UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Educational role of the District Agriculturist. McNaughton, Gordon Roy 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A6_7 M32_2.pdf [ 5.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093351.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093351-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093351-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093351-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093351-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093351-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093351-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093351-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093351.ris

Full Text

THE EDUCATIONAL ROLE OF THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST by GORDON ROY MCNAUGHTON B.Sc, University of Alberta, 1957. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Faculty of Agriculture (Agricultural Extension) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1970 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Agricultural Extension The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date August 1970 i ABSTRACT The educational aspect of the work of the Distriot Agriculturist is not well defined. The problem was to de-velop a system of defining, measuring and portraying the educational work of agricultural extension that would be considerably more meaningful than present day attendance records, would relate quality to the quantity of work, would enable extensiveness of use of the extension service to be related to socio-economic characteristics of farmers and would enable the testing of the hypothesis that socio-economic characteristics differ between extensive and nominal users of the service * The work of one District Agriculturist in the Peace River Extension Di s t r i c t in Northern Alberta, Canada was studied for the period of one year, March 1968 to March 1969* A l l individual and group contacts were recorded and c l a s s i -fied according to function of the contact, instructional level achieved, method employed and time involved* Two hundred farmers were interviewed regarding certain socio-economic characteristics. A numerical score indicating extensiveness of use was related to socio-economic charact-eristics using Chi-square, T test and correlation procedures. The measurement system developed for the study was found to be operational and yielded considerably more i n -formation than common annual reports and could be a basis for evaluation. It was found that the extension agent accomplished his work by making a large number of face i i to face contacts with about a third of the potential clientele. About half of the contacts were educational and most of these were at the lower instructional levels. Group contacts reached higher instructional levels than individual contacts and farm vis i t s reached higher levels than office v i s i t s . The small group meeting was found to be superior to other methods. Extensiveness of use of the service was found to be more meaningful when instructional quality of the contacts was considered rather than numbers of contacts. L i t t l e difference was found relating age, education, tenure, experience and area of farm to exten-siveness of use* Extensive users of the service were found to have spent significantly less time at off farm work and earned a significantly greater proportion of their income from the farm. They had significantly greater capital assets and significantly higher gross sales than the nominal users indicating that extensive users of the extension ser-vice differed significantly from nominal users of the service with respect to certain socio-economic characteristics. The description of the educational role of the District Agriculturist relating quantity, quality, extensiveness of use and socio-economic characteristics, contains inform-ation that would lead to more accurate determination of program priorities and would be a useful measure of achievement on a regional basis. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i Table of Contents . . . . . . . i . i i i List of Tables * ' * t . . v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Study . 1 Purpose . i . • . i 2 Procedure . . . . . . 2 Sources of Data 3 Application of the Instrument 8 Analysis of Data 11 Review of the Literature . . . 11 Extension Impact . . . . . . . 11 Socio-Economic Characteristics . 12 The Educational Role of the Extension Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II; AN ANALYSIS OF AN AGENT'S CONTACT WITH HIS CLIENTELE , . . i • * • 17 Function of the Contacts . . . ; 18 Total Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Individual Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Group Contacts . , 23 The Method of Contacting Clientele . . . . . . 23 The Time Required i . . . 27 The Instructional Level * .. . 29 Individual Methods 29 Group Contacts . 32 Comparison of Individual and Group Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 iv Page Group Events and Instruction Level . . . , ; 57 The Number of People and Group Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Numerical Score . 41 Summary . . . . . . 46 III. RELATIONSHIPS OF TOTAL SCORE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 50 The Number of Contacts and Total Score . . . * 50 The Number of Contacts Per Client . . . . . . 50 The Total Score Per Client 50 Comparison of Total Score and Number of Contacts * • 52 Definition of Extensive and Nominal Use 55 Socio-economic Characteristics and Score . . . 56 Score and Method of Contact 75 A Comparison oflTotal Score and the Number of Contacts In Relation to Socio-economic Characteristics 76 The Use of Two Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Office calls . . . . . . . . . . ; 78 Farm calls . . . . * i . . . . 79 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 81 Instrument 81 Summary . . . 83 Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY . i 88 APPENDIX A Interview Schedule . * . 91 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. Page I. A Scale for Measuring the Educational Quality of an Extension Agent's In-dividual Contact with his Clientele. . . . 5 II. A Summary of Research Results Re-garding the Relative Effectiveness of Extension Methods 6 III. The Numerical Scoring System Relating Instructional Level to the Method Used and to the Amount of Time Involved. . 7 IV. Numerical Scores that can be Attained During an Individual Contact . . 9 V. Percentage Distribution of a l l Contacts in One Year According to Function 19 Vii Percentage Distribution of a l l Contacts Exeept Agency Staff by Function of the Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . 20 VII. Percentage Distribution of Individual Adult Contacts According to Function of the Contact . 21 VIII. Percentage Distribution of Individual Adult Farmer Contacts by Function of the Contact. . . . . . . . . . .22 IX. Percentage Distribution of Group Contacts by Function of the Contact. . . . 24 X. Percentage Distribution of Contacts by Method, t t . . . . . . . . . . 26 XI. Percentage Distribution of Contacts by Time Period and Method * . . 28 X l l i Percentage Distribution of Individual Contacts by Educational Level of the Contact . . . * * ; 50 XIII. Percentage of Contacts Reaching Each Level in Four Individual Methods. . . . . 31 TABLE NO. Page , XIV. Percentage Distribution of Group , Contacts by Instructional Level of the Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . i . * . .34 if XV. Percentage Distribution of a l l , Contacts Compared to Individual and Group Contacts by Instructional Level . . .35 XVI. Classification of a l l Group Events by Kind of Event and Educational XJQ^TQX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 XVII. Classification of the Number of Adults Contacted in Group Events by Kind of Event and Educational Level . . . .40 XVIII. Rank Order and Description ofthe-Ten Most Frequently Achieved Scores * . . .42 IXX; Rank Order and Description of the Ten Highest Cumulative Scores . . . . . . .44 XX* Cumulative Annual Score for Each Contact Method.......... . . . 47 XXI. Percentage Distribution of Respond-ents by Number of Contacts Made During the Year . . . . . . . . ; . . , . . *51 XXII. Percentage Distribution of Respond-ents by Total Score Obtained Through Annual Use of the Extension.Service . ;....53 XXIII. Approximate Quartile Distributions of Total Score and Number of Contacts . . .54 XXIV. Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Age of the Clientele. . . . . . i 5 8 XXV. Table of T Test Probabilities . . . . . . .59 XXVI. Coefficients of Correlation . . . . . . . .60 XXVII. Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by.Education of the Clientele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 XXVIII Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Number of Years of Farming Experience 63 v i i TABLE NO. • Page i XXIX. Percentage Distribution of Low and High Scoring Clientele by-Length of Time Spent at Off Farm Work i . . . . . . . . 64 XXX, Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Amount of Off Farm Income Compared to Amount ofi' Farm Income * i66 XXXI. Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Size of the Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 XXXII, Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Capital Yalue of the Farm. 70 XXXIII. Percentage Distribution of Low and High Scoring Clientele by Value of Farm Products Sold . . *' . .72 XXXIV; Percentage Distribution of Low and High Score Groups by Farm Type 74 XXXV. Correlation Coefficients of Total Score and Number of Contacts in Relation to Socio-Economic Charac-t e r i s t i c s . . . ; .77 CHAPTER ONE THE STUDY The educational role of extension agents and the educational accomplishments of agricultural extension institutions require more elaborate definitions and descriptions than are given in o f f i c i a l annual reports to create a better understanding of this segment of adult education. Attendance records used by Legislators are inadequate descriptions of the educational aspect of ex-tension work because such records yield l i t t l e information regarding the quality of instruction and the efficiency with which methods, techniques, and time are u t i l i z e d i n relation to achievement and goals. Concern for a more accurate definition and description of the educational role of extension agents led to the present study. z PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to develop* test* and evaluate an instrument designed to measure the educational quality of contacts between a District Agriculturist and his clientele and to describe an extension agent's work in terms of educational accomplishment. The relationships of the ex-tensiveness of use of the service and the socio-economic characteristics of the clientele were studied and the hy-pothesis tested that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences between the socio-economic characteristics of extensive and nominal users of the service. PROCEDURE Population The study was conducted in the Peace Ri^er Extension d i s t r i c t in Northern Alberta, Canada, by the resident District Agriculturist. Earm economic conditions were generally de-pressed prior to, during, and after the period of the study due to poor weather and market conditions. Records were kept of a l l contacts between the Dist r i c t Agriculturist and his clientele for a period of one year from March 1, 1968 to March 1, 1969 and a l l of the contacts were included in the study; Every second client contacted by any method except mass meetings was interviewed. The interviews were conducted either at the time of the contact or subsequently to obtain data respecting certain socio-economic characteristics (see appendix I ) . A table of random numbers was used to determine 3 whether the f i r s t or second contact of the day was interviewed. A total of two hundred farmers or about half of the clients were interviewed. Sources of Data The number and educational quality of individual and group con tacts., was determined by classifying each contact according to the function of the contact, the method used to contact the client^ the instructional level established and the time involved. The work of the Agricultural Extension Service has been studied with regard to extension contacts with clientele j the amount and type of work involved, the time spent on different phases of the work, and influence on the adoption of farm practices. The socio-economic char-acteristics of the clientele have been studied and related to different aspects of extension, As yet no systematic attempt has been made to make a qualitative measurement of the work of the Dist r i c t Agriculturist during his contacts with his clients. Such a qualitative measure would add to the accumulating description of Agricultural Extension work and might indicate more precisely the effectiveness of ex-tension programs. A l l extension contacts are not educational. In this study, contacts that were not educational in nature were recorded separately and included such things as public re-lations, administration, service, 4-H membership and youth contacts. During public relations or administrative contacts, i f an instructional situation developed the contact was re-corded as educational. 4 In constructing an instrument to assess contacts between the District Agriculturist and extension service clientele, a multi-dimensional scale was chosen which appraises the nature of the contact, i t s effectiveness, and the time involved. The basic scale was constructed in seven equal intervals that des-cribe the nature of the extension contact in terms of function with respect to the degree of instructor - learner interaction. (Table I ) . This seven interval categorization separates the various levels of instruction in terms of the educational value of the interaction between the client and the agent as the quality of the experience moves from the dissemination of i n -formation to prolonged intellectual interaction leading to the development of a sound, long term farm business based on the aspirations of the farm family. Since research shows that extension contact methods vary with respect to their influence on adoption because of varying inherent effectiveness, i t was necessary to weight each contact according to the relative effectiveness of the contact method employed. The results from a number of research studies were used to establish weights for each contact method and since these were remarkably consistent an average was computed as the weight for this study. (Table II). The length of time involved in the instructional inter-action between agent and client is assumed to influence the extent and quality of the learning, consequently an arbitrary weight based on time is used as one dimension of the scale. (Table III). 5 TABLE I A SCALE FOR MEASURING THE EDUCATIONAL QUALITY OF AN EXTENSION AGENT * S INDIVIDUAL CONTACT WITH HIS CLIENTELE LEVEL 1: The client receives informational materials in the form of bulletins, plans, directions, applications, test kits, and other prepared materialsi LEVEL 2: The client receives factual information,verballyj with or without prepared materials. A short con-versation regarding direct information with l i t t l e elaboration. LEVEL 3.: : The client and the agent indulge in purposeful discussion of factual information. Information is related to the individuals circumstances• The appli-cation of information is discussed within the confines of the subject matter area. LEVEL 4: Discussion which integrates broad informational know-ledge contributed by both the client and the agent. Specific subject matter is related to the whole enter-prize, the individuals situation and to other subject matter areas, and includes the discussion of a l l or most aspects of one situation. LEVEL 5: Discussion of principles and alternatives. The client is successfully challenged to consider ways of accomplishing a certain task, other than the one he i s presently employing. The agent and the client discuss alternative methods, processes, systems, equipment, buildings, enterprizes, vocations, and other alternate situations, LEVEL 6: Analysis of alternate uses of resources. The client is successfully challenged to consider alternate tasks to accomplish a certain end. This involves the consideration of the potentialities and l i m i -tations of basic resources and the development of a combination of enterprizes best suited to physical, monetary, and human resources* LEVEL 7: Family discussion of long term family, vocational, and home development in view of various ends or goals. Joint discussion with more than one member of the family, pertains to the development of a long term program based on goals, in light of available or potentially available resources, family aspirations, a b i l i t i e s , and philosophies. 6 TABLE II A SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS REGARDING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENSION METHODS Name and Item Farm Office Phone Small Exten-V i s i t V i s i t Gall Group sion Meeting Meeting Conley 1 Mean score g 2.79 1.81 1.53 2.06 2.00 Slocum et a l Weight 15.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10*00 Wilson 5 Practice change f> 9.80 5.20 0.40 42.00 41.40 Wilson-Clark 4 Practice change fo 10.30 1.80 - 7.40 11.20 Wilson-Crosby5 Practice change fo 5.60 1.20 - 24.50 22.50 Wilson-Gallup 6 Frequency of Influence 1923-1941 fo 10.80 6.50 0.30 18.20 14.60 1923-1928$ 12.30 6.80 0.40 16.10 14.60 1923-1935 fo 13.00 8.40 0.40 8.30 15.20 Average 9.90 5.10 2.20 16.00 16.40 •^Conley, R.D., "The Role of the Farm and Home Development Agent As Perceived by Cooperating Families". Wisconsin. Review of Extension Research 1961, U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser. Circ. 541. Sept. 1962, No. 5. 2Slocum, W.L., O.L. Brough, Jr., and M.A. Straus., Extension  Contacts, Selected Characteristics, Practices and A t t i - udes of Washington Farm Families. Washington. State College. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 584. April 1958. 3Wilson, M.C. The Effectiveness of Extension in Reaching  Rural People. Washington D.C. U.S.A. Dept. of Agr. Bull. No* 1384. Feb. 1926. 4Wilson, M.C., and W.W. Clark, Make Extension Work More Effec-tive. Madison. Wisconsin Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 387. 1926. Wilson, M.C., and D.J. Crosby, The Effectiveness of Exten- sion In Reaching Rural People. Cornell.:Cornell Ext. Bui. 104. 1925. }Wilson, M.C., and Gladys Gallup, Extension Teaching Methods. Federal Extension Ser. U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser. Circ. 495. 1955, 7 TABLE III THE NUMERICAL SCORING SYSTEM RELATING INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL TO THE METHOD USED AND TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME INVOLVED Instructional Numerical level set for score for each contact each level 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 Multiply by method weight Group meeting 13*90 Mass meeting 14.29 Phone c a l l 1.10 Office v i s i t 4.42 Farm v i s i t 8.60 Multiply by time weight 1 to 20 minutes 1.0 21 to 40 minutes 1.1 41 to 60 minutes 1.2 61 to 90 minutes 1.3 91 to 120 minutes 1*4 ^Research weight figures derived in Table II were reduced so that the highest average weight when multiplied by the highest numerical score (7) would equal 100* 8 Using the instructional levels numbered 1 through 7, a weight arbitrarily set for time periods* and the method weights established for each contact, a scoring system was developed. Table III illustrates the development of the numerical score using the instructional level, the method of contact, and the time involved. The resultant scale was used as a bsis for describing the educational role of the agent, and as a dependent variable from which various relationships could be analyzed for s t a t i s t i c a l significance* Individual scores can be derived by referring to Table IV rather than by multiplying the weights for each case. In using this scale, the basic assumption is that the agricultural extension program is a rural adult education program, with administration, service, junior and public relations work being secondary. According to the Alberta Extension Division's staff guidelines, extension is edu-cation in a broad sense. It was assumed, therefore, that the client was being taught to acquire, evaluate, and apply information and knowledge to solve his problems* Application Of The Instrument* The instrument was used to assess a l l educational contact situations that developed during the study and proved to be reliable in that the agent using i t was able to assess a l l educational situations encountered* It was readily applicable to a l l individual contacts as long as the agent remained aware of the amount of participation 9 TABLE IV NUMERICAL SCORES THAT CAN BE ATTAINED DURING AN INDIVIDUAL CONTACT Educational Score level Method time periods 1 to 21 to 41 to 61 to 91 and 20 min 40 min 60 min 90 min over 1 Phone Office Farm 1.19 4.42 8.60 1.30 4.86 9.46 5*30 10.32 5.74 11.18 6.18 12.04 2 Phone Office Farm 2.38 8.84 17.20 2.60 9.72 18.92 10.60 20.64 11.48 22.36 12.36 24.08 3 Phone Office Farm 3.57 13.26 25.80 3.90, 14.58 28.38 15*90 30.96 17.22 33.54 18.54 36.12 4 Office Farm 17.68 34.40 19.44 37.84 21.20 41.28 22.96 44.72 24.72 48*16 5 Office Farm 22.10 43.00 24.30 47.30 26.50 51.60 28.70 55.90 30.90 60.20 6 Office Farm 26.52 51.60 29.16 56.76 31.80 61.92 34.44 67.08 37.08 72.24 7 Office Farm 30*94 61.20 34*02 66.22 37.10 72.24 40.18 78.26 43.26 84.28 10 developed. The instrument assesses an agent 1s a b i l i t y to oreate in the client a desire to explore ideas and concepts contributed by both the agent and the client. Furthermore, i t is a measure of the involvement of the client. An agent may attempt to carry on to level three, discussion of i n -formation, but the client may only be willing to stay at level two where he receives the factual information. An agent may carry the interview no further than level two because he is in a hurry to meet an appointment and a l -though the client eould have been taken further up the scale, he was dropped at that point; There are also oc-casions where the dissemination of information i s a l l that is required by the agent since the client has apparently already analysed the situation thoroughlyi Higher levels were usually reached after several contacts had been made with an individual and both the agent and the client had been thinking about the situation for some time previous to the particular contact. The instrument was used to assess group situations a l -though i t was less reliable for group contacts other than with the family. The agent can assess his theoretical input level but i t is d i f f i c u l t to guage the intake level of num-erous clientele in a group at one time. Some carry the diseussion whereas others just listen, and so the agent finds himself adjusting between his probable input and what might be an average intake level for the group. Continuity of appraisal was a problem and the agent had 11 to refer regularly to the instrument definitions to main-tain a constant grading level. In many cases the educational situation had to be reviewed carefully to determine which of two levels the contact had achieved. It was d i f f i c u l t at times to maintain a precise measurement of activities while under the pressure of having numerous clientele waiting in line a l l with different problems and many expecting immedi-ate answers on a variety of subjects. Accurate measurement can be maintained but i t requires a highly disciplined ap-proach on the part of the agent. Analysis of Data. A descriptive study was completed regarding the use each client made of the service according to function, method, quality, time and numerical score. The null hy-pothesis of no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences between the socio-economic characteristics of extensive and nominal users of the extension service was tested by u t i l i z i n g correlation, chi-square, and student's T procedures. The use-fulness of a numerical scoring system of agent self evaluation was illustrated by the fact that i t made possible the numeri-cal measurement of educational quality and the resulting study of various relationships. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Extension Impact; The extent to which the U.S. Federal Extension Service reaches the farm population is considerable. In 1961 over 12 23.6 million people were contacted personally by extension agents, either on the farm, in the office, over the phone, or through result demonstrations. Another 81*9 million contacts were made through various types ©f meetings.^-Wilson found that in the ten year period following 1914, the service had contacted 69% of the farmers in the United States. 2 Lionberger 3 found that 30% of the farm operators in Northeast Missouri had obtained information from the county agent in the survey year 1954. Socio-economic Characteristics. The characteristics of extension clientele have been studied to determine who uses the Agricultural Extension Service and to explain why there are numerous farmers that have not been contacted* The farmers who use the Agri-cultural Extension Service tend to be more highly educated, t© have larger farms, to be more technically competent, and are more receptive to new ideas* 4 There is some contro-versy as to the age group that tends to be contacted most frequently by the extension service. Lionberger 5 found xGordyj A.S., Extension Activities and Accomplishmentsj L961. Extension Service Circular, 539, Washington D.C. 1962* 2Wilson, M.C, The Effectiveness of Extension in Reaching  Rural People. U.S.D.A. Bulletin No. 1384. Washington D.C. 1926. 3Lionberger, H.F., Information Seeking Habits and Charac- teristics of Farm Operators. Univ. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 581 April 1955* Columbia, Missouri. 4 I b i d . 5 I b i d 13 that the younger age groups are contacted as did Goard, while Lutz et a l , 2 and Gibson 3 reported that the age tends to range between 40 and 59 years. Hoffer,^ Rogers, and Slocum reported on clientele characteristics with evidence showing that superior education, size of farm, level of livi n g and technical competence were related to frequency of extension contacts. The Sducational Role of The Extension Worker. Agricultural extension work involves i n f i n i t e variety* The problem of differentiating between service, adminis-tration, public relations, and adult education is not easy to solve as much depends on individual interpretation* ••-Goard, D.S.* "Analysis of Participants In Rural Adult Education. w Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia* 1968* 2Lutz, A.E., D.E. Fredrieks, and S.S. Lewis, In-Depth  Teaching in Extension. Journal of Cooperative Extension. Vol. VI. No. 2 pp.107-112. 1968* 3Gibson, D.L., The Clientele of The Agricultural Extension  Service. Michigan Agr* Exp* StaT Quarterly Bui. Vol. 26. No. 4. pp.237-246. Coffer, C.R., Selected Social Factors Affeoting P a r t i c i - pation of Farmers in Agricultural Extension Work. Michigan State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Special Report 331. 1944. 5 Rogers, E.M. and H.R. Gapener, The County Extension Agent  and His Constituents. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 858. 1960. 6Sloeum, W.L., O.L. Brough, Jr., and M.A. Strause, Extension  Contacts, Selected Characteristics, Practices and A t t i - tudes of Washington Farm Families. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 584. 1958. 14 Wilkening 1 described four major functions of exten-sion as follows: 1. providing information on specific farm and home practices. 2. teaching underlying principles of farming and homemaking. 3. consulting in the analysis and management of the total farm and home enterprize. 4. providing information and leadership for community service and a c t i v i t i e s . He found that county extension committee members had a traditional view of the role of the extension agent* They thought of the agent as a generalist involved in organizing, co-ordinating* and servicing various programs. It seems then that even members working closely with extension had a different conception of the educational role of the agent than he himself did. With respect to the use of the extension agents time, Stone 2 found that Michigan County Agricultural Agents spent 32% of their time in direct, personal contact with individuate, 31% of the time at group meetings, and 37% of working time "Wilkening, S.A., The County Extension Agent In Wisconsin. Wis. Agr. Col. Ext. Res. Bui. 203. Madison, 1957. !Stone, John T., "How County Agricultural Agents Teach".  Proceedings of The Canadian Society of Rural Exten- sion 19617 University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Jan. 1962. pp.21-36. 15 at activities not involving direct contact with other people; The Alberta Extension Division at one time considered a typi-cal breakdown of the work of the D i s t r i c t Agriculturist was: office interviews 21$; farm calls 18$; meetings 22$; 4-H and leadership 20$; administration 10$; and professional improvement 10$, McNelly 1 found that sixteen percent of the office calls studied could have been handled by the stenographer. He also found that thirteen percent of the total time used for office calls was spent discussing i r -relevant matters. The measurement of the educational quality of the extension contacts is the concern of this study. Yerner o and Booth suggest four principle ways of evaluating pro-grams. These are: 1. by measuring the program against a standard; 2. by measuring the program against a hypothetical conception of what a good program should be; 3; by measuring against similar programs in other communities; and 4. by measuring participation. The measuring system developed for this study is basically that of measuring a program against a hypothetical conception of what a good program should be. ^McNelly, C.L., "Individual Teaching by Agricultural Agents," Review of Extension Studies, July to Dec, 1950, L. Crile, U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser. Cir. 471, Jan. 1951, No. 3. ^Yerner, Coolie, and Alan Booth, Adult Education* The Centre for Applied Research in Education, Inc., ?/ashington, D.C. 1964. pp.92-?93; 16 A study of the literature reveals that there are many facets to extension work, some of them well defined and others lacking i n description. There appear to be numerous opportunities to define and portray more precisely the~ag-ric u l t u r a l extension segment of adult education. 17 CHAPTER .TWO AN ANALYSIS OF AN AGENTS CONTACT WITH HIS CLIENTELE An extension agent has numerous tasks to perform within the terms of reference of the institution for which he works. In this study the tasks were divided into six categories. The educational function was considered to be a primary task of the agent. Many contacts that origin-ated in other functions but which resulted in an educational situation were recorded and classified as educational. An administrative function exists where the agents are i n -volved administering government polioies and acts. A service function exists for Alberta extension agents in that they f a c i l i t a t e departmental services such as s o i l tests, wind-break tree supply, and diagnostic services, among others. A public relations function is performed for both the institution and the agent. Non-educational adult 4-H contacts were recorded separately although they could have been included in one of the above categories. Organization, coordination, and program development involves several con-tacts with other agency staff and these contacts were recorded as a staff function. 18 FUNCTION OF THE CONTACTS Total Contacts. The 5491 contacts made during the year of the study were classified according to the function of the contact and 2609, or 47.6$, were found to be educational. (Table V) Four secondary functions including service (4.5$), adminis-trative (8*4$), public relations (6.2$), and 4-H adults (6*4$), accounted for a total of 25.5$ of the contacts. The staff function proved to be a major part of the ex-tension agent 1s work in that i t accounted for 27$ of a l l contacts. Excluding staff contacts 4014 contacts with adults were made and 2609 of these (65.1$) were educational. (Table VI) . Individual Contacts. During the year of the study, 3237 individual contacts were made with adult clients* (Table VII). Of these, 1338 or 41.3$ were educational. The next largest category was that of Agency Staff amounting to 1068 contacts, or 33$ of the individual contacts* The remaining 25*9$ of the contacts were: service, 7.5$; administrative 4*5$; public relations 10.5$; and 4-H adults 3*2$. Of the 1338 educational contacts, 197 were with town residents* gardeners, hobbyists, or other non farm residents. Therefore, 57*89 of the individual contaots made with farm people were educational. (Table VIII). 19 TABLE V PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL CONTACTS IN ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO FUNCTION Function of Individual or Individual and the contacts Mass Contacts Mass Contacts Combined No. No. Educational -Individual 1338 24.4 2609 47.6 -Mass 1271 23.2 Service -Individual 245 4.5 245 4.5 -Mass 0 0.0 Administrative -Individual 143 2.5 467 8.4 -Mass 324 5;9 Public Relations -Individual 340 6.2 340 6.2 -Mass* 4H Adults -Individual 103 1.9 353 6.4 -Mass 2 250 4.5 Staff -Individual 1068 19.5 1477 27*0 -Mass** 409 7.5 Total 5.4gi IQO.O 5491 100.0 *Mass public relations contacts were not recorded because of their superficial nature and tendency to distort the picture* **Mass staff contacts include one 5 day convention, recorded as one event, one 3 day meeting as one event as well as smaller meetings. TABLE VI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL CONTACTS EXCEPT AGENCY STAFF BY FUNCTION OF THE CONTACT Function of the contacts Number of adults Percentage of adults Educational 2609 65.1 Service 245 6.1 Administrative 467 11.5 Public relations 340 8.5 4H Adults 353 8.8 Total 4014 100.0 TABLE VII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL ADULT CONTACTS ACCORDING TO FUNCTION OF THE CONTACT Function of the contact Number of contacts Percentage of contacts Eductional 1338 41.3 Service 245 7.5 Administrative 143 4.5 Public relations 340 10.5 4H Adults 103 3*2 Staff contacts 1068 33.0 Total 3237 100.0 22 TABLE VIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL ADULT FARMER CONTACTS BY FUNCTION OF THE CONTACT Function of the contact Number of adults Percentage of adults Educational 1141 57.8 Service 245 12.5 Administrative 145 7.3 Public relations 340 17.2 4H Adults 103 5.2 Total 1972 100.0 23 Group Contacts. During the year, 2254 people were contacted in groups. (Table IX). Educational contacts made up 56.5$ of the total or 1271 while administration accounted for 14*370, 11;1TO were 4H adults and 18.1$ were staff contacted through planning meetings and conferences. The 1271 edu-cational contacts made through group methods involved 73 group events or 82$ of a l l the group events attended by the agent in the one year time period. THE METHOD OF CONTACTING CLIENTELE The term "method", as used and defined for this study refers to the organization of the participants for purposes of education and identifies the ways in which people are organized to conduct the educational a c t i v i t y * 1 Only those methods that involved face to face contact between the agent and the client were used* The methods studied were those generally used by extension agents and included office 2 cal l s , farm v i s i t s , telephone c a l l s , the opportunity c a l l , the mass meeting, and the group meeting. Verner, Coolie., Adult Education Theory and Method. A Conceptual Scheme of the Identification and Class- i f i c a t i o n of Processes for Adult Education* Chicago* Adult Education Association, 1962. g The opportunity c a l l may not be a method in the s t r i c t sense of the term, as i t is not designed or structured, but i t takes place because the agent lives in the com-munity amongst his clientele. For this study, the • opportunity c a l l is defined as the conversation regarding subject matter, that takes place between the agent and the client while they participated in a totally unrelated activity such as attending a sports event. TABLE IX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GROUP CONTACTS BY FUNCTION OF THE CONTACT Function of Adults Group the contact Contacted Events No. * No. Educational 1271 56*5 73 82 Administrative 324 14.3 7 8 4H Adults 250 11.1 1 1 Staff 409 18.1; 8 9 2254 100*0 89 100*0 25 Correspondence, radio, and newspaper work which are a l l part of the total extension program were not included in this study. Individual methods accounted for 3237 contacts with adults or 58.9$ of the total contacts as shown in Table X, while mass or group methods accounted for 2254 contacts, or 41.1$. Office cal l s , 22.2$, phone ca l l s , 23.6$ and mass meetings, 27.2$, each accounted for about one quarter of the contacts. About one-eighth of the contacts were through small group meetings. Ranking the methods in descending order of the number of contacts made shows that mass meetings head the l i s t followed by phone ca l l s , office c a l l s , group meetings* farm calls and opportunity c a l l s . During this particular year, more individual than group contacts were made and two factors affected the smaller number of group contacts. A high percentage of farmers worked in o i l or bush camps a considerable distance from home in order to supplement their incomes so that attend^-ance was low and many group programs were cancelled. Secondly, January was an extremely cold month forcing more than the usual number of cancellations in one of the normally busy months. 26 TABLE X PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTACTS BY METHOD Method Adults involved Individual compared to group methods Individual Office calls Farm calls Phone calls Opportunity-N o * 1223 369 1291 354 22.2 6.7 23.6 6.4 No. fo Individual 3237 58.9 Group Mass Meetings Group Meetings 1491 763 27.2 13.9 Group 2254 41.1 Total 5491 100.0 5491 100.0 27 TIME REQUIRED A l l individual contacts were recorded as f a l l i n g into one of five time periods: one to 20 minutes; 21 to 40 minutes; 41 to 60 minutes; 61 to 90 minutes; and 90 minutes or more. Seventy six percent of the contacts required less than 20 minutes of time. Of these, 1291 out of 2932 were phone calls requiring less than five minutes* Sixteen per-cent of the contacts required 21 to 40 minutes time and 5.5$ required from 41 to 60 minutes time* A number of calls re-quired longer periods of time with 29 calls or 0.9$ requir-ing 61 to 90 minutes and 56 contacts or 1*6$, lasting more than 90 minutes. (Table XI). There is considerable variation among methods regarding the amount of time used per contact. Sixty percent of the office calls required from 1 to 20 minutes, 29$ required from 21 to 40 minutes, and 9$ required between 41 and 60 minutes* One percent required from one to ©ne and one-half hours and one percent required more than one and one-half hours. The time taken with an office interview is usually determined by the client as the agent has l i t t l e control over a client who wishes to talk or socialize* Numerous office callers seek literature and other materials which require l i t t l e or no discussion and about five minutes time. As would be expected the time required from farm v i s i t s 28 TABLE X I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTACTS BY TIME PERIOD AND METHOD Time Periods Percentage ©f calls in each time period METHOD A l l Office Phone Farm Opportunity-Contacts Calls Calls Vis i t s Galls 1 to 20 min. 76 60 100 27 100 21 to 40 min. 16 29 0 34 0 41 to 60 min. 5.5 9 0 22 0 61 to 90 min. 0.9 1 0 6 0 91 & over 1.6 1 0 11 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 varied considerably from that of office oalls. Twenty seven percent of the farm v i s i t s were from one to twenty minutes duration, 34% were from 21 to 40 minutes, 22% from 41 to 60, 6% required from 61 to 90 minutes, and 11% were over one and one-half hours in length. Major management problems usually involved a farm v i s i t that required considerable time. Opportunity calls were usually of short duration, because they were incidental to the main activity at the time for both the client and the agent. INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL Individual Methods; A total of 1338 individual instructional contacts were made and most (79.1%) achieved instructional level two or less. Level three involved 16.8% of the contacts and only 4.1% reached level four or higher. (Table X I I ) . _A high percentage (75%) of phone oalls were non-educational, about one-tenth (10.2%) reached level one, and about one-seventh (14.6%) reached level two. Phone contacts are unsuitable for complicated instruction and were only used educationally to c l a r i f y minor points. More than one-third (36.2%) of the office calls were non educational while 18% reached level one, about a third (31.3%) reached level two and 13.3% achieved level three. (Table XIII). The higher levels of instruction were reached during farm calls although the percentage reaching higher levels TABLE XII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE CONTACT Instructional Contacts level  No* fo 1 384 28.7 2 674 50.4 3 225 16*8 4 46 3*4 5 8 0.6 6 1 0.1 7 0 0.0 Total 1338 100.0 TABLE XIII PERCENTAGE OF CONTACTS REACHING EACH LEVEL IN FOUR INDIVIDUAL METHODS Instructional Method level Phone c a l l Office c a l l Farm c a l l Opportunity c a l l Non-educational * 75.1 % 36.2 37.6 94*3 1 10.2 18*0 7.9 2.6 2 14.6 31.3 25.2 4.8 3 0.0 13.3 19*1 0*3 4 0.0 1.2 9.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0*0 6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0*0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100*0 100*0 was lower than might have been expected. Approximately one-fifth, 19.1$, of the farm calls involved level three instruction. Level four was achieved during 9.0$ of the farm ca l l s , level five during 1.1$ of the farm calls and 0.1$ of farm calls reached level six* Group Contacts. Group contacts were judged on the basis of the agent's perception of the meeting as a whole and thus the establish ment of instructional level was potentially subject to bias Not every individual would be assigned the same level for the contact as that assigned to the meeting because a few individuals participated to a greater extent than others. It was d i f f i c u l t to assess each individual accomplishment in a group situation, therefore those not actively p a r t i c i -pating were assigned the same level as that which the group was judged to have achieved. Some meetings, such as shareholders meetings of the seed cleaning plant, were basically administrative, but the agent's contribution of educational material was deemed to be instructional and such meetings were alloted a level on the scale. Meetings that were basically administrative in purpose and judged as level one, accounted for 30.9$ of the people contacted in groups. Meetings judged at level two included 17.7$, level three 24.8$* level four 13.2$ and level five included 13.3$ of the contacts. None of the group meetings were judged to have reached levels six or seven. (Table XIV). Comparison of Individual and Group Contacts. Group contacts tended to reach higher instructional levels than did individual contacts. (Table XV, Figure 1). About the same percentage of each method achieved level one status where 28.7% of the individual and 50.9% of the group contacts were made. Considerable difference exists at level two where 50.4% of the individual contacts appear compared to 17.7% of the group contacts. A higher percentage, 24.8%, of group contacts appear at level three compared to only 16*8% of the individual contacts having been made at this level* Some 95.9%, of the individual educational contacts were made at levels one, two, and three, whereas 73.4% of the group instructional contacts were made at the lower three instructional levels. Level four was reached during 13*2% of the group con-tacts while only 3.4% of the individual.contacts reached that high on the scale. The effectiveness of group methods was further emphasized as 13.3% of the group contacts att-ained level five compared to only 0*6% of the individual contacts. The two main features that appear in Figure 1 to i l -lustrate the differences between individual and group methods of contact regarding achievement are that the individual contacts tend to be concentrated at levels one TABLE XIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GROUP CONTACTS BY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL.' OF THE MEETING Instructional level Adults contacted in groups No. 1 1 393 30.9 2 226 17.7 3 316 24.8 4 167 13.2 5 169 13.3 6 0 0.0 7 0 0.0 Total 1271 100.0 TABLE XV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OE ALL CONTACTS COMPARED TO INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CONTACTS BY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL Instrue- A l l Educational Individual Group ional contacts contacts contacts level (Table XII) (Table XIV) No. 1o fo 1 777 29.8 28.7 30.9 2 900 34..5 50.4 17.7 3 541 20.8 16.8 24.8 4 213 8*1 3*4 13.2 5 177 6.7 0.6 13.3 6 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 2609 100.0 100.0 (N - 1338) 100.0 (N - 1271) FIGURE I X -3 i r 6 7 Instruction/ Level PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL CONTACTS COMPARED TO INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CONTACTS BY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL 37 and two and that group contacts are more evenly d i s t r i -buted through the various levels. Group Events and Instructional Level; A total of 89 group events were included in the agent's program during the one year time period of the study. One-seventh of the events studied were mass meetings where technical information was discussed. Broader concepts of management were discussed in greater depth in small group meetings which made up 29.2% of the events; Administrative meetings required a considerable amount of time involving 37.1% of the meetings. Adults engaged in 4H were involved at 10.1% of the meetings and eight percent were internal staff meetings. (Table 271). Ten percent of a l l meetings reached level five and these were a l l small group meetings; Sixteen peroent of a l l meetings reached level four, and a l l of these were small group meetings. Fourteen percent reached level three, a quarter of which were small group meetings and three-quarters of which were mass meetings. Mass meetings were not classified higher than level three. Eight percent of a l l meetings were set at level two and none of those were small group meetings. A f a i r l y high proportion of the meetings, 34%* were basically administrative meetings, but where some eduoational work was done they were rated at level one. Eighteen per-cent of the meetings were entirely administrative. TABLE XVI CLASSIFICATION OF ALL GROUP EVENTS BY KIND OF EVENT AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Kind of Event Educational level Kind of Event number i n each Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. % Mass meetings 3 10 13 14.6 Small group meetings 3 9 26 29.2 Administrative 7 24 2 33 37.1 4H adults 1 6 2 9 10.1 Staff 8 8 9.0 Total 16 30 7 13 14 9 0 0 89 100.0 % 18 34 8 14 16 10 0 0 100.0 39 The Number of People and Group Act i v i t i e s . It would seem that a study of extension should include a measurement of quantity related to efficiency. Five kinds of group activities were studied including the mass meeting, the group meeting, administrative meetings, groups of adults contacted through 4H and staff meetings. A total of 2245 people were contacted through these group meetings. Approximately the same number of people were contacted by each of the five kinds of events. (Table XVTI). Four hundred two people, 17.9$* were contacted through mass meetings and these were at instructional levels two and three. Small group meetings involved 395 people, or 17.6$ of the total, and these were involved at levels three, four and five; Small group meetings enabled 169 people to reach instructional level five and 167 to reach level four, where-as no other group method achieved either level four or f IT® Comparing this to individual contacts, (Table XII), shows that only 55 people reached levels four or more through individual methods. The small group meeting enabled the extension agent to reach a greater number of people at higher levels than by other methods. Administrative meetings involved 583 or 25.9$ of the contacts, but where educational work was a secondary function, levels one and two were achieved for less than half the people encountered. The other half of the people were contacted through s t r i c t l y administrative meetings. 40 TABLE XVII CLASSIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF ADULTS CONTACTED IN GROUP EVENTS BY KIND OF EVENT AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Kind of event Number of people in each educational level adults contacted level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. $ Mass meetings 145 257 402 17*9 Group meetings 59 167 169 395 17.6 Adminis-^ trative 324 233 26 583 25.9 4H Adults 250 160 55 465 20.7 Staff 400 400 17.8 Total 974 393 226 316 167, 169 0 0 2245 100.0 $ 43.5 17.5 10*1 14*0 7.4 7.5 0 0 100 41 Adults contacted through 4H groups made up 20.7% of the adults contacted by group methods. Most (250) were non-educational contacts with a small number, 55, being involved at level two while 160, were Involved at level one. Staff contacts included 400 people in group activities such as regional policy meetings. Of a l l the people contacted through the various group act i v i t i e s , 43.5% were non-educational contacts (level 0 Table XVII)* 17*5% were at level one, 10*1% at level two, 14.0% at level three, 7.4% at level four, and 7.5% were at level five. This suggests that the agent should con-centrate more on educational act i v i t i e s i f his role is considered to be primarily that of an adult educator. THE NUMERICAL SCORE A numerical scale score was used to study the relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the clientele and the use they made of the extension service. Each contact was assigned a certain numerical score and the scores were ranked acoording to frequency of use. (Table XVIII). The most frequently used educational contact was the office c a l l which developed to level two, the dissemination of factual information, lasted from one to twenty minutes, and amounted to a score of 8.84. Two hundred f i f t y such calls were made. The second most frequent educational contact was the level one office c a l l where materials, 42 TABLE X V I I I RANK ORDER AND DESCRIPTION OF THE TEN MOST FREQUENTLY ACHIEVED SCORES Rank Score Frequency- Definition order value 1 8.84 251 Office c a l l , level 2, 1 t o 20 min. 2 4.42 196 Office c a l l , level 1, 1 to 20 min. 3 2*38 178 Phone c a l l , level 2, 1 to 20 min* 4 1.19 135 Phone c a l l , level 1, 1 to 20 min. 5 9*72 125 Office c a l l , level 2, 21 to 40 min. 6 14.58 113 Office c a l l , level 3, 21 to 40 min. 7 18.92 55 Farm c a l l , level 2, 21 to 40 min. 8 30.96 37 Farm c a l l , level 3, 41 to 60 min. 9 15.90 35 Office c a l l , level 3, 41 to 60 min.. 10 10.60 24 Office c a l l , level 2, 41 to 60 min. booklets, and other printed matter was given out. Many of the 196 sueh calls were handled by the stenographer* Level two phone calls were third in line followed by level one phone calls* Level two office calls lasting 21 to 40 minutes were f i f t h in number and level three office calls of the same duration were sixth. A larger drop in numbers, dowm to 55 farm calls at level two were ranked seventh in order of frequency while level three farm calls lasting 41 to 60 minutes were eighth in order. Longer office calls lasting 41 to 60 minutes set at level three were ninth in order, and level two office calls lasting for the same length of time were tenth in rank order* The numerical score was used as a quantitative measure of the amount of education accomplished and the cumulative scores for the types of contacts were ranked. The level two office c a l l , lasting one to twenty minutes was not only most frequently used, but achieved the highest cumulative score or quantitative amount of education. (Table I X X ) . The level three office e a l l lasting 21 to 40 minutes ranked second and the level two office c a l l lasting 21 to 40 minutes ranked third for the cumulative score. The fourth position was held by the level three farm c a l l lasting 41 to 60 minutes and f i f t h place is held by level two farm calls lasting 21 to 40 minutes. It is interesting to note that the higher level farm calls in.rank positions seven,, nine and ten, which a l l lasted relatively long 44 TABLE IXK RANK ORDER AND DESCRIPTION OF THE TEN HIGHEST CUMULATIVE SCORES Rank Cumul- Score Number Definition order ative of times score used 1 2218 8.84 251 Office c a l l , level 2, 1 to 20 min. 2 1649 14.58 113 Office c a l l , level 3, 21 to 40 min. 3 1214 9.72 125 Office c a l l , level 2, 21 to 40 min. 4 1145 30.96 37 Farm c a l l , level 3, 41 to 60 min. 5 1041 18.92 55 Farm c a l l , level 2, 21 to 40 min. 6 866 4*42 196 Office c a l l , level 1, 1 to 20 min. 7 636 44.72 14 Farm c a l l , level 4, 61 to 90 min* 8 656 15i90 35 Office c a l l , level 3, 41 to 60 min* 9 530 48*16 11 Farm c a l l , level 4, 91 or more 10 425 28.38 15 Farm c a l l , level 3, 21 to 40 min. periods of time, were high enough in quantitative value to be included among the ten highest cumulative scores but were not used often enough to be included among the ten most frequently achieved scores. Telephone calls* though used often, did not accomplish enough to rank among the top ten in cumulative scores. The quantitative numerical score used in this study enables determination of the cumulative effectiveness of the various individual methods and establishment of bench marks from which improvements could be made. The short level two office c a l l is relied upon heavily in this case. Perhaps with more concentration and effort the agent could push many such calls to level three or four i f he were to concentrate on ways of engaging the client in deep, pur-poseful conversation* The difference in many cases would be that of not just satisfying the client's questions, but leading him on to deeper concepts. The farm c a l l , although not used as often because of it s cost in terms of time and money, was most effective since higher instructional levels were attained. Seven farm calls each scored 60.20 numerically which classes them as a level five farm c a l l lasting ninety or more minutes; The cumulative scores of phone calls, office oalls, and farm calls were compared. The cumulative score from 322 phone calls amounted to a total score of 613. The total for 790 office calls was 7409 and the total for 199 farm c a l l s was 5712. This again points to the usefulness and frequency of use of the o f f i c e c a l l and to the value of the farm c a l l . With further study of the cumulative score^ the t o t a l quantitative educational accomplishment of i n d i v i d u a l methods can be compared with the accomplishment of group methods. (Table XX). The cumulative score for each method estab-l i s h e d a value of 23,510 for small group meetings, followed by 15,105 for mass meetings, 7,409 for o f f i c e c a l l s , 5,712 for farm c a l l s , 4,060 for administrative meetings, 3,845 for 4H adults and 613 for phone c a l l s * I f one assumes that the goal of an extension agent i s to educate the largest number of c l i e n t e l e possible to the greatest depth possible making the most e f f i c i e n t use of time, then the data indicates that one method i s far superior to a l l others to achieve such a goal. The small group meeting, although not used to a great extent, ac-complished this goal to a far greater extent than any other method* The reason the group meeting was superior to the mass meeting was that almost the same number of people were involved, but the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l was much higher* The superiority of the group meeting as established by the above data agrees generally with the research c i t e d previously* SUMMARY One agent's contacts with h i s c l i e n t e l e were analyzed by studying the kind of contact, the methods used, the time TABLE XX CUMULATIVE ANNUAL SCORE FOR EACH CONTACT METHOD 47 Phone c a l l s O f fice c a l l s Farm c a l l s Method Level Adults Level Method Total Total score No. Weight Weight Score for method N X W X W *• S Mass 2 145 2 14.25 4115 meetings 3 257 3 14i25 10990 15^105 Group 3 59 3 13*90 2460 meetings 4 167 4 13*90 9300 5 169 5 13.90 11750 23,510 Admini- 1 233 1 14.25 3320 st r a t i v e 2 26 2 14*25 740 4,060 4H Adults 1 160 1 14.25 2280 2 55 2 14.25 1565 3,845 613 7,409 5,712 48 involved, the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l achieved and the r e s u l t -ing dependent numerical score for a period of one year. The task of educating r u r a l adults proved to be a major function involving just under h a l f of the contacts. The second important function was that of contacting various agency s t a f f necessary to sustain the t o t a l pro-gram. Excluding the s t a f f contacts, 65$ of the adults contacted were involved i n the educational function* More contacts were made through i n d i v i d u a l methods than through group methods* Over one-quarter of the contacts were made through mass meetings and less than one-quarter were made through telephone c a l l s and o f f i c e c a l l s . The remaining one-quarter were made through group meetings, farm c a l l s and opportunity c a l l s * Group contacts attained higher i n s t r u c t i o n a l levels than i n d i v i d u a l contacts. Farm c a l l s tended to reach higher leve l s than o f f i c e c a l l s which i n time reached higher l e v e l s than phone c a l l s * The major portion of educational c a l l s were at l e v e l two and consisted of b r i e f , information dis-semination types of contacts with l i m i t e d discussion of narrowly confined subject matter. Small group meetings attained higher i n s t r u c t i o n a l levels for a large number of people. Suoh meetings attained levels three, four* or f i v e , while mass meetings tended to stay at l e v e l two and at l e v e l one where administrative purposes were primary. The l e v e l two o f f i c e c a l l l a s t i n g one to twenty minutes was used most frequently as a unit of educational input and the same unit contributed the highest cumulative score for the one year time period. The small group meeting was superior to other methods i n l e v e l s attained and i n t o t a l annual cumulative r e s u l t s considering depth of learning and numbers of people involved* 50 CHAPTER THREE RELATIONSHIPS OF TOTAL SCORE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS One of the purposes of t h i s study was to measure the use the c l i e n t e l e made of the extension service i n a one year period and ascertain whether or not extensive use of the f a c i l i t i e s i s related to the socio-economic charact-e r i s t i c s of farmers. By using the t o t a l score, those who used the service occasionally where compared to those who used the service extensively with respect to a number of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS AND TOTAL SCORE The Number of Contacts Per C l i e n t . A tabulation of the number of contacts individuals made showed that 14*5% of the c l i e n t e l e contacted the agent once during the year. Thirteen percent were i n contact twice, 12.5% three times, 13% four times, 15% f i v e to seven times, 11.5% eight to ten times, 7% eleven to f i f t e e n times and 14% contacted the agent more than sixteen times during the year. (Table XXI). Regrouping the number of contacts shows that over h a l f or 52.5% contacted the agent fewer than f i v e times a year while about one-quarter (26.5%) contacted the agent from f i v e to ten times and 21% were i n contact sixteen or more times during the year. The Total Score Per C l i e n t . Fourteen percent of the c l i e n t e l e scored less than ten points for the whole year, 12*5% scored between 11 and 20, TABLE XXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CONTACTS MADE DURING THE YEAR Number of contacts per year Cli e n t e l e No. * Regrouped Contacts * One 28 14.0 Two 26 13.0 Three 25 12.5 Four 26 13.0 4 or less 52;5 Five to seven 30 15.0 Eight to ten 23 11.5 5 to 10 26.5 Eleven to f i f t e e n 14 7.0 Sixteen or more 28 14.0 11 or more 21.0 Total 200 100i0 100.0 10.5% between 21 and 30, seven percent between 31 and 40, and 3;5$ from 41 to 50. Grouping a l l the people who had a t o t a l score for the year of less than 50 shows that 48% of the c l i e n t e l e were i n t h i s category. (Table XXII). The next class of 51 to 100 points included 23% of the c l i e n t e l e , followed by 18*5% i n the range from 101 to 200. The group of c l i e n t e l e scoring between 201 and 300 made up 5.5% of the sample and f i v e percent scored over 300 points* A few individuals reached well over 400, probably due to work on s p e c i f i c projects such as the design of a hog barn when many contacts were made regarding d e t a i l s * Comparison of Total Score and Number of Contacts. The number of contacts an i n d i v i d u a l has with the extension service and the t o t a l score he achieves are r e -lated as score i s dependent on the number of contacts. D i s t r i b u t i n g the t o t a l score frequency into quartiles shows that approximately one-quarter of the c l i e n t s scored between one and twenty, one-quarter between 21 and 60, one-quarter between 61 and 125, and one-quarter between 126 and 400 or more* (Table XXIII). A p a r a l l e l d i v i s i o n of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the number of contacts c l i e n t s made shows that approximately one-quarter were i n contact once or twice, one-quarter three or four times, one-quarter f i v e to seven times, and one-quarter eight or more times. At the extremes of the number of contacts and t o t a l TABLE XXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL SCORE OBTAINED THROUGH ANNUAL USE OF THE EXTENSION SERVICE Annual Adults obtaining Regrouped ranges score the score No. Range No. $ 1 to 10 29 14.5 1 to 50 96 48.0 11 to 20 25 12.5 21 to 30 21 10*5 31 to 40 14 7.0 41 to 50 7 3.5 51 to 60 10 5.0 51 to 100 46 23*0 61 to 70 12 6.0 71 to 80 9 4.5 81 to 90 8 4.0 91 to 100 7 3*5 101 to 125 11 5.5 101 to 200 37 18.5 126 to 150 8 4.0 151 to 175 10 5*0 176 to 200 8 4.0 201 to 250 6 3.0 201 to 300 11 5.5 251 to 300 5 2.5 301 to 350 2 1*0 301 to 400 10 5.0 351 to 400 and 8 4*0 over To t a l 200 100.0 200 100.0 TABLE XXIII APPROXIMATE QUARTILE DISTRIBUTIONS OF TOTAL SCORE AND NUMBER OF CONTACTS D i s t r i b u t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i o n of TOTAL SCORE NUMBER OF CONTACTS Quartile Score No. of Actual Con- No. of Actual Range Adults % tacts Adults $ F i r s t 1-20 54 27 1 or 2 54 27 Second 21-60 52 26 3 or 4 51 25.5 Third 61-125 47 23.5 5 to 7 53 26.5 Fourth 126-400 47 23.5 8 to 16 42 21 Total 200 100.00 200 100.0 55 score d i s t r i b u t i o n s , 71.4$ of those who contacted the agent once, scored between one and ten, 25$ between 11 and 20, and 3.5$ between 21 and 30. At the other end of the scale, 25$ of those who contacted the agent 16 times or mora* scored from 351 to over 400, 3.6$ between 301 and 350, 14.3$ be-tween 251 and 300, 7.1$ between 201 and 250. In other words, 50$ of those who contacted the agent 16 times or more scored over 200. Using the d i v i s i o n of 70 points or more as a c r i t e r i o n of extensive use indicated that 89$ of those contacting the agent 16 times or more scored over 70 and would therefore be termed extensive users of the service* There were some deviations from the generally close r e l a t i o n s h i p between number of contacts and t o t a l soore. One person contacted the agent more than 16 times and scored between 31 and 40, a f a i r l y low score. One person was i n contact between 11 and 15 times and only scored between 21 and 30. At the other extreme, two persons were each i n contact twice and one scored between 100 and 125 while the other scored 91 to 100 points. D e f i n i t i o n of Extensive and Nominal Use. Terms such as "little™, "moderate^ and "extensive" are often used to denote the extensiveness of use of the extension service; Such terms may be vague as they depend on the context i n which they are used. The data obtained i n this study indicate that about half of the c l i e n t e l e u t i l i z e the service to a much greater extent than the other h a l f . Some individ u a l s would be i n diff e r e n t categories depending on whether the c r i t e r i o n was number of contacts or t o t a l score; In the following analysis t o t a l score was used as the basis for assigning a use category and res-pondents with scores of less than 7G points were c l a s s i f i e d as "low score" or "nominal" users of the service; Respond-ents achieving a score of 71 or higher were termed "high score** or "extensive" users of the service. Some 117 res-pondents or 58.5$ of the c l i e n t e l e were designated as nominal users of the extension ser vie: e and 83 c l i e n t s or 41*5% were deemed to be extensive users of the service. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND SCORE The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t o t a l score into categories denotes the degree of use the c l i e n t e l e made of the exten-sion service; Research has determined that differences exist between users and non-users of the service* Because l i t t l e research was found regarding the differences between extensive users and nominal users of the extension service, the n u l l hypothesis was therefore established that no s i g n i -f i c a n t differences exist between extensive and nominal users of the extension service; Various socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were tabulated against the t o t a l score which was a dependent variable i n d i c a t i n g extensiveness of use; The Chi-square, Student's T test, and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis were used to test f or s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Age .and T o t a l Score. Twenty one peroent of the c l i e n t e l e were leaa than 34 years of age, 54.5$ were from 35 to 54 years of age and 24.5$ were 54 years of age or older. (Table XXIV). The n u l l hypothesis that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n age between extensive and nominal users of the ex-tension service was accepted as thedifference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n between the low score group and the high group was found to be non s i g n i f i c a n t . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the mean age of the high and low groups; (Table XXV). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between score and age. (Table XXVI). Thus age was not a char-a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between nominal and extensive use of the extension service. Education and Total Score. The c l i e n t e l e consisted of 47;5$ with grade eight education or l e s s , 39.5$ with grades nine to twelve and 13.0$ had completed A g r i c u l t u r a l College, Technical School or University. (Table XXVII); The n u l l hypothesis that there was no difference i n education between extensive and nominal users of the service was accepted on the basis that the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the extensive users was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from that of the nominal group. The difference i n means was not s i g n i f i c a n t and there was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between education and t o t a l score. Therefore the degree of education was not re l a t e d TABLE XXIV DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY AGE OF THE CLIENTELE AGE IN YEARS TOTAL LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE GROUP GROUP No. $ No. fo No. fo Up to 34 42 21*0 25 21.4 17 20*5 35 to 54 109 54.5 63 53.8 46 55*4 55 to 74 49 24.5 29 24.8 20 24.1 To t a l 200 100.0 117 100*0 83 100*0 x 2 o 0.05, d.f*2, p>*05 TABLE XXV TABLE OF T TEST PROBABILITIES T T Charact e r i s t i c Mean Value P r o b a b i l i t y Low High Score Score Group Group Age 3.692 3.663 0*146 0.856 Education 2.966 2*892 0;400 0.691 Ownership 1.325 1.554 -1.494 0.133 Live on farm 1.248 1.133 1*254 0.208 Distance 2.411 2.120 1*871 0.060 Years 3.393 3*361 0.180 0.835 Off farm work 2.812 2.301 2.672 0.008 Off farm income 2.761 2.241 2.234 0.025 Size (acres) 5.983 6.169 -0*850 0.401 Capi t a l value 6.000 6.578 -2.222 0.026 Sales 5.462 6*325 -3*151 0*002 Type 3.308 3.578 -0*907 0.369 Note: Data was gathered to conform to Canadian.census categories; Arithmetic means were calculated by multiplying the category number (1, 2, 3i...) by the number of respondents i n each category. The differences i n means of high and low score groups were then compared. TABLE XXVI COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION AGE EDUCTN OWN LIVE DISTCE YEARS OFFW OFFI SIZE AGE 1 . 0 0 0 0 EDUCTN - 0 . 0 9 1 + 9 1 . 0 0 0 0 OWN - O . l i i T l 0.1289 1 . 0 0 0 0 LIVE 0 . 0 1 + 6 7 0 . 1 1 + 5 6 - 0 . 0 3 1 + 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 DISTCE -0.139k - 0 . 0 7 7 7 0 . 0 6 i l 2 - 0 . 0 5 7 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 YEARS 0.7129 -0.1620 - 0 . 1 0 5 3 - 0 . 1 5 5 9 -0.0010 1 . 0 0 0 0 OffW - 0 . 2 1 + 3 9 0.11+1+6 -0.0926 0 . 3 1 + 6 7 - 0 . 0 3 5 9 - 0 . 1 + 1 6 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 Offl - 0 . 0 8 l 8 0.1171+ -0.1261+ 0.3053 - 0 . 0 9 6 6 -0.279b 0 . 7 9 6 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 SIZE - 0 . 0 2 2 0 0 . 0 1 2 3 0.0160 - 0 . 1 5 9 U - 0 . 0 1 0 5 0.1681 -0.2553 - 0 . 3 5 1 + 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 VALUE - 0 . 0 1 1 + 7 - 0 . 0 1 + 5 2 -0.0961+ - 0 . 2 3 1 2 0 . 0 3 6 8 0 . 1 3 1 2 -0.3091+ -0.1+067 0 . 6 0 3 6 SALE -0.0099 - 0 . 0 5 0 8 -0.0191 - 6 . 2 5 7 1 + 0 . 0 8 2 9 0 . 1 9 1 1 - 0 . 1 + 2 2 3 - 0 .51+13 0 . 6 0 7 6 TYPE -0.0769 - 0 . 0 2 2 1 - 0 . 0 2 7 1 -0.11+17 0 . 0 7 3 U 0.0162 - 0 . 1 8 8 9 -0.1620 0 . 0 3 3 0 CONTTS 0 . 0 5 6 6 0 . 0 2 7 7 -0.0126 - 0 . 0 3 1 5 - 0 . 1 5 1 + 0 0 . 0 6 8 2 - 0 . 1 5 0 1 + - 0 . 0 8 6 5 0 . 1 6 7 0 OCS - 0 . 0 0 7 1 - 0 . 0 5 7 7 - 0 . 1 3 6 9 - 0 . 0 0 1 3 0 . 0 3 5 6 - 0 . 0 0 5 2 0.001+1+ - 0 . 0 2 7 9 0 . 1 1 9 3 FCS - 0 . 0 3 2 3 - 0 . 0 1 1 + 6 - 0 . 0 I + 7 1 -0.1518 -0.1222 0 . 0 7 1 + 0 - 0 . 1 5 1 + 2 - 0 . 1 2 5 2 0 . 1 1 5 2 GMS 0.0991 0 . 0 1 6 3 0 . 0 3 3 3 - 0 . 1 1 + 7 5 - 0 . 1 2 8 9 0.11+89 - 0 . 2 7 1 5 - 0 . 1 9 5 1 0 . 1 8 5 7 GROPMS O.O i + 0 5 0 . 0 3 1 2 0 . 1 1 3 6 - 0 . 1 0 9 2 - 0 . 0 8 0 1 0 . 0 8 7 5 - 0 . 1 5 1 + 6 - 0 . 1 6 2 1 0 . 0 5 3 7 FH - 0 . 0 1 1 1 - 0 . 0 1 5 3 -0.0821+ 0 . 0 0 8 7 0.0033 0 . 0 3 2 1 -0.0299 -0.0067 0.1016 SCORE 0 . 0 0 8 3 0.031+2 0 . 0 3 9 1 - 0 . 1 0 5 8 -0.11+83 0 . 0 0 5 2 - 0 . 1 6 1 + 0 -0.1310 0 . 1 0 5 5 VALUE SALE TYPE CONTTS OCS FCS GMS GROPMS PH VALUE 1 . 0 0 0 0 SALE 0 . 7 2 3 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 TYPE 0.1337 0 . 2 0 5 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 CONTTS 0 . 1 6 7 2 0 . 2 3 2 6 0.1101 1 . 0 0 0 0 OCS o . u + n + 0 . 1 2 2 1 0 . 2 0 1 3 0 . 2 2 5 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 FCS 0.21 + U + 0 . 2 7 9 9 0.201+3 0 . 5 6 7 2 0.2997 1 . 0 0 0 0 GMS 0 . 1 3 7 2 0 . 2 1 1 1 - 0 . 0 0 1 5 0 . 6 1 7 5 0.091+9 0.2920 1 . 0 0 0 0 GROPMS 0 . 0 7 3 1 0 . 1 5 7 1 0.0080 0.1+271 0 . 0 6 1 9 0.2053 0 . 3 2 8 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 PH 0 . 0 8 3 8 0 . 1 7 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 5 O.i+i+69 0 . 2 6 3 1 0 . 2 7 6 0 0.1661 0 . 0 1 + 9 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 SCORE 0 . 2 1 0 1 0 . 2 5 0 1 0.H+82 0.B121 0 . 2 1 + 3 2 0 . 5 8 5 6 0 . 5 6 8 9 0 . 6 0 0 3 0 . 2 1 3 7 TABLE XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY EDUCATION OF THE CLIENTELE Education To t a l Low Score Group High Score Group No. £ No. No. Less then Gr. 8 95 47*5 56 47.9 39 47.0 Grades 9 - 1 2 79 39.5 46 39.3 33 39*8 Agriculture College, Technical School or University- 26 13*0 15 12.8 11 13.2 Total 200 100iO 117 100,0 83 100.0 x 2 - 0.02, d.f. 2, p-^.05 62 extensiveness of use of the extension service. Yers of Farming Experience. Twenty four percent of the c l i e n t e l e had fewer than ten years of,farming experience, 32.5$ had 11 to 20 years experience and 43.5$ had more than twenty years experience. (Table XXVIII). The n u l l hypothesis that there was no difference between the low score group and the high score group related to the number of years of farming experience was accepted as no s i g n i f i c a n t differences at the .05 l e v e l were found between the d i s t r i b u t i o n s . There was no s i g n i -f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of score and farming experience. Thus the number of years of farming experience was not a char-a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between nominal and extensive use of the extension service. Off Farm Work, Numerous farmers i n f r o n t i e r areas work off the faritv to supplement t h e i r farm income. F i f t y seven percent of the c l i e n t e l e worked o f f the farm less than 72 days, 29*5$ from.73 to 156 days and 13.5$ worked off the farm 156 to 365 days or for more than s i x months of the year. (Table XXIX). More of the low score group than expected worked o f f the farm for more than s i x months, and fewer of the high score group than expected worked o f f the farm for more than s i x months* The difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , which led to the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis of no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the low scoring group and the high score group with reference to TABLE m i l l PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY NUMBER OF YEARS OF FARMING EXPERIENCE No. of Tot a l Low Score High Score years Group Group Farming Experience No. \fo No. fo No. f 0-10 48 24;0 29 24;8 19 22;9 11-20 65 32.5 35 29.9 30 36.1 21-50 87 43.5 53 45.3 34 41.0 Total 200 100.0 117 100.0 83 100.0 g X m 0.86, d.f.2, p^.05 TABLE XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORING CLIENTELE BY LENGTH OF TIME SPENT AT OFF FARM WORK Time spent at off farm work To t a l Low Score Group High Score Group No. $ No. * No. fo Less than 72 days 114 57.0 60 51*3 54 65.1 73 to 156 days 59 29.5 35 29.9 24 28.9 157 to 365 days 27 13.5 22 18.8 5 6.0 Total 200 100.0 117 100.0 83 100.0 x2 =. 7,51, d.f.2. p<.05 65 o f f farm mrk, Of the low score group, 18.8% worked off the farm f o r more than 157 days of the year while only 6.0% of the high score group worked off the farm for that length of time. The difference i n means calculated i n terms of blocks of time spent at o f f farm work resulted i n a calculated Trvalue of 2.672 which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l * The mean time spent at o f f farm wark for the low scoring group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than for the high scoring group. A negative c o r r e l a t i o n of -0.1640, ife i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l indicated that as the amount of time spent at off farm work increased the t o t a l score or use.of the extension service decreased. The s i g n i f i c a n t differences that were found between the low score c l i e n t e l e and the high score c l i e n t e l e i n r e -l a t i o n to the amount of time spent at o f f farm work indicated that the extensive users devoted considerably more time to work on the farm whereas the nominal users were more l i k e l y to work at o f f farm jobs* Off Farm Income. Off farm income was studied to compare the amount of o f f farm inoome with ,the amount of farm income* Of the c l i e n t e l e , 26.5% had o f f farm income amounting to less than half of t h e i r farm income, 55.5% had off farm inoome amounting to three quarters of their farm income, and 18% had off farm income equal to or greater than t h e i r farm income. (Table XXX). More of the low scoring group than of the high scoring group TABLE XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY AMOUNT OF OFF FARM INCOME COMPARED TO AMOUNT OF FARM INCOME Off farm income as proportion T o t a l Low Score High Score of farm income Group Group No. fo ' No. fo No. fo One-half 53 26.5 26 22.2 27 32.5 Three-quarters 111 55.5 66 56.4 45 54.2 Equal or greater 36 18.0 25 21.4 11 13.3 T o t a l 200 100.0 117 100.0 8 3 100.0 X 2 - 3.76, d.f.2, p - > i 0 5 67 received a high proportion of t h e i r income from off the farm but the difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n was not s i g -n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ; There was a negative, but non s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between score and off farm income. The difference i n means between the low score group and the high score group resulted i n a calculated T-value of 2.234 which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g that the low score group earned a higher proportion of t h e i r income from o f f the farm than did the high score group. More of the low score group received a higher proporr-t i o n of their income from o f f the farm, the score increased as the proportion of off farm income tended to decrease, and a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the means of the low and high score groups le d to a tentative r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis that there was no difference i n o f f farm income between nominal and extensive users of the service. Further research i s required to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p of exten-siveness of use of the extension service and the amount of off farm income. Complicating factors are the extreme v a r i -ation i n farm income between farms, the v a r i a t i o n i n o f f farm income between individuals, and the intermittent nature of off farm work. Size of Farm and Score. F i f t e e n percent of the c l i e n t e l e farmed less than 399 acres, 42.5% farmed between 400 and 759 acres and 42.5% farmed more than 760 acres. (Table XXXI). A higher per-TABLE XXXE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GROUPS BY SIZE OF LOW THE AND HIGH FARM SCORE Size of farm acres Total Low Score Group High Score Group No. No. No. Less then 599 30 15*0 19 16*2 11 13.3 400 to 759 85 42.5 52 44.5 33 39.7 760 or more 85 42*5 46 39.3 39 47.0 T o t a l 200 100.0 117 100*0 83 100.0 x 2 = 1*21, d.f*2, p>.05 69 centage of the high score group owned large farms but the difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t leading to the acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis that there was no difference i n the siz e of farms re l a t e d to the extensiveness of use of the service* Therefore farm si z e i n terms of number of acres, was not a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between extensive and nominal users of the service. Capital. .Value and Score. Farm c a p i t a l value which i s a more accurate measure of the siz e of the enterprise than i s number of acres* showed that 22% of the c l i e n t e l e owned farm c a p i t a l t o t a l i n g less than f25,000, 55% valued their c a p i t a l between $25,000 and $75,000 and 23% valued their c a p i t a l at more than $75,000. (Table XXXII). There was a lower percentage (17.9%) of highly c a p i t a l i z e d farms i n the low score group and a higher percentage (30.1%) of highly c a p i t a l i z e d farms i n the high score group of c l i e n t e l e , but these differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l * A calculated T-value of -2.222 which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l indicated that the msan d o l l a r value of high scoring farmers was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the mean d o l l a r value of low scoring farmers. There was a posi t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.2101 between t o t a l score and c a p i t a l value which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l i n d i -cating that as score increased so did the farm c a p i t a l value. The differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of farm c a p i t a l TABLE XXXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY CAPITAL VALUE OF THE FARM Capital Value Total Low Score Group High Score /Group * No. fo No. fo No. fo Less t M n 24,999 44 22 . 0 29 24.9 15 18.1 2 5 , 0 0 0 to 74,999 110 55.0 67 57.3 43 51.8 75,000 & up 46 23;0 21 17.9 25 30.1 Tota l 200 100.0 117 100.0 83 100 ;0 X2 = 4.39, d.f.2, p> .05 value, though not s i g n i f i c a n t , and the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences i n means and the s i g n i f i c a n t positive c o r r e l a t i o n of score and c a p i t a l value led to the tentative r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis. Thus farm c a p i t a l value was a char-a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between nominal and extensive use of the service. Product Sales and Score. About one fourth (24.5%) of the farms had gross sales amounting to l e s s than $3,749, h a l f (52%) of the farms sold between |3,750 and $14,999 worth of produce and the r e -maining quarter (23.5%) sold over f15,000 worth of produce* (Table XXXIII). There was considerable v a r i a t i o n between the low score group and the high score group with respect to sales. Of the low score group, 30.8% sold less than |3,749 worth of products whereas only 15.7% of the high score group were i n the low sales category- On the other hand only 18.8% of the low score group sold more than $15,000 worth of products, whereas 30.1% of the high score group received the higher gross income. The differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . The difference between the mean of the low score group and the mean of the high score group resulted i n a T-value of -0.3151 which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , therefore* the mean value of products sold was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher for the high score group* There was a posi t i v e corre-l a t i o n of 0.2501 which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l TABLE XXXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORING CLIENTELE BY VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD Value ef Low Score High Score Products sold T o t a l Group Group No. fo No. <fo NO. fa Less than #3,749.00 49 24*5 36 30.8 13 15*7 #3,750.00 to |l4j999i00 104 52.0 59 50.4 45 54.2 More than |15,000.00 47 23.5 22 18.8 25 30.1 Total 200 100.0 117 100.0 83 100.0 x 2 = 7;30, d.f.2, p<.05 between the score and the value of products sold i n d i c a t i n g that the c l i e n t e l e who had a higher gross income tended to use the service more extensively. Therefore, the n u l l hypothesis that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n c l i e n t e l e with respect to value of products sold was rejected on the basis of s i g n i f i c a n t differences as shown by Ghi-square, T test and corre-l a t i o n analysis. The alternative hypothesis that there are socio-economic differences between extensive and nominal users of the Extension Service was therefore accepted. The value of products sold was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between nominal and extensive users of the service. Type of Farm and Score. Farms were c l a s s i f i e d as f i e l d crop farms (43.5$), mixed farms (38.5$) and l i v e s t o c k farms (18$). (Table XXXIV). There were differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of low and high score farms but those differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t * There was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.1482, s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , between the type of farm and score which meant that as the type of farm moved through the various categories from specialized f i e l d crop farms on one end of the scale to s p e c i a l i z e d l i v e s t o c k farms on the other end, the score increased. Further research would be required to v e r i f y or n u l l i f y the i n d i c a t i o n that differences ex i s t with regard to type of farm because the type of farm de-pends to a considerable degree on the l o c a t i o n , the stage of development, and on preferences, special t r a i n i n g and TABLE XXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW AND HIGH SCORE GROUPS BY FARM TYPE Type of Low Soore High Score Farm Tot a l Group Group No, fo No. fo No. fo F i e l d crops 87 43.5 50 42.7 37 44.6 Mixed 77 38.5 50 42.7 27 32.5 Livestock 36 18.0 17 14.6 19 22.9 Total 200 100.0 117 100.0 83 100.0 x 2 » 3.24, d*f;2, .05 interests of the agent." SCORE AND METHOD OF CONTACT It was expected that the t o t a l score would correlate p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the number of contacts and with each method of contact as the score was dependent upon the number, type, and depth of contacts. The s i g n i -ficance of the correlations was established as expected, but the degree of co r r e l a t i o n was quite variable. A high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r"0.8121) was found between t o t a l score and the number of contacts. A c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o of 0*2432 was found to exist between score and the number of o f f i c e c a l l s which was somewhat lower than expected, because of the v a r i a t i o n i n the depth of i n s t r u c t i o n ac-complished through o f f i c e c a l l s . The number of farm c a l l s had a higher co r r e l a t i o n (r^0.5856) with score than did o f f i c e c a l l s . Farm c a l l s were usually more structured and purposeful than o f f i c e c a l l s and generally accomplished more, leading to a higher c o r r e l a t i o n with t o t a l score. The number of general meetings attended correlated s i g n i -f i c a n t l y with t o t a l score (r-0.5689) as did group meetings (r-0.6003). Phone c a l l s had a low co r r e l a t i o n of 0.2137 with t o t a l score. I t would seem that the number of o f f i c e c a l l s and phone c a l l s have low c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o s with score because many people phone or c a l l at the o f f i c e only once or twice through the year. Such individuals may not contact the 76 agent i n any other way; The higher c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o s f o r farm c a l l s * general meetings, and group meetings, are pro-bably obtained because i n d i v i d u a l s who attend various meetings and have the agent c a l l at t h e i r farm are probably c o n t a c t i n g the agent on numerous occasions through the year. I t would seem that the c l i e n t e l e who make exten-s i v e use of the s e r v i c e do so by p a r t i c i p a t i n g through many and various methods organized by the extension s e r v i c e . A COMPARISON OF TOTAL SCORE AND THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS IN RELATION TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Because the t o t a l score an i n d i v i d u a l obtains i s p a r t -i a l l y dependent on the number of contacts he makes wi t h the extension s e r v i c e , i t i s to be expected that a s i m i l a r re?-l a t i o n s h i p would e x i s t between score and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as e x i s t e d between number of contacts and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l i e n t e l e . Because the score depends on the i n s t r u c t -i o n a l l e v e l , the i n f l u e n c e of the method, the amount of time involved as w e l l as the number of contacts, an absolute p a r a l l e l could not be expected. No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found r e l a t i n g the number of contacts to age, education, l e n g t h of time l i v e d on the farm i n the year, farming experience, p r o p o r t i o n of o f f farm income and the type of farm, as was also found when score was r e l a t e d to these p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . (Table XXXV). A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l was found r e l a t i n g the s i z e of the farm to the number of c o n t a c t s , whereas only a p o s i t i v e but non s i g n i f i c a n t TABLE XXXV CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF TOTAL SCORE AND NUMBER OF CONTACTS IN RELATION TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Characteristic Correlation Co e f f i c i e n t s Age Education Time l i v e d on farm Experience Off farm work Off farm income Size Capital value Gross income Type of farm Total score 0.0083 0.0342 -0.1058 0.0052 •0.1640* •0.1310 0.1055 0.2101** 0.2501** 0.1482* Number of contacts 0.0566 0.0277 -0.0315 0.0682 -0.1504* -0.0865 0.1670* 0.1672* 0.2326** 0.1101 Number of: Contacts Off i c e c a l l s Farm c a l l s General meeting Group meeting Phone c a l l s 0.8121** 0.2432** 0*5856** 0.5689** 0.6003** 0.2137** 0.2256** 0.5872** 0.6175** 0.4271** 0.4469** * s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l ** s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l 78 co r r e l a t i o n was found between score and farm s i z e . A pos i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , was found between the number of contacts and the farm c a p i t a l value, whereas the positive c o r r e l a t i o n with score and c a p i t a l value was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . The gross income was found to correlate p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the .01 l e v e l with both the number of contacts and the score* As would be expected the number of contacts and the score correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the number of contacts made/through each method. However, a higher c o r r e l a t i o n r a t i o of 0*6003 was found r e l a t i n g score to the number of group meetings compared to the r a t i o of 0.4271 for the number of contacts and number of group meetings. Although the r e s u l t s of using either t o t a l score or number of contacts may be sim i l a r , i t would seem that from an educational point of view, the t o t a l score concept which measures quality as well as quantity would y i e l d more use-f u l information. THE USE OF TWO METHODS Off i c e C a l l s . O f f i c e o a l l s were tabulated and i t was found that of two hundred people interviewed, 51.5$ were i n the o f f i c e one or two times* 15$ were i n the o f f i c e three or four times, 17.5$ were i n the o f f i c e f i v e or more times, and 16$ were not contacted i n the o f f i c e . The people with low scores 79 were contacted usually only once and most of them were single o f f i c e c a l l s . Of the people scoring between one and ten, 78.5$ were i n the o f f i c e once or twice while the other 21*5$ were contacted by some method other than the o f f i c e c a l l . On the top end of the scale, a l l of those who scored more than 200 points had been i n the o f f i c e . Two percent of those scoring more than 200 points had been i n the o f f i c e only once or twice, in d i c a t i n g that those i n d i v i d -uals made good use of the extension service by methods other than the o f f i c e c a l l . Farm C a l l s . Some 56$ of the respondents had not been contacted on the farm while twenty percent received one farm c a l l and 24$ received two or more farm c a l l s . One person out of the twenty that scored over 200 points achieved that score with-out a farm c a l l , but a l l the rest had farm c a l l s . Seven-teen of that group of twenty received two or more farm c a l l s . Of those scoring less than ten points, 85.7$ r e -ceived no farm c a l l s , 14.3$ received one c a l l , and none received more than one. farm c a l l . SUMMARY Several socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were studied i n r e l a t i o n to the extensiveness of use the c l i e n t e l e made of the extension service. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found that indicated that extensive users of the extension service spent less time at o f f farm work and had a lower proportion of t h e i r income derived from such work, thus 80 they tended to be f u l l time farmers deriving most of their income from the farm. The extensive users had higher c a p i t a l assets and had higher gross sales than the nominal users of the ..service. L i t t l e difference was found r e l a t i n g age, education, tenure, experience and size of farm, as measured by number of acres, to extensiveness of use. Therefore, on the basis of the s i g n i f i c a n t differences that were found, the hypothesis that differences e x i s t be-tween c l i e n t e l e who use the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service extensively and those who use i t moderately was accepted with respect to those factors pertaining to the size of the farm and committment to agriculture. A much more exhaustive study over a longer period of time including several exten-sion d i s t r i c t s would be required to determine and define more pr e c i s e l y the socio-economic differences between extensive and nominal users of the service. CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The educational r o l e of the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t i s somehwat nebulous and poorly understood. The purpose of t h i s study was to define that r o l e more c l e a r l y by analysing the adult educational function of a g r i c u l t u r a l extension as carried out by one agent and subsequently described by that agent. In order to do this a measuring instrument was developed, used, and analysed as an i n -tegral part of the description. The development of the measuring instrument was an attempt to define another approach to evaluation that was more precise and informa-tive than the attendance record commonly used. The study was done on the job by an extension agent i n Northern Alberta i n a d i s t r i c t known as the Peace River extension d i s t r i c t . INSTRUMENT The measuring instrument was developed to measure the quality of the agents contact with his c l i e n t e l e and thereby r e l a t e q u a l i t y and quantity of educational work as a description of the educational r o l e . The measuring i n -strument was developed i n such a way that i t delineated stages of progress from the mere dissemination of inform-ation to the development of the individuals thinking, to the point where he considered information, a l t e r n a t i v e s , ways and means, and from t h i s assessment made e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s which should have l e d to a c t i o n . The stages of i n s t r u c t i o n were: 1. the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s ; 2. the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of v e r b a l Information; 3. the d i s c u s s i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n ; 4. the d i s c u s s i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to broad i n f o r m a t i o n a l knowledge of both c l i e n t and agent; 5. the d i s c u s s i o n of p r i n c i p l e s and a l t e r n a t i v e s ; 6. the a n a l y s i s of a l t e r n a t e use of resources; 7* the a n a l y s i s of ends and goals* A numerical measure was assigned to each stage or l e v e l and these were subsequently weighted according to the method of c o n t a c t i n g people and the amount of time i n v o l v e d . Each educational contact was thus recorded and a l l o t t e d a c e r t a i n numerical score* The subsequent tabu-l a t i o n s of sums of scores were then analysed s t a t i s t i c a l l y to i n v e s t i g a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s that might e x i s t * The instrument proved to be a p p l i c a b l e as a s e l f e v a l u a t i o n instrument that measures an e d u c a t i o n a l program again s t a h y p o t h e t i c a l conception of what a good program should be. I t y i e l d e d u s e f u l information regarding e f f e c t -iveness, methods, use of time* and general e f f i c i e n c y . I t enabled the w r i t e r to create a p i c t u r e of the e d u c a t i o n a l r o l e of the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t based on r e l a t i o n s h i p s that could be c l e a r l y defined and measured s t a t i s t i c a l l y . The r e s u l t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of the agent's contact w i t h 8 3 his c l i e n t e l e i n terms of quantity and quality , constitutes a description of the educational role of the D i s t r i c t Ag-r i c u l t u r i s t . SUMMARY A t o t a l of 5491 contacts were made with people by the agent i n a one year time period. Mass public r e l a t i o n s contacts were not included because of their s u p e r f i c i a l nature* Two major functions were found to e x i s t . F i r s t , the adult education function was performed with 47.6$ of a l l contacts. Secondly, the organizational function was performed with multi-agency s t a f f accounting f o r 27$ of a l l the contacts. The remaining 25.4$ of the contacts involved such functions as administration, service, 4H, and public r e l a t i o n s . A study of methods showed that mass meetings accounted for 27.2$ of a l l contacts, phone c a l l s 23.6$, o f f i c e c a l l s 27.2$, small group meetings 13*7$, farm c a l l s 6.7$, and opportunity c a l l s 6.4$* The majority of contacts were considered to be at low i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l s according to the quality measure-ment* On a seven step scale, 79$ of i n d i v i d u a l contacts were at le v e l s one or two, while 48$ of the group contacts were at the two lower l e v e l s . Group contacts proved superior to i n d i v i d u a l contacts i n that a larger percentage of people reached l e v e l s three, four and f i v e , during group events. The small group meeting proved to be superior to any other 84 method because i t enabled the agent to contact a large number of people, to carry the i n s t r u c t i o n to much higher l e v e l s , and to use time e f f i c i e n t l y . By ranking contacts according to frequency of use, i t was found that the l e v e l two o f f i c e c a l l l a s t i n g one to twenty minutes was used most frequently as a contact or unit of i n s t r u c t i o n and the same type of contact contributed the highest quantitative amount of educational work for the year. Over h a l f , 58.5%, of the c l i e n t e l e that used the service i n an educational way used i t to a nominal degree. Less than h a l f , 41;5% u t i l i z e d the educational f a c i l i t y extensively* The n u l l hypothesis that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t socio-economic differences between extensive and nominal users of the service was rejected with respect to farm c a p i t a l value, gross sales, amount of o f f farm work, and amount of o f f farm income. Therefore the hypothesis that there are differences between extensive and nominal c l i e n t -ele of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service was accepted with respect to those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The educational role of the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t was assumed to be that a c t i v i t y that challenged r u r a l adults by dir e c t contact to think about, discuss, and r e l a t e information to al t e r n a t i v e s j resources, goals and ends with 8 5 the expectation that change would take place. Such suppor-tive a c t i v i t i e s as organization, and mass media wo>rk were not considered as part of the educational role i n this study. The agent contacted about one t h i r d of the farmers i n his d i s t r i c t and the educational r o l e was accomplished i n about half of the agent-clientele contacts. There was a low l e v e l of quality for about three quarters of the ed-ucational contacts, suggesting that the educational role was accomplished through a large number of contacts with a small portion of the p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t e l e at a somewhat s u p e r f i c i a l l e v e l , with in-depth study occuring only a small portion of the time. This implies that r u r a l adult education, as accomplished through the A g r i c u l t u r a l Ex-tension Service, could be improved considerably from the standpoint of r a i s i n g the percentage of contacts that ac-complish the higher lev e l s of in s t r u c t i o n , as well as from the standpoint of attempting to reach a greater portion of the p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t e l e . The measuring instrument developed for this study allowed the agent to assess each contact with respect to his a b i l i t y to challenge the c l i e n t to think as deeply as possible. It enabled the assessment of the agent's a b i l i t y to educate according to the prescribed d e f i n i t i o n s . The use of the numerical scoring system along with the measuring instrument, enabled the agent to analyse his work s t a t i s t i -c a l l y . The combined use of the instrument and the score y i e l e d considerable information regarding the quality and 86 quantity of educational work, the use and effectiveness of various methods, the use of time, and the general e f f i c i e n c y of the program. The system yielded a considerable amount of information that could be used as a guide i n establishing program and method p r i o r i t i e s , and enabled the agent to es-t a b l i s h program benchmarks from which p r i o r i t i e s could be adjusted. The use of the numerical score enabled the de-velopment of precise comparisons, descriptions, and d e f i n i -tions that would be much more meaningful than the use of such terms as poor, f a i r , good, or excellent* The q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n scale coupled with the numerical scoring system used i n t h i s study was a useful approach to evaluation which yielded considerably more information than the normal attendance record type of reporting presently used. The s e l f evaluation system could be used to develop f a i r l y simple tabulations that would y i e l d a wealth of relevant data. The use of such an analysis sys-tem by an agent would tend to keep him aware of the processes he i s using and the r e s u l t s obtained as well as the educa-t i o n a l goals he i s attempting to achieve; The p a r t i a l acceptance of the hypothesis that s i g n i f i -cant socio-economic differences exist between extensive and nominal users of the extension service creates the p o s s i -b i l i t y for further i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t i n g socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to success or f a i l u r e of extension programs. I f the study of differences between users and non users of 87 extension services has yielded information on which more relevant programs were based, then th i s study suggests that information regarding differences between extensive and nominal users may also be useful for the development of more e f f e c t i v e programs * The foregoing description i s a portrayal of the educational r o l e of a D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t i n one d i s t -r i c t for one year. Extension programs vary considerably, depending on the agent, the d i s t r i c t , the c l i e n t e l e , the season, the year, and many other factors. The description of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r agent's work would have been considerably d i f f e r e n t for each of the f i v e preceeding years due to v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t crop and economic conditions; Therefore, t h i s study of the educational r o l e of the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t can only be considered as a benchmark on which discussion of that r o l e might be based; The system of s e l f evaluation used for this study would seem to be one way of adding to the body of knowledge re^-garding A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension that i s required for profes-sional improvement, for program design, and for l e g i s l a t i v e support. I t remains* then, for further research to modify, improve* or discard the system used i n t h i s study and there-by add to a useful body of knowledge. 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Alexander, F.D.* "A Critique Of Evaluation?. Journal Of Cooperative Extension. V o l . 3* No. 4. 1965; 2. A l l i n , J.S., "The Role of A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension In Tte Education Of Rural Adults*?. Adult Education In B r i - t i s h Columbia. The Journal of Education; No; 10. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. 1964. 3; Arkin, Herbert;, and Raymond R. Colton., S t a t i s t i c a l Methods, College Outline Series, Barnes and Noble, Inc. New York; 1964. 4. Bible, Bond L., "Methods In Home Economics Extension". Journal of Cooperative Extension. V o l . 1; No. 2 1963 5. Brunner, E. de S., et a l . , An Overview of Adult Edu-cation Research; Chicago. Adult Education Association* 1959. 6. Conley, R.D. "The Role of the Farm And Home Development Agent As Perceived By Cooperating Families." Wiscon-s i n . Review of Extension Research 1961. U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser. C i r c . 541. Sept. 1962. No. 5. 7. Gallaher, Art J r . , "The Agent As An Analyst". Journal of Cooperative Extension. V o l . 5* No. 4. 1967. 8. Gallaher, Art J r ; , and Frank A. Santopolo, "Perspec-t i v e s On Agents Roles". Journal of Cooperative  Extension. Vol. 5. No. 4. 1967. 9. Gibons, D.L., The Cl i e n t e l e of The A g r i c u l t u r a l Ex-tension Service. Michigan Agr* Exp* Sta. Quarterly Bui. V o l . 26. No. 4. 10. Goard, D.S.* "Analysis of Participants In Rural Adult Education". Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1968; 11. Gordy, A.S., Extension A c t i v i t i e s and Accomplishments, 1961. U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser. Giro. 539* Washington D.C. 1962* 12. Government of Alberta* Annual Report of The Department of Agriculture of The Province of Alberta, 1968. Queen's P r i n t e r for Alberta* Edmonton. 1969; 13. Henderson, H.A., and B*J. Bond*, "Evaluating Develop-ment Programs". Journal of Cooperative Extension* Vol; 4* No. 4. 1966. 89 14. Hoffer, C.R., Selected S o c i a l Factors A f f e c t i n g Part-i c i p a t i o n of Farmers In A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Work. Michigan State College Agr; Exp. Sta; Special Report 331. 1944. 15. Kidd, J.R*, How Adults Learn.* New York* Association Press. 1959. 16. Kidd, J.R., et a l . , Learning and Society. Canadian Association f o r Adult Education. Mutual Press Limited. 1963. 17. Lionberger, H.F., Information Seeking Habits and Charac-t e r i s t i c s of Farm Operators. Unis. Mo. Agr; Exp. Sta* Res. Bui. 581. 18. Lutz, A.E., D.E. Fredricks, and S.S; Lewis, "In-Depth. Teaching In Extension.? Journal of Cooperative  Extension. Vol* 6. No. 2. 1968. 19. Mayer* Ralph E., and Robert E. Rieck., "Evaluating the Unit Approach". Journal of Cooperative Extension; Vo l . 5. No. 2. 1967; 20. McNelly, C L . "Individual Teaching By A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents". Review of Extension Studies, July to Dec.  1950. U.S.D.A. Ext; Ser. C l r c . 471. Jan. 1951 No* 3; 21* Ragle, Dan D.M., Roger G. Barker, and Arthur Johnson., "Measuring Extension's Impact." Journal of Cooper- ative Extension. Vol. 5. No. 3, 1967; 22. Rogers, E.M., and H.R. Capener. "The County Extension  Agent and His Constituents. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta; Res* Bui. 858. 1960. 23; Slocum* W.L., O.L. Brough J r . , and M.A; Straus. Extension  Contacts, Selected Characteristics* Practices and  Attitudes of Washington Farm Families* Washington Agr. Exp* Sta. Res. Bui. 584. 1958. 24; Stone, J.T., "How County A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents Teach". Proceedings of The Canadian Society of Rural Extension 1961. Univ. of Regina, Saskatchewan; Jan. 1962. 25* Wilkening, E.A.* The County Extension Agent i n Wisnnsin. Wis* Agr. Col. Ext. Res. Bui. 203. Madison. 1957. 26. Wilson, M.C., The Effectiveness of Extension In Reaching  Rural People* U*S.D.A* Bui. 1584. Washington D*C. 1926* 90 27. Wilson, H.C, W*W. Glark., Make Extension Work More  E f f e c t i v e ; Madison. Wis. Agr* Ixp* Sta* Bui. 387. 1926; 28* Wilson, M.C, D.J* Crosby., The Effectiveness of Extension In Reaching Rural People* Cornell Ext. Bui. 104* 1925. 29. Wilson, M*C, and Gladys Gallup.* Extension Teaching Methods. U.S.D.A. Ext. Ser* C i r c . 495. 1955. 30. Verner, Coolie, and Alan Booth. Adult Education. The Centre For Applied Research In Education, Inc* Washington, D.C. 1964. 31. Verner, Coolie., The Education Theory and Method. A Gonceptial Scheme For The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n And  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Processes For Adult Education. Chicago* Adult Education Association. 1962* 91 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. 2. What i s your age? :. 1. Less than 25 1. 1 2. 25 - 34 2 3. 35 - 44 3 4. 45 - 54 4 5. 55 - 59 ( c i r c l e one) 5 6. 60 - 64 6 7. 65 - 69 7 8. 70 or over 8 What i s the highest year you fi n i s h e d i n school? 1. Less than 5 2' 1 2. 5 - 8C 2 3. 9 - 1 1 3 4. High school diploma (grade 12) 4 5. School of ag ;r i culture 5 6* Technioal school 6 7. University 7 3. Farm ownership. 1. Do you own your farm? 3. 1 2. Manage a farm for someone 2 3; Rent your farm 3 4; Own part and rent part 4 4* How long do you l i v e on the farm i n a year?: 1. 9 - 1 2 months 4. 1 2. 5-^8 months 2 3. 1 - 4 months 3 4. do not l i v e on the farm 4 5. How far are you from the nearest D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t Office? 1. Less than 10 miles 5. 1 2. 11 - 20 miles 2 3; 21 - 30 miles 3 4. 31 - 40 miles 4 5. 41 - 50 miles 5 6. 51 - 75 miles 6 7. 76 - 100 miles 7 8. 101 and over 8 92 6. How many years have you been farming? 1. Less than 5 years 6* 1 2; 6 - 1 0 years 2 3. 1 1 - 2 0 3 4. 21 - 30 4 5. 3 1 - 4 0 5 6. 41 - 50 6 7. I f you work off the farm part of the time, how long do you work off the farm? 1. Less than 24 days 7. 1 2. 25 to 72 days 2 3. 73 to 156 days 3 4. 157 to 365 days 4 8. Is your income from off farm work 1. Less than one quarter of your farm income 8. 1 2. Between one quarter and one half 2 3. Between one half and three quarters 3 4. Nearly equal to farm income 4 5. One and one half times greater 5 6. Twice your farm income 6 9. What i s the t o t a l s i z e of your farm? 1. under 3 acres 9. 1 2* 3 - 6 9 acres 2 3. 70 - 239 (J) 3 4* 240 - 399 ( i f ) 4 5* 400 - 559 (f) 5 6. 560 - 759 (1) 6 7. 760 - 1119 ( l i , U , If) 7 8* 1120 - 1599 (2, 2£) 8 9i 1600 - and over (2f- sections) 9 (and over) 10. What i s the t o t a l c a p i t a l value of your farm including land, building, livestock and equipment? 1; under $4949 10. 1 2. | 4950 - 7449 2 3. 7450 - 9949 3 4; 9950 - 14949 4 5. 14950 - 24949 5 6* 24950 - 49949 6 7. 49950 - 74949 7 8. 74950 - 99949 8 9. 99950 and over 9 93 11. What was the gross value of products sold of f your farm l a s t year? 1. under $250 11. 1 2. | 250 - 1199 2 3, 1200 - 2499 3 4* 2500 - 3749 4 5. 3750 - 4999 5 6. 5000 - 9999 6 7. 10000 - 14999 7 8. 15000 - 24999 8 9. 25000 and over 9 12* What type of farm is yours? (51% or more income from:) 1. cereal grain 12. 1 2. forage and other small seeds 2 3. combination f i e l d crops 3 4. a mixed farm 4 5. combination livestock 5 6. dairy 6 7. beef c a t t l e 7 8. hogs 8 9. poultry 9 FOR OFFICE USE 13. Number of contacts with D;A. during this study 1. one 13. 1 2. two 2 3* three 3 4. four 4 5. f i v e to seven 5 6. eight to ten 6 7. eleven to f i f t e e n 7 8. sixteen or more 8 14. Eethod 1. o f f i c e v i s i t , one or two times 14. 1 2. three or four times 2 3. f i v e or more times 3 4. farm v i s i t , once 4 5. twice or more 5 6. general meetings, once 6 7. twice or more 7 8. group meetings, two or les s 8 9. three or more 9 10. telephone 10 94 15* Total q u a l i t y score 1. score 1 - 10 15. 1 2. 11 - 20 2 3. 21 - 30 3 4. 31 - 40 4 5; 41 - 50 5 6. 51 - 60 6 7. 61 - 70 7 8* 71 - 80 8 9. 81 - 90 9 10. 91 - 100 10 11. 101 - 125 11 12. 126 - 150 12 13. 151 - 175 13 14. 176 - 200 14 15. 201 - 250 15 16. 251 - 300 16 17. 301 - 350 17 18. 351 - 400 18 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093351/manifest

Comment

Related Items