Investigating audience response system technology during pesticide training for farmers

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Audience response system technology has been found to have modest learning and larger non-cognitive impacts on students in traditional secondary and post-secondary learning environments. The impacts of this technology are less understood for learners in informal settings, including for farmers in training provided by extension services.

Approach: In this study, we investigated the implementation of audience response systems by Cooperative Extension trainers in five counties in North Carolina during pesticide training for farmers. We quantitatively assessed farmers’ knowledge gains and explored their impressions of the learning environment when audience response systems were used.

Findings: Results suggest that audience response technology has similar benefits in farmer pesticide training as those identified during use in traditional educational settings. Education, age, and experience did not affect knowledge gains observed with use of the technology with farmers.

Practical Implications: This study supports the use of audience response system technology in farmer training provided by extension services, even for older adults without post-secondary education.

Theoretical Implications: As in traditional learning environments, non-cognitive impacts of audience response system use in farmer training appear to be more robust than learning impacts, and the implementation practices of trainers may influence learning outcomes.

Originality/Value: This study meets a need to understand the impact of audience response systems on learning outcomes in agricultural and extension learning environments and uses pre-test measures to establish baseline comparisons of control and treatment groups.

KEYWORDS:

• Audience response system
• clickers
• pesticide training
• pesticide applicators
• farmers

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Margaret Blanchard and Prof. Laurette LePrevost for their constructive reviews of a draft manuscript and Dr. Wayne Buhler for his support of pesticide training coordinator recruitment and data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health through the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention at the University of Kentucky.

Notes on contributors

Catherine E. LePrevost

Catherine LePrevost, PhD, is an Extension Agromedicine Specialist and Teaching Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Ecology at North Carolina State University.

Gregory Denlea

Gregory Denlea, EdD, is an Adjunct Professor with the University of Phoenix and Lead System Analyst with the Teachers Insurance and Annuities Association of America.

Lin Dong

Lin Dong is a doctoral student in the Department of Statistics at North Carolina State University.

W. Gregory Cope

W. Gregory Cope, PhD, is William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of Applied Ecology and Toxicology at North Carolina State University. He is the Extension Toxicology Specialist and Campus Coordinator for the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute.