Living on the Land Curriculum Expansion and Instructor Trainings

The Bozeman, Montana training, held on July 22 - 23, 2008, was attended by 33 participants with the following affiliations:

Extension personnel 20
Other University personnel 4
Other Federal/State/County 3
Conservation District 3
NRCS/RC&D 1
NGO 2

Representation by states included:
Arizona - 1
California - 2
Colorado - 3
Idaho - 4
Indiana - 1
Minnesota - 1
Montana - 12
Nevada - 3
Washington - 3
Wyoming - 2
South Africa - 1

The second training workshop, held in Albuquerque, New Mexico on September 30 – October 1, 2008, was attended by 27 participants with the following affiliations:

Extension personnel 22
Other University personnel 3
NGO 2

Representation by states included:
America Samoa - 1
Arizona - 1
California - 2
Colorado - 2
Illinois - 1
Iowa - 1
Nebraska - 1
Nevada - 3
New Mexico - 5
Oregon - 3
South Dakota - 3
Utah - 2
Washington - 1
Wisconsin - 1

The trainings focused on building skills for working with adult learners; helping educators develop and deliver small-acreage education programs; and increasing familiarity with curriculum contents and activities. The outline for the training is attached at the end of the hard copy of this report. Each workshop included many hands-on activities that can be used in small-acreage programs. We also visited two small-acreage properties during each training. Participants completed the resource inventory activity from Module 1 during the tours.

In Bozeman, with assistance from Wendy Williams, our local NRCS contact, we toured the 10-acre property of a Living on the Land class participant, Jen Mohler, who has focused on developing sustainable pastures for her horses, and Story Hill Farm (Bob Schaap), a small-acreage property incorporating family sustainability, some energy generation onsite, building soils, specialty crops (herbs, etc.) in a greenhouse and in keyhole gardens, direct marketing techniques, grazing to control weeds, and youth education. Story Hill Farm is included as a case study in Module 7.

In Albuquerque, with help from the local NRCS team of Ana Gomes and Jean Foster, we visited Ironwood Farm (Chris and Jenny Altenbach). Ironwood Farm is a 10-acre property where the small-acreage farmers are experimenting with self-sufficiency and sustainability. They raise livestock and vegetables, flood-irrigate pastures that are managed by the Savory method, and are investigating commercial enterprises. Their house is off-grid with energy generated primarily by solar panels. The second stop was at Chispas Farm, a certified organic operation with direct marketing at growers’ markets, and cultivation of heritage varieties.

An additional 90-minute workshop was provided by Sue Donaldson and Stephanie Etter at the Galaxy III conference in Indianapolis on Sept. 16, 2008. The training was attended by 40 people, many of whom were from Purdue Extension. Content included overview to the curriculum and instructor’s guide; adult learners and learning styles; developing a small-acreage program; selected activities; and a question/answer period.

In November, 2009, at the request of Albuquerque trainee James Theuri, Sue Donaldson participated in a training for 25 University of Illinois Extension employees interested in implementing small-acreage programming. Theuri and colleague Ellen Phillips piloted Living on the Land in Kankakee, Illinois in fall, 2009 and received commitments to offer at least 6 additional programs in Illinois in 2010.

Web site and listserve development

At the request of program participants, two additional tools were developed in 2008: a program Web site for educators, and an email listserve that can be used to post questions and share information. The Web site, www.livingontheland.info, requires a password to access. By collecting requests for access, we can monitor site use and conduct additional evaluations. The Web site, which is hosted on the UNCE server, includes links to the curriculum files, additional materials contributed by participants, resources, a photo gallery of shared photos for participants to contribute to or use, and an updated master file of Web sites that participants can use to update the original lesson plans. This list of Web sites will be updated every 6 months. In 2009, we began adding a “What’s New” section to the Web site to share new ideas and resources.

Login: livingontheland
Password: LOL:2008

Curriculum distribution

The curriculum has been mass-produced on a CD (3,000 copies). As of December 31, 2009, 874 copies of the CD had been distributed. Copies of the CD are available to Living on the Land participants by request and no charge, thanks to funding from WSARE. Additionally, copies of the CD may be requested from the Living on the Land Web site, livingontheland.info, at no cost to recipients. Contact information is required for all those receiving the curriculum and a database has been constructed to track curriculum use.

Survey of training participants

In addition to participant training and CD distribution, we also focused on collecting information from training participants about what they had learned and how they intend to use the curriculum. Each participant completed a post-workshop survey consisting of a rating of their skills and abilities and knowledge of curriculum materials, as well as eight open-ended questions. The quantitative data is provided in the hard copy of this final report. We used a post-pre design for the evaluation, which was administered at the end of the workshop. Participants were asked to rate their knowledge of different subjects before and after the workshops on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “very limited knowledge” to 5 being “very knowledgeable.”

The greatest gains in knowledge, overall, occurred for:
•Developing a small-acreage program
•Module 1 (setting goals and inventorying resources)
•Module 8 (sustainability)
•Module 4 (wildfire)
•Module 7 (enterprises)
•Engaging adult learners

Response summaries from the eight open-ended questions and a compilation of comments from the 2-day training participants are summarized below. Because the field trips were so different at each of the trainings, the responses to questions about the field trip have been separated by training.

1. List one or more new techniques or ideas you learned on the field trip.
Bozeman
Topic # 0f Responses
Resource inventory 6
Livestock weed control 6
Solar energy 4
Pasture stick 4
Energy balance 3
Greenhouse profitability 2
Keyhole gardens 2
Multiple intelligences 2
Work-in-progress vs. ideal 2
Raised beds 1
Sheet mulching 1
Pasture/corral layout 1
Irrigation management 1
Permaculture 1
Beneficial insects 1
Systems approach 1
Companion planting 1
Conservation plan 1

Albuquerque
Topic # of Responses
Straw bale houses 5
Irrigation tricks/methods 5
Sustainability/systems approach 4
Cultural practices/growing methods 3
Delivery methods for program 2
Recycled materials 2
Seed saving 2
Community supported agriculture (CSA) 2
Living off the grid 2
Aquaculture 2
Polycultures 1
Pastured poultry 1
Marketing 1
Multiple animal species 1

 
2. What did you learn from the landowner’s perspective related to their involvement in the Living on the Land program? (applied only to the Bozeman training; New Mexico had not historically offered the program)

Respect their wishes/vision,
don’t impose your vision on them 10
We need to help them gain knowledge 10
It can be overwhelming to think
of the whole system/set goals 10
Did not know landowners were
part of LOL (NM) 7
Sustainability 5

3. How will knowing the characteristics of adult learners help you plan and carry out your small acreage program?

Use multiple intelligences learning 22
Target specific audiences 15
Increase hand-on activities 13
Recruitment 3

4. What new ideas did you learn from the evaluation and sustaining programs, marketing and delivery presentations that you will use in your programming?

Evaluation and sustaining programs
Focus groups 8
Follow-up (success stories,alumni, 7
participants become instructors)
Outcome -driven evaluation/Logic model 5
Pre-post questions 3
Time-saving methods 2

Marketing and delivery methods
Target marketing 10
Direct marketing 7
Learning styles 3
Activities versus lectures 2

5. What new ideas or presentation techniques did you learn from attending the Living on the Land training?

Use of activities (in general or specific activity mentioned) 30
Multiple intelligences 16
Reduce PowerPoint use 5

 
6. As you reviewed the training material, were there specific subjects you would like to add to the curriculum?

None/ask after review or use 14
Renewable resources/ alternative energy/
reduced fuels use 4
Farm equipment/machinery 3
Forestry 3
Functional landscaping 2

Single vote subjects:
Construction ideas
Composting
Plant science
Livestock financing and budgeting
Haying for profit
Feeds and feeding
Backyard poultry
Realtors training
Ecotourism
Private property issues
Rural/urban interface
Neighboring issues
More success stories

7. What topics were most useful to you?

All 6
Tours 10
Needs assessment/program development 9
Multiple intelligences 5
Adult learners 11
Marketing/delivery methods 9
Evaluation/sustaining programs 5
Module 1 Setting Goals 8
Module 2 Soils 6
Module 3 Water 7
Module 4 Fire 6
Module 5 Grass 6
Module 6 Animals 3
Module 7 Marketing 13
Module 8 Sustainability 8
Instructors Guide 1
Don’t Know 1
 
8. How do you plan to use the Living on the Land Curriculum?

Use as a foundation for my own program 10
Use all or almost all 10
Use portions 10
Use for short courses 6
Use for single workshops 6
Incorporate into existing program 8
Share with colleagues 2
Use to work one-on-one with 3
small-acreage landowners
Don’t know/Unsure 4

9. Comments

Great job 15
Well planned, well organized 8
Great field trips 7
Good materials 6
Good contacts/ networking 5
Good activities/ interactive 3

Evaluation results from Galaxy III workshop (n=20):
This evaluation asked that participants rate the following on a scale from 0, strongly disagree, to 4, strongly agree.
1.Information shared met audience need 3.45
2.Overall presentation was clear and well-organized 3.65
3.The AV and other teaching aids were used appropriately 3.60
4.The instructors are well-informed and kept the audience interested 3.70
5.The instructors encouraged questions and interaction with participants 3.55

Six participants noted that they plan to use the curriculum with small-acreage owners in their states.

Other comments included:
“Great presentation! I learned a great deal! Thanks.”
“Very good session overall! Glad I came.”

Curriculum use survey, December 2008

To follow up on the use of the curriculum by training participants, the following query was made by the Living on the Land team to the participants in early December 2008, via the listserve:

1.How many of you have used the Living on the Land curriculum since attending our training in 2008?

2.Do you have firm plans to use the Living on the Land Curriculum in 2009 for a small acreage program in your state?

Forty responses were received by December 19, 2008 from both team members and participants. Responses are summarized below:

Shared curriculum with colleagues 9
Used in 2008, not specified 14
Not used in 2008, but reviewing 6
Possible use in 2009 17
Planning train-the-trainer-type
workshops in 2009 4
Planning to use portions in 2009,
single workshop 7
Planning workshops in 2009
(more than 1 class) 14
Possible use in 2010 2

The respondents were from 17 states and American Samoa. Individual states are listed below:

State Affiliation of Post Workshop Survey Respondents

Western SARE States (30)
Arizona 1
California 2
Colorado 4
Idaho 7
Montana 4
Nevada 3
New Mexico 1
Oregon 2
Utah 2
Washington 3
Wyoming 1
Other States (10)
Illinois 1
Iowa 1
Minnesota 1
Nebraska 1
South Dakota 3
Virginia 1
Wisconsin 1
American Samoa 1

2009 Curriculum Evaluation

UNR’s Center for Program Evaluation emailed the Living on the Land Curriculum Evaluation Survey to 272 individuals on October 5, 2009. A copy of the survey report is included in the hard copy of this final report in Appendix A. Reminder emails were sent out on October 14 and October 29, 2009. A total of 100 individuals responded to the survey. Responses were received from all western SARE states except Arizona. All 100 respondents did not answer all of the items. Sixteen individuals were removed from the original distribution list due to nonfunctioning email addresses. After removing those 16 individuals, the total number of emails sent out was revised to 256 in order to calculate the response rate of 39 percent.

Respondents were first asked what was prompting the need for small acreage programming in their area. Sixty-eight of the 100 respondents, or 68 percent, cited the need for responsible land management. Other issues prompting the need for small acreage programming were concerns about quality of life (43 percent), water quality issues (43 percent) and economic sustainability (42 percent). Sixty-eight percent of respondents felt it was very important to educate small acreage owners in their area.

Respondents to Living on the Land Curriculum Evaluation Survey

Western SARE States
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

Other States
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin

U. S. Territories
American Samoa
Puerto Rico

Sixty percent of respondents attended a Living on the Land training. The remaining 40 percent of respondents heard about the curriculum at a conference or professional meeting, via email or word of mouth or through an article in a newsletter or other publication.

Distribution of the curriculum has been staggered over the last 17 months. As a result, 26 percent of respondents have only had the curriculum for 6 months or less. Thirty-four percent of respondents have had the curriculum for 6 to 12 months and 41 percent have had the curriculum for more than 12 months. Even though distribution has been staggered, 55 percent of respondents have taught all or part of the curriculum. Many respondents have used the materials, photos or slides to create their own program or presentation (34 percent). Many respondents are planning to use the curriculum (31 percent) and many have used the curriculum for personal education (34 percent).

The primary audience for 48 percent of the respondents is small acreage owners who own 1 to 20 acres of land. For 34 percent of the respondents, their primary audience is a mix of several categories. Less than 10 percent of respondents had primary target audiences in the following categories: small acreage owners with 21-40 acres, small acreage owners with 41+ acres, people who own less than an acre in cities fewer than 50,000, and people who own less than an acre in cities greater than 50,000.

Most respondents target their audience on a countywide or multicounty basis (48 percent). As this is how most extension funding is structured, this target strategy makes sense. Most respondents market their programs using advertising in print media (91 percent). Direct mailing (74 percent), email (61 percent), newsletters (61 percent) and posted announcements (61 percent) are also used to market programs. Funding for programs appears to be largely agency funds (66 percent of respondents) and/or student fees (49 percent of respondents).

When asked “how many students have you taught using the materials?” 34 percent had not taught any students. Given the staggered distribution of the curriculum (26 percent have had the curriculum 6 months or less), this is not surprising. It is gratifying to note that 39 percent of respondents have taught between 1 and 60 students using the materials.

Respondents were asked to rate the individual components of the curriculum for usefulness. These components are the PowerPoint presentations, lesson plans, resource lists, graphics, activities, evaluation tools and instructors guide. Mean rating of all components of the curriculum is 3.9 or greater out of a possible 5.0. In general, training attendees found the curriculum materials more useful, most likely because they had hands-on experience with the different components of the curriculum.
Respondents were asked to rate the different sections of the Instructors Guide. The overall rating of the Instructors Guide was 4.0 out of a possible 5.0. The sections on engaging adult learners, delivery methods, needs assessment and program evaluation were rated highest. Those respondents that did not attend a training rated many of the sections of the Instructors Guide higher than respondents that did attend a training. However, since the response numbers were 10 or below for those not attending a training, the difference in rating numbers may not be statistically significant.

Respondents were asked to rate the quality of all the lessons in the curriculum. The individual lessons were rated from 3.7 to 4.5 out of a possible 5.0. In general, those who attended a training rated the individual lessons slightly higher than those respondents that did not attend a training.

A copy of the survey instrument, copies of the preparation email and reminder emails, descriptive statistics for the survey items and a breakdown of the state, zipcode and county of the respondents is attached in Appendix A of the hard copy of this report.