Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T08:34:40.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting Delivery Methods for Outreach Education Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Bryson R. Carter  and
Marvin T. Batte
Bryson R. Carter
Affiliation:
Ohio State University Extension
Marvin T. Batte
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farmer perceptions of extension program delivery methods and an analysis of the relationships of method and farmer characteristics to evaluation scores are presented. Evaluation scores tend to increase with written, interactive and variable-scheduled methods and methods where users determine the agenda. Evaluations tend to be lower for high user cost and “high-tech” methods. Substantial similarity of results exists across groups of farmers differing by age, education levels, farm size and farm type. There are differences, however, in absolute valuation of the method characteristics across the groups.

Keywords

Extensioneducationmethods

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 473 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Batte, Marvin T., Jones, Eugene, and Schnitkey, Gary D.. “Computer Use By Ohio Commercial Farmers.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 72 (1990): 935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouare, Dasse', and Bowen, Blannie E.. “Communications Methods Used by Agricultural Extension Agents.” Journal of Applied Communications 74 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Bruening, Thomas H. “Communicating with Farmers About Environmental Issues.” Journal of Applied Communications 75 (1991): 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano, Jamie. “Learning Styles.” Understanding and Teaching the Adult Learner, eds. Norland, E., Heimlech, J., Seevers, B., Smith, K., and Jones, J., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Carter, Bryson R. and Batte, Marvin T.. “Identifying Needs and Audiences in Farm Management Extension Education.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 15 (1993): 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamon, Julia A., Bounaga, Lachen, and Wade Miller, W.. “Identifying Information Sources and Educational Methods For Soil Conservation Information Used by Landowners of Highly Erodible Fields.” Journal of Applied Communications, 76 (1992): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golay, Keith. Learning Patterns and Temperament Styles. Fullerton, CA.: Manas-Systems, 1982.Google Scholar
Myers, Isabel B.Introduction to Type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 4th ed. Palo Alto, CA.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
Obahayujie, Julius and Hillison, John. “Now Hear This! Delivery Methods For Farmers.” Journal of Extension Spring (1988): 21–22.Google Scholar
Putler, Daniel S., and Zilberman, David. “Computer Use in Agriculture: Evidence from Tulare County, California.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 70 (1988): 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesenberg, Lou E. and Gor, Christopher Obel. “farmers' Preferences for Methods of Receiving Information on New or Innovative Farming Practices.” J. Agr. Ed. 30 (Fall 1989): 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollins, Timothy J., Bruening, Thomas B., and Radhakrishna, Rama B.. “Identifying Extension Information Delivery Methods for Environmental Issues.” Journal of Applied Communications 75 (2): 1–9.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alejandro and Turvey, Calum G.. “Identifying Management Profiles of Ontario Swine Producers Through Cluster Analysis.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 13 (1991): 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar