Professional Training for Sustainable Agroforestry in Kansas

Professional Training for Sustainable Agroforestry in Kansas

Summary

The overall objective of this SARE professional development project (PDP) is to provide

training (short-term learning) that will be the foundation of middle and long-term (ie,

career-long) interest and expertise in agroforestry and tree health. This project raised the level of

expertise of our county educators through a series of four training sessions in 2013 and the development of a new tree health (disease, insect, environmental stress) publication. Dates and sites for the workshops were selected in conjunction with our target audience of county educators who provided information on their availability. The events were designed with a goal of “train the trainer” meaning the participants will gain knowledge, skills, abilities, and aspirations to hold their own trainings in their communities.

Objectives/Performance Targets

One main goal for 2013 was to develop and deliver train-the-trainer workshops around the state to provide experiential, hands-on learning for extension educators, NRCS personnel, and others who would then be better equipped to conduct programming in their own communities. Along with the workshops, our goal was to provide resources for participants to take home for reference. The other main goal was to develop a new tree health manual to help educators diagnose issues related to diseases, insects, stresses, etc.

Accomplishments/Milestones

In 2013, tree health and agroforestry professional development trainings were held in four locations around Kansas (Hays – May 4; Manhattan – June 26; Haysville – July 31; Parsons – August 23^rd). The total number of participants across all four locations was 57. The majority of participants were K-State Research and Extension educators from various counties/districts. Other participants included a few Extension Master Gardeners who also serve on city or arboretum tree advisory boards and several NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) personnel.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

We asked the participants to fill out evaluation forms at the end of each meeting, with both quantitative and qualitative categories.

Rating scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Open-ended questions

There was some overlap in the first three questions, so I will summarize them collectively below.

• What were the most important items you learned from the training session, and why?
• What types of resources that were presented in the training sessions do you think will be most valuable in your programming with clients?
• How will the information you obtained from the training assist you in your own programming with clients?

Participants highly valued the hands-on nature of the training, including the outdoor tree walks and also the opportunity to view and touch insect, disease, honeysuckle, and tree-id samples that we brought. Several participants noted that this type of training works much better for their learning style than traditional classroom lectures.

We provided flash drives that we filled with a large array of resources on agroforestry, general tree care, diseases, insects, woody invasives, and other topics. Numerous participants noted in the comments that they were excited to obtain this information and they looked forward to using it. We also provided print copies of some publications and they appreciated that as well.

Many participants said that with the increased knowledge from the day’s training, plus the flash drive, they are much better equipped to answer stakeholder questions about tree health, agroforestry, etc.

Participants appreciated the small discussion-oriented nature of the training. Several mentioned the benefit of networking with each other as well as with the instructors. For example, several county educators met each other for the first time, or they met their regional district forester for the first time, or the local NRCS person. They can now work together on local issues.

How could these training sessions be improved?

There weren’t many suggestions here. Many participants left it blank or used it to note more positives about the event. The few suggestions included making the outdoor part longer and making the whole event even more hands on.

• Quantitative evaluation scores

Collaborators: