|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
Evaluation Report of
Between the beginning of the EPA Grant and February 27, 1999, seven FLP Facilitator Training Workshops were conducted in six states: one each in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, and Texas, and two in Ohio. No Educator Training Workshops occurred during the grant period. The dates and number of participants at the facilitator workshops follow. Agenda for each workshop are in the appendix.
To assess the effectiveness of the training workshops, FLP surveyed potential facilitators at the beginning and immediately following each workshop. The pre- and post-workshop surveys appear in the Appendix under Attachment D. Participants' responses to the survey items are summarized first, and include descriptive statistics calculated for quantifiable items. Throughout this report, the data are ordered from the earliest to the latest workshop. Not all workshop participants completed the surveys nor did all complete all survey items.
In addition to the survey data, the evaluator attended two Facilitator Training workshops conducted by different teams of facilitators. Observation notes, kudos and concerns are included in most parts of the report. The reader should note that the workshops attended were good workshops. Comments were generated to make what is already good, even better. Recommendations appear last in this report. A word of caution when examining the statistics: the reader is reminded that no one who completed these surveys attended more than one workshop. In fact, the facilitator workshops had different trainers, presenters, and activities. Had the same people attended all the workshops, data would have been easily comparable. It is recommended, therefore, that the reader compare ratings across categories for one workshop rather than comparing one workshop to another in the same category. Pre-Workshop Survey Data How or from whom did you learn about FLP? The most frequently named sources of information about the FLP Facilitator Training Workshops were state coalition members or members of the FLP national Steering Committee. In some cases great diversity is reflected in the sources, including agricultural, environmental and natural resources groups. In others, facilitators were reached through more similar sources. In order of frequency, sources follow by state. OH: coalition/board members (9), Soil & Water Conservation District (7), mailing/newsletter (8), state Environmental Education group (ECCO, 3), ODNR (2), colleagues (2), AITC (AG in the Classroom, 1), Natioanl Association of Conservation Districts (1), Ohio State Uuniversity extension (1), Resource Conservation & Development (1). FL: AITC (10), mailing/newsletter (9), coalition/board members (7), colleagues (2), department of Agriculture (1), invitation (1), LHS (1), pilot test (1), state department (1). CO: coalition/board members (8); Roxanne Brickell-Reardon (7); Connections newsletter (4); Project WILD, Project Learning Tree, Project WET facilitator (4); pilot test teacher/reviewer/correlations worker (3); CO Foundation for AG in the Classroom (2); Colorado State University (2); colleague (1); CO Cattlewomen (1); CWF (1); Farm Bureau (1). CT: coalition/board members (10), mailings (8), DEP (5), Kellogg (4), colleague (1), field test teacher (1), University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension (1). CA: coalition/board members (9), AITC (AG in the Classroom, 8), field test teachers (2), Natural Resource Conservation Service (2), Farm Bureau (1), 4-H (1), pilot test teacher/reviewer (1), University of California-Davis (1), writer (1). TX: the boss (camp director or principal, 15), coalition/board members (3), Project WILD workshop (1). Self Ratings On both the pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys, participants were asked to rate their interest, confidence, knowledge of teaching methods, and overall knowledge in four areas: agriculture, environment, natural resources, and people of the world. On the rating scale, 10 was the highest rating; 0 the lowest. The specific items follow AGRICULTURE a. My interest in teaching about agriculture is b. Please rate your confidence in teaching concepts about agriculture. c. Please rate your knowledge of methods of teaching about agriculture d. Please rate your knowledge of agriculture. ENVIRONMENT a. My Interest in teaching about the environment is b. Please rate your confidence in teaching concepts about the environment. c. Please rate your knowledge or methods of teaching about the environment. d. Please rate your knowledge of the environment. NATURAL RESOURCES a. My interest in teaching about natural resources is b. Please rate your confidence in teaching natural resources . c. Please rate your knowledge or methods of teaching about natural resources. d. Please rate your knowledge of natural resources. PEOPLE OF THE WORLD a. My Interest in teaching about people of the world is b. Please rate your confidence in teaching concepts about people of the world. c. Please rate your knowledge of methods of teaching about people the world. d. Please rate your knowledge of people of the world. The average before-workshop ratings from all seven workshops combined are presented here. On the pre-workshop survey, participants at all workshops rated the interest categories highest. The knowledge of teaching methods items were rated lowest. The post-workshop ratings for all seven workshops and the average ratings from each workshop appear in the post-workshop section. Mean Ratings for All Workshops
Observation Notes: Kudos and Concerns. At both workshops attended by the evaluator, participants arrived with the knowledge they were to receive new education materials, actively participate in a workshop, and plan and implement a workshop for people who work with youth. Based on these survey results, emphases at facilitator training workshops should be placed on instructional methods, knowledge and confidence in all four query topics: agriculture, environment, natural resources, and people. The methods and knowledge of people and agriculture have the lowest average ratings. At both workshops, participants represented diverse agricultural backgrounds and interests. Participants represented or worked with different cultures. One workshop, however, had no representatives of established local or state environmental education programs or organizations. This was expected at FLP facilitator Training Workshops, for the program was designed to promote understanding of agricultural and environmental issues. Few managers of natural resources were present at either workshop. The Pre-workshop Survey could have been used to adjust the planned workshop agenda to better meet the specific needs expressed by participants to the questions: Please tell us the main reason(s) why you registered for this workshop. List two (2) things you hope to learn from this workshop. There was no evidence these surveys were read by any of the facilitators during the workshop, so this data of participant expectations had no impact on the workshop content. To their credit, one team of facilitators asked similar questions on their registration application, and used this information to guide their workshop planning. Workshop goals were also clearly stated on the workshop agenda, but interestingly at one workshop, did not include facilitator training or implementation goals. (A study of other workshop agenda show that in 6 of 7 workshops, a facilitator training goal was not stated.) Post Workshop Survey Data Working with Youth In addition to their workshop facilitation commitment to adults, many participants worked with younger audiences. The grade levels and numbers of youth follow by state and total number of respondents. Data from the two Ohio workshops were combined because they were similar. The specific questions to which participants responded were: If you are an educator, at what grade or age level(s) will you use FLP? grade(s)_______ or ages ______ With how many young people will you work in the next year? Grade level of youth with whom participants will work this year (percentage per workshop or column)
Number of youth with whom participants will work this year
Workshop Evaluation Positive Aspects What were two or three of the most positive aspects of this workshop? Learning List 2 things you learned from this workshop. In Need of Improvement What component(s) of this workshop could have been better (consider content, timing, facility, and others)? Many of the comments made in response to these 3 items were about "creature" comforts: temperature, crowded tables, acoustics. At the Ohio workshops, participants requested a 2-day, rather than 3-day, workshop. In San Francisco, two participants wanted more time to interact with the city! Participants were overwhelming positive about the FLP materials - the quality and interdisciplinary nature of Resources for Learning, and the Facilitators' Handbook. Some questioned the link of workshop themes with the organization of the FLP materials, and the logistics and costs of getting materials. Most seemed to genuinely enjoy the workshop, the facilitators they met and the facilitator skills they learned. Positive comments were made about all 4 workshop techniques: presentations, discussions, activities, and journals. Participants noted the benefits of sharing different perspectives and establishing networks, but requested more opportunities to interact with other workshop participants. Other requests included more guidance for facilitators, more outdoor and "active" activities actually experienced on an adult level, more opportunities to discuss controversial issues as well as tips on conducting such discussions, and more reflection time or time to journal. Selected comments made by participant to these 3 items follow. These quotes represent the range of comments from all 7 workshops and are organized by these topics: FLP Materials, Facilitators and Skills, Sharing Perspectives and Networks, and Techniques. FLP Materials - Most Positive Aspects . . .
FLP Materials - In Need of Improvement . . .
Facilitators and Skills - Most Positive Aspects . . .
Facilitators and Skills - What Did You Learn? . . .
Facilitators and Skills - In Need of Improvement . . .
Sharing Perspectives and Networks - Most Positive Aspects . . .
Sharing Perspectives and Networks - What Did You Learn? . . .
Techniques - Most Positive Aspects . . .
Techniques - What Did You Learn? . . .
Techniques - In Need of Improvement . . .
Participants were asked to rate specific components of their workshop. Response options offered were: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1. The average (mean) and range of the responses to these item follow in a table organized by workshop sites. The content of this workshop was organized and logically presently Important ideas were explained well. The objectives of this workshop were clear to me. There was agreement between announced objectives and workshop content. The objectives of this workshop have been accomplished. This course has increased my knowledge and understanding in areas covered The course as a whole was worthwhile. The workshop facilitators were well prepared. The presenters added significantly to the workshop. I learned a great deal by taking this workshop. WORKSHOP RATINGS Workshop sites are organized by the dates of the workshop.
Techniques And Themes In FLP Facilitator Workshops Workshop Techniques During each workshop, four techniques were used to allow participants to interact with information about food, land, and people: activities, discussion, presentations, and journal writing. At the end of the workshop, participants rated the usefulness of the techniques on these items. The ACTIVITY sections of the workshop were useful to me. The DISCUSSION sections of the workshop were useful to me. The PRESENTATION sections of the workshop were useful to me. The JOURNAL sections of the workshop were useful to me. Mean, median, range, and mode are reported in the following chart. Response options were: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1. The reader is again reminded that no one who completed these surveys attended more than one workshop and that the facilitator workshops had different trainers, presenters, and activities. Had the same people attended and rated all the workshops, data would have been easily comparable. It is recommended, therefore, that the reader compare ratings across categories for one workshop rather than comparing one workshop to another in the same category. The mean ratings for the workshop techniques indicate that participants agreed each of these sections was useful. The JOURNAL component averaged the lowest rating of the workshop techniques. In six of the seven workshops, JOURNAL averaged slightly above the NOT SURE rating. The mode and median statistics, however, may be of more use than the mean. The mode is the most frequently occurring rating. The median is the 50th percentile, or the point below which half of the ratings fall. In the case of JOURNAL, a rating of 4 (AGREE) occurred most frequently (mode) and at least half (median) of the participants selected the 4 rating for this technique. The range is also helpful, for in the case of JOURNAL, the reader can see how a few very disagreeable ratings skewed the mean for JOURNAL. In all but the Ohio workshops, ACTIVITY averaged the highest rated technique. The lower range values indicate that not all participants rated these sections near the means, for in all but California, at least one participant was unsure or disagreed about the usefulness of the ACTIVITY, DISCUSSION, and PRESENTATION components of the workshops.
RATINGS OF WORKSHOP TECHNIQUES
Workshop sites are organized by the dates of the workshop.
Many participants responded to an open-ended question asking for comments about the techniques used in the workshops. A range of responses from all 7 workshops follow, organized by general comments about techniques, activity, discussion, journal, and presentation. Respondents were very positive about the use of 4 instructional methods or techniques. Not surprisingly the comments about activities were similar to those written suggestions to improve the overall workshop - more outdoor, active and greater numbers of activities actually experienced. In addition to enjoying the discussions, respondents seemed to want more time to discuss issues, but less time on each topic. By far, the use of journals received the greatest number of comments - both negative and positive. Even though journaling may not have been for some of the negative respondents, however, most recognized the need for reflection. Many wanted more time to reflect during the workshop. Respondents favorably commented on most presentations by invited guests, facilitators, and participants. They appreciated the positive, cooperative, and enthusiastic over the negative, antagonistic, and boring. General comments about the techniques "Emphasizes need for variation." "Will be used extensively for workshop preparation." "The techniques covered all learning types." "The methods were current and educationally sound." "Very insightful and useful." "This is new to me, I liked it!" "I think they are all important and were all rightly stressed." "Like the mix-up within sessions of speakers, activity, journal." "Very helpful for facilitator workshop." "I appreciated how well done these were. I think modeling is so effective - and you were all very good models." Activity "I think the book has some great activities. Please incorporate more of these into the workshop to excite us with ideas for teachers. It helps me to be excited when I leave so I spread enthusiasm to the teachers." "More kinesthetic activities!" "Would have liked to see more hands-on activities for groups." "I would have liked to be more active throughout the workshop doing activities outside. That just helps me get excited about the material." "More activities would be helpful - I enjoyed the materials we did preview." "This had a wonderful pace to it - good mixture of sitting and active - loved getting outside." Discussion "The discussion sections were valuable for workshop planning." "Sometimes, discussions were really drawn out, so that we missed out on other activities." "The discussion allowed for a wide variety of useful input." "Excellent discussions." "Well organized. Would have liked more time/discussion of ideas/brainstorms/connections to specific situations. Sometimes tuned out on some organizational stuff." Journal "Journaling is not my style of learning, but I appreciate that it is other people's style for learning." "Journaling is not a strong point with me personally. I can see and understand why/how - but don't really enjoy doing it in this type of setting/for this use." "I know that journals are 'popular' now but they don't do anything for me." "Not much into journaling or reflecting at workshops. Looking more for substance." "Journaling is only one form of reflection. Allow participants to choose." "We really didn't use the journals (only once the first day)." "We only had one time to journal at the beginning. Need more reflection time and less structure." "Not enough time for journaling - a weird comment, I know - but there just is never enough reflective time in a workshop." "The journal was a great idea, but we never had time to use it and think." "There was too much going on to take time out to journal-I was afraid I'd miss something!" "Need time to reflect." "Need more assigned journal times." "Journals were very helpful for me." "Great variety and the journaling pushed me to work with that technique." "I use journals in my class but never thought about having teachers journal during workshop! I'll continue to use my journal!" "It was good to 'process' frequently." "I liked the journaling approach used during the workshop." "I really liked the journaling - gave a nice way to reflect and to remember."
Presentation "The presentations were good, but there should be more of them to provide information and background knowledge of FLP at an adult level." "Presenters were very good." "I liked the presentations. They were SUPER!" "Some of the best presenters I have seen." "____ was a real downer! A more balanced view is possible. Times are tough for a lot of people but there are some who are working on new products that are very excited!!" "Creating your own workshops from 'theoretical' material is always useful." "Our presentations for our group were too long. We are adults, not children, we don't need to go through every single one." "I particularly liked the agenda planning and the groups' presentations of their agendas. It got me thinking specifically about ways to share these resources and exposed me to other people's thoughts." Observation Notes: Kudos and Concerns An important principle of androgogy is to recognize the accomplishments and experiences of adult learners and use that expertise during the learning experience. Instructional techniques should be used to recognize all people who are attending these workshops - so that their knowledge, experiences, and skills can be drawn on by other participants throughout the workshop and so that they can revisit their own connection to food, land, and people and be encouraged to share those experiences and passion during the workshops they facilitate for other adult learners. At both workshops attended by the evaluator, all participants were expert in some fascinating part of the food, land, and people picture. The sharing of participants' expertise was done with varying degrees of success. At neither workshop was this facilitation skill stressed. Many rich and emotional stories emerged during these workshops, especially during small group discussions, presentations by invited guests, and sharing of journal entries. The techniques used to draw out participants' life experiences should be taught to those attending facilitator training workshops so that they can model them in their own workshops. Activity: Excellent and disappointing behaviors were observed during the two workshops attended by the evaluator. Kudos that at least one activity was experienced from beginning to end at both workshops. Kudos also to the workshop where participants were offered some choices in concurrent activities, based on grade level designation and/or topics of interest. Here, experienced facilitator trainers modeled how FLP lessons should be actually experienced from start to finish. With enough facilitators at the facilitator training workshops, participants should be offered some options for activities (as well as other techniques.) Because there are so many FLP lessons and such diversity of participant interest, as many lessons as possible should be presented by qualified trainers who are dedicated to the goals of the workshop. A great idea that should be adapted for other facilitator training workshops were packets of the student pages and manipulatives for 18 or more lessons made available for participants to examine and use for planning their own workshops. The evaluator had some concern, however, that these future facilitators then talked through these activities rather than actually doing at least some part of them with their "audience." Another problem at workshops are people, usually organizers or guests, who do not participate in the activities being conducted. While non-participation is understandable if one is preparing for what happens next, random conversations and "watchers" should be restricted or banned. The workshop goals are minimized when others are seen to be "above" participating in lessons. Discussion: Although participants brought them up, both workshops were weak in discussion of controversial issues. "Dealing with Outdoor & Controversial Activities," which appears in the Facilitator Handbook APPENDIX C, was reviewed at one workshop. The other workshop provided the new facilitators with no help should controversial issues emerge in their own workshops. These facilitator training workshops should include tips to guide discussions and in the interest of helping others make informed decisions, should promote discussion of and research into as many facets of issues as possible. It is important that facilitators understand their role is to remain neutral. FLP is an education program and should not be used to promote one "side" in controversial issues. The next lessons (which will be added to the FLP materials in 1999) deal with more controversial issues and will greatly add to the opportunities for facilitators to learn more skills in discussing multiple perspectives on issues. Journals: The use of journals recognizes the importance of reflection time, time to process the workshop content, and personalize it for each individual, as a person, citizen, educator, and facilitator of Project Food, Land & People. Journals are not the only way to promote reflection and they should not be used in all regular educator workshops. Time for reflection, however, should be part of all workshops - for facilitators and for the shorter educator workshops. Time to remember the past may reignite the passion for food, land, or people. Time spent projecting to the future as an FLP Facilitator may promote the desire to conduct FLP workshops. Presentations: At both workshops attended by the evaluator, the presentations by invited guests were excellent: 2 producers and a community garden/vermiculture expert. Presentations by participants were good, but too much time was allowed in one case. Rather than just reading what their overheads displayed, participants should have been encouraged to help other facilitators understand their decision making processes in planning their workshops. Presentations do not have to be talking heads. Presentations could be tours, slide shows, gallery displays, peer evaluation checklists, worm farm construction, and other hands-on opportunities. Presentations are an excellent opportunity to introduce issues that have multiple perspectives. Workshop Themes During the first five workshops, participants were presented with FLP lessons and other instructional techniques organized by six themes. The workshop survey forms asked participants to rate the usefulness of those six themes. The Texas and California workshop schedules presented three themes, and thus the workshop survey forms were changed to reflect the changing facilitator workshops. Specific items to which the participants responded follow.
Used in Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Connecticut
The NATURAL/ENVIRONMENT theme of the workshop was useful to me. The BALANCE theme of the workshop was useful to me. The COMMUNITY theme of the workshop was useful to me. The DIVERSITY theme of the workshop was useful to me. The SUSTAINABILITY theme of the workshop was useful to me. The overall AGRICULTURAL theme of the workshop was useful to me. Used in Texas and California
The MY ECOSYSTEM theme of the workshop was useful to me. The OUR BIOSPHERE theme of the workshop was useful to me. The overall AGRICULTURAL theme of the workshop was useful to me. Mean, median, range, and mode are reported in the following chart. Response options were: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1. RATINGS OF WORKSHOP THEMES Workshop sites are organized by the dates of the workshop.
RATINGS OF WORKSHOP THEMES Workshop sites are organized by the dates of the workshop.
The mean ratings for the workshop themes indicate that participants agreed each of these themes was useful. The AGRICULTURAL component averaged the highest rating of the workshop themes. Other ratings were similar and all ratings are satisfactory. Many participants responded to an open-ended question asking for comments about the themes used in the workshops. A range of responses about the themes from all 7 workshops follow. Comments about the theme approach are organized under these categories: compliments, previous knowledge and experience, facilitation skills, confusion, concerns, missing themes, and recommendations. Nearly one-third of the total number of participants completing the post-workshop survey responded positively to the use of themes in the FLP Facilitator Training workshops. Those involved with education were familiar with thematic approaches. Some even mentioned the thinking skills development and brain research that support the use of organizing themes in instructional experiences. Many were excited about FLP's encouragement of thematic approaches to workshops they facilitate. The notion of organizing lessons, discussions, presentations, and reflective time around themes in order to teach broad concepts was missed by many participants unfamiliar with thematic approaches. Some criticisms appear to have come from nonformal educators for whom learning experiences organized by broader concepts is new. Some were confused about the meaning of the selected themes, especially sustainability. Others missed some themes completely. Once again, help with controversial topics was requested. Compliments
Previous Knowledge and Experience
Facilitation skills
Confusion
Concerns
Missing Themes
Recommendations
Observation Notes: Kudos and Concerns. The agenda of both workshops attended by the evaluator listed the workshop themes. In one workshop, 5 themes (Natural/Environment, Balance, Community, Diversity, Sustainability) appeared on the agenda; in the other, three (My Ecosystem, Our Biosphere, Agricultural). At both workshops, the techniques selected could have guided the participants' learning and higher-level thinking about these broader concepts. The comments above reflect that occurred, covertly, for some people. At the 3 theme workshop, the evaluator recollects no mention of themes except very briefly when the Facilitator Handbook was discussed. The 5 theme workshop seemed to have been designed around the community theme - many activities supported learning about the FLP community in the state, nationally, and internationally. This theme was presented well, including literature reading and a participant-generated map of communities. Participants at this workshop understood the rich communities that are part of FLP. These facilitators also introduced the themes in remarks segueing between activities. About half way through the workshop, participants were challenged to analyze the FLP lessons and come to consensus, sorting the lessons by themes. More time was needed, but this activity shows great promise in building concept understanding and facilitator skills. At both workshops, participants were introduced to and in some cases, immersed in production agriculture activities, presentations, concepts, and products. The FOOD component of FLP was well represented through food and farming lessons. Fiber, flowers, forests, and other non-foods associated with agriculture were missing from both workshops. The links of culture to food were strong at one workshop. The PEOPLE components differed greatly at the two workshops. One workshop provided great depth in social and cultural areas. The other barely mentioned people outside of their role as eaters and growers of food. LAND topics were weak in both workshops. Aside from urbanization's impact on production agriculture, at one workshop there was no mention of land - as habitat for wildlife, or wild land for recreation, or protected wilderness. Stewardship was very narrowly depicted. The new combined "themes" (My Ecosystem, Our Biosphere) seem too narrow for a Food, Land & People Facilitator Training Workshop. They reflect a scientific approach. My Ecosystem and Our Biosphere would be good themes for a workshop for science educators if FLP lessons and other techniques helped the participants learn more about these concepts. The Natural/Environment theme has never made sense to this evaluator and was not explained in the workshop that listed it on its agenda. Contrast themes should be powerful and obvious. Natural/unnatural would be good contrast themes in some contexts, but does not seem to be a very important concept for FLP to promote. The Agricultural theme seems too broad for participants to understand and do higher-level thinking about concepts. If questions about the overall Agricultural theme remain on the workshop survey, Cultural and Environmental should also be added to reflect the depth of the FLP curriculum. Agricultural concepts developed around themes such as cycles, change, plants and animals, interdependence, and systems could do much to teach and excite adult learners. Adults could learn much from activities organized by contrast themes such as rich/poor, agriculture/hunter-gathering, civilization/barbarism, production/consumption. Themes selected for new facilitators should help them understand the rich Conceptual Framework that guided the development of FLP lessons. Balance, community, diversity, and sustainability are themes that are meaningful to agriculture, environment, natural resources, society, and cultures. These four themes also cross many types of existing curricula and should be used to organize the techniques of the facilitator workshops. Whatever themes are finally decided or recommended for training facilitators to model at Facilitator Training Workshops, they should be defined in the Glossary and listed in the Topic Index of Resources for Learning with supporting lessons. In addition, the Facilitator Handbook should list the concept numbers from the Conceptual Framework that correspond to these recommended themes. That would give new facilitators access to concepts (stated in unbiased ways) around which they could build their own workshops. A possible way of getting new facilitators to think about and use themes is to have them select one theme around which to build the workshop they plan. Other possible themes from the FLP Conceptual Framework could be listed in the Facilitator Handbook. A few presentations by participants at observed workshops were built around themes. New facilitators need more time to analyze participant-selected themes and the FLP lessons chosen to support these themes, however, rather than just listening to schedule recitation. Participants should also consider how they will satisfy the recommended techniques (activities, presentations, discussions, and reflection) during their own workshops.
On Being An FLP Facilitator I am ready to be a FLP facilitator. The average ratings for facilitator readiness were in the AGREE response range. Response options: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1.
At only the Texas workshop did participants express surprise they were expected to conduct an FLP workshop. Not surprisingly, that workshop received the lowest ratings in response to the above item. Although the California participants were not told the procedures for getting the FLP materials (the CA coalition had not yet determined the procedures), these ranges of ratings were the same as for other workshops. Participants were asked three open-ended questions about facilitating. By this time in the survey, most participants chose not to write any more. The comments of those who responded, ranged from excitement about being a facilitator to uncertainty to denial. Participants wanted help with ordering and funding materials, publicity, credit and inservice points, and finding resource people, and audiences with which to facilitate FLP workshops. Selected general comments follow. On Being An FLP Facilitator
How could we help you as you prepare to facilitate a workshop? "The lesson plans are a monster help." "Have booklets free for participants." "I need to find out about funding for books." "Making materials easy to order." "Supply us with a generic press release." "Help arrange for credit units." "Please provide an FLP pre-test/post-test as teachers receiving in-service points in FL are required to complete this!" "Help us make local connections to resource people." "Find the audience. I will gladly present free of charge. It is difficult for me to market for the audience." Observation Notes: Kudos and Concerns. Facilitator training workshops are never long enough and it is difficult to know how much time participants need to experience the lessons versus time needed to build facilitator skills and prepare for implementing their own workshops. The two workshops attended had very different agenda and approaches to working with potential facilitators. At one workshop attended by the evaluator, there were few opportunities to "debrief" or reflect on what facilitators should or could do at their own workshop. Only one person facilitated FLP activities. At the other workshop, several experienced facilitators conducted FLP activities. Trainers were more open about why they selected particular techniques or themes and modeled, revealing their own reflections about the workshop planning and adjustments. On the final morning, participants also applied the Traits of a Good Facilitator, and rated that workshop using the 7 parts in the Facilitator Handbook as standards. All 3 state coordinators for Projects WILD, WET, and Learning Tree attended this workshop. This support for the goal of integrating these major national environmental education programs was great. This use of in-state expertise for facilitating FLP Facilitators' Training Workshops is applauded. The Facilitator Handbook should be given to participants at the beginning of workshops to stress the goal of training facilitators. The participants should spend time during the workshop interacting with these handbooks. This evaluator and other researchers believe facilitator skills are greatly enhanced by overt activities - discussions, presentations, reflection, and hands-on involvement. Frequent examination of how the workshop activities relate to the workshop goals would be especially useful to those new to implementing curricula to adults. Inexperienced facilitators need to know what the trainers are doing and why, to understand some of the decision making necessary before and during a workshop. Most importantly they need to comprehend the flexibility that will be required throughout their workshops. Kudos to both observed workshop organizers for the many representatives of agencies promoting agricultural literacy who were present. More recognition of the dimensions of statewide expertise in agriculture, not just production agriculture, is encouraged to help facilitators understand the many dimensions of food, land, and people. The absence of natural resource and people/community/cultural/social educators was previously noted. Potential facilitators need to understand the messages of the in-state experts in these areas, too. Some participants mentioned the need for pre and post surveys so university and inservice credit could be offered at their own workshops. They should know such surveys are in the Facilitator Handbook and that no other major projects offer this service. They should also understand that anonymity can be assured if participants are encouraged to put the same identifying name or number on their before and after workshop surveys. These forms should be standardized nationwide if FLP wishes to analyze and compare data over time. There are 2 different descriptions of learning styles provided in the Facilitator Handbook. Better than the two different sets of 4 learning styles mentioned might be to focus on Gardner's 8 types of intelligences: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and naturalist. Each of these intelligences is used to some degree in various ways by each person. All people are considered gifted and usually excel in one or two intelligences. Facilitators should be encouraged to offer a variety of ways by which people can learn and process information at their workshops. (See Glock, Wertz & Meyer, 1999, Discovering the Naturalist Intelligence; Howard Gardner, 1993, Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice.) Self Ratings In this section, the average ratings for the combined workshops, both before and after, the mean differences, and probabilities are followed by that data for each state separately. (Please see the survey items on p. 3.) On both the pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys, participants at all workshops rated the interest categories highest on the 10-point scales. These interest categories, however, showed the smallest average gains between the workshops. Large average differences were observed in all other categories, in confidence, knowledge, and knowledge of methods of teaching about all four areas (agriculture, natural resources, people of the world, and environment). The highest mean gains were observed in participants' ratings of their knowledge of methods of teaching about agriculture. Knowledge of methods of instruction and general knowledge about cultures were among the lowest rated areas on the pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys, although the mean gains were among the highest for these two culture categories. In response to other open-ended questions, a few comments about the cultural component of FLP emerged. Two selected comments were:
When all workshop data were analyzed together using analysis of variance statistics (ANOVA), the gains in all areas were statistically significant at least at the .05 level. A probability of .05 means that the changes observed between the pre-workshop and post-workshop ratings would be expected due to chance in only 5 out of 100 cases; p .00001 would be expected due to chance in 1 out of 100,000 cases. These results indicate that the workshop is the likely cause of the positive and significant effects on the ratings. Reported in the following charts are pre-workshop and post-workshop averages, differences between those averages, and the probability of the gains being due to chance. Mean Ratings for All Workshops pre/post n=155
OHIO #1: MEAN RATINGS pre/post n=19
OHIO #2: MEAN RATINGS pre/post n=13
|