safety education workshop evaluation, but educators have taken lessons learned to other extension programs.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|