COMMUNICATION 0F SOIL SURVEYIAND RELATED SOIL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RCGER PENI‘IOCK, JR. 1.967 HESIS .. I III"! I! I I III II I I I 1293 1 O~169 III I III III II I I 7 468 s This is to certifg that the thesis entitled COT-’JfUNICATION OF SOIL SURVEY AND RELATED SOIL IQAI‘IAGEI-ENT INFORT-ZATIOI‘I presented by Roger Pennock Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _P_th_-__ degree in MUG e Date August 22. 1967 Major professor 7 . , _ F kw. .5»wa . i u, find -"¢“‘“ ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION OF SOIL SURVEY AND RELATED SOIL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION by Roger Pennock Jr. This investigation studied the effectiveness of communication by several sources of soil survey and related soil management information to several groups of potential users. A circular "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Soil Survey Report, and a Teaching Program on soil proper- ties and soil management groups were compared as sources of soil management information on the soils of lower Michigan. The circular, prepared in 1962, was evaluated first by distri- buting it for use by a group of agricultural extension agents. The agents were subsequently interviewed to obtain their evaluations of the circular. A training and evaluation seminar requested by the agents was subsequently held. This gave further Opportunity to eval- uate the usefulness of the circular, the Sanilac,and Lenawee County Soil Survey Reports in communicating soils and soil management infor- mation and to determine changes needed to improve their effectivenesses. The circular was revised as the 196k "Know'Your Soils." Improve- ments in it included: (1) reorganization into independent sections, (2) revision for increased accuracy and clarity, and (3) inclusion of useful additional information. The revised edition was extensively tested with a wide range of potential user groups. These included vocational agriculture students, farmers, college students, vocational agriculture teachers, professional soil conservation personnel, and 'university soil science staff. It was compared with the Sanilac County 2 Roger Pennock Jr. Soil Survey Report and a Teaching Program on soil management groups as sources of soil management group information. The effectiveness of "Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac Report were measured first without and then with a soil management problem. Increased learning was measured by a pretest, treatment (with the respective information sourcel and a posttest procedure. Selected groups were subsequently given a soil management problem then post- posttested to determine its added affect. The effectiveness of communication by "Know'Your Soils" and other sources can be summarized by examining the changes in test scores for low capability groups, medium capability groups, and high capabil- ity groups as indicated by their pretest scores. Low capability groups received little benefit from their exposure to "Know Your Soils" as indicated by their small change in scores. This may have been due to a lack of motivation, or insufficient back- ground knowledge to give them a base from which to learn new informa- tion. "Know Your Soils" was much more effective in communicating soil management information to the medium capability groups. This was illustrated by significant increases on the overall test for all such groups. Added instruction given as lecture material resulted in a more notable increase on items covered in the lecture and "Know Your Soils." werking of a problem gave further significant increases in student scores. The effect of treatments on high capability groups demonstrated their ability to make significant increases in scores despite rela- tively high initial scores. 3 Roger Pennock Jr. Students using the Teaching Program had average total test score increases greater than those using "KnOW'Your Soils" or the Sanilac Report. This was unexpected as the Teaching Program only provided information for answering 12 of the 40 test items. However, appreci- able increases in scores occurred only on those 12 items. These results indicate that greater total learning may occur when a limited amount of information is thoroughly covered than when a broader range of information is given less thorough coverage. A marked decrease in score occurred on one item due to confusion of plow layer textures with profile textures emphasized in the soil management groups. The kinds of information most effectively communicated by the various sources were also studied. COMMUNICATION OF SOIL SURVEY AND RELATED SOIL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION by Roger Pennock Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Soil Science 1 967 To my wife and children ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. E. P. Whiteside for serving as his academic advisor and Guidance Committee Chairman and who has given more than generously of his patient guidance, helpful advice, and understanding encouragement. The author is particularly grateful to Dr. R. L. Cook for his valued counsel and support. Many thanks go to Dr. H. D. Foth, Dr. R. E. Lucas, and Dr. J. M. Parsey for serving on the author's graduate committee and for their helpful ideas and suggestions. Persons who assisted in collection of data and made other valuable contributions are too numerous to mention by name but the author greatly appreciates the helpful aid given by numerous members of the Michigan State Soil Science Department, Michigan County Agricultural Extension Agents, Soil Conservation Service Personnel, Vbcational Agriculture Teachers, and The Pennsylvania State University Agronomy Department. The author is deeply grateful to his wife Elizabeth for her constant encouragement and tireless efforts in making this publica- tion a reality. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .............................................. List of Tables .............................................. List of Figures .............................................. List of Appendices ........................................... INTRODUCTION ........................................... LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................... Origin, Purpose and Kind of Soil Surveys ........... USes of Soil Surveys ............................... The Problem of Communicating Soil Survey Information TRIAL AND EVALUATION OF THE 1962 “KNOW YOUR SOILS AND HOW To USE Tm 0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOCCCOOO IntroduCtion .OOOOOOOOOOCOCOCCCQCOOO0.0.0.0000000... Field Trial of the 1962 "Know Your Soils and How to use Them" OOOOCOCCOOCOCOOCOCCOOCOOCOOOCOCOOOIOOCO.. Intemews O..0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Training and.Evaluation Seminar for County.Agents on "Know Your song" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.00. seminar Program 0.00.0.0...OOOOOOCOOOOOCOOOOOOO subJBCD matter emphaSis 000000000000000000 workahops OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Evaluation O0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO Discussion, Summary and Review ................ wry and conc1u31°ns OOOOOOOOOCOOOOO0.0.0.0000... REVISION OF THE 1962 ”KNOW YOUR SOILS" .................. IntmduCtj-on 0.00.0.0...00.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Objectives OIOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...00.0.0... Organization of the 1962 "Know Your Soils" ......... Yellow section ........................... White section OOCOCOCCOOCOOCCCCOOCO00.... iii Page ii vi N DUNN 18 19 20 21 23 23 38 39 #1 #1 41 42 #2 Organization of the 1964 "Know Your Soils" ......... Rearrangements I....OOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Inclusion of additional information ...... Review of accuracy of "Know Your Soils." . Summary and Conclusions ............................ EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1964 "KNOW YOUR SOILS" ............. IntroduCtj-on OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...0.0.0.0000 Procedure for Evaluation of the 1964 "Know Ybur $0118" 0.0...0.0.00.0...0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO Groups Included in Study ...................... The Evaluation TeStS 0.0.0.000...0.000.000.0000 Section I ................................ Section II ............................... Section III .............................. Seetion IV 0.0...OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Item Ana-”Sis OO‘OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Results and Discussion ............................. Comparison Among All Groups for Total Test Changes and Details of Procedure With Each Group OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Learning from "Know Ybur Soils" by ten groups of users as measured by total teat Changes OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00...... Total test comparisons with groups of users of "Know Your Soils." ............ Learning from ”Know Your Soils" compared to learning from the Sanilac Report .... Total test comparisons with users of "Know Your Soils" compared to users of the Sanilac Report OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOI Learning from "KhOW'YOur'SOilS" and the Sanilac Report relative to the Teaching Program .0...0.00.0.0...00.00.000.000... Total test comparisons with users of "Know Your Soils," and users of the Sanilac Report, compared to users of the Teach- ing Program 0000000000000000000000000000 Summary of total test scores ............. iv Page L13 1+5 1+8 59 61 61 66 69 7o 72 72 73 73 74 Page Comparisons Among All Groups for Changes in Test Scores on Each Test Section and Individual Items 0.0.0.0...COO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 75 Evaluation of "Know Your Soils" Treatment for Groups 1 to 10 for Each Test Section I to IV 75 sectionI 00......00.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOO 75 Seetion II OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 77 seetion III 0...0..0.0000000000000000000000 & section Iv 00.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 83 Comparison of "Know Your Soils" and Sanilac County Soil Survey Report .................. 87 830131011 I 000000000000000000000000000000000 8? Section II ................................ 88 section III OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000... 89 seetion Iv 00.00.000.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 91 Use of "Know'Your Soils" and Sanilac Report in SOIVing Pmblems 000000000000000000000 93 Comparison of two sources of liming infor- mation 0000000000000000000000000000000000 91+ Summary of comparisons of "Know Ibur Soils” and the Sanilac Report OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 97 A Comparison of "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Soil Survey Report, And a Teaching Program on Relative Effectiveness in Communicating Information on Soil Management Groups ...... 101 SWANDCONCLUSIONS 0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 105 RECOWDATIONS 0.0.0....0..0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 111 BEHOGMPHY OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO 11“ MMICE OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11? VITA 00.00.000.000.0.0...OOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... laSt page Table 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Summary of kinds of interview responses concerning agent use Of "Know your 80118.“.O000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO workshop #1, problem form............................... Summary and comparison of the time needed for completion of the problem using both Sanilac and Lenawee Soil survey ReportSOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Summary of errors incurred in the use of soil map infor- mation from Sanilac and Lenawee Soil Survey Reports used in workShop #10....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.00. Summary of difficulties in use of the Sanilac and Lena- ‘wee Reports and features preferred in each............ Summary of agent errors for soil management problem..... Summary of county agent scores for pretest (1), posttest (2), and change ( a), taken during "Know Your Soils" seminarOOOOOOCOOOOOQOOOOO0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOC Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to post- test on test section I (true and false on overall in4’ formation) in the "Know Your Soils" seminar........... Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to post- test on test section II (soil classification and it9" symbols) in the "Know Your Soils" seminar............. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to post- test on test section III (management group symbols) in the "Know'Tour Soils" seminar......................... Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to post- test on test sections IV-A, B, C (content and organi;' zation) in the "Know Your Soils" seminar.............. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to post- test on test section V (definitions) in the "Know Your $0115” SeminarOOOOOOOOC.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Summary of regression analyses of lime requirement ver- sus pH for various textural classes of samples tested' in the RED State Soil Testing Laboratory.............. Comparison of lime requirements from 1962 "Know Your Soils," 196A ”Know Your Soils," and the "buffer methuf' from the MSU State Soil Testing Laboratory............ vi Page 22 24 25 26 28 30 32 33 35 35 37 38 51 54 Table Page 15 Recommended tons of limestone to raise the pH of a 6 2/3 inch plow layer of light colored samples to pH 6.5.... 57 16 Recommended tons of limestone to raise the pH of plow layers of three thicknesses of light colored samples ' to pH 6.5.0000000000000000000.0.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 58 17 Item difficulty...OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 65 18 Item diécnmination mdexOOOOOOOO0.00.000000000000000... 65 19 Item total valuGOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO. 66 20 Item analysis of the 40 items on "Know Your Soils" eval- uation teStOCCCOOOOOOOOCO00......OOOOOOOOOOOCCOOOOOOCO 67 21 Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on the total test (40 items)........... 71 22 Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section I (14 true and false ' items on overall information)......................... 76 23 Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section II (7 items on soil classification and its symbols)....................... 78 24 Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section III (8 items on manage; ment group SW18)OOOOCCOOOCOOOOOO.OOOOCOCOCOOOOOOCOC 81 25 Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section IVqA+B+C (11 items on ' soil management: lime, fertility, erosion)............ 84 26 Protest scores and changes in scores, in percent, of Agronomy 1 students using the 1964 "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Soil Survey Report, or the Teaching Pro- gram as sources of information on soil management groups. (The designations for each Student group is shown in parenthesis in the column headings.)......... 102 Appendix A Total test evaluation for group 1a (18 vocational agriculture students) from pretest to posttest using the196unxnowyourSOj-ls... 0.0...COOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCOO A vii Table Appendix B Total test evaluation for group 1b (18 vocational agriculture students) from pretest to post-posttest using the 1964 "Know Ybur Soils.”.................. A C Total test evaluation for group 2a (18 vocational agriculture students) from pretest to posttest uSing the196u "Know Your SOflSQnOCOOOOOCOOOCCCCCOO A D Total test evaluation for group 2b (18 vocational agriculture students) from pretest to post-posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils.".................. A E Total test evaluation for group 3a (11 farmers attending an extension soils class) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils."......... A F Total test evaluation for group 4a (64 Soils 1 stu- dents) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your SOflSO"OOOOOCOOOCOOOOOCCCOOCOCOOCOCOOOOO A G Total test evaluation for group 5a (26 Agronomy 1 students) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your 50118.".00.......................0...... A H Total test evaluation for group 6a (18 Soil Fertility students) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 uK1101" Your Sous-noon...coo.-oooooooooooooooooooooo A I Total test evaluation for group 6b (18 Soil Fertility students) from.pretest to post-posttest using the 196“ "how Your $0115."...OCOCCCCCOCOOO000......000 A J Total test evaluation for group 7a (8 vocational agriculture teachers) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils.".................. A K > Total test evaluation for group 8a (12 Edaphology students) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your $0115."...OOOOOOCOOCOOOO00.000.00.000... A L Total test evaluation for group 9a (3 Michigan State Soil Science Department staff) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils."......... A M Total test evaluation for group 10a (12 Soil Conser- vation Service personnel) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils.".................. A N Total test evaluation for group 11a (24.Agronomy 1 students) from pretest to posttest using the sanilac Report 0000......0.0.00.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO. A viii Table Appendix 0 Total test evaluation for group 12a (17 Agronomy 1 students) from pretest to posttest using the Teach- ing ProgramOCCOCOOCO...C...C.0..................... A P Total test evaluation for group 13a (22 Agronomy 1 students) from pretest to posttest using the Teach- ing ProgMOO.0.........0.00....0..COCOOCOCOOOCCCCC A Q Total test evaluation for group 14a (15 Soil Fertil- ity students) from pretest to posttest using the sanilac ReportOO0.0....OOOCOCOOOOCO.COOOOOOOOOOCOO. A R Total test evaluation for group 14b (15 Soil Fertil- ity students) from pretest to post-posttest using the sanilac ReportOOOOO0..Q....OOCOOOOOCOOOOCOCCOCO A LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Regression lines for lime requirement versus pH on three groups of loam samples....................... 52 Appendix H3130") LIST OF APPENDICES TABLES OF DATA FOR ITEMS 1 TO 40 FOR GROUPS 1 TO 14. AN EVALUATION OF COMPREHENSION OF SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION AND ITS INTERPRETATION (52-item test). SUGGESTIONS 0N FEATURES THAT MAY INCREASE THE USEABILITY, OR EASE OF USE, OF SOIL SURVEY REPORTS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM EXPERIENCES WITH USE OF RECENTLY PUBLISHED REPORTS IN MICHIGAN (LENAWEE, AND SANILAC COUNTIES). RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MICHIGAN STATE SOIL TESTING LABORATORY IN REGARD TO MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF SOILS INFORMATION. AN EVALUATION OF COMPREHENSION OF SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION AND ITS INTERPRETATION (40-item test). 1962 "KNOW YOUR SOILS" 1964 "KNOW YOUR SOILS" A TEACHING PROGRAM, UNDERSTANDING SOIL MANAGEMENT GROUPS. SOIL MANAGEMENT PROBLEM. xi INTRODUCTION This study was conducted to determine how to increase the effec- tive communication of soil survey and soil management information to individuals for whom it would be useful. The study consisted of five major phases: (1) developing a test procedure for evaluating compre- hension and learning of essential soil management information to be communicated, (2) an evaluation ofethe limitations and contributions of a soil management circular for communication of soil survey and soil management information, (3) steps taken to revise the circular to improve its accuracy,.useability, and effectiveness, (4) an evalua— tion of the revised circular through testing with various groups,anxi (5) comparison of other sources of similar information to the revised circular. LITERATURE REVIEW Origin, Purpose and Kind of Soil Surveys Kellogg (1966) states that the soil survey of the United States originated in 1899. The purpose of the soil survey during its first 25 years of existence was to supply information and maps useful for rural land use involving the growing of plants, grasses, and trees. During this period, much was learned about the soils of the United States and methods were developed for their satisfactory study. During the late 1920's Soil Science made great strides in soil map- ping and in the understanding of soil properties. Air photos became available for base maps on which to do soil mapping, and increases in knowledge about basic preperties such as clay minerals and soil chem- istry advanced rapidly.. Increased knowledge about soils including engineering information made possible increased usefulness in soil interpretations and therefore broadened the number and scope of users that found this information useful. The increase in knowledge about soils made possible a much broader application of soil interpretations, and soil surveys were put to use in highway construction, location of airfields, and other engineering applications that had previously been impossible. In recent years the usefulness of soil surveys and soil maps has been expanded to include use by peOple in planning housing foundations, septic tank disposal systems, and other features that are important in community planning or urban development. Smith and Aandahl (1966) describe soil maps as a basic tool for the selection of soil management systems. They make the important point that if a person can see the effect of a given practice on a field in which the soil is known, they can then predict the effect of that practice on other fields where the same kind of soil is found. Soils are named and classified, just as animals and plants are, by their distinctive characteristics. These identifying characteristics for soils include kinds and numbers of horizons. Soils having the same narrow range in all properties will be given the same name and will occur on soil maps as areas identified by one or more such soil names. A soils map includes a base map often consisting of an aerial photograph on which the soil areas have been outlined and identified by symbols. A soil survey report contains descriptions of the soils and information on their suggested uses or management in addition to a soils map of the area covered by the report. The main purpose of soil maps is to show where different kinds of soils occur and thus make it possible to apply management that has proven successful through experience or experiments on similar soils elsewhere. Since the initiation of soil surveys there have been great changes in both soil maps and the published material on soil manage— ment. These changes have resulted from an increase in knowledge about soils and their uses, improved mapping techniques and materials, and finally a large increase, particularly recently, of different kinds of uses to which soil surveys are being put. The Soil Survey of Saginaw County, Michigan (Mbon, 1938) is an example of the type of surm vey published in the 1930’s. It contains a colored map showing soils on a planimetric base at a 1 inch per mile scale. All soils of the county were shown on a single map sheet. In 1960 the Soil Survey of Mentcalm County, Michigan (Schneider, 1960) was published at a scale of 3.17 inch per mile. This is a larger scale than had been used previously in Michigan in soil survey reports, but the soil map was still in color and on a planimetric base as previously. In the late 195093 soil survey re- ports started to use soil maps made on air photo bases and these have been used as a standard type of soil map since that time. An example is the Soil Survey of Lenawee County, Michigan (Striker, 1961). The maps in these reports are usually published at a scale of 3.17 inches per mile. Reports of this type also included a general soil associa- tion map printed in color, on a planimetric base, for the entire county, as compared to the air photo sheets which only cover 12 sec- tions per sheet. An exception to the 3.17 inch per mile scale is the Soil Survey of Sanilac County, Michigan (Schneider, 1961) in which the maps were published at a 4 inch per mile scale as an experiment to determine if the larger scale would be more useful for present day soil survey uses. In recent years with the rapid expansion of urban and suburban deve10pment there has developed an intense need for soil survey infor~ mation to aid in the intelligent planning of these areas. These urgent needs have been met with the publication of soil maps and accompanying information that gives interpretations on engineering and other properties of the soil that are useful for the purpose to which these maps are to be put. Examples of this type of report are the Ela Township Soils of Lake County, Illinois (Newbury, 1961) and the Munster Soil Survey Report (Wanner, et al, 1964) of Indiana. Uses of Soil Surveys Bender (1961) discussing the suitability of soils for septic tank filter fields points out that the soil”s absorptive capacity is extremely important. The soil must be able to both absorb effluent and to filter it sufficiently to prevent contamination of ground water. Soils that are extremely fine textured or resistant to ab» sorption, or soils that are extremely coarse textured and permit movement of water through them too rapidly are unsatisfactory for septic systems. Soil maps are useful in determining the suitability of areas for septic tank systems as they give information on factors such as: ground water levels, depth to bedrock, amount of sand or gravel present, or the presence of restricting layers that prevent infiltration of effluent materials. Mbrris (1966) points out the increased use of soils information in urban planning and its usefulness for this purpose. Soils maps were useful in demonstrating that small lots should be avoided in areas where septic systems had failed as a result of insufficient area of soils with good permeability. He also stated that soils in» formation was useful in determining areas not suitable for building due to lack of stable foundation support material. County officials also found soils maps useful in working with developers of large sub- divisions as these maps gave the officials and developers an oppor- tunity to lay out a plan of development that was more satisfactory to both the develOper and the county personnel in the longmrun. Bauer (1966) discussed the high value of soil surveys in regional planning. Regional planning necessitates determining the best use of land for various purposes. These purposes include: (1) potential agricultural uses, including soil capabilities for crops and woodland, (2) wildlife habitats, (3) nonofarm uses for lawns, golf courses, playgrounds, (h) soil water relations such as stream flood- ing, pending or concentrated runmoff areas, and (5) engineering uses, which are affected by soil depth, plasticity, maximum density, opti- mum moisture, pH, and other soil factors. Thornburn (1966) gives the potential uses and limitations of agricultural soil surveys for highway construction. He stresses that in the initial planning of highway routes the general soils map or soil association map is more useful than the detailed soils map as it gives an overall picture of the kinds of material over which the right of way must pass. He also stresses that factors such as: kinds of parent material, depth to bedrock, and soil texture have an influence on the location of highways and obtaining of materials for subgrade fill. Detailed agricultural soil surveys have been useful in the design of low cost pavements on secondary roads. This is particularly true where the highway department has engineering speci- fications on the materials of the soil series over which the road will be constructed (Michigan State Highway Department, 1960). This information is used in the design of sufficient paving thickness needed to meet different subgrade conditions. Van Eck, and Whiteside (1958) state that the use of soil maps should make it possible to indicate suitable locations for establish- ment of red pine plantations and predict the probable growth of these plantations if well managed. This is possible due to the observed relationships between the properties of many soils differing in natural drainage in the nature of their primary materials, and in the degree of develOpment of the podzol B horizons if no textural B is present. Because of the known interrelationships among these soils it is possible to estimate the red pine cite index on soils similar or related to those which they had investigated. Priest, Whiteside, and Heneberry (1963) used soil maps and the soils classified into soil management groups to evaluate farmlands and their utilization. Soil management groups include soil series, grouped together on the basis of similar profile textures and similar natural drainage classes. The soils contained in these groups need approximately the same management practices and should give similar yields of crops when managed similarly. They should have approximately equal values, based on income producing capacity, if other factors are equal. It was found that estimating farm value on the basis of soil management groups and their current uses agreed reasonable well with the farm values determined by two other methods. Despite the many new uses to which soil surveys are being put, agriculture is still the largest user of soil survey information, except in areas where urbanization has largely replaced agriculture. Some of the agricultural uses of published soil surveys are (Southern Regional Soil Survey work Planning Conference, 1962): (1) to enable agricultural experiment stations to relate their basic research findings on representative soils to the soils used for agricultural production on farms, (2) to aid vocational agriculture teachers, county agricultural agents, soil conservationists and others in the development and execution of their programs of work, (3) to aid in the selection of sites for test demonstration farms or experimental farms, (4) to aid agricultural engineers in planning irrigation, drainage, and pond or dam construction, and (5) to aid in forest management. Soil maps are useful for identifying and locating major soil differences that should be taken into account during soil sampling for soil testing. Longnecker, (1961) notes that soils having large differences in texture or organic matter content, such as clay, sandy loam, or muck, should be sampled separately for soil testing. Separate samples should also be taken from soils that differ in natural drainage, or have major slope differences. The bulletin, Fertilizer Recommendations for Michigan Soils, (Soil Science and Horticulture Departments, Michigan State University, 1963) makes possible extensive use of soil survey information by basing fertilizer recommendations on soil management groups in addition to soil test results and the kind of crop to be grown. As the knowledge about soils and the number of uses of soils information increases there is an increase in volume of information included in soil survey reports. It thus becomes more difficult, more time consuming, and probably less likely that the farm owner will put this information to use. Means for more effectively come municating this valuable information to the various users have there- fore been sought. The report "Get the Most from Ybur Farmland" (Porter, et al., 1955), a soil survey summary for Odessa Township was an experimental attempt to simplify soil maps and soil survey in- formation to make it more easily and readily used by farmers. It was "An attempt to abbreviate, summarize, and present the basic and essential information in a typical soil survey so that it can be applied to everyday use on your farm." The maps were direct reproductions of field mapping sheets with soil management group symbols added to each of the mapping units. The soil management in- formation was simplified for ease of use by applying it directly to the soil management groups rather than to each of the specific soil mapping units. Research was conducted to determine the success qf this type of publication in communicating soil survey information to farmer users. Results of this research are discussed later in this literature review. Drawing on the experience gained from the writing of "Get the Most From YOur Farmland" and its trial in Odessa Township, a subse- quent circular "Know Your Soils and How to Use Them" (1962, Appendix F) was written. This circular dealt entirely with soil prOperties and soil management information. It contained no soil maps for a specific area. It was written to utilize available soil maps and the available soil management information with the soil management groups for agri- cultural purposes. The first half of the circular deals with how and why soils differ, how they are grouped into soil management groups, and general management practices that apply to all soils. It includes information on minimum tillage, correction of soil acidity, choice of adapted cropping systems, erosion control, and fertilizer recommenda- tions. The second half of the circular gives specific recommendations for sets of soil management groups. The kinds of information given for each set of management groups includes: description of the soils, management problems, crop adaptations, erosion control, fertilizer recommendations, drainage recommendations and the average crop yields expected with the recommended management practices. This circular is intended to give soil management information on soils of the southern 1O two-thirds of the counties in the lower Peninsula of Michigan. This circular was used as one of the sources of information to be tested for its effectiveness in communicating soil survey and soil management information in a subsequent section of this investigation. The Problemof Communicating Soil Survey Information The great and increasing wealth of information available in the form of soil surveys and soil management information and the ever BXh panding uses of soil survey information might lead to the assumption that soil survey information is being readily used by large numbers of people. This assumption may not be true, particularly if viewed in the perspective of the total number of people who could profitably make use of this kind of information. It is entirely possible that the large volume of assembled material may actually inhibit the use of the soil survey information by potential users when they are con- fronted with the formidable task of reading and interpreting this in- formation. Mawby and Haver (1961) discuss the uses of different sources of information by farmers. Their study indicated that of 24 sources of information 6 were classified as nonucommunicative or those which can be used without contacting another person, and 18 were communicative, those that require that information be passed from one person to another. The most used source of non-communicative information was their own past experience while in this group the most used source of new technology was observed experience of others. The importance of communication through observation emphasizes the usefulness of educa- tional techniques such as test demonstration farms, exhibits, and farm 11 tours in communicating agricultural information. Communicative sources of information on farm production were in the following order from.the most to the least used: (1) farm magazines, (2) agricultural agents, vocational agriculture teachers, and agricultural college representatives, (3) experimental and extension service publications. These findings suggest that more effective communication of soil survey information might be accomplished through the use of soil maps and pertinent management information in conjunction with farmer field days at agricultural experiment stations. This would permit the relating of the soil maps to the actual soil patterns and land- scape of the map area which are features that farmers observe on their own farms. Sorenson (1957) stresses that new learning for an individual must be based on facts he already knows and therefore technological information for farmers should be based on their current state of knowledge. He found that formal education had the greatest relation- ship to soils knowledge and that increased schooling resulted in the best knowledge and understanding of soils. This increased soils knowledge resulted not only from the formal education but also from the impetus it gave to continued learning throughout subsequent years. Better than average knowledge of soils was also related to farmers who often made contact with county agents and those who were avid farm magazine readers. Recommendations suggested by the study in- cluded the suggestion that soil information should be based on soil concepts already understood by farmers and that most farmers need better information about Special fertilizers, plant food requirements, and fertilizer needs of different soil types. It also showed that 12 extremely poor understanding of the concept of soil pH as a measure of acidity was a problem with most farmers. The study concludes that new technical soils information that exists in a complex form should be broken down into separate ideas in order to present it in a form that is compatible with the background information of farmers. Lionberger (1960) in his review of literature of research on the adoption of new agricultural practices discusses five stages often involved in the adoption of new practices by farmers. All of these (awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption) involves the acquistion of infermation from various sources. Mass media such as newspapers, radio, television, and magazines are the major sources of communication at the awareness stage. At the interest stage other farmers and various agricultural agencies are important sources of information in addition to the mass media enabling the individual to evaluate the practice. During the trial stage, particularly where complex practices are involved, the county agricultural agent, vocational agriculture teacher, and other professional specialists are called on as sources of information. Finally, in the adoption stage of an agricultural practice a farmer may turn to government agencies or industry to obtain research information to facilitate his maximum.use of that practice. The different kinds and sources of in- formation needed at the five stages seem to indicate that persons wishing to communicate soil survey information should be prepared to present it in different forms to meet the needs of farmers in each of these stages. Galloway (1966) described an educational approach to use of soil surveys in urban development being used in Indiana. Rapid urban 13 growth in recent years has spurred the interest in use of soils infor- mation by persons interested in sound planning of area development. It was learned that urban people, unlike farmers, did not have suf- ficient contact with the soil to develop an appreciation for its characteristics and features. Extension personnel and soil conser- vation individuals initiated a teaching program to reach groups of individuals such as community planners, developers associations, watershed sponsoring groups, highway departments and other public officials. The program stressed usefulness of soil survey and soil management information in application to these persons problems. Teaching at the I'awareness phase" used techniques that had been successful in education of agricultural groups. These included use of soil monoliths, colored slides, concise graphic soil descriptions, and block diagrams that relate soils to their parent material and topography. Sources of information were selected to permit persons to relate soil features to the soils and landscapes of their own com- munities. The report points out that Indiana is in the process of shifting from the awareness phase of communication to the action phase in which persons are being trained in the use of soil survey information. Two facts became clear at this stage: (1) soil maps are complicated, hard to orient to, and difficult to understand, and (2) that reports are highly descriptive, too lengthy and not well 'user oriented' for most effective communication of this type of informa- tion. To teach better understanding of the use of soil maps, inter- ested individuals were encouraged to work problems in which they had to use the information obtained from soil maps. This was done at extension meetings where assistance was available for answering 14 questions and assisting with problems that arose. Simple demonstra- tions and slides were used to help peeple understand basic soil pro- perties, such as water storage, and soil drainage that are important to urban uses of soils information. Lessons learned from this program seem to the present author to confirm the need for different sources of soil survey information aimed at the different stages of understanding of users. They also suggest that the standard soil survey report is ineffective as a source of soils information for inexperienced individuals needing it unless assistance from persons familiar with its content and arrange- ment is available. Bidwell and Bohannon (1960) in describing the promotion of the use of a soil survey in Saline County, Kansas, also stress that communication of soil survey information is more than the simple handing out of a soil survey report. In order to get the most effec- tive use of a newly published soil survey report the following steps were used: (1) awareness was created through the use of the mass media, radio and newspapers, (2) interest was aroused through letters sent out by the county extension agent, feature newspaper articles and editorials, and news articles given over the radio, and (3) education in the form of community meetings. At these a soil scien- tist described soil preperties, a conservationist discussed the im- portance of good land use and treatment, and an agronomist discussed the relation of soils to soil management and soil testing. The meetings included instruction of individuals in the use of the soil maps and interpretation of the soil management information contained in the report. Follow-up meetings were suggested to help farmers 15 consider needs and problems in use of the survey, to outline pro- cedures to fit surveys to their particular needs. and the development of long range plans for adopting recommendations made in the surveys. Conclusions drawn from these experiences tend to parallel those of the Indiana use of soil surveys for urban planning and illustrate the need for various sources of information to meet demands as people become aware of, are interested in, and participate in the use of soil survey information. It is also evident that education of poten- tial users is important to maximize the effectiveness of soil survey reports in communicating the information contained in them. An excellent research study done by Parsey (1957) investigated the ”Use and Usefulness of a Simplified Soil Survey Report." The soil survey report I'Get the Most from Your Farmland" (Porter, et al, 1 955) was prepared for use by farmers in Odessa Township, Ionia County, Michigan. The content of this interim soil survey report (described previously in this literature review) was presented in a simplified and popularized form for ease of reading and dealt entirely With agricultural interpretations. The report was distributed to 194 Odessa Township farmers in June 1955. Forty-three of these were in- terviewed 5 months later with regard to their use of the report. In- fomtion obtained from the interviews, was used to answer the ques- 1:101:18 : (1) will farmers use the report? (2) can farmers use the report? am (3) what values do farmers see in the report? It was learned that 67% of the farmers “looked" at the report but that only 14$ of them a studied" it. Of the 43 farmers interviewed only 7 had "studied" the reml‘t and 6 of these had done so at an extension meeting at which the report had been discussed. The study concluded that a maximum of 16 58% of the farmers might be expected to look at or use the report if it was simply given to them. In answer to the question, can farmers use the report, the re- search indicated a dual situation existed. What farmers said about using the report, and what farmers were actually able to do in terms of performance in using the report differed markedly. Of the 43 farmers interviewed 29 had looked at the report and of these only 17 said that it was easy to follow. Detailed investigation revealed that 10 of these had some difficulty in following the report despite the fact that 15 of the 17 had received some help in going through the report. On the average, farmers made five errors out of a possi- ble 12 steps in using the report. It was found that farmers given assistance by a county agent or a person familiar with the report did considerably better than those without assistance. This indicated that even a minimum amount of education is highly beneficial in the use of this type of information. Information learned regarding the value of the soil survey report shows that about one fifth of the farmers said that they had actually used the report, that more than one third said that they plan to use material in the report,that about one third said they found the report not difficult to use and about one half said they had learned something new from the report. About two thirds of the farmers who had looked at the report agreed With the general recommendations included in it which suggests that this relatively large proportion of farmers regarded the report as an authoritative document on soil management. It was found that technical terms contained in the report were difficult for farmers to understand and use, and that chemical terms 17 associated with lime and fertilizer were words "without meaning." Straightforward crop yield tables were easy for farmers to use while the more complex ones suggesting crop rotations were more difficult. Lime and fertilizer tables were found to be the most difficult to use. Conditions considered necessary to make this report an effec- tive communication tool were: (1) that farmers must be interested or become interested in soils, (2) the report itself must build on know; ledge which farmers previously had about soils, (3) the report must be studied closely enough to make its contents understandable, and (#) assistance, explanation, and stimulation must be available both for understanding the report and for carrying out its recommendations. TRIAL AND EVALUATION OF THE 1962 "KNOW YOUR SOILS AND HOW TO USE THEM" Introduction Modern agriculture is becoming increasingly dependent on the use of soil survey and management information for efficient production. The number of soil surveys and the quantity of scientific management information is being increased to meet this need. The state of Michigan itself has four counties with modern surveys published and eleven in process of publication. In soil science we are faced with the problem of disseminating this soil survey information, with related research results, to those people who can use it and to do so in a form that is both accurate and readily understood. For a farmer this involves use of: (a) a soil map to identify the soils on his farm and (b) specific manage- ment information for his particular soils and farming operation. Some problems presently occurring in use of soil survey infor- mation are: (1) farmers using modern soil survey reports must study voluminous material that includes much information which is not of use to them, (2) in many counties where mapping is in progress or already completed the survey report is not available, with the narra- tive management information, for periods ranging from 4 to 7 years, (3) several counties have old soil survey reports with useful soil maps but obsolete management recommendations. A soil management circular, "Know Your Soils and How to Use Them," was written in 1962 to bring together specific recommenda- tions and predictions about the soils and agriculture of Michigan. 18 19 One of its important functions could be to help solve the previous problems in use of soil survey reports. The circular is an outgrowth of the Soil Survey Summary for Odessa Township (An Interim Report) prepared in 1955 with the assistance of the National Project in Agricultural Communications. It was written with the benefit of research findings (Parsey, 1957) that pointed out weaknesses and needed improvements in the Odessa Report. The major objective of the study was to determine how effectively the circular could be used with soil maps as a basis for management of soils for agricultural purposes and what could be done to increase its effectiveness. A. Field Trial of the 1962 I'Know‘Your Soils and How to Use Them” The field trial consisted of distribution of "Know YOur Soils and How to Use Them," hereafter referred to as "Know Your Soils,” to a group of agricultural extension agents who were given a brief explanation of the content and purpose of the circular. These men were asked to aid in its evaluation in terms of its effectiveness as a source of soil management information. This part of the study was conducted to determine the following: (1) ways to use the circular, (2) groups who would benefit from its use, (3) organizational changes that could improve its effectiveness, (4) terms, phrases, or information that should be added or deleted, and (5) problems encountered in its use. The eleven county agents invited to participate in this study were selected on the following bases: three were in counties with mocbarn recently published surveys, one was in a county with the ‘nmaUF¥£>§Lng completed but the survey report unpublished, three were in 20 counties with surveys in progress and the mapping nearly complete, and four were in counties with older published maps at a 1 inch = 1 mile scale and limited acreages of modern mapping for Soil and Water Conservation Plans in Soil Conservation Districts. All agents selected had shown considerable interest in using soil survey information in their extension programs. They were invited to a meeting June 20, 1962 following the annual Michigan County Agent Association Meeting at Michigan State University. At that time the "Know Your Soils," circular was distributed and its contents and arrangement briefly explained. The agents were given 20 to 30 cepies for trial use in their reapective counties. They were asked to read the circular and to use it for any purpose useful in their county extension programs. Interviews. All agents were then interviewed during the period August 3 to September 25, 1962. Prior to the interview each agent was sent the following list of topics to be covered in the interview. 1. Should this circular be accompanied by soil monoliths and wall charts that could be displayed in prominent places to stimulate interest? 2. In what way or ways do you use the circular? 3. What terms or phrases do you think users of this circular might not understand or find confusing? 4. How might the organization of the circular be changed to in- crease clarity or ease of use? 5. Does the circular contain too much information (information that is not useful to you)? a. If so, what material should be omitted? 6. Is there additional information that you would.like to have included? a. If so, what materials would you like to have included? or 21 b. What questions should be answered? 7. would you like a training session?1 The interview responses are summarized in Table 1. As a result of the interview responses, in which agents expressed a strong inter- est in having a training session on the background, content, and thorough understanding of "Know Your Soils," it was decided to set up a two-day seminar. B. Training and Evaluation Seminar for County Agents on ”Know Ybur Soils" A two-day seminar on the content and use of "Know Your Soils" was held January 14—15, 1964. The first objecti!§_was to give agents a confident understanding of the content and organization of the cir- cular. This included: (1) knowledge of the characteristics and clas- sification of Michigan soils, (2) organization and meaning of soil management groups and their'symbols, (3) general knowledge of soil management practices applicable to all southern Michigan soils as giv- en in the yellow section of the circular, and (#) an understanding of organization and general content of soil management information as applied to specific sets of soil management groups. The EQQQEQIQQJQEg Eiz§,was to have the agents develop skills in using soil maps in con- Junction with "Know Your Soils" to determine management practices for sPecz'nfic areas and determine kinds of problems encountered in this PI‘OCedure. The 3.1133 objective was to determine improvements needed -‘ 1 1This was suggested by the first agent interviewed and was ’3C33l11ded in all subsequent interviews. 22 Table 1. Summary of kinds of interview responses concerning agent use of "Know Your Soils." 1o 3. 2. Question 1 - Soil monoliths to arouse interest Yes, if inexpensive no for interest but useful as teaching aid no for interest - farmers already interested in soils Question 2 - Use of circular Uses tried Uses suggested Reference for vocational 1. High School vocational agriculture young farmer agriculture source material schools Extension soils school for 2. In conjunction with soil farmers testing program 3. Handout bulletin to farmers with explanation of use Question 3 - Confusing terms or phrases Technical terms not understood (glossary necessary) Question A - Organization improvement White section as fly sheets for handout singly as needed Shorter paragraphs - ‘ Printed rather than mimeographed Include table of contents Question 5 - Too much information? No agent said too much information was in the circular Loose leaf form suggested so agent could give a farmer only those sections needed for his soils and operations. Question 6 - Additional information suggested Differences among liming materials Soil test interpretations as influenced by manure applications Question 7 - Need for training session Almost unanimously, yes. 23 in material and organization of "Know Your Soils" for increasing effectiveness. Seminar Program The total program was designed to give background information, a thorough coverage of the content and organization of "Know Your Soils," and experience in using the circular. Six county agricul- tural extension agents participated in the entire seminar. Subject matter emphasis. The informational aspect of the pro- gram was covered in three sessions. The first was devoted to review of findings resulting from the trial of "Know Your Soils" and dis- cussion of soil differences, classification, and management grouping of Michigan soils. The second dealt with soil management practices as related to fertility, tillage and erosion control. The third with organization and general content of "Know Your Soils", followed by a discussion, summary, review of the seminar, and plans for possible changes to be incorporated in a revision of "Know Your Soils.” Workshops. The seminar included two workshOps for develOping skills and determining problems encountered in working a typical management problem. In the first workshOp the agents were given legal land descriptions to locate a tract of land in each of two soil Survey reports. Each tract, after being located, was circled in Pencil on the map, its map sheet number and the soil mapping unit Symbols of all soils in the tract were recorded. Using the mapping "nit symbol and map legend the agents determined the soil type name, 5°11 management group, slope class, and erosion class for each of the Soils in the tract. Table 2 is an example of the form used to recon the information. 24 Table 2. ‘WorkshOp #1, problem form. On the attached soil map and "Know Your Soilsn circular: a) Locate the following tract and bound it with a pencil line: T N, R E, Sec. , 160, 40 in '“ Township of County. b) Fill out the following table completely for the tract in a). r— ‘ n Mapping Soil management unit , unit Soil manage- Slope Erosion 01 Soil name entfigroup class class Three of the agents worked their problem from.the Sanilac Survey (1961) which has h inch = 1 mile scale maps while the other three agents were given the Lenawee Survey (1961) which has maps at a 3.17 inch = 1 mile scale. Each agent recorded the length of time needed to complete his problem. Each group was subsequently given the other report and problem.and again asked to record the time for completion. A come parison of time length needed by each agent to complete each report is given in Table 3. All agents took more time to complete the first problem than the second, regardless of which survey was used first. The mean decrease in time was the same for both groups which would tend to indicate that length of time needed for completion of prob- lems was related to amount of skill developed rather than differences in difficulty of use of one report compared to the other. Table 30 25 Summary and comparison of the time needed for completion of the problem using both Sanilac and Lenawee Soil Survey Reports. Agent First problem Second problem Difference from first to second problem 1 20 min. Lenawee 12 min. Sanilac -8 min. Lenawee to Sanilac 2 13 min. Lenawee 9 min. Sanilac ~h min. Lenawee to Sanilac 3 27 min. Lenawee 20 min. Sanilac -7 min. Lenawee to Sanilac Mean 20 min. 14 min. -6 min. 4 13 min. Sanilac 9 min. Lenawee -4 min. Sanilac to Lenawee 5 16 min. Sanilac 8 min. Lenawee -8 min. Sanilac to Lenawee 6 15 min. Sanilac 8 min. Lenawee -7 min. Sanilac to Lenawee Mean 15 min. 8 min. -6 min. The problem sheets were graded and errors were tabulated, Table as to their kinds, frequency of occurrence, and the number of agents making each. The most frequent error was the failure of agents to recognize that the lowest erosion class in the Lenawee Report was 0 or 1. Agents made the error of indicating only one of the numbers. At the completion of the two problems, the agents were given the following questionnaire on which to list features which caused diffi- culty in the use or understanding of each report and to note feature preferences in each report, Table 5. In the second workshop the agents were given legal land descriptions to locate a tract of land and identify its soils, as in workshop #1, (items a and b, Table 2) and in addition they were to 26 Table 4. Summary of errors incurred in the use of soil map informa- tion from Sanilac and Lenawee Soil Survey Reports used in workshop #1. No. agents No. times Kind of problem or errors making error error made Wrong soil type name for mapping unit symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Wrong management group symbol for mapping mfltsmmd.. ... ... ... ... . 1 1 Included slope class in management group symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Located wrong map area . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Omitted textural class in soil type name . 1 1 Indicated wrong erosion class . . . . . . 1 1 Indicated wrong slope class . . . . . . . 1 1 Wrong map page (used number of adjoining sheet at bottom of map) . . . . . . . . 2 2 Included map unit that did not occur with- in area- 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 Failed to use O or 1 where this erosion class occurred in Lenawee County . . . . 4 12 determine answers to management problems using information in "Know Your Soils." Agents used soil maps of their respective counties, two of which were modern published surveys on aerial photo bases, three were air photo sheets containing recent mapping with accom- panying legend and one a 1938, 1 inch = 1 mile scale published sur- vey. Only two errors were made in the recording of this information as compared to an average of 14 errors per report recorded for the same items in the first workshop. This indicates that the agents 2? Questionnaire #1 Name 1. Please make a list of any features in the first Soil Survey Report that you had that made it difficult to use or hard to understand. Name of Soil Survey: Features: 2. Repeat question #1 for the second Soil Survey Report. Name of Soil Survey: Features: 3. Which Soil Survey do you prefer, and why? 28 Table 5. Summary of difficulties in use of the Sanilac and Lenawee Reports and features preferred in each. Nb. of complaints Difficulties in Sanilac Report 6 Difficult to locate townships on index map because of in- distinct boundaries between townships and omission of township names. 4 Section numbers not given on Index to Map Sheets. 3 Map symbols, soil names and management groups not all in one place. 1 Arrangement of sheets (Maps from the North and South half of the county were on alternate facing pages of the map sec- tion of the report). Difficulties in Lenawee Report 1 Erosion class number omitted from map symbol when it is O or 1. 5 Range and town areas do not correspond with photos. (Except on the East and West sides of the county the township boundaries and map sheet boundaries never coincide). 4 Photo sheet numbers hard to find on map sheets. (They are folded in to the center of the report). 3 Index map does not give all section numbers. (Only sections 1, 6, 31 and 36 are numbered). 1 Fold out map sheets more difficult to use than single sheets. 1 Township names not shown on the Index to Map Sheets. 1 Town and range boundaries not clearly shown on the Index to Map Sheets. Featuresgpreferred in the Sanilac Report 4 Larger scale, less area per sheet. ' 1 Erosion factor given on all units. 3 Single map sheet (unfolded). 29 Table 5. (concluded) No. of complaints Features preferred in the Lenawee Report 2 Index map has section numbers in corner of townships and more distinct tick marks between townships. 3 Included all legend information (series, slope, erosion and management groups) in one place (Guide to mapping units). 1 Mere sections per page of maps. increased their skill in the location of a tract of land and identi- fying the soils on that tract as a result of the experience gained in the first workshop. “Know Your Soils" was used as the source of soil management in- formation. Agents were asked to identify the most sloping well-drained soil management unit which they had listed. The problem also required that they locate information on lime requirement, fertilizer require- ment, crepping systems (rotation), and expected yield_for the above soil, and to indicate which of the soils listed might need artificial drainage. A cepy of the (cue) items of the workshop problem and the number of agent errors for each are given in Table 6. Two of the four incorrect answers on lime requirement for alfalfa were values of the range 1%=2% tons rather than the specific value 2% tons that would be needed for pH 5.5. The high number of incorrect answers to item c3) suggests that use of the information in the erosion control section is difficult to interpret accurately or that agents have had little experience in this aspect of soil management. Two of the three incorrect answers dealing with yield of alfalfa 30 Table 6. Summary of agent errors for soil management problem. No. of Problem Items c-e agent errors c) Recommend for the most slgpinggwellodrained soil manage- ment unit what would be: (1) Its lime requirement per acre for seeding alfalfa if its surface pH is 5.5 ... . . . . . . . . . . 4 (2) The fertilizer nutrients needed if the soil test shows 40 lbs. of P and 120 lbs. of K (using 1 N NHQAc, in the State Laboratory) , . . . . . . . . 2 (3) What is the least protective cropping system rec- ommended, if minimum tillage is used on this soil 5 d) What yield of alfalfa would you expect on this soil in c) with the recommendations you have given? . . . . . 3 e) If no artificial drainage has been supplied to this forty acres, is any required for success of the alfal- fa seeding? If so, on what soil management group? . . 1 (item d) seemed to indicate that the agents were estimating yield on a basis of their personal experience rather than on data taken from.”Know‘Your Soils" as the values given had no discernible relation to those in the circular. The relatively high score on (item e) indi- catesthat agents are aware that soil management groups containing "b" or I'c" in their symbol are naturally not well drained and probably would need artificial drainage. Evaluation. Agents were protested at the beginning of the seminar and posttested at its conclusion to evaluate the effective- ness of the seminar in communicating soil management information. The test used, Appendix B, covered five areas of information, 31 sections I-V, as follows: I-ugeneral information on all phases of 1'Know'Y'our Soils," II--soil classification and its symbols, III--man- agement group symbols, IVqA, B, Cwucontent and organization, and Ve-definition of key terms. A summary of the pretest and posttest results is given in Table 7. The mean increases in test scores ranged from 13% to 31$ on the various sections. These were statistically significant at the .05 level using‘Wilcoxon's2 test for paired replicates, with the exception of the increase in section II which was not‘significantly greater at the .05 level. The wide range in score changes, including a de- crease in the score of one agent, and no change in the score of an- other, probably accounts for the lack of a significant difference in this section. Actually the score of three agents increased 29%. In section I the greatest percentage increase occurred in items 1, 5, and 13 (Table 8). The increase in item 1 concerning the index map of a soil survey probably reflects the agents involvement with this information in the workshop. Item 5 deals with soil series and type and its 66% increase may best be explained by the fact that not only was it covered in lecture but also through dealing with this' information in the workshop. The 33% increase in item 13 represented increased knowledge on the content of "Know‘Your Soils." All agents gave correct answers on both pretests and posttests for items 6-10 and 15. These items deal with information that one would expect agents to be familiar with from their work experiences. 2Wilcoxon, F. Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedggpp, New York, American Cyanamid Co., 19 9, p. 13, quoted in Virginia L. Senders, Measurement and Statistics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958, 489-491. 32 .Haeaa no. em eeeeaeaemam. MN Nw mm ’ *ill‘f .NN me an .lm on an «me mm mm on no me ml 1MM|1mmjlaaN or N: ea an am am_ we we a :moz mN ma mm aN ow mm om mm mm as ooa om he- as mm mm mm mm s_ an n: ml or as m e e_ me an a N_ m m m N N m m _- a m m e m a a m N N, on med Nm mm mm as as 0: mm mm on o: eel oe mm mm on mm mm on mN eel la ma ow he a m ON an em a me e N m m N m m N m m m a a N a m N N, o_ are mN _u we ma mm or on mm mm o: ooh or on mm mm mm mm mN 0 an an a or mm m e ea as on N w e m m N N m m m m N m m N o a a a N_ a, and aa mm mm mm or “N me. we mm 0 col oo_ 0 on om ma me on 0N or an ml mm or a m a me an m m a a- a m o m m o m m a m a N e a N a. a med m_ Na mm oz as 5N we- mm col 0 col col he mm me N_ on mm aN me ea ON mm mm a N Na we mm e or a a- m e o m m a m s a s m N m a m ac m med aN ea mm 0N mm mm on col on or or o as on mN mu on s_- an an sl mm mm a ma as an m _a m m o m m m o a m N e a a- a m N ma _a are _ FB- ou>H mI>H 41pm HHH HH H coapoom ewes .AmcHSom amaaom know zoom: meadow comma .AAVV owamno one .ANV pmoppmod .Aav encased pom monoom pcowm hpccoo mo hnmsssm .m oanwa 33 Table 8. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to posttest on test section I (true and false on overall information) in the "Know Your Soils" seminar. Percent ‘Pgrcent Percent Percent EEEEEEEEY' Item correct incorrect correct pre incorrect pre pre-post No. pre & post pre & post incorrect post correct post change 1 50.0 16.7 00.0 33.3 +33.3 2 66.7 16.7 00.0 16.7 +16.7 3 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 4 0.0 66.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 5 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 +66.7 6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 16.7 66.7 0.0 16.7 +16.7 12 50.0 33.3 0.0 16.7 +16.7 13 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 +33.3 14 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 15 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean i correct E£%%%%E £2%%%%§E ;;%%5% Mean test score 9.8 11.8 + 2.0 34 The average posttest score on this section was 78.95am increase of 13.4% over the pretest score. Section II deals with information that can be obtained from the soil name, mapping unit symbol and management unit symbol. Items 19 and 22 (Table 9) had 83.4% and 66.7% correct answers respectively in the pretest and both had 100% correct in the posttest. This in- dicates that most of the agents were familiar with the symbols for slope classes and the soil limitations of the management groups. Those who weren't, learned this information during the seminar. Four of the seven items in this section had one or more agent replies which decreased between pretest and posttest. This would seem to in- dicate that the seminar and "Know‘Your Soils" were inadequate in clarifying the kind of information that is important in the identifi- cation of surface texture, natural drainage, and soil series. There was an increase of 14.3% in scores between pretests and posttests on this section. The average posttest score was 71.4%. Section III, on the system of management group symbols, had a 27.1% increase (Table 10) in scores between pretest and posttest and the average posttest score was 68.7%. All items showed increases ranging from 16.7% to 50.0% except item 27 which had no net increase and five of the six agents got it incorrect in both pretests and posttests. The soil in item 27 was described as a poorly drained soil with 11 inches of sand over bedrock. .Agents used the symbol 4/Rc which would be correct if the sand was 18" to 42" thick but in situa- tions where sand is less than 18" thick the management group symbol is He. Thus, the mistake is understandable. Item 24 dealing with a 35 Table 9. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to posttest on test section II (soil classification and its symbols) in the "Know'Your Soils" seminar. Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Item correct incorrect correct pre incorrect pre pre-post No. (pre &_post Apre & post incorrect post correct post change ,AF. Va“ —_ ——___.._.— . 16 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 —16.7 17 0.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 +33.3 18 50.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 +16.6 19 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 20 50.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 +16.6 21 16.7 .16.? 33.3 33.3 0.0 22 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 +33.3 Mean % correct ££§%%%E Posttest Q§%£§% Mean test score 4.0 5.0 + 1.0 Table 10. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to posttest on test section III (management group symbols) in the "Know Your Soils" seminar. Percent Percent Percent Item correct incorrect correct pre No. pre & post pre & post incorrect post Percent Percent incorrect pre pre-post correct post change 23 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 24 0.0 83.4 0.0 16.7 +16.7 25 50.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 +16.6 26 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 +50.0 27 16.7 83.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 50.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 +33.3 29 33.3 16.7 0.0 50.0 +50.0 30 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 +33.3 Pretest Posttest Change Mean % correct 1. 8.7 +27.1 Mean test score 3.3 5.5 2.1? 36 miscellaneous land type, Lake Marsh, in the Sc management group, was also missed by five of six agents in both pretests and posttests. Section IVqA, B, and C had increases in correct answers of 17%, 3071, and 2511, respectively, Table 7. Section Iv deals with location of information in the circular that would facilitate its use. Items 31 and 33 (Table 11) showed decreases of 46.7% and -33.3$, items 35, 42, and 45 showed no net increase. However, there was a perfect score on item 45 in both tests. All other items had increases in scores of from 16.7% to 66.7%. The average increase in scores was 23.6% and the average posttest score was 82.4%. Results of this section show a significant increase by agents of knowledge concerning informational content and arrangement of tepics in "Know Ybur Soils" resulting from the seminar. The items with which they were most familiar and for which they had other sources of information, such as fertilizer recommendations (33, 35, 42) were apparently of least interest to the group. Section V consisted of definitions of key terms used in the circular. All items showed net increases ranging from 16.6% to 50.0% per item.with a mean increase of 31.3% for the section (Table 12). The average posttest score was 70.0%. Thus, it can be concluded that the seminar and workshop had significant beneficial effect on agents understanding of key terms used in "Know'Your Soils." 37 Table 11. Evaluation for county agent group from.pretest to posttest on test sections IV-A, B, C (content and organization) in the "Know YOur Soils" seminar. Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Item. correct incorrect correct pre incorrect pre pre-post No. pre & post pre & post incorrect post correct post change Section IVqA 31 66.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 -16.7 32 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 +33.3 33 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 —33.3 34 16.7 16.7 0.0 66.7 +66.7 35 50.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 36 33.3 16.7 0.0 50.0 +50.0 Section IV-B 37 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 38 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 39 83.4 0.0 0.0 16.7 +16.7 40 33.3 16.7 0.0 50.0 +50.0 44 33.3 16.7 0.0 50.0 +50.0 Section IV-C 42 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 43 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 +33.3 44 33.3 16.7 16.7 33.3 +16.6 45 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 +50.0 47 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 +50.0 Pretest Posttest Mean % correct Mean test score C —‘z3§§. ° + 450 '--—_———~_— ...-— 41— .4 la. 38 Table 12. Evaluation for county agent group from pretest to posttest on test section V (definitions) in the "Know Ybur Soils" seminar. IPercent #Percent Iteg No. correct pretest correct posttest Percent change 48 33.4 66.7 +33.3 1+9 16.? 66.7 +50.0 50 55.6 83. 4 +27, 8 51 61.2 77.8 +16.6 52 27.8 55.6. +27.8 Mean % correct Ezg8ggg Pb38f33t g%%?§g Mean test score 5.8 . 10.5 + 4.7 Discussion, Summary and Review The county agent training seminar was concluded with a summary, discussion and review of material covered. Suggestions for the imp provement of "Know Your Soils" and Soil Survey Reports included the following: 1. A glossary and index added to the circular. 2. The circular organized such that sections could be used independently as separate handout sheets or together as the total circular. 3. Information to be added in the circular should include: a. A general section on minimum.tillage and specific recommendations for sets of management groups. b. Lime recommendations to incorporate information on plowing depth as it affects lime requirement. 4. Improvements needed in organization of soil survey infor- mation and maps to make them more useable for soil manage- ment purposes. 39 Summary and Conclusions The field trial of "Know Ybur Soils" and the subsequent county agent training seminar indicated that the circular contained infor- mation that would be useful to numerous persons needing soil manage- ment information. The circular was found to be an effective source of management information when used with county agents within the framework of a seminar and as measured by pretesting and posttesting. The seminar was a necessary and effective adjunct to the "Know Your Soils" circular for this group of agricultural leaders. Its usefulness was reduced by problems encountered in obtaining needed soils information from soil surveys. It was found that the. sequence of steps needed to determine management recommendations for the soils of a given land area poses many obstacles for the individual not skilled in the procedure. The following suggestions were made to reduce these difficulties and improve the effectiveness of "Know Your Soils" as a Specific guide to management practices. When used with "Know Your Soils" the three areas in which improvement is needed in soil survey reports are: (1) readability of the Index to Map Sheets, (2) the labeling of map sheets, and (3) the Guide to Mapping Units needs to contain identity of mapping units and references to manage- ment groups for various purposes. More Specific suggestions for the improvements needed are given in a letter prepared for the coopera- tive soil survey under date of March 24, 1964, see Appendix C. It was concluded that the effectiveness of "Know Your Soils" as a source of useable soil management information would be increased if it could serve the dual functions of: (1) a complete bulletin serving as a concise source of the full range of management 40 information on Michigan soils, and (2) a series of separate sheets or units that could be used singly or in various combinations to give a user a set of those units specifically related to his particu- lar management situations and for his particular soils. A revision of "Know'Your Soils" was planned as a result of the above findings with changes and additions incorporated to meet the suggested recoms mendations. This revision of "Know Your Soils" was completed in 1964. REVISION OF THE 1962 I'KNOW'YOUR SOILS" Introduction "Know Your Soils" was revised in 1964 on the basis of the re- sults and recommendations obtained from the trial use by county agricultural agents of the 1962 edition of the circular, a county agent training seminar on the content and use of "Know YOur Soils," and the followaup comments and suggestions from the participating agents. It was concluded that the effectiveness of the circular as a source of useable soil management information could be increased by reorganization, revision of the content for clarity and accuracy, and the inclusion of several additional topics. Objectives The overall objective of the "Know Your Soils" revision was to increase the circular's effectiveness as a means of communicating soil management and soil survey information to the largest number of potential agricultural users. Effectiveness of the circular could be increased by making it applicable to different groups of people with differing needs. The first specific objective was to meet the needs of as many potential agricultural users as possible through the reorganization of the circular into separate units that could be made available in the following forms: (1) a total circular, (2) selected sections of the circular, or (3) a single section of the circular. County agri- cultural extension agents, vocational agriculture teachers, and con- servation personnel needing a comprehensive coverage of soil 41 42 management information would find the first form most useful. Farmers could benefit most by using selected sections that apply directly to their soils and management needs. The third form would be useful for distribution to individuals desiring specific information on one topic. The second objective was to continually give users current accurate information by incorporation of the most recent agricultural research findings and organization of the circular to permit ease of future revision. The third objective was to give users a more comprehensive cover- age of soil management information by including several additional tepics pertinent to soil management that had not been contained in the original "Know Your Soils" circular. Organization of the 1962 ”Know Your Soils" The original "Know Your Soils" (AppendixF) consisted of a green cover, a yellow section (12 pages) containing general management infor- mation by topics, and a white section (24 pages) containing specific management information for sets of soil management groups. Use of the three colors was intended to give users ready identification of the major divisions of the circular. The inside front cover explained how the circular should be used. Yellow section. This section included the following kinds of information: (1) how available soils knowledge can be useful for various purposes and to various groups, (2) how and why soils differ from one another, (3) how soils are grouped into soil management groups for the purpose of agricultural interpretations and uses, (4) how the properties of these soils are important to their use, and 43 (5) information on various management practices including short dis- cussions on minimum tillage, weed control, correction of soil acidity, micronutrients, choice of adapted cropping systems, erosion control, good seed and fertilizer recommendations. The topics in the yellow section follow each other consecutively with only topic headings to separate them. The tepic material was presented in a concise highly condensed form to keep the length of the circular to a minimum. White sectggp. This section contained specific recommendations for each specific set of soil management groups on two facing pages (pair pages) as illustrated on pages 14 and 15. It included infor- mation on the description of soil characteristics, management prob- lems, cr0p adaptations, least protective cropping systems, fertilizer recommendations, drainage recommendations, average crop yields expected and other production and conservation practices for the set of soil management groups 6.3. 1a, 1b, and 1c. The sets of management groups appear in numerical order, that is, group 1 soils first, group 2 second, etc., followed by the alphabetical groups Ga, Gc, L, etc., respectively. The last white sheet (page 36) contained information on how soil maps are made and an explanation of how soils are named. This white section made use of cross references within itself and to information in the yellow pages to prevent repetition of material and therefore give the maximum information with a minimum number of pages. Organization of the 1964 "Know'Your Soils" In reorganizing “Know Your Soils" the attempt was made to 2,4 incorporate suggestions made by the agricultural extension agents during and following the training seminar, the workshop evaluations, and the information gained from the protesting and posttesting of agents that attended the "Know Your Soils“ seminar. Rearrangements. A major organizational change was the sub- division of the circular into independent sections, color coded with four additional colors for easy identification. Information on the front and inside of the front cover was retained unchanged from the "1962" version. The first major section, printed on green paper similar to the cover, dealt with soil maps, soil properties, soil management groups and soil sampling. Section two, printed on a goldenrod colored paper, dealt with soil tests and fertilization. Section three was the newly published (1964) bulletin 471, uLime for Michigan Soils." Section four, (pale yellow) covered the general principles of minimum tillage. Section five, (pink) discussed soil erosion control: principles, practices, and recommended cropping systems. The white section was reorganized into four page units, con- sisting of printing on two sides of each of two sheets. The first four page unit dealt with properties and management of the 0 (very fine) and 1 (fine) soil management groups. This two sheet (4 page) format was repeated for each following set of soil management groups. The four page unit or "pair sheets" arrangement had the advantage of easy removal for use as handouts. These sheets were completely in- dependent and required no cross-references to npair sheets" for other sets of management groups. It also permitted inclusion of more information on the characteristics, management, and erosion control 45 for each set of management groups than was possible in the 1962 version. All sheets in the 1964 "Know YOur Soils" are punched to permit insertion into a looseleaf notebook and to facilitate the use of in- dependent sections of the circular. Lower case letters were used to designate the pages of each section. The first page is (a), the second page (b), etc. This eliminated confusion when an individual had only certain sections of the circular. Another advantage of this alphabetic system of pagination for each section is that it permits additional units of information or topics to be inserted as they be- come available and are found to be useful inclusions in the circular. Inclusion of additional information. The trial and evaluation of "Know'Your’Soils" indicated that additional information should be included in the circular to increase the subject content, clarify in- formation already included in the circular, and to increase its read- ability. Information added in section one included a table of con- tents unanimously suggested by the county agents. The management groups 1.5 and 2.5 were added to the management group table on page 3. These two management groups were added because it was found that a separation of clay loam from loam.profiles,which had both been pre- viously'included in management group 2, was necessary information needed in effective erosion control and in estimating productivity for various tree species. The page on 'How Soil Maps are Made' and 'How Soils are Named' was moved to the back of the Table of Contents in the green section from the last white sheet. This keeps it with the general introductory section instead of with one set of manage- ment groups. 46 Recommendations on how to collect soil samples for soil testing were added as a last page in the introductory green section. It was added to aid the increasing numbers of farmers and county agents using the soil testing service each year. Effective soil testing requires a careful collection of samples, and recording of the soil type name and plowing depth when this information is available. The yellow section of the 1962 "Know Your Soils" contained approximately one page of information on correction of soil acidity. This information was replaced in the 1964 "Know Your Soils" with a six page extension bulletin No. 471 "Lime for Michigan Soils." The lime bulletin contains considerably more information with broader coverage of information on soil acidity, liming materials and soil liming needs. An important addition to the lime bulletin which had not been included in the 1962 "Know Your Soils" or in the previous lime bulletin was a graph from which it is possible to calculate the amount of lime necessary for plowing depths of 9 or 12 inches. The effect of plowing depth on lime requirement was recommended as an inclusion in the revised "Know Your Soils" by the agricultural extension agents. Minimum tillage information in the original circular was revised and a figure added to illustrate the importance of plowing on pore space of soils. This general discussion was printed as a separate yellow sheet for inclusion in the revised circular. The tepics, choice of adapted cropping systems and erosion control in the original circular were replaced by an independent section on prin- ciples and practices of erosion control and recommended cropping systems as a new pink colored section. It incorporated an entirely 47 new approach to soil erosion control by using the universal soil loss equation to determine needed management practices for water erosion control. This had the advantage of increased accuracy as it was based on a large amount of experimental data (Wischmeier, 1960) and was more widely adaptable from state to state or area to area within a state. The section included definitions of the five factors in the universal soil loss equation and explained how the equation could be used to determine the conservation practices needed for erosion con- trol. The five factors and their’symbols are: (R) rainfall index, (K) soil erodibility factor, (LS)1ength and steepness of slope factor, (P) supporting conservation practice factor, and (T) allow» able annual soil loss. Four tables were included to give the necessary data for determination of the cropping and management factor (0). In the white section, profile diagrams representing a soil of each management group in the set were included on the first page (a) of each unit or "pair sheets." These profile sketches were added to illustrate the kinds of differences that existed in the profiles of these soil management groups in a diagrammatic form that users could compare to their soils. Space was provided beneath the profile sketches of each set of soil management groups for the user to write in the management units and the name of his soils belonging in these groups. The second page (b) contained specific information on mini- mum tillage practices that apply to the soil management groups con- tained in the unit in addition to information previously provided. On the third page (c) was information on fertilizer recommendations and productivities of the soil management groups. Erosion control infor- mation that applied to the sets of soil management groups was given #8 on its fourth page (d). The additional information was inserted in each of the soil management groups to which it applied and the loca- tion of each topic was consistent within each of the "pair sheets.” Following the white section of the revised "Know'Iour Soils" a blue section was inserted containing a list of all Michigan soil series and their respective management groups to facilitate use of soil management information by users knowing the soil series on their farmu This information is also helpful for those individuals having older surveys with only the series name and not the management grouping or the more detailed slepe and erosion separations shown on more recent maps. While the more recent maps are more detailed and more accurate the existing soils information should be utilized until better information is available. The final section, also blue, was a three page glossary con- taining technical terms found either in "Know YourSoils' or needed to help in understanding soil survey information used in conjunction with the circular. Review of accuracy of "KhOW’Ybur Soils." Periodic revision of soil management bulletins is needed due to the continuing increase in crop yields and revised fertilizer or other management requirements commonly needed to accomplish this. During the revision of the 1962 "Show Your Soils,” all recommendations of lime and fertilizer were reviewed for accuracy and expected individual crop yields checked against the most recent available information. Yield data and fer- tilizer recommendations were again altered for the 196k "Know'Iour Soils" when necessary to agree with the latest research and.yie1d estimates. 49 Lime recommendations, on the other hand, have changed less often as the pH and lime needs of various soils and crops has re- mained relatively constant. There has been improvement in methods for measuring lime requirement however in recent years. Thus, despite the fact that lime requirement recommendations contained in bulletins for Michigan soils have remained relatively constant over a consider- able period of time it was felt advisable to attempt to determine whether these values were accurate relative to current lime recom— mendations based on the most recent lime requirement tests. This was done by obtaining the soil test records of soil samples analyzed in the Michigan State University soil test laboratory over a three year period. Soil texture, soil pH, and soil lime requirement (determined by chemical analyses) were recorded on IBM punch cards for each soil sample tested. ’ Considerable difficulty was encountered in obtaining the above information as a result of inadequate data recorded on the original data cards. As a result of the experiences gained during this lime requirement study a proposal, "Recommendations to the Michigan State Soil Testing Laboratory in regard to more effective use of soils information," (Appendix D) were prepared, with the assistance of Dr. John Shickluna, suggesting more adequate recording of important soils information relating to soil sample testing. The recommendations ‘were organized to permit recording of information from any one of the following sources: (1) soil sample accompanied by its soil type name from modern soil surveys, (2) soil management group designation received with sample, (3) no information received with the soil sample. 50 In the last case the texture and presence or absence of a dark color in the sample, as estimated in the laboratory, are recorded. This type of information would be useful to aid in the interpretation of soil test results and valuable for research investigations. All the IBM cards were grouped on a basis of soil texture and were further subdivided into the three following subgroups: (1) soils tested prior to April 1963 designated as light &: dark (no distinc- tion recorded between light and dark soil samples), (2) light colored soils tested after March 1963 representing normal or average field samples, and (3) dark colored samples tested after March 1963 representing soils abnormally high in organic matter. The IBM cards of all subgroups of data were submitted to the Michigan State University computer center for regression analysis by the CDC 3600 computer. The regression analysis results (Table 13) 'were used to plot regression lines representing the relationship between pH and lime requirement for each of the subgroups. Values for plotting regression lines were obtained by substituting pH values into the regression equation y'= a + bx. Lime requirement (y) is calculated for any desired pH value (x) and regression values (a) and (b) from Table 13. Regression lines were plotted using pH values of 4 and 6 and the corresponding lime requirement values. The dark colored, light colored, and light & dark samples of one textural class were plotted on each graph, where all were available, to show the relationship among them. An example is given in Figure 1. The dark colored samples for each of the textural classes had higher lime requirements than either the light colored samples or light & dark samples as indicated by the steeper slope of their regression 51 Table 13. Summary of regression analyses of lime requirement versus pH for various textural classes of samples tested in the MSU State Soil Testing Laboratory. IBM Rbans Regression equa- Group Plow layer No. of Lime tion values No. Color Texture samples requirement pH a b r1 51 light clay 13 3.23 5.88 20.38 -2.92 .7177 63 light & dark sicl 7 1.86 5.80 8.76 -1.19 .6372 53 light sicl 22 2.70 6.01 21.76 -3.17 .8076 64 light & dark cl 14 1.89 6.09 10.57 -1.43 .4757 54 light cl 181 3.16 5.94 23.33 ~3.39 .7392 65 light & dark loam 824 1.72 6.06 15.42 ~2.26 .7031 55 light loam 1242 2.35 6.02 19.76 -2.89 .7204 45 dark loam 22 2.46 6.10 26.85 -4.00 .7977 66 light & dark sil 95 2.71 6.03 17.06 -2.47 .8003 56 light sil 39 3.45 5.85 21.64 -3.11 .6914 67 light & dark 51 946 1.78 5.96 13.04 -1.89 .6373 57 light 31 1176 2.40 5.93 19.94 -2.96 .7478 47 dark $1 24 2.29 6.15 44.90 -6.92 .9222 68 light a dark ls 592 1.67 5.95 13.12 -1.93 .6369 58 light ls 918 2.05 5.94 19.72 -2.97 .7765 48 dark ls 80 2.98 5.77 20.97 -3.12 .7661 69 light & dark sand 206 1.81 5.81 10.49 -1.50 .4810 59 light sand 274 2.08 5.87 19.66 -3.00 .7465 49 dark sand 49 2.32 35.91 21.26 -3.21 .6915_ #— 1values of (r) are corrected for degrees of freedom. A On. nié . I V ...-’Ien-‘III I . 52 8 45 7 6 55 5 65 Lime requirement (tons) r.- 3 2 45 = dark colored (22 samples) 55 = light colored (1242 samples) 1 65 = light & dark (824 samples) 0 7 6:5 '6’ 5.5 5 74.5 pH Figure 1. Regression lines for lime requirement versus pH on three groups of loam samples. 53 lines. This relationship is to be expected since a higher organic content, indicated by their darker color, would increase their ex- change capacity and result in a greater lime requirement. The light & dark samples tested prior to April 1963, containing both light and dark colored samples, had a regression line with a less steep slope than did the light colored soils tested after March 1963. This was true for all textural classes where the come parison could be made. This indicates that the difference was not caused by chance but is a consistent systematic variation. The lower slope of the line cannot be explained by the mixture of light and dark samples as this would tend to have the opposite effect, thus causing the slope to be greater than that for light colored samples. A second unusual relationship is that the difference between the slope of the regression lines for the light colored samples and the light & dark samples is, with one exception, as large or larger than the difference between the regression lines for the light colored and dark colored samples. It was concluded that the lower lime require- ment of the light & dark samples as compared to light colored samples was caused by some factor other than organic matter content or related soil property. A comparison of the lime recommendations contained in the 1962 ”Know'Iour Soils," the 1964 "Know Your Soils," and the data compiled on lime requirements as determined by the Michigan State Soil Testing Laboratory using their presently accepted "buffer method," are given in Table 14. The County Soil Testing Laboratories are still using the 'pH's and textures' of the samples to determine lime recommenda- tions. 54 Table 14. Comparison of lime requirements from 1962 "Know Your Soils," 1964 "Know Your Soils," and the "buffer method" from the 160 State Soil Testing Laboratory. Topsoil 1962 1964 $011 tBSt data texture "Know Your Soils" "Know Your Soils" light light3 dark3 light colored1 & dark2 pH 4.5-4.9 pH 4.75 cm . CW 0 O . O O O C C O O C C C . O O Silty cl” . O O C C O O O C O C O .6. O O O O Silty clay 108m 0 o 45.5-6.5 o o o o o o o o o o 0 Clay 10” O .1 C C 0 O 0 C . O . C O C . C O 0 7.2 maim . .1 C C C O 0 O O C C C .5. C O O O “.7 6.0 7.8 Silt 10am 0 o)uo5'505 o o o o o o o o o o o 5.3 609 samy loam O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 4 O O O “.0 5.9 Loamy sand 0 a}I o o o o o o o 3 o o o 400 506 601 up). 0 okn o .L. o ’\J\ Sand 0 o o o o o o o 205 o o o 303 5.“ 600 pH35.0-5.4 __pH 5.25 Clay ..‘................ 5.0 Siltyclay............}.5..... Siiggmélay . .r4.5-5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Clayloam..J...........4..... 5.5 Loam ..‘................ 3.5 4.6 5.9 Siltloam ..r3.5-4.5 ........... 4.1 5.3 Sandyloam..).......... 3 ... 3.1 4.4 Loanwsand............2.5... 3.0 4.1 4.6 Sand ..}?°?‘?’?...... 2 2.6 3.9 11.11 55 Table 1 4. (concluded) Topsoil 1962 1961; Soil test data texture "Know YOur Soils" "Know Your Soils" light 2lightvjmd-arkj light colored & dark pH 5.5j.9 123 5.75 Clay . .‘. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 3.6 Silty clay . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . Silty clay loam. . .r3.5-4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 3.5 Clayloam..J................ 2.4 3.8 loam ‘3 2.4 3.1 3.9 Siltloam ..12.5-3.5 2.9 3.8 Sendyloam..1.......... 2.5 .. 2.2 2.9 5.0 Loamsand............2 .. 2.0 2.7 3.0 Sand . . 1'?'?'? . . . . . . 1.54 . . 1.9 2.4 2.8 ng 6.0-6.4 pH 6.25, Clay . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Siltyclay............}.2:5.... Silty clay loam . .>1.5-2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2.0 Clay loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 2.1 Loam 12° 1.3 1.7 1.9 Siltloam..}1.5-2.5 ........... 1.6 2.2 Sandy loam . .1. . . . . . . . . . 1.54 . . 1.2 1.5 1.7 Loamy sand . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.04 . . 1.1 1.2 1.5 Sand ”11201115....” .54 .. 1.1 0.9 1.2 1Increase 50% for dark colored soils. 2Light a dark = light and dark samples tested before March 31,1963. 3nght = light colored samples tested after March 31, 1963, and Dark dark colored samples tested after March 31, 1963. “Use 2 tons per acre for uniform application. 56 If the lime requirements obtained from the soil test laboratory using the new "buffer method" are more correct estimates of soil lime needs than the previous procedure, then the lime recommendations given in Michigan bulletins to date underestimate lime needs of Michigan soils. This is particularly true at the lower pH's and on the coarser textured soils. Probably the lime requirements given under the heading soil test data for light samples and dark samples should represent the most accurate values for use in future lime recommendation tables. Dark colored samples should be given separate recommended lime requirement values for a given texture and pH as these ranged from .5 ton to 2.1 tons greater than the requirements for corresponding light colored samples. Soil tests prior to April 1963, and those still made by the 'pH and surface texture" method, give lower lime recommendations for all given textures and pH values despite the fact that those samples included some dark colored soils. Or expressed in another way, lime requirements given in the 1964 "Know Your Soilsa were usually lower than those indicated by the recent soil test laboratory figures. The bulletin recommendations differed from the test data on light colored samples, Table 14, by as much as 2.9 tons per acre for sand textured soils to 2.2 tons per acre on clay loams at pH 4.5 to 4.9. The lime recommendations progressively increased from a minimum.of 2.5 tons for sand to a maximum of 5 tons for clay loam at pH 4.5 to 4.9 based on pH and the texture of the plow layers. Laboratory data, on the lime requirement by the "buffer method," however, show increases from 5.4 tons for sand to a maximum of 7.2 tons for clay loam. The data 57 indicate (Table 15) that higher rates of lime are not needed for those soils with finer textures than silt loams or clay loams and that clay loam and finer textures might be combined in lime recommendation tables as was done in the 1962 "Know Your Soils." Grouping of loam, with sandy loam, and of loamy sand with sand, also done in 1962 "Know YOur Soils," seems justified from the data. The lime requirement for silt loams appear to be abnormally high in relation to the values for loam and sandy loan. This may indicate that most silt loams in Michigan are on the finer side of the silt loam textures. Table 15. Recommended tons of limestone to raise the pH of a 6 2/3 inch plow layer of light colored samples to pH 6.5 Texture of the Measured pH plow layer 4.5-4.9 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 6.0-6.47 Clay 6.7 5.2 3.8 2.3 Silty clay loam 6.9 5.3 3.7 2-1 Clay loam. 7.4 5.7 4.0 2.3 Silt loam 7.0 5.5 3.9 2.4 Loam 6.2 4.8 3.3 1.8 Sandy loam. 6.0 4.6 3.1 1.6 Loam sand 5.8 4.3 2.8 1.3 Sand 5.6 4.1 2.6 1.1 58 Lime recommendations based on the soil test data for light colored samples (Table 14) for all textural classes analyzed, for four pH ranges and for three plowing depths are given in Table 16. The more complete data are given in Table 15 as a source of informa- tion from which this simplified table was determined for possible use in future revisions of the Lime Bulletin or "Know Ybur Soils." Table 16. Recommended tons of limestone to raise the pH of plow layers of three thicknesses of light colored samples to pH 6.5- Texture of the Depth of Measured pH plow layer plowing 4L5:4.9 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 76.0-6.4 Clay, silty 6 2/3 7.0 5.4 3.8 2.3 clay loam, clay loam. and 9 9.4 7.3 5.1 3.1 silt loam 12 12.6 9.7 6.8 4.1 Loam, sandy 6 2/3 6.1 4.7 3.2 1.7 loam 9 8.2 6.3 4.3 203 12 11.0 8.5 5.7 3.1 loamy sand 6 2/3 5.7 4.2 2.7 1.2 and sand 9 707 507 3.6 1.6 12 10.3 7.6 4.9 2.2 59 Summary and Conclusions In the revision of the 1962 "Know Your Soils" the original objectives were met and are summarized as follows: 1. 3. Needs of various users were provided for by subdividing the circular into: a. separate topic units on general management practices, color coded for easy identification and organized so that users could obtain one section, several, or the entire circular, "pair sheets" containing management information speci- fic to the sets of management groups contained in each, without cross references to others, make it possible to provide this information for only the soils of a given user. Accuracy of the circular was increased by: a. review of yield estimates, fertilizer requirements, and lime requirements with corrections made where needed, replacing the erosion section with a completely new section using the universal soil loss equation approach. Providing for ease of future revision by organizing the circular into separate sections and units that could each be replaced or updated as new information becomes available. Comprehensive management information coverage by the cir- cular was increased by the addition of: a. a section on soil sampling, 60 b. expanded liming information by inclusion of the bulletin "Lime for Michigan Soils" (Doll, 1964), c. addition of profile sketches, specific minimum tillage information, and additional soil erosion control in- formation on units of the white "pair sheets," d. insertion of a glossary, e. inclusion of a list of Michigan soil series with their respective management groups. 5. Ease of use was fostered by: a. addition of a table of contents on the page inside the fmnt cover, 3 b. color coding of each of the general management sections of the circular. From this revision it is concluded that reorganization does permit revision without the necessity of replacing an entire bulletin, as demonstrated by the replacement of the lime and erosion sections. It was also concluded that periodic revision of even long established practices such as lime recommendations is necessitated by improved scientific procedures and cultural practices, such as revised soil tests, and the increase in plowing depth. A closer tie between soil survey information and research (e.g. soil testing) is needed. There is a communication gap here as demonstrated by the suggested "Recommendations to the Michigan State Soil Testing Laboratory in regard to more effective use of soils information,“ Appendix D. 3The table of contents was inadvertently placed at the back of ”Know Your Soils“ and appeared as the outside of the back cover on cepies used for the testing program. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1964 "KNOW YOUR SOILS" Introduction The final phase of the investigation evaluated the effective- ness of the 1964 "Know Your Soils" (Appendix G) in communicating soil survey and related soil management information to fourteen groups ranging from high school vocational agricultural students to agricul- tural specialists. A 'pretest, treatment, posttest' procedure was used to measure the increase in learning with use of "Know Ybur Soils." "Know Your Soils" was also compared with the Sanilac County Soil Survey Report (Schneider, 1961) and a Teaching Program written by the author (Appendix H) using this same general procedure. The study also measured the specific information most effectively communicated by each of these three sources and the kinds of information that had caused confusion as indicated by the pretest and posttest scores. Procedure for Evaluation of the 1964 "Know Your Soils" Groups Included in Study The evaluation of the revised "Know Your Soils” in communicating soil survey and related soil management information was accomplished through testing groups of persons differing in education and experi- ence. These groups included high school vocational agricultural students, farmers, college students in beginning and intermediate agricultural courses, vocational agricultural teachers, professional soil conservation planners, and professors and graduate students in the Soil Science curriculum. The details of the procedure with each group will be discussed in the Results and Discussion section with 61 62 the total test scores and the changes in those scores. The Evaluation Tests A pretest was given to all individuals to determine previous soil knowledge. This was followed by treatment with one of three sources of information followed by a posttest to measure increased learning. In some cases the posttest was followed by working of a soil management problem and a final post-posttest. The same 40-item evaluation form (Appendix.E) was used for the protesting, the posttesting and, where a problem was used, the post- posttesting. This evaluation form contained four'major sections dealing with the following kinds of items: (a) true and false, (b) multiple choice, (c) matching, and (d) information fill—in. Each kind of item was grouped together to facilitate the answering and the grading as prescribed by Adkins (1947) as opposed to random mixing of the kinds of items. The 40-item evaluation test was written to measure each indivi- dual's knowledge about the informational content and arrangement of the circular. It was also written to evaluate the learning of the information on soil differences, soil maps and soil classification important for the understanding of ”Know Your Soils." Where other sources of information were used some of the information in ”Know Your Soils" was missing. This resulted in a number of cases where no change in learning was expected. To arrive at this evaluation form, the initial evaluation of 52-items used with the County Agricultural Agents (Appendix.B) was experimentally tried on a group of experts in Soil Science in order 63 to identify, correct, or remove test items that were not clear, that were inaccurate, or which contained more than one right answer. A section on the content and organization and a section containing definitions of key terms were removed on the basis of this experiment. They were removed partly due to the difficulty of grading them.con- sistently and, in the case of the first, due to doubt whether it measured communication of basic information. The revised evaluation form.contained four major sections. Section I. This section contained fourteen true and false items dealing with information on soil survey maps, soil formation and classification, soil management, soil management groups, and specific subjects presented by the "Know Your Soils" circular. Section II. This section contained seven multiple choice items, to test the understanding of soil terminology as contained in a soil type name, its mapping unit symbol, and its management unit symbol. This section, like sections III and IV, relates to specific material in "Know'Your Soils" whereas section I tested more general background information in addition to "Know Your Soils." The seven items in- cluded in section II dealt with: soil texture, drainage, slope, erosion, classification and related management problems. This section was designed to measure whether individuals could identify the above mentioned soil characteristics and management problems. Section III. Section III (8 items) was devoted entirely to the soil management group symbols and their meaning. Students were asked to match the management group symbols with each of a list of eight management group descriptions. These descriptions were written to test recognition of soil management groups ranging from those easy to 64 identify to the most complex ones. Section IV. Section IV (11 items) dealt with soil management practices. Three items involved plowing depth and soil texture in relation to lime requirement. Two items tested understanding of the critical soil test values of potassium and phOSphorus. Six items tested understanding of soil erosion as related to the universal soil loss equation. Item.An§lysis Following use of this evaluation form an item analysis was performed on the 40 test items. The analysis was computed from the tests taken by 339 individuals that represented the full range of the groups included in this study. Each test item was evaluated for difficulty, discrimination, and total value. Item difficulty was determined as the preportion of individuals answering an item cor- rectly. It could range from .00 to 1.00 with low numbers represent- ing difficult items and the higher numbers representing the easier items. The items answered correctly by about one-half of the par- ticipants are considered of Optimum difficulty. These values were rated from A to E according to the following table, page 65, (Table 17). Item discrimination is a measure of item score to total score correlation. This is a correlation between individual performance on specific items as correlated to individual total test scores. The discrimination index has a range from -1.00 to +1.00 with the high positive values indicating a strong direct relationship be- tween success on the item and success on the total test. The dis- crimination index was rated from A to E in accordance with Table 18. Table 17. Item difficulty.1 65 Rating Proportions answering correctly Designation A .41 to .60 Excellent (scored 5) B .31 to .40 and .61 to .70 Very Good (scored 4) C . .21 to .30 and .71 to .80 Good (scored 3) D .11 to .20 and .81 to .90 Fair (scored 2) E .00 to .10 and .91 to 1.00 Poor (scored 1) Table 18. Item.discrimination index.2 Rating Item discrimination index Designation A + .71 to +1.00 Excellent (scored 5) B + .51 to + .70 Very Good (scored 4) C + .31 to + .50 Good (scored 3) D + .11 to + .30 Fair (scored 2) E -1.00 to + .10 Poor (scored 1) The item total value was an overall evaluation of each item based on the summation of the scores for item difficulty and the item discrimination index. Table 19. This was done by referring these scores to The one exception to this table is that if the item dis- crimination index rating is E then the item total value is also E 1"Explanation of the Printed Report from the Itequnalysis Pro- gram (QITAN),' University Division of Instructional Services, Pennsyl- vania State University, 2Ibid. Mimeographed 5 pages. 66 Table 19. Item total value} Rating Designation A Excellent (scored 9-10) B Very Good (scored 7-8) G Good (scored 5-6) D Fair (scored 3-4) E Poor (scored 1-2) regardless of the item difficulty score. The results of the item analysis for the 40 test items are given in Table 20. These are used as a guide in rating of test items to help evaluate results of the test performance by the groups involved in this study. Results and Discussion The results of the test performances of the groups in this study were evaluated at three levels of generalization. First will come comparisons of their total test scores and changes, and then comparisons of their performances on the four sections of the test and on the individual test items. The first comparisons will also serve as an example of the general procedure as well as an intro- duction to the results of the study. Comparison Among All Groups for Total Test Changes and Details of Procedure'With Each Group The names of all groups that participated in this study, their 3Ibid. 67 Table 20. Item analysis of the 40 items on "Know Your Soils" evalua- tion test. Based on 339 individual tests. Item Item total Item Difficulty Item Discrimination no. value rating proportion rating index correct 1 B B .332 C .372 2 D D .847 D .178 3 C B .342 D .204 4 B A .434 C .352 5 B A .504 D .269 6 C D .879 C .392 7 C C .743 C .487 8 C C .720 C .469 9 D E .941 C .362 10 B A .587 D .263 11 C C .749 D .299 12 C B .661 D .119 13 C C .761 C .411 14 B B .614 C .390 15 c B .375 D .301 16 C C .227 C .436 17 A A .504 B .550 18 B B .676 B .611 19 B B .634 B .556 20 C B .637 D .232 21 B A .466 C .394 22 A A .599 B .667 23 B C .248 B .587 24 A A .537 B .587 25 A A .431 B .631 26 c D .112 B .542 27 B C .242 A .769 28 B B .345 B .701 29 B B .310 B .641 30 B A .519 C .338 31 B B .693 C .380 32 C C .776 C .357 33 B D .195 A .842 34 B D .198 A .827 35 A B .348 A .814 36 A B .348 A .805 37 A B .333 A .846 38 A B .310 A .827 39 A B .339 A .808 40 A B .310 A .868 68 group designations (composed of a number and a letter), the number of persons in each, their pretest scores, posttest scores, and the percent change in their scores are given a little later in Table 21. Groups designated with the letter 'a' such as 1a, 2a, etc. through 14a are those with which the pretest, "Know Your Soils" or Sanilac Report or Teaching Program treatment, and posttest sequence was used. Groups with some of the same numbers but designated also with the letter 'b' indicate that subsequent work was done on a problem followed by a post-posttest to complete the sequence of treatments and tests used with "Know Your Soils" or the Sanilac Report. All individuals were given the pretest to measure their initial knowledge about soils, soil maps and soil management. All groups were given brief introductions to the content and arrangement of the source materials they were to use ("Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Report, or the Teaching Program) and were then asked to read and study’it. The Soils 1 class at Michigan State University, group 4a, was lectured for one hour on t0pics of soil fertility, soil testing, and factors of the universal soil loss equation, then given "Know Your Soils" to study before the next class period. Groups 3a, and 7a, were given a half day training session on the content and use of I'K’now Your Soils" in addition to the circular. These training ses- sions were conducted by persons familiar with the circular and the included information. All groups were subsequently posttested to measure their in- crease in knowledge as a measure of learning. All participants were requested to complete all test items, where a choice was given, even 69 if they were uncertain of the answers. This was done in order to keep scoring of the tests consistent for everyone. Since the Teach- ing Program dealt only with items 6, 7, 16, 17, and 22 through 29 the remaining items were ones on which no learning should have been expected from groups using that source of information. Groups 1b, 2b, 6b, and 14b were subsequently given a problem (Appendix I) that consisted of first identifying the soils on a specified area. The identities of these soils were recorded from the soil map provided and the soil management group to which each belonged was determined from the legend accompanying the map. Using “Know'Your Soils," or the Sanilac Report each individual then deter- mined the management practices recommended for specific problem situations concerning management of their recorded soils. This problem was designed to give individuals practice in solving soil management prOblems that could occur on their individual farms by using a soil survey map and the "Know Your Soils" circular. Since the Sanilac Report did not present information on items 33 to 40, these items serve as a check on the evaluation tests where no learn- ing should have been expected. Following the problem all these in- dividuals were given a post-posttest to determine if additional learning had resulted. Learning from ”Know Your Soils" by ten groups of users as measured by total test changes. The major objective of this portion of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the 1964 "Know Your Soils" in communicating soil survey and soil management information to various groups of potential users. This falls logically into 70 several subdivisions: (1) The first specific objective was to deter- mine the percentage increase in learning for the categories of in- dividuals having the following treatments: (a) study of the circular "Know Your Soils," or a one-half day seminar on this circular, and (b) study of l'KnowYour Soils" plus working a problem in the use of a soil survey in conjunction with the circular, (2) A second ob- jective, dealt with in subsequent portions of the thesis, included determination of the kinds of information most effectively communi- cated by I'Know'Your Soils" and the kinds of information not effec- tively communicated. This was analyzed to determine why certain kinds of information were better communicated than other kinds. Test results from each group were analyzed to determine which kinds of information had been communicated as related to the kinds of infor- mation communicated in the other groups. Total test comparisons with groups of users of "Know You; §2il§." Groups 1, 2, and 3 did not have significant increases in their total scores as a result of exposure to "Know Your Soils," Table 21. Apparently neither the study of "Know Your Soils," by groups 1a and 2a, nor the one-half day seminar on "Know Your Soils," with group 3a, increased their knowledge significantly, at the .05 level. Group 1b increased significantly after additional practice involving the problem. It is interesting to note too that group 3a's average score actually increased slightly more than group 1b's. Apparently greater variability in this group prevented this increase from being statistically significant. Among the 'a' groups 4 to 10, the total test percentage increases 71 Table 21 . Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on the total test (40 items). Group No. of Scores 5 no. Groups tested persons Pretest Posttest Chapgg 1a1 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 26.7 30.0 + 3.3 1b2 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 26.7 33.6 + 6.9. 2a Vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 29.8 27.7 - 2.1 2b vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 29.8 33.2 + 3.4 Ba Farmer extension soil class (KY8) 11 33.2 40.8 + 7.6 4a Soils 1 (xxs) 64 34.8 55.1 +20.3* 5a Agronomy 1 (x23) 26 37.0 44.0 + 7.0* 6a Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 42.5 59.2 +16.7* 6b Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 42.5 67.7 +25.2* 7a Vocational agriculture teachers * (KY3) 8 48.1 71.3 +23.2 8a Edaphology (KY8) 12 63.6 76.7 +13.1* 9a3 Michigan State staff (KY8) 3 78.3 90.0 +11.7* 10a Soil Conservation Service (KY8) 12 73.8 81.9 + 8.1* 11a Agronomy 1 (Sanilac Report) 24 37.4 50.7 +13.3* 12a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 17 44.0 57.2 +13.2* 13a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 22 34.2 51.8 +17.6* 14a Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 39.3 42.7 + 3.4 14b Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 39.3 47.5 + 8.2* 1All group numbers containing (a) indicate pretest to posttest. t t 2All group numbers containing (b) indicate pretest to post-post- es . 3Thirteen Michigan State staff took the pretest to aid in evaluat- ing the test items but only three took the posttest, therefore the data is based on the three persons. '“Significant at .05 level. 72 ranged from 7% to 2371 with the "Know Your Soils" treatment and all of the increases were significant. Group 7a (vocational agriculture teachers), who were given a seminar on ”Know Your Soils," increased their score 23.29, the largest increase for any group. Group 6b (Soil Fertility students) increased their score 8.5% over that of 6a after working the problem. All groups that worked the problem (1b, 2b, and 6b) showed an increase in their score. Increases varied from.3.4$ (the only one not significant) to 8.5% following use of the problem.compared to the pxmtest scores. Learning from ”Know'Your Soils" ceppared to learning from the Sanilac Repgrt. A comparison of the effectiveness of "Know Your Soils" with the Sanilac Report on the communicating of soil manage- ment information was made using two college classes in agriculture at The Pennsylvania State University. The Agronomy 1 class con- sisted of four laboratory sections. One, group 5a used "Know'Your Soils,“ another, group 11a, used the Sanilac Report and the two re- maining sections, groups 12 and 13, used the Teaching Program. The Soil Fertility class was randomly split into two groups. One, group 6a, used "Know Your Soils" and the other, group 14a, used the Sanilac Report. The Soil Fertility students, reported as groups 6b and 14b, were given a management problem following the posttest and subse- quently post-posttested to determine any further increase in learning. Use of the problem revealed some difficulties and differences in com- municating 'lime requirement information' that was studied further and reported later in this thesis. Igtal test comparisons with users of "KnOW'Your'Soils" compared, to users of the Sanilac Report. The 6a group of Soil Fertility 73 students using "Know Your Soils" had a 13% greater increase from the pretest to the posttest than the 14a group of Soil Fertility stu- dents, Table 21, using the Sanilac Report. The 6a group increase, over their pretest score, was statistically significant at the .05 level while the increase of the 14a group was not. In both cases the addition of a problem to the treatment also gave a significant increase over the pretest scores. But, the increase in score fol- lowing the problem was 8.5% for the group using "Know Your Soils" and only 3.8% for the group using the Sanilac Report. The Agronomy 1 class (5a) using "Know'Your Soils" had a smaller increase in score than the Agronomy 1 class (11a) using assigned portions of the Sanilac Report. However, both had significant in- creases at the .05 level over their pretest scores. Learning from.”Know'Your Soils" and the Sanilac Report relative to the Teaching Progpam. Finally, a three-way comparison was made among the 1964 "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac County Soil Survey Report, and the Teaching Program that gives an intensive presentation of the Soil Management Group classification. Total test comparisons with users of "Know Your Soils,” and users of the Sanilac Report, compared to users of the Teaching Pro- gggg, The increases in scores of the Agronomy 1 students that used the Teaching Program, groups 12a and 13a, were equal to or greater than the increases of those using the assigned portions of the Sanilac Report, group 11a, and those using "Know Your Soils, group 5a, Table 21. All these groups increased their scores sig- nificantly on the posttests compared to the pretests. Since the Sanilac Report and the Teaching Program did not cover all the items 74 in the test evaluation these greater total scores are very striking. All these results will be examined in greater detail later in this chapter. Summary of total test scores. In summary, "Know Your Soils," judged by the mean test scores, Table 21, was least effective in communicating soil management information with groups with the least initial knowledge about the subject as indicated by pretest scores below 30%. It was most effective with groups having greater initial understanding as indicated by pretest scores of 40% to 65%. It was somewhat less effective, judged by increases in total scores, with groups with the greatest initial understanding as indicated by pre- test scores over 70%. However, the increases were statistically significant for all groups with initial scores of over 34% "Know Your Soils" was more effective than the Sanilac Report with the Soil Fertility class but less effective than the Sanilac Report with the Agronomy 1 class. For all groups that also worked a problem there was an increase in learning. Those using the Teaching Program had equal or greater increases in scores than those using the Sanilac Report or "Know Your Soils." The importance of these general observations will become more appar- ent by more detailed comparisons of the test scores by sections of the test and by examination of results on the individual test items in the following comparisons. 75 Comparisons Among All Groups for Changes in Test Scores on Each Test Section and Individual Items 1, Evaluation o; "Know Your Soils" Treatment for Groups 1 to 10 for Egch Test Section I to IV Section I. The effect of the "Know Your Soils" treatment on the test scores for the 14 true and false items are given in Table 22. Groups 6a, 88, and 10a had significant test score increases as a re- sult of using the circular. These three groups included advanced college students and professional conservation personnel. The 12% increase of the Soil Fertility students in group 6a apparently indicates that a group of this caliber is able to absorb a broad spectrum.of information covered by section I of the test evalu- ation from.the circular. The increase probably also reflects student interest, associated with the fact that these students were dealing with soil management information in their course work at the time of exposure to IK'nowYour Soils." Increases were most noticeable for imm4,&7,m,de,“mmflxLTflhH,wd@mmuE) which dealt with parent materials of the soils, soil management group information, response of cats to manganese where needed, and infor- mation about blinding of tile in sandy materials. Increases were recorded for ten of the fourteen items and decreases on only two, items 1 and 11. This distribution seems to indicate that these stu- dents got a broad grasp of the information covered in "Know Your Soils" rather than being limited to improvement in any specific area of information. The 71 increase by the Edaphology class, group 8a, was the 76 Table 22. Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section I (14 true and false items on overall information). Group No. of Scores No. Groups tested persons Pretest Posttest Change 1a1 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 52.3 54.3 + 2.0 1b2 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 52.3 57.1 + 4.8 2a Vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 58.7 49.6 - 9.1 2b vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 58.7 58.3 - .4 3a Farmer extension soil class (KY8) 11 58.4 61.3 + 2.9 4a $0118 1 (KIS) 64 59.0 63.1 + 4.1 5a Agronomy 1 (KY8) 26 61.5 62.6 + 1.1 6a Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 62.3 74.5 +12.2* 6b Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 62.3 74.5 +12.2* 7a vocational agriculture teachers (KY8) 8 68.3 68.8 + .5 8a Edaphology (KY8) 12 76.2 83.3 + 7.1* 9a3 Michigan State staff (KY3) 3 95.2 95.2 0.0 10a Soil Conservation Service (KY8) 12 76.8 82.7 + 5.9* 11a Agronomy 1 (Sanilac Report) 24 60.7 61.6 + .9 12a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 17 63.4 60.0 - 3.4 13a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 22 52.9 55.8 + 2.9 14a Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 61.9 65.2 + 3.3 14b Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 61.9 67.6 + 5.7 1All group numbers containing (a) indicate pretest to posttest. t t ZAll group numbers containing (b) indicate pretest to post-post- es . 3Thirteen Michigan.State staff took the pretest to aid in evaluat- ing the test items but only three took the posttest, therefore the data is based on the three persons. *Significant at .05 level. 77 result of increases in seven of the fourteen test items and decreases on only two items, Appendix.A, Table K. These reflect again a broad increase in knowledge. The significant increase in scores by Soil Conservation Service personnel in group 10a is also accomplished by relatively uniform increases among the 14 test items, with 9 items increasing and only 1 decreasing, Appendix A, Table M. It should be noted that both group 8a and 10a had pretest scores greater than 76%, Table 22. This makes increases rather difficult since information learned at high levels of achievement is more difficult than those at initially lower levels. In summary it would seem that groups having significant increases in scores on section I were those who had a direct interest in the overall subject of soil management with sufficient background to per- mit them to identify and learn information that they had not previously been familiar with. The additional treatment of a problem with groups 1b, 2b, and 6b gave no significant increases in learning, Table 22. Examination of the individual questions for these groups, Tables B, D, and I, Appen- dix A, showed consistent improvement on items 2, 6, and 11, all deal- ing with items used in the problem. Group 6b showed no net change be- tween posttest and the post-posttest. Despite no net increase for this test section, it should be noted that for item 7 there was a 33% in- crease between posttest and post-posttest. ' Section II. A summary of test scores for the 7 items (15-21) of section II are given in Table 23. The small number of items made it difficult to obtain statistically significant changes resulting from the "Know Your Soils" treatment. The 12% increase for vocational 78 Table 23. Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section II (7 items on soil classifica- tion and its symbols). Group No. of Scores g 1 fl no. Groups tested persons Pretest Posttest Change 1a1 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 27.0 39.7 +12.7 1b2 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 27.0 32.6 + 5.6 2a vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 30.1 19.8 -10.3 2b vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 30.1 25.4 - 4.7 3a Farmer extension soil class (KY8) 11 35.0 29.7 - 5.3 4a Soils 1 (K18) 64 41.1 46.1 + 5.0 5a Agronomy 1 (KY8) 26 41.1 50.6 + 9.5 6a Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 48.4 61.8 +13.4 6b Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 48.4 69.0 +20.6 7a vocational agriculture teachers (x13) 8 58.7 66.1 + 7.4 8a Edaphology (KY8) 12 72.5 75.0 + 2.5 9a3 Michigan State staff (KY8) 3 80.9 85.7 + 4.8 10a Soil Conservation Service (KY8) 12 69.0 71.4 + 2.4 11a .Agronomy 1 (Sanilac Report) 24 38.7 48.8 +10.1 12a .Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 17 44.6 49.6 + 5.0 13a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 22 45.4 53.8 + 8.4 14a Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 43.8 60.0 +16.2 14b Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 43.8 62.8 +19.0* 1All group numbers containing (a) indicate pretest to posttest. t t 2All group numbers containing (b) indicate pretest to postépost- es . 3Thirteen Michigan State staff took the pretest to aid in evaluat- ing the test items but only three took the posttest, therefore the data is based on the three persons. *signiricant at .05 level. 79 agriculture students in group 1a compared to the 10% decrease for vocational agriculture students in group 2a would suggest that factors other than the "Know Your Soils" treatment had considerable effect on student test scores. This might be attributed to interest or lack of interest generated by the instructors of the two classes. It is noteworthy that group 1b increased 44% on item 18, deal- ing with soil SIOpe classes, between the pretest and the post- posttest, Tables A and B, Appendix.E. Most of this increase resulted from.the use of ”Know Your Soils" without the working of a problem. This increase in knowledge about soil slope as determined from the soil management unit symbol and the soil mapping unit symbol is con- sidered significant as this item was rated very good in both item difficulty and item discrimination during the item analysis for 339 of the participants. It is also interesting to note that item 15, dealing with tax, ture of the surface soil, showed decreases in test scores for 7 of the 10 groups and no change in test scores for the other 3 groups, Tables A through M; Appendix A. This is interpreted as evidence that indi- viduals were confused on the texture of the surface soil, as given in the soil type name, perhaps as a result of using "Know Y0ur Soils" which stresses average texture of the profile indicated by the soil management group symbol. Clearly, more stress on differentiating these two is needed in the circular. In summary, section II had no statistically significant increase in test scores for groups 1 to 10, although group 1a had a 12% in- crease, 6a had a 13% increase and 6b had a 20% increase in score. The lack of significance was attributed largely to the small number of 80 items. All these groups had an increase in score between pretest and postaposttest on items 16, 17, and 18 dealing with profile texture, drainage, and slope of soils, respectively. Seven of the ten groups decreased, two remained unchanged, and only one, group 1, increased in score on item 15. This is interpreted as due to confusion be- tween the texture of soil profiles as given by the soil management group and the soil surface texture given in the soil type name. Section III. Test scores for section III, items 22-29, as affected by the ”Know'Your Soils” treatment are given in Table 24, groups 1 to 10. Five of the 'a' groups had significant increases in score as a result of the "Know Your Soils" treatment. The non-signif- icant changes for the vocational agriculture students (groups 1a and 2a) and the farmers in the extension soils class (group 3a) following the "Know Your Soils" treatment agrees with the overall test scores for these groups, Table 21. However, the problem increased learning appreciably in the vocational agriculture groups, 1b and 2b, Table 24. Indeed the vocational agriculture students in group 1b showed a 13.9% increase that was statistically significant at the .05 level. The farmers in the extension soil class, group 3a, also increased their scores nearly 19$. Groups 4 to 7 including college of agriculture students and vocational agriculture teachers had large significant increases in their scores ranging from 18 to 36$. The pretest scores of these groups ranged from 11% to 26% indicating that the individuals had little knowledge of soil management group characteristics prior to studying IKnow'Your Soils." These relatively low pretest scores and large increases in scores indicate that for these groups of persons the "Know Your Soils" circular was highly effective in 81 Table 24. Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section III (8 items on management group symbols). Group No. of Scores no. Groups tested persons Pretest Posttest Change 1a1 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 4.9 3.5 - 1.4 162 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 4.9 18.8 +13.9* 2a vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 4.9 5.5 + .6 2b vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 4.9 11.1 + 6.2 3a Farmer extension soil class (KY8) 11 13.6 32.3 +18.7 4a Soils 1 (KY8) 64 11.0 37.8 +26.8* 5a Agronomy 1 (KY8) 26 10.1 33.1 +23.0* 6a Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 14.6 33.4 +18.8* 6b Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 14.6 47.3 +32.7* 7a vocational agriculture teachers * (KY8) 8 26.4 62.5 +36.1 8a Edaphology (KY8) 12 63.5 64.6 + 1.1 9a3 Michigan State staff (KY8) 3 87.5 91.6 + 4.1 10a Soil Conservation Service (KY8) 12 74.0 83.4 + 9.4‘ 11a Agronomy 1 (Sanilac Report) 24 11.5 28.1 +16.6 12a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 17 10.3 65.5 +55.2* 13a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 22 9.1 50.0 +40.9* 14a Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 11.6 20.0 + 8.4 '14s Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 11.6 37.5 +25.9* 1All group numbers containing (a) indicate pretest to posttest. t t ZAll group numbers containing (b) indicate pretest to post-post- es . 3Thirteen Michigan State staff took the pretest to aid in evaluat- ing the test items but only three took the posttest, therefore the data is based on the three persons. *Signiricant at .05 level. 82 communicating soil management group information. Group 10a, Soil Conservation Service personnel, had a significant 9% increase from a 74% pretest score indicating that although they knew considerable about soil management groups prior to studying FKnow Your Soils" they increased their knowledge about the subject a significant amount. Group 8a, the Edaphology class, had a relatively high 63% pretest score but were unable to increase this significantly through use of "Know'Your Soils." Items 22, 25, and 28 had the largest increase among all groups, Tables A through M, Appendix A. This would seem to indicate that persons learned the fundamental concepts of texture and drainage illustrated by these three relatively basic soil management groups. Item 26 had the smallest increase and the largest proportion in- correct on both pretest and posttest. This is to be expected as the item dealt not only with drainage but had an 11 inch depth of sand which was not sufficiently deep to group the soil as a sand over rock, 4/Rc, as most people had indicated. Use of a problem on groups 1b, 2b, and 6b, increased their scores in each case, Table 24. In the case of 1b, the 13.9% increase over pretest was sufficient to make this a statistically significant change over the pretest score. The 6.2% increase of group 2b was not sufficient to give statistical significance. The significant 32.7% increase in group 6b from pretest to post-posttest was 14% over the “Know Your'Soils" treatment alone. The problem treatment between posttest and post-posttest gave a greater than 30% increase on item 22 for the mean of the scores of groups 1b, 2b, and 6b, Tables B, D, and I , Appendix A. 83 In summary, the effect of the "Know Your Soils" treatment on items in section III of the test was greatest for those groups that in- cluded college students and vocational agriculture teachers who had relatively low pretest scores. A significant increase was also ob- tained with the Soil Conservation Service personnel despite their high, 74%, pretest score. The problem treatment resulted in a non- significant 6.2% increase for group 2b, a significant 13.9% increase for group 1b, and a significant increase of 32.7% for group 6b com- pared to their pretest scores. The increases over the posttest scores were 6% to 14% in all cases. Test items 22, 25, and 28 were most affected by the nKnow'Your Soils" treatment. A significant in- crease in scores occurred in item 22 as a result of the problem given prior to the post-posttesting. Section IV. The effect of the "Know Your Soils" treatment on the test scores in section IV, items 30 to 40, is given in Table 25. Most groups using "Know Your Soils" had significant increases ranging from 10.171 to 57.9%. Only the vocational agriculture group 1a with a 2.5% increase and the Agronomy 1 class group 5a with a 1.1% increase did not have significant increases following the "Know'Your Soils" treatment. The 13% increase of group 10a was not significant, per- haps because of their initial high score of 73.4% and the relatively small number of test items, 30, 33, 34, and 36 on which their scores increased appreciably, Table M’in.Appendix.A. The vocational agricul- ture students of group 2a apparently learned nothing on items 33 and 34 dealing with the critical soil test values for phosphorus and potassium, Tables C, Appendix.A. Their increase was evenly distributed among the balance of the items. In contrast with this the farmers of 84 Table 25. Summary of the mean percent scores and changes in scores for all groups on test section IV-A+B+C (11 items on soil manage- ment: lime, fertility, erosion). Group No. of ____§g§p§5;j£____ % No. Groups tested persons Pretest Posttest Chapgg 1a1 vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 9.6 12.1 + 2.5 1b2 Vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 9.6 15.2 + 5.6 2a vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 10.6 20.7 +10.1* 2b vocational agriculture (KY8) 18 10.6 22.1 +11.5* 3a Farmer extension soil class (KY8) 11 14.1 30.6 +16.5‘ 4a Soils 1 (KY8) 64 17.2 62.9 +45.7* 5a Agronomy 1 (KY8) 26 22.7 23.8 + 1.1 6a Soil Fertility (KY8) 18 33.8 56.5 +22.7' 6b Soil Fertility (Krs) 18 33.8 72.7 +38.9' 7a vocational agriculture teachers ‘ . (KY8) 8 27.3 85.2 +57.9 8a Edaphology 12 41.6 78.0 +36.4r 9a3 Michigan State staff (KY8) 3 48.5 84.8 +36.3* 10a Soil Conservation Service (KY8) 12 73.4 86.4 +13.0 11a Agronomy 1 (Sanilac Report) 24 72.3 64.0 - 8.3 12a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 17 42.4 45.8 + 3.4 13a Agronomy 1 (Teaching Program) 22 39.0 40.0 + 1.0 14a Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 27.9 19.4 e 8.5* 14b Soil Fertility (Sanilac Report) 15 27.9 19.4 - 8.5‘ 1All group numbers containing (a) indicate pretest to posttest. t t ZAIl group numbers containing (b) indicate pretest to post-post- es . 3Thirteen Michigan State staff took the pretest to aid in evaluat- ing the test items but only three took the posttest, therefore the data is based on the three persons. *Significant at .05 level. 85 group 3a did benefit from "Know'Your Soils" in respect to items 33 and 34, Table E, Appendix A. This perhaps should be expected since this group was involved in a soil testing program.for their soils ‘with the County Agent and were therefore directly concerned with this type of information. The Soils 1 class, group 4a, had information from "Know Your Soils" on soil fertility and soil testing and on soil erosion con- trol as related to the universal soil loss equation presented to them in a lecture. This becomes evident in the increase in scores on items 33 and 34 dealing with soil test information and on items 35 to 40 dealing with universal soil loss equation, Table F, Appendix A. Increases on these items ranged from 36% to 78% and illustrate the impact of information being presented in lecture form on specific subjects with a circular such as "Know Your Soils.” The significant increase in learning by the Soil Fertility class, group 6a, is attri- buted to items 33 to 40 which includes soil test values and soil erosion control, Table H, Appendix.A. The initially high pretest scores on liming, items 30, 31, 32, made it difficult for those items to increase between pretest and posttest. Apparently those students were familiar with the information on liming prior to exposure to ”Know’Your Soils." The 58% increase in score for the vocational agriculture teachers, group 7a (Table 25) was obtained largely from items 33 and 34 and items 35 to 40, Table J, Appendix A. This indi- cates that they benefited greatly from the exposure to the I'Know'Your Soils” training seminar on the tepics of soil fertility and soil erosion (as related to the universal soil loss equation). The 36% increase of Edaphology students, Table 25, is also attributable 86 primarily to the areas of soil testing items 33, 34, and the universal soil loss equation items 35 to 40, Table K, Appendix A. Their high pretest scores on items 30 to 32 prevented large increases on these items. Soil Conservation Service personnel, group 10a, had little opportunity to benefit in the area of soil erosion control as they had high initial scores, Table M; Appendix A. They did, on the other hand, increase their scores appreciably in the area of soil testing. ‘Working of a problem.by the vocational agriculture students, groups 1b and 2b, apparently had little beneficial effect on their scores, Table 25. Theitems most affected were 33 and 34 dealing with critical soil test values, Tables B and D in Appendix A. The college Soil Fertility students, group 6b, benefited most from.work- ing a problem on items 33 and 34 on critical soil test values, but they also benefited to a lesser extent on items 35 to40 dealing with the universal soil loss equation information, Table I, Appendix A. A summary of test section IV results for groups 1 to 10 indi- cates that the scores of groups 1a, 5a, and 10a did not show sig- nificant increases in this section as a result of exposure to "Know Your Soils, Table 25, Groups 2a, 3a, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a did have significant increases as a result of the "Know‘Your Soilsn treatment. These increases in scores ranged from 10% to 57%. The items contri- buting the greatest amount to these significant increases were ones that were: (a) stressed to a group in a lecture or seminar dealing with the nKnow'Your Soils" circular, (b) subjects of direct interest to groups such as farmers involved in a soil testing program or (c) information closely related to subject matter that the particular group had been dealing with in class studies, or directly related to the groups type of work. 87 2. Copparison of "Know Your Soils" and Sanilac County Soil Survey Report The relative effectiveness of the "Know Your Soils" circular compared to the Sanilac County Soil Survey Report in communicating soil management information was measured using two groups of students. The comparison was made between one laboratory section of an Agronomy 1 class using "Know Your Soils," group 5a, and a second laboratory sec- tion of this class using the Sanilac Report, group 11a. Comparison was also made between one-half of a Soil Fertility class consisting of 18 randomly selected students using "Know Your Soils, group 6a, compared with the other half of the Soil Fertility class, group 14a, using the Sanilac Report. All groups received a pretest, a treatment in the form.of the respective sources of information, and a posttest to measure learning. Subsequent to posttesting the Soil Fertility class, groups 6b and 14b, were given problems involving use of their respective sources of information to determine answers to soil manage- ment problems. This was followed by a post-posttest to measure any change caused by the problem treatment. Section I. Section I of the evaluation test showed no signifi- cant increase in learning for either the Agronomy 1 section using "Know'Your Soils,n group 5a, or the Agronomy 1 section using the Sanilac Report, group 11a, Table 22. Soil Fertility students, group 6a, using "Know Your Soils” showed a 12% increase in score between pretest and posttest. This was significant at the .05 level. Soil Fertility students using the Sanilac Report, group 14a, showed a 3.3% increase in score which was not significant. The "Know'Your'Soils" treatment gave a larger increase in scores than the Sanilac treatment 88 on a basis of having slightly higher increases on 8 items and slightly smaller increases on only four of the items, Tables H and Q, Appendix A. The subsequent problem treatment for both groups, 6b and 14b, caused no significant increases in scores, Table 22. The 6b group's score using "Know Your Soils," however, remained significantly better than the pretest score at 12.2%. The problem treatment with group 14b, the Soil Fertility students using the Sanilac Report, ac- companied an increase of 2.4% from its posttest score although this still was not a significant increase over their pretest score. Items increasing most for both groups from the problem treatment were items 6 and 7, dealing with the properties of soil management groups, Tables I and R in Appendix A. This increase seems reasonable as stu- dents were required to use soil management groups and understand their characteristics in working the problem. > Section II. A comparison of the Agronomy 1 students using "Know’Your Soils, group 5a, and the Agronomy 1 students using the Sanilac Report, group 11a, on subjects covered in test section II, dealing with soil classification and its symbols, Table 23, shows an average increase for the "Know Your Soils" group of 9.5% and for the Sanilac Report group of 10.1%. Neither of these increases W118 sig- nificant at the .05 level. Despite the non-significant total in- creases by both groups on this section, examination of the individual items indicates that apparently both groups improved more than average on items 16 and 17 dealing with interpretation of the soil management groups symbols, Tables G and N, Appendix.A. Also, group 5a, using "Know Your Soils" increased 15% in item 21, dealing with a management hazard, and group 11a, using the Sanilac Report, increased 25% on 89 item 18 which involves understanding the slope class included in both mapping unit and management unit symbols. Both groups decreased in their scores on item 19 dealing with erosion classes. Group 5a showed a 27% decrease on item 15 dealing with surface soil texture. Soil Fertility students using nKnow’Your Soils," group 6a, and Soil Fertility students using the Sanilac Report, group 14a, had in- creases in their test scores on section II of 13.4% and 16.2% re- spectively, Table 23. After working a problem.both groups registered further increases to 20.6% and 19.0%, respectively. These relatively large increases were not significant because of the small number of items on which the test was based, except for the 19.0% for group 14b. Items 17, 18, 19, and 21 showed the most notable increases for both groups in the initial treatments and 16 showed notable further increases after working a problem, Tables H and Q, Appendix A. The respective increases of items for the two groups seem reasonable in light of the fact that the management groups and soil properties are stressed in both presentations. The scores of both groups decreased on item 15 dealing with surface texture. Apparently, there has been some confusion of surface soil textures with the average textures of the profiles in both cases. The profile textures are stressed in the management groups but the surface texture, given in the soil type name, is important in lime need estimations. Section III. A comparison between "Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac County Soil Survey Report as sources of information on test items in section III (on management group symbols) is given in Table 24. The Agronomy 1 group using ”Know Your Soils" 5a, and the Sanilac Report, 11a, increased their scores as a result of those 9O treatments 23% and 17%, respectively. The former was statistically significant at the .05 level. The "Know Your Soils" treatment on group 5a resulted in marked increases on items 22, 24, 25, and 28, Table G, Appendix A. These items involved the relatively basic in- formation on soil management group symbols. The items benefiting most from the Sanilac Report treatment on group 11a were items 23, 25, and 26 which increased at least 33% each, Table N, Appendix A. Increased scores on these three items is somewhat surprising since none of these management groups are given directly in the table of management groups supplied in the Sanilac Report. Explanation of in- creases on these items suggests that students were able to use know- ledge about the basic connotative symbols of soil management groups and their arrangement to deduce the correct management unit symbols for the descriptions given in the items of section III. The numerical symbol for clay was not given in the Sanilac Report. This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that no students got items 23 and 26 correct in the pretest and only one student got item 25 correct in the pretest indicating that students with no knowledge about the soil management group system of nomenclature are not able to consist- ently guess correct answers in the form in which this section of the test was presented. Soil Fertility students using "Know Your Soils,” group 6a, had an 18% increase in section III while those using the Sanilac Report, group 14a, had only an 8% increase which was not significant, Table 24. The increase following the problem with 8011 Fertility students using "Know Your Soils," group 6b, was nearly 14% over the posttest score and for those using the Sanilac Report, group 14b, the increase was 91 17% over the posttest score. Thus, both groups benefited appreciably by working the problem. The Soil Fertility students using "Know Your Soils” improved most notably on items 25 and 28 which deal with the basic concepts of the soil management group system of nomenclature and indicate that these are readily learned by students who have not been exposed to the management group system previously, Tables H, Appendix A. The group of Soil Fertility students using the Sanilac Report did not in- crease notably on any of the test items although they did increase somewhat on 5 of the 8 items, Table Q, Appendix.A. The problem treatments resulted in further increases on items 25, and 28 for the "Know Your Soils" group and in appreciable increases on items 22 and 27 all of which deal with knowledge about the basic characteristics of the management groups, Table I, in Appendix A. The Soil Fertility group of students after treatment with a problem increased most con- spiciously on items 22 and 25, Table R in Appendix A. This indicates that they, through exposure to a problem in the use of soil manage- ment groups, learned most about the basic soil management group ter- minology. Section IV. A comparison between "Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac Report as effective information sources on test items in section Iv is given in Table 25. The Agronomy 1 students using the "Know'Your Soils" circular, group 5a, and those using the Sanilac Report, group 11a, showed no significant changes in their scores. However, the latter was actually a decrease of 8.3%. Both these groups had small negative scores on section IVeA, items 30 to 32 dealing with relative lime needs based on relative surface textures 92 and thicknesses of plow layers, Tables G and N, Appendix A. Both groups had relatively high scores to begin with and apparently learned nothing from.either “Know Your Soils" or the Sanilac Report. The Sanilac Re- port gave no information relative to sections IV-B or IV-C so the scores cited apply only to IVqA, items 30 to 32. The "Know Your Soils" gave no significant increases with Agronomy 1 students on sections IV-B or IV-C. The Soil Fertility group, 6a, had a 22% increase from use of "Know Your Soils" on section IV, Table 25. This was further increased to nearly 39% after a problem treatment was given, group 6b. The Soil Fer- tility group, 14a, using the Sanilac Report had a small but apparentLy significant decrease of 8.5% after use of the report. This figure re- mained unchanged following the problem treatment. The Sanilac Report gave no information on section IV-B or IV-C and scores on those sec- tions began and remained near zero for group 14 as should be expected. The increase in learning for group 6a, using "Know Ybur Soils," was attributable to items 33 and 34, section IV-B, dealing with the critical soil test values, and items 35 to 40, section IV—C, dealing with the universal soil loss equation, Table H, Appendix A. Scores on both these subjects were low on the pretest. Further increases in learning occurred in both of these areas after the problem treatment, Table I, Appendix A, when scores of group 6b had increased to 66% and 50% respectively. It is important to note that scores on items in sections IV-B and IV-C illustrate that material not covered by a source of information, such as the Sanilac Report in these tests, may cause a net decrease in score, possibly due to fatigue of the participants, rather than a net increase that might be possible due to random guessing of answers. 93 This should give added confidence in the positive scores that were obtained. The item analysis, Table 20, showed that items 30 to 32 gave good discrimination and items 33 to #0 were of excellent value. The apparent suitability of these items to test learning also lends support to the above observations of lack of response of the groups not receiving information on these items and the positive response of groups that had received information on these items. Use of "Know Your Soils" and Sanilac Report in Solving Problems. Answers on the problem sheets of the Soil Fertility students, group 6b, using "Know Your Soils" and those using the Sanilac Report, group 1#b, as sources of information to work the problem were compared. The outstanding feature noted in this comparison was that only 17$ of the students using l'K’nowYour Soils" as a source of information got correct answers for the lime requirement question (Appendix I, item c, 2), but 80$ of those using the Sanilac Report get correct answers. Sixty per- cent of these students commented on the difficulty of locating the lime information in the Sanilac Report and 13% indicated their need for a more complete index to facilitate location of specific items of information in the report. The problem of using information from.these two different sources to determine lime requirements was therefore in- vestigated more extensively. Review of the two sources of information and analysis of the lime requirement values given as incorrect answers indicated that the rela- tively simple lime table used in the Sanilac Report was easier to use than the several steps necessary in the 1964 "Know Your Soils" to de- termine the lime requirement of a soil. It was hypothesized, and sug- gested by some of the students, that lime requirement tables in which 94 values could be determined directly without the need of several steps would increase the efficiency and accuracy of communicating this kind of information. This was the mode of presentation in the Sanilac Report but the variation in depths of plowing also needs to be intro- duced in addition to pH and surface texture. Clearly separated pH ranges might also facilitate use. In addition, different recommenda- tions are also made now for alfalfa compared to other crops. Cogparison of two sources of liming information. To test the accuracy of communicating lime needs information, lime requirement tables were constructed that included the soil pH, texture of the plow layer, and plowing depth for use with alfalfa and with other field crops. These tables were presented along with narrative material that was equivalent to that given in the Michigan Lime Bulletin (Dell, 196#) on a single page in each case. The two different sources of in- formation were reproduced, Citations 1 and 2, and used with students of two Agronomy 1 laboratory sections along with the following problem: For a well drained loamy sand soil, determine its lime requirement per acre for seeding alfalfa if its sur- face pH is 5.5 and the plow layer is 9 inches thick. Laboratory Section A was given the reproduction of lime deter- mination information including tables and graphs from the Michigan Lime Bulletin, Citation 1. Laboratory Section B was given the re- vised lime information sheet, Citation 2. Only 23$ of the 13 students in Laboratory Section A got correct answers. This corresponds closely to the 17% correct for the Soil Fertility students, group 6b, that initially did the lime problemhusing the Michigan Lime Bulletin in "Know Your Soils." In contrast with this, 100% of the 11 students in 95 CITATION 1 .Essolsoafis dusaaefiI—ugoo-Bfiulgljg-Bu isiggggzaaldfimh In): 54; 80... s I ‘2 act-.800: HI... n30... .83.? Colg>50u :11: 83.0410 I. .0343. 02.3.55. um and «mu 2| '0‘ W OJOIIMOON III'I m .mEBcE has «11.2.5 $5.. 55.530 5 Ban 5 Vina 3 2:35 2:; ~e 22.1.53: ...—2 — cousETEQn—ls 74521.5 on— 2921 :ozauzgu we 0:: «A. .Fitu on. S 11:15: no... :- uoo .5. mm ”HM—j . 11mw> 111% Ede. >20 . ....m :2 ..E :2... ..v .3 A :52 aesem . f. .5. an wa OZ i Eds m6 .5. mm. *N mg .9; _ fic? >53 W 9n 3. an “a 8 02 W Emfl .mvuam . mm. a xv an 7 cm omm% . 5.5. 325m Wm. 03: mo 25H _ . W . z m we 9:: no o=1> k - 335i. 7 In a 8.1:: :fla 33m _ 5.5—«=32 fl 2 £3? .n 1:- N ...—sum v..- n e30... 053 11251 32.31.3553! 0:... .0 31...:le .v .3..— .338=&- «e 3395 It? 3 v5 menacin- Ekai: £30 3 a 8 Eu: “on 35 N E58». 2 039.0% 3 «To 4:3 own 8 ma 0:? nan—15:2. a main: 9.: v.51 £38.02 - Juan—5 9.3.!— «one Sn 3 9.?!— EuB-E NEE: a no 33 econuvnoEESE oEJ. .... :5 a a l m a £5 .L N am n v £25m >534 :5 ma n v i n _ ESE ..“mEem u n w m . N 252 5 «:33 >30 ..a v m e . a l .33 .55 p5... >£U .vov:u:.=~¢r= 2.:— ~: mash . ‘ To 2 ad ad 2 Wm ...m a. 9m. mi 2 m v i @320 l on}... 32a .0 333? J «:oEtuaciz m puss: :3 19m . ...... In 2 so. ...-3% t at. so... ts." «.e p o o a 5222.235: 920 .m u... m I of o p .3 06 £0 AN 1' N01 | 01 NH NI AN31VAI053 JII'I ENOJ flgggausasisg 2.35;ng §h§§>~o§fiu§= wagelgfiggsnvl .N .9..— ,.C3a.52m_ 2a: .85 E 3592: we .23 ..om E28: .waE flsztwcmzui 15 4:50am mm. .35 32 ~23 £053 «:3 ewe—5.33 S T59? on 2:91 occurs—E— 0.5.35 Us: “13 Eon .... .508 ..EE Scoflmev Esteem—:2 ...-0232 5 .1002 5320-} .v via... 5 5?.» 2d a one: e. mtasmi wow u sigh ME”: 3 ”Como—tin Eon sham; «ES n 95.; :8: moms/5% accuses—553x .436. In coat—u 2: £23.. 8 Envy»: ta :.~3 £538;an 2:: .533; .xccosvomcou .355 .2 B 2 we 59% a 9 Sci boa—sum.— maocraw 2:5: .353 Moms 39an SEE we Eng—um 05 5;» «2+3: 9% we not»! 32m a 2 .83.. 0 e33. E film 3...... wEEJ shaman .25 .8 mean: on :3 N them; do So: «oedema 3:73 waging: 52> air—25.: om So: 333 £7.53 admin...) 5 Eon 3:235...— SEE—”~58: mango—u o; :3 “cocaine—5:80.. of disavow on. .38 3:13 In .532 «5...? much. 9E8 ..ch :32“. .3 S a chute :23. who tea :9 SS ESeEauokae Beasts on. Enos» a wish :8: momentous—582 2.: ideasgna 632.305 fl o4. v:- md nuances 31> In a £305 on c. a £31 4033 no man Econ ..3 mu 2 his 33: £3.7mw a «c In ad. an: 3 v3.4.0?— .§ F ~38 3355»: a 4:3 6:238: v5.0.9 we «coo—nu 2: ..o £58 3 Eu nor—323e— .3550 .5 32m 2.. .553 E ova:— noeusmxuogneoo. 2:: 683.2 2 .8“ 05 out: wean—nu 3 qu 2:: 1:023; “at 8 won—.533 55 .552 mica—Son: o... .33.. 31:5: macaque—55.32 we: 5 note .Ee n sink Soc moo—55° .2133 22m :awiucz .a ESP—ena— m5fi2é8 35m .2: 5 E33. :3 6:: In 18 «D has 05 :0 n 035. E3 cote—=33 .3 :05 :3 “too: 05.3 69:: on 2.6.1 :3 a a 3:523. 3 we“: 9: war—3985a. wage. :3 55.8 05 5 ~35 an .IQ :2 we 5:9:2533). €er 052 05.5...“ 96 CITATION 2 measuring Lime Needs Measurements of soil pH, as made in the county soil testing lab- oratories, are used to determine if a soil should be limed. Lime needs can then be estimated from Table 3 on the basis of soil pH, soil texp ture and plowing depth. In the state soil-testing laboratory at Michigan State University, a lime-requirement test is made in which both active hydrogen, or pH, and exchangeable hydrogen and aluminum, or potential acidity, are meas- ured. This gives a more precise determination of lime requirement than the estimates made from soil pH and soil texture. However, satisfac- tory results are usually obtained from Table 3; any errors in lime recommendations usually result in underliming rather than overliming, so that additional lime may be applied after the soil is retested. Lime recommendations made in either the state or county labora- tories are in terms of the amount of ground limestone, with a neutraliz- ing veins of 90%, required to raise the pH of a 6 2/3-inch plow layer to pH .5. From fields on which alfalfa is to be grown, a pH value between 6.8 and 7.0 is desirable; consequently, the recommendation from Table 4 should be used. For some craps where lower pH values may be desirable, the recommendations can be decreased accordingly. Table 3. Tons of limestone to raise pH of plow layer of different soils to pH 6.5. Texture of the Depth of Soilng low 1 er lowin 4;5;§;9 5.0:5.# _5;5:5.9 6.0-5t1 054% Sands and loamy 3 273 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 sands 9 4.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 1.5 12 5.5 4.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 Sandy loans 6 2/3 0.0 3.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 9 5.5 4.0 3.5 2.0 1.5 12 7.0 5.5 4.5 3.0 2.0 Loans and silt 6 2/3 6.5 5.5 u.5 3.5 3.0 loans 9 9.0 7.5 6.0 5.0 4.0 1 12 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.5 5.5 Table 0. Lime requirements for Alfalfa. Tons of limestone to raise ApH of plow layer of different soils to pH 6.8 or 7.0. Texture of the Depth of Soil pH low 1 er lowi 0.5eh.9 5.0:5.h 51575.9 6.0-6.1 6}2 Sands and loamy 3 253 h.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 sands 9 5.5 5.0 0.0 3.5 2-5 12 7.0 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5 Sandy loams 6 2/3 5.0 4.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 9 7.0 5.5 0.5 3.5 2.5 12 9.0 7;0 6.0 4.5 3.5 Loans and silt 6 2/3 7.5 6.5 5.5 4.5 4.0 loams 9 10.0 9.0 7.5 6.0 5.5 ___ 12 [3.5 12.0 10.0 8.0 7.0 97 Laboratory Section B using the revised lime information obtained cor- rect answers for the problem. These figures are interpreted as strong evidence that use of inclusive tables that require only one step to obtain a lime requirement value are easier to use and result in more accurate results than information requiring the user to proceed through several steps to obtain this information. §ggm§ry of comparisons of"Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac Re- 2253. In summary, the effectiveness of the 1964 "Know Your Soils" as a means of communicating soil management and soil survey information was compared with the Sanilac Soil Survey Report as a source of similar information. These two sources were compared using students from two college agricultural classes. "Know Your Soils" was used with a lab- oratory section of an Agronomy 1 class and with half of a Soil Fertil- ity class, randomly split. The Sanilac Soil Survey was used with a second laboratory section of the Agronomy 1 class and with the other half of the Soil Fertility class. Subsequently. the two Soil Fertility class groups were given soil management problems requiring use of the respective sources of information to determine the answers. The Soil Fertility students using "Know Your Soils," group 6a, was the only group that showed a statistically significant increase in their mean total score as a result of the initial treatment, Table 21. In the items of section I of the evaluation test, given as a pretest and posttest, the 12% increase obtained from use of ”Know Ybur Soils" showed no further increase after treatment with the management problem, Table 22. Items 6 and 7 dealing with soil management group character- istics showed consistent increases among all groups tested. In test section II, Agronomy 1 students using "Know Your Soils," 98 group 5a, and those using the Sanilac Report, group 11a, showed nearly equal increases although these were not significant at the .05 level, Table 23. The Soil Fertility groups, 6a and 14a, also showed moderate relatively similar increases as a result of their respective treatments although these were also not significant at the .05 level. Subsequent treatment of these two groups with a soil management prob- lem caused still further increases to approximately 20% for both groups and this increase was significant for the 14b group, using the Sanilac Report. Item 17, dealing with the natural drainage of the soil as determined from.the management unit symbol, showed the great- est consistent increase among all groups and treatments. With only one exception, item 15, dealing with texture of the surface soil, showed decreased scores as a result of all treatments. This decrease is probably attributable to confusion in students minds concerning texture of the surface soil (the plow layer) as given in the soil type name, compared to the average profile texture as stressed in soil management group names and symbols. In section III of the test, the Agronomy 1 group using "Know Your Soils" showed a significant 23% increase as a result of the treatment while the Agronomy 1 group using the Sanilac Report had a non-significant 16.6% increase, Table 24. The "Know Your Soils" treatment for the Soil Fertility group, 6a, showed a significant 18.8% increase. The Sanilac Report treatment for the Soil Fertility group, 1ha, gave only a non-significant 8.#$ increase. Subsequent problem treatments to the two groups increased scores for the group using ”Know Your Soils" to 32.7% and for the group using the Sanilac Report to 25.9%, both of which were significant compared to their pretest 99 scores. The increases due to nKnow'Y’our Soils" treatments for both the Agronomy 1 students and the Soil Fertility students were attribut- able to items dealing with basic concepts of the soil management group system of nomenclature stressed in this section of the evaluation. Items increasing most as the result of the Sanilac treatment for Agronomy 1 students were those that were not directly covered in the Sanilac Soil Survey Report and it is probable that these students had learned sufficient about the connotative symbol system of management groups to deduce these for groups which they had not been directly exposed to. The subsequent problem treatment for both classes resulted primarily in increases on items relating to understanding of the soil management group symbols. In section IV of the test, the Agronomy 1 students using "Know Your Soils," group 5a, showed a slight non-significant increase and those using the Sanilac Report, group 11a, had a small non-significant decrease in scores as a result of their respective treatments, Table 24. The latter, however, are based on only the items in part IVqA of the test. The Soil Fertility students, on the other hand, had a sig- nificant 22% increase as a result of the "Know YOur Soils" treatment and a further increase to 38.9% after working the management problem. In contrast with this, the Soil Fertility students using the Sanilac Report, group 14, had no change in score following either use of the report or the subsequent problem treatment. Students using "Know Your Soils" and those using the Sanilac Report had relatively high initial scores on items dealing with soil texture and plowing depth as related to soil lime needs, items 30 to 32. These scores were not appreciably changed as a result of the 100 Sanilac Report or “Know Your Soils" treatments. The appreciable increases in scores of Soil Fertility students using 'Know Your Soils"was caused by items dealing with critical soil test values and soil erosion control factors given in the universal soil loss equation. The groups of students using the Sanilac Report knew little and learned nothing about information in sections IVLB and IVLC dealing with critical soil test values and characteristics of the universal soil loss equation. The lack of increase in this group is reasonable as the Sanilac Report contained no information on these subjects. The near zero change in scores on items of this section, not covered by the treatment material are important for they give con- fidence in positive scores as indicators of learning due to treatment with a source of information, Table Q in Appendix A. The increased learning on these subjects by the group using "Know Tour Soilsu'sug- gests that these students (also with little previous knowledge about the subject) may have been interested in this type of information as a result of class work and were particularly aware of the material pre- sented in "Know Your Soils” concerning it. Student scores on these items using "Know Your Soils" further increased as a result of the problem treatment while only a small positive gain was shown by those using the Sanilac Report. The single table presentation of lime requirement values was used much more accurately by students working the soil management problem.cn lime needs than the multiple step procedure needed to determine lime requirements in the 1964 "Know Your Soils." 101 3.1A Comparison of I'Know'Your Soils," the Sanilac Soil Survey Repgrt, And a Teaching Program on Relative Effectiveness in Communig - ting Information on Soil management Groups Comparisons of the relative effectiveness of communication of soil management group information were made by comparing learning with use of: a Teaching Program devised by the author (Appendix H), infor- mation presented in the 1964 "Know Your Soils" circular, Appendix G, and the information in the Sanilac Soil Survey Report, (Schneider, 1961). The Teaching Program dealt specifically with soil management groups, their symbols and their characteristics. The two other sources of information covered a much broader range of tepics. Two groups of Agronomy 1 students were given the Teaching Pro- gram, a third group was given the Sanilac Report and a fourth group was given the "Know Your Soils" circular. The differences in their pretest and posttest scores, Table 26, were compared on all items dealing with soil management groups to evaluate the learning of this type of information from the three different sources. These items included items 6, 7, 16, 17, and 22 to 29. The mean percent increase on these items for the various groups, Table 26, was “7% (group 12a) and 39% (group 13a) for the two groups of students using the Teaching Programu These results with the Teaching Program compare to a 23% increase for the students, using "Know'Iour Soils" (group 5a) and 15% increase for the students using the Sanilac Soil Survey Report (group 11a). All were significant at the .05 level. 102 Table 26. Pretest scores and changes in scores, in percent, of Agronomy 1 students using the 1964 "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Soil Survey Report, or the Teaching Program as sources of information on soil management groups. (The designations for each student group is shown in parenthesis in the column headings.) “Know Ybur Soilsn Sanilac Report Teaching Program Teaching Program Test (5a) (11a) (12a) (13a) Item 26 students 24 students 17 students 22 students Pretest Change Pretest Change Pretest Change Pretest Change Section I 6 77 15 75 ~21 59 35 64 36 7 54 31 58 17 71 24 64 23 Section II 16 15 15 4 21 12 47 5 54 17 23 31 25 28 29 41 64 23 Section III 22 31 42 21 8 35 47 32 41 23 8 4 0 33 O 65 O 45 24 27 35 33 -17 29 65 23 64 25 8 31 4 33 V 17 70 o 82 26 o 4 o 37 o 6 o 9 27 4 12 8 13 6 53 5 23 28 4 38 13 8 6 65 9 36 29 0 19 13 17 0 47 5 27 Mean score 21 23* 21 15* 22 47* 23 39* Posttest score 44 36 69 62 *Significant at .05 level. 103 Students using the Teaching Program had only small increases in scores on item 26. These results are reasonable as the item analysis indicated this item to be the most difficult on the entire test. They are also reasonable on a basis of the item content. Response to this item was to be the identification of the soil management group symbol which represented a poorly drained soil with 11 inches of sand over bedrock. .Most persons replying to this, that were familiar with the eystem for designating the soil management groups, indicated this as a 4/Rc management group which is a management group of poorly drained soils, having sand over bedrock but which must have 18 to 42 inches of sand above the solid rock. The shallow depth of the sand stated in item 26 required that the management group should be given simply as Rc. It was on this basis that most persons answered incorrectly; All other items in this group had increases in score ranging from 23% to 82% for the groups using the Teaching Program. Changes in score for the students using "Know Your Soils" (group 5a) and the Sanilac Report (group 11a) ranged from -17% to +42%, by items. Answers by students using the Teaching Program, to items in section II, (Tables 0 and P, Appendix A), not specifically covered in the Teaching Program, had changes no greater than would be expected due to random.variability. This gives support to the conclusion that in- creases on items in Table 26 were caused by the Teaching Program rather than by chance differences. An exception to the above is the sizeable decrease noted in item 15 for groups 12a and 13a. This decrease as noted previously is prob- ably caused by students who mistakenly used the average profile texture represented in the management unit symbol for the surface soil texture 104 as represented in the soil type name. In summary, the mean increase of all students using the Teaching Program, 43%, was markedly greater than the mean increase of the stu- dents using "Know Your Soils," 23%, or the Sanilac Report, 15%, on the 12 items dealing with soil management groups. These data are in- terpreted as giving strong support to the very reasonable hypothesis that intensive training in a limited area of subject matter will give greater learning in that area than does a broad exposure to more ex- tensive subject matter that includes this same information. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study is part of a continuing effort to increase the effectiveness of communicating soil management and soil survey infor- mation to potential users. Previous work included the writing and distribution of the Odessa Township Interim Soil Survey Report. Its effectiveness was investigated and reported by Parsay (1957). Infor- mation obtained on weaknesses, problems, and strengths from that study was used to improve the writing of a soil management circular, the 1962 "Know Your Soils" (Appendix F). This circular was evaluated by distributing it for use by a group of agricultural extension agents. The agents were subsequently interviewed to obtain their evaluations of the circular. A training and evaluation seminar re- quested by the agents was subsequently held. This gave further op- portunity to evaluate the usefulness of the circular in communicating soil management information and to determine changes needed to im- prove its effectiveness. The circular was revised as the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Im- provements in it included: (1) reorganization into independent sec- tions, (2) revision for increased accuracy and clarity,and (3) in- clusion of useful additional information. The revised edition was extensively tested with a wide range of potential user groups. These included vocational agriculture students, farmers, college students, vocational agriculture teachers, professional soil conservation personnel and university soil science staff. It was compared with the Sanilac County Soil Survey Report and a Teaching Program on soil management groups as sources of soil management group information. 105 106 The effectiveness of "Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac Report were measured both before and after working a soil management problem. A test was written to measure how much individuals knew about soils and soil management information. It was given as a pretest and as a posttest to determine if additional information had been gained as the result of using "Know Your Soils." It was also used as a post-posttest to measure further learning after working a soil management problem by some users. The effectiveness of the evaluation test was measured by re- viewing score changes in test items on information not covered in the Sanilac Report or the Teaching Program. Lack of score increases on these items indicates that students did not obtain random in- crease on items for which they did not have information. Review of such items for the Teaching Program showed a slight average decrease in score for the entire test. An average decrease occurred in section I items and a slight increase occurred in sections II and IV items. The test also gave clear evidence, as illustrated in item 15, that confusion may cause decrease in learning. In this item confusion on the difference between average texture of a profile given in a management group symbol, and surface soil texture given as a part of a soil type name, caused students to answer incorrectly when they used the management group texture by mistake. In general, students learning the most about the management group system showed the great— est decrease in score on this item. These observations illustrate that the test effectively measured decreases where they occurred. Increase in learning was clearly indicated in section I (items 6 and 7), section II (items 16 and 17), and section III by groups 12a and 107 13a who used the Teaching Program that covered information on these items. The above three illustrations give evidence that the evalua- tion test was able to measure increases, decreases, or lack of change in learning. The effectiveness of communication by "Know Your Soils" and other sources can be summarized by examining the changes in test scores for low capability groups, medium capability groups, and high capability groups as indicated by pretest scores of the groups. On this basis, groups 1, 2, and 3 were classified as low capability; groups 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were classified as medium capabil- ity; and groups 7, 8, 9, and 10 were classified as high capability. Low capability groups 1 and 2, consisting of the vocational agriculture students, received little benefit from their exposure to "Know Your Soils" as indicated by their small change in scores. This may have been due to a lack of motivation, boredom at having to take the same test repeatedly, or insufficient background knowledge to give them a base from which to learn new information. The farmer soil extension class, group 3, also showed little benefit from their exposure to "Know Your Soils." This probably resulted from lack of background knowledge on the majority of the items as contrasted to the fact that they did have a notable increase on two items dealing with critical soil test values which was in an area of information that these farmers probably were acquainted with through their par- ticipation in an Extension soil test program. Low overall test scores probably did not result from lack of interest as these farmers volunteered to participate in the soil training session. The addition of a problem as a treatment for groups 1 and 2 108 improved their scores despite the possible problem of boredom on tests. These increases were not significant with the exception of the scores for group 1b on section III of the test where a 14% in- crease was significant. ”Know Your Soils" was much more effective in communicating soil management information to the medium capability groups. This was illustrated by significant increases on the overall test for all groups. Added instruction given as lecture material to the Soils 1 class, group 4a, resulted in a notable increase on items covered in the lecture. Soil Fertility students with a background of information in soil management from their course were able to show a significant increase of learning on section I of the test that required in- creased knowledge over a broad range of subjects. Students scores increased markedly on items requiring an understanding of information needed in the working of a management problem, thus indicating the highly beneficial effect of a problem used with the "Know Your Soils" circular with these groups. A comparison of "Know Your Soils" and the Sanilac Report used as treatments with these groups showed that all students benefited from.the addition of a problem. It was also learned that students using the Sanilac Report were able to identify certain soil management group symbols on the test even though those symbols were not in the Sanilac Report. This apparently illustrates, that students in the medium.capability groups are able to identify unfamiliar capability groups from.their connotative symbols after learning the basic system of group symbols. Ebre students using the Sanilac Report in conjunction with a 109 management problem.were able to obtain correct lime requirement values in answer to a question on this subject than students using the 1964 "Know Your Soils" as a source of information. Further investigation showed that a single step table as found in the Sanilac Report, is used more accurately than a multi-step procedure, needed to use the 1964 "Know Your Soils" lime section, which was the Michigan Lime Bulletin (Doll, 1964). A comparison among the score increases of students using "Know Your Soils," the Sanilac Report, and the Teaching Program, showed that the Teaching Program gave average total test score increases greater than those of “Know Your Soils" or the Sanilac Report. This was unexpected as the Teaching Program only provided information for answering 12 of the 40 test items. However, appreciable increases in scores occurred only on those 12 items. These results suggest that greater total learning may occur when a limited amount of infor- mation is thoroughly covered than when a broader scOpe of information is given less thorough coverage. The effect of treatments on high capability groups demonstrated their ability to make significant increases in scores despite rela- tively high initial scores. This was evident in test section I where both the Edaphology class, group 8a, and the Soil Conservation Service personnel, group 10a, made significant increases. This is notable since a statistically significant increase is difficult to attain on the true and false type of questions especially since they represent a broad range of information. This may demonstrate that persons with a reasonable level of capability and above average knowledge in the area of soil management are able to perceive and learn new knowledge 110 that applies to this area more effectively than persons with a less thorough background. Item 26 was difficult for most individuals even in this high capability group since it required knowledge not only of the basic management group symbols, but also of critical depth limits that must be considered in determining a management group. These high capability groups also did poorly on item 15 after the "Khow'Your Soils" treatment and their scores decreased further after the problem treatment, probably because of confusion of the plow layer texture (given in the soil type name) with the average texture of the profile used in the soil management groups. RECOMMENDATIONS For improving the 1964 "Know Your Soils." 1. Include a more detailed table of contents in the front of "Know Your Soils." 2. Revise fertilizer table headings to explain meaning of High and Low for phOSphorus and potassium, or use the newer "Fertilizer Bulletin.” 3. Clarify and expand on the following soil classification subjects and relationships, a. The soil mapping unit symbol, b. The soil type name and the texture of the plow layer, c. The soil management unit symbol and the significance of its various parts. 4. Print the circular in an appealing and easily readable form. 5. Consider inclusion of the following additional topics: a. The land use capability unit and its meaning in relation to the above information, b. Information for other users: engineers, urban planners, foresters, horticulturists and land appraisers, and c. Economic significance of soil information for the above users. For improving effectiveness of the evaluation test. 1. Eliminate items 1 and 2 as they deal with information that is nonessential in soil management. 111 112 2. Replace the true and false items with multiple choice items, and score items of different test sections to make each section equivalent on a 0 to 100 scale. 3. Change the form of items 30 to 32 to matching or multiple choice to aid in ease and accuracy of scoring. 4. Replace 4 of the 6 items (35 to 40) on factors of the universal soil loss equation with items giving a more com- prehensive coverage of soil erosion control. 5. Use a minimum of 12 items per section to give a better statistical sample. For additional research. Research is needed on the motivation, quantity and level of in- formation, most effective for low capability groups. This should in- clude the testing of Teaching Programs for groups such as vocational agriculture students and farmers or interested individuals in those groups. The possibility of using limited amounts of information, such as individual sections of "Know Your Soils," with accompanying instruction for these groups, should be investigated. The possibility of increasing communication with vocational agriculture students through increased motivation should be investigated. This could be investigated by using real "home farm problems," to be solved in part by using I'K’nowY’our Soils." Further research is needed to establish lime requirement values for use in lime requirement tables. This should include a test of the accuracy of lime requirement tables based on pH and soil texture by comparing them with values obtained from the "buffer method.” 113 This could be accomplished by performing a correlation on data from samples submitted to the soil test laboratory since March 1963. The comparison of lime requirement and pH should be made at .5 pH incre- ments for important textural classes or this might also be presented as a scatter diagram. The investigation should include analyses on a representative sample of the hand textured samples from the soil test laboratory to determine whether hand texturing is placing soils in their proper textural class. This study should be accompanied by a test of accuracy of above requirements by measuring actual field crop responses. The advantages and disadvantages of using the total 1964 ”Know Your Soils? or a revision of that circular,versus giving persons only those sections needed for their particular farm operation should be investigated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, Dorothy C., et al. 1947. Construction and analysis of achievement tests. US Government Printing Office, Washington. Bauer, Kurt W. 1966. Application of soils studies in comprehensive regional planning. In Soil surveys and land use planning. Published by the Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter 6, pp. 42-59. Bender, William H. 1961. Soils suitable for septic tank filter fields. USDA Soil Cons. Ser., Bull. 243. Bidwell, O. W., and R. A. Bohannon. 1960. Saline County, Kansas, promotes its soil survey. Reprint from Journal of Soil and water Conservation. Vol. 15, No. 3. Doll, E. C. 1964. Lime for Michigan soils. Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Bull. 471. Galloway, Harry M. 1966. Soil surveys and urban development--an educational approach. lg Soil surveys and land use planning. Published by the Soil Science Society of America and American Sagiety of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter 15, pp. 137- Kellogg, Charles E. 1966. Soil surveys for community planning. Ig_ Soil surveys and land use planning. Published by the Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter 1, pp. 1-7. Lionberger, Herbert. 1960. Adoption of new ideas and practices. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Longnecker, E. D. 1963. How to take accurate soil samples. Coopera- ' tive Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Enchigan. Mawby, Russell 6., and Cecil B. Haver. 1961. Types and sources of information used by farmers. Chapter 2 Ig_A study of managerial processes of midwestern farmers. Glenn L. Johnson, Albert H. Halter, Harald R. Jensen, and D. Woods Thomas, Editors. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa. ,Michigan State Highway Department. 1960. Field manual of soil engineering. (4th edition). Lansing, Michigan. Moon, J. W., et al. 1938. Soil survey of Saginaw County, Michigan. USDA in c00peration with the Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Series 1933, NO. 19. 114 115 Morris, John G. 1966. The use of soils information in urban planning and implementation. In Soil surveys and land use planning. Published by the Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter 5, pp. 37-41. Newbury, Raymond L., et al. 1961. Ela Township, Lake County, Illinois, 5011 Survey Report, USDA-SOS in cooperation with Ela Area Planning Board, Lake County Regional Planning Commission, Lake County Health Department and the University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. Parsey, John M. 1957. Use and.usefulness of a simplified soil survey report. National Project in Agricultural Communications. Mimeographed 99 pages. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Porter, James, Stanley Alfred, Eugene Whiteside, and Robert Lucas. Get the most from.your farmland, soil survey summary for Odessa Township (an interim report). Michigan State College Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan. 1955. Priest, T. W., E. P. Whiteside, and W. H. Heneberry. 1963. Use of soil management groups and related information in evaluation of farmlands and their utilization. Reprint from.Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:335-339. Schneider, Ivan, et al. 1960. Soil survey of Montcalm.County, Michigan. USDA in cooperation with the Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Series 1949, NO. 11. Schneider, Ivan, et al. 1961. Soil survey of Sanilac County, Michigan. USDA in cooperation with the Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Series 1953, NO. 10. Smith, Guy D., Andrew R. Aandahl. 1957. Soil classification and surveys. In Soil. Yearbook Agr. (US Dep Agr) US Government Printing Office, Washington. p. 39?. Soil Science and Horticulture Departments. 1963. Fertilizer recom- mendations for Michigan crops. Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Sorenson, Douglas. 1957. Factors influencing knowledge of technical soils concepts by Wisconsin farmers. Dept. of Agr. Journalism. Col. of Agr. University of Wisconsin. Bull. 27. Southern Regional Soil Survey Work-Planning Conference. 1962. Comm. X Mississippi State University. Improvement of methods of inform- ing the public or users of information in the published soil survey report. Mimeographed 6 pages. 116 Striker, M. Mt, and L. I. Harmon. 1961. Soil survey Lenawee County, Michigan. USDA in c00peration with the Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Series 1947, NO. 10. Thornburn, Thomas H. 1966. The use of agricultural soil surveys in the planning and construction of highways. Ig_Soil surveys and land use planning. Published by the Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Chapter 9. pp. 87-103. Van Eck, W. A., and E. P. Whiteside. 1958. Soil classification as a tool in predicting forest growth. (Mimeographed 12 p.) Taken from "First North American Forest Soils Conference, Sept. 8-11, 1958, pages 218-225. Agr. Exp. Sta., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Wanner, Kenneth, et al. 1964. Soil survey of Munster, Indiana. Through the cooperation of the Soil Conservation Service, the Lake County Cooperative Soil Survey, the Munster Chamber of Commerce and the Cooperative Extension Service. Wilcoxon, F. 1958. Some rapid approximate statistical procedures, New Ybrk, American Cyanamid Co., 1949, p. 13, quoted In Virginia L. Senders, Measurement and statistics, New Yerk, Ox- ford University Press, pp. 489-491. 'Wischmeier, walter H. 1960. Cropping-management factor evaluations for a universal soil-loss equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 2)": 322-326 0 APPENDICES 117 APPENDIX A TABLES OF DATA FOR ITEBB 1 TO 40 FOR GROUPS 1 TO 14 Percent incorrect pre pre-post change Percent correct post Percent correct pre Section I incorrect Total test evaluation for group 1a (18 vocational agricul- Percent ture students) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Percent correct pre & post pre & post incorrect post Table .A. Item No. 6117806162n/07w/000/00 6/001464/00 Inw/O04lnwnw00/hw6 766 00 000000 0 O O O O O O O I O O C C O O O O .HAJ..++++HH+. ++++++. ++. ._ H++ 72110288284221 1725896 76000600 82 O C O O O O . ... . . C C . C O C C C O 00 OnwnNanUo00 nwnWO0AV0nU0AV0 27. 22. 22.2 0 O —’__ .6 .1 0nU000nU000 0nU0nU0nU00nU0 22.2 506 11.1 11.1 11.1 22.2 5 11 Section III 11.1 0.0 Section IV-A 11.1 16.7 16.7 Section IV-B 0.0 0.0 Section IV-C 0. 0 11.1 22.2 27. 8 27. 8 7 6. 22 0. 1. 6. 5 2. 6. Section II 0000 00 e 000 00000000 00. 00 000000 11 411 1111111 0000 00 0 0000000 so. to 000000 51002588800521AU0 41026766 AU000nU0nU0HV000nV0nU0 1172 00 000000 123145678010 23.“. 567890 1 1111 1111112 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 10 1 Total test evaluation for group 1b (18 vocational agricul— ture students) from pretest to post-posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Percent Table B . Percent incorrect pre pre-post Percent Percent Percent correct post change #0 es rm 6. t #90 CG 6r rr am On .1 tt CS 80 FP r Goa C ne .1”. p ...u S to CD. m... r 08 Cr. 6.. m. 80 tN I Section I 000000 nuAuczzw1.Auongo2zJo2chw1. 1 1.1212 2 111 + . . . + + + + . + + . . 057925707 0 o o I 0 O 606 Al. 1 ..... nU./O.721.6 0.0 16.7 .2 .2 2 22.2 27.8 27.8 11. 1 O1780AU0/AU0002117n/0Rv014 O O O nU0.|/60w/..O.5AU.2.|.1..6/O.n/..3 51625 21111123 6 3x0. 266.4 24. 97.6.6 2 O 00000 52525531. 386 552 12345678901234 I I 0 .1 122112t111 C e s o o o o o 4.151. 551 4|. All + — - ++- 26/6. Say/....H/nw 255 ./6.1|.J 2 4| 0 O 11 61.2 83.4 61.2 27.8 Section III ohm/O. nU.nU./O./O./O. .nU. SnwnwzJK/r) 5. 6 .1— 60600000 0 o o o O o o 0 50500000 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Section IV-A 22.2 27.8 16.7 Section IV-B 0.0 0.0 Section IV;C .0.0.nU.AU.nv. .nU.nU.nU.nU.nU. O. O Table C . Total test evaluation for group 2a (18 vocational agricul- ture students) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Percent 9' Percent ‘ Percent Percent Percent Item correct incorrect correct pre incorrect pre pre-post Nb. pre & post pre & post incorrect post correct post change Section I 1 5.6 61.2 22.2 11.1 -11.1 2 44. 16.7 38.9 0.0 -38.9 3 16.7 55.6 27.8 0.0 -27.8 4 11.1 44.5 22.2 22.2 0.0 5 38.9 16.7 11.1 33.4 +22.3 6 27.8 0.0 38.9 33.4 - 5.5 7 27.8 33.4 22.2 16.7 - 5.5 8 50.0 22.2 22.2 5.6 -16.6 9 50.0 5.6 33.4 11.1 -22.3 10 33.4 5.6 27.8 33.4 + 5.6 11 38.9 27.8 5.6 27.8 +22.2 12 55.6 11.1 27.8 5.6 -22.2 13 38.9 16.7 33.4 11.1 —22.3 14 27.8 33.4 22.2 16.7 -25.5 Section II 15 0.0 72.3 22.2 5.6 -16.6 16 0.0 77.8 11.1 11.1 0.0 17 22.2 61.2 5.6 11.1 + 5.5 18 16.7 50.0 22.2 11.1 -11.1 19 27.8 50.0 16.7 5.6 -11.1 20 0.0 61.2 27.8 11.; -16.? 21 11.1 _55. 22.8 #5.» - 2.2 Section II 22 0.0 83.4 5.6 11.1 + 5.5 23 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 61.2 16.7 22.2 + 5.5 25 0.0 94.6 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 26 0.0 100.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 94.6 5.6 0.0 " 5.6 29 5.6 89.0 5.6 0.0 - 5.6 Section IV-A 30 11.1 61.2 0.0 27.8 +27.8 31 27.8 33.4 11.1 27.8 +16.7 32 44.5 11.1 22.2 22.2 0.0 Section IV-B 33 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Section IV-C 35 0.0 89.0 0.0 11.1 +11.1 36 0.0 89.0 0.0 11.1 +11.1 37 0.0 89.0 0.0 11.1 +11.1 38 0.0 83.4 0.0 16.7 +16.7 39 0.0 89.0 0.0 11.1 +11.1 no 0.0 94.6 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 Table 1). Total test evaluation for group 2b (18 vocational agricul- ture students) from.pretest to post-posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Item correct incorrect correct pre incorrect pre pre-post NO. pre & post pre & post incorrect post correct post change Section I 1 11.1 66.7 16.7 5.6 -11.1 2 77.8 0.0 5.6 16.7 +11.1 3 38.9 27.8 5.6 27.8 +22.2 a 11.1 50.0 22.2 16.7 - 5.5 5 22.2 33.4 27.8 16.7 -11.1 6 55.6 0.0 11.1 33.4 +22.3 7 27.8 27.8 22.2 22.2 0.0 8 33.4 16.7 38.9 11.1 ~27.8 9 72.3 5.6 11.1 11.1 0.0 10 38.9 5.6 22.2 33.4 +11.2 11 22.2 22.2 22.2 33.4 +11.2 12 44.5 5.6 38.9 11.1 -27.8 13 66.7 11.1 5.6 16.7 +11.1 14 16.7 27.8 .4 22.2 -11.2 Section II 15 0.0 66.7 22.2 11.1 ~11.1 16 11.1 83.4 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 17 5.6 66.7 22.2 5.6 -16.6 18 22.2 44.5 16.7 16.7 0.0 19 33.4 38.9 11.1 16.7 + 5.6 20 11.1 55.6 16.7 16.7 0.0 21 16.z__ 55.6 22.2 65.6 -16.6 Section III 22 0.0 61.2 5.6 33.4 +27.8 23 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 5.6 61.2 11.1 22.2 +11.1 25 0.0 94.6 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 26 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 83.4 5.6 11.1 + 5.5 _22_ 11.1 89.0 o.o___ 0.0 0.0 Section IV-A 30 5.6 55.6 5.6 33.4 +27.8 31 16.7 27.8 22.2 33.4 +11.2 32 44.5 16.7 22.2 16.7 - 5.5 Section IV-B 33 0.0 77.8 0.0 22.2 +22.2 34 0.0 83.4 0.0 16.7 +16.7 Section IVQC 35 0.0 77.8 0.0 22.2 +22.2 36 0.0 77.8 0.0 22.2 +22.2 37 0.0 94.6 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 38 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 94.6 0.0 5.6 + 5.6 40 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total test evaluation for group 3a (11 farmers attending Table E . an extension soils class) from pretest to posttest using the 1964 "Know Your Soils." Percent Percent incorrect pre pre-post Percent Percent correct pre Percent incorrect correct post change correct pre & post pre & post incorrect post Item No. Section I &&9nw950n&&8.7.8.0.0. 14l- llw. 1112 . + _ . + + .Ufi 02020520231311 cocoa-00000000 08080580879799 1| 1.. “W1 12 2 onuoO/89nUoO/8OOI/OQ/Q/ 18.2 60055811IO032211 o o oooooo 30.551901007880101 6 .4148 211 I“. 28 52151086586 7).». 281.cmnwonzwqm1tu151024lzio 1841 468543573 12345678901234 11111 I .o +u971 211 Sec 3634285 I O 2376.8.h5 7623184 0033401]. 0 007.7609 223 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 III C. . Sect (Jenn/c.1110 SnVo/Oo 290/90 mm mumw. + + SAIouH/onw‘lzo 59/Oo2nUoOI8o 14 37 Section IV-A 18.439960 0 o o o o o o 0 91670030 8329960 1 503000410 0 0000000 50700090 .4 2 238. 8 222 2 567 222 a 9.1 0.0 27.3 Section IV-B “‘5. 36. 0.0 0.0 Section IV-C 000000 000000 O. O Total test evaluation for group he (64 Soils 1 students) from pretest to posttest using the 196# "Know Your Soils." Table F . Percent incorrect pre pre-post Percent Percent Percent Percent correct post change t aw rp D. t t0 we rm r0 QC on .1 +Yt CS mm we 0 n6 .1»; p t .....S cm m... r 06 Or 0.. m. e tm I I n Sectio "(oaogvufiizn41.QufiiZnUnuRu ..... .4;onOLW1.on7n11bnénrqunuvn 9~ .911131 +.+ . .+.+ + ..+.+ . . + 000000 52375561468005? 11 1122 521211 93391848061364 0 O O O .m/04141hwo10n0nnchnw1.:JoJ 1 321 1231 f 91 9.5/“7576 58819 ooooo 7. 3