INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE USE AND VALUE OF A COM PUTER SELF-ASSESSM ENT PROGRAM AS PERCEIVED BY M ICHIGAN FIELD-BASED EXTENSION EDUCATORS By Guilin Cui A DISSERTATION Submitted to M ichigan State University in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Agricultural and Extension Education 1996 UMI N u m b e r : 9631252 UMI Microform 9631252 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT THE USE AND VALUE OF A COM PUTER SELF-ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AS PERCEIVED BY M ICHIGAN FIELD-BASED EXTENSION EDUCATORS By Guilin Cui This study investigated Extension educators’ use and value o f the C-CAP (Core Competency Assessment Program) computer program. The research questions were: 1. In what ways is C-CAP used? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? 3. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 4. In what ways can C-CAP be improved to help Extension educators achieve career and personal success? Seventy nine subjects were randomly identified and invited to participate in this study. O f this group, 31 signed the consent forms and agreed to participate. Finally, 24 returned the survey questions. Eighteen o f them completed the whole survey. The study is based on the findings from this group. Conclusions reached are: 1. It is possible to develop a computer-based selfassessment program to facilitate the learning o f Extension field staff; 2. Maintaining privacy is not an important concern o f the program user; 3. The instruction manual was an important feature; 4. Feedback to the user is important; 5. The investment in a self-assessment computer program for Extension field staff is a good choice; 6. It may be necessary to accompany the general dissemination o f C-CAP with an extensive promotional program; 7. It is difficult for respondents to differentiate between providing feedback on the medium rather than the content o f the self-assessment. Recommendations are: 1. The manual for C-CAP be rewritten with the views o f the user clearly in mind; 2. Computer programs such as C-CAP can become a viable development focus for university-based organizations such as Extension; 3. The examination o f the medium and the content o f a computer program should not be assumed to be separate and non-interacting functions; 4. Other areas o f Extension practice should be identified and examined for potential implementation through a computer self-assessment procedure; 5. It is important to examine research o f this nature throughout the beginning stages and to periodically decide to proceed as planned or to make changes in the plan; 6. Steps be taken in the redesign o f the C-CAP program to compensate for the inability o f some subjects to remember their password; 7. Future research o f this nature focus more on a qualitative approach to build a stronger foundational view. ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. S. Joseph Levine for his endless guidance, encouragement and valuable advice during my graduate study, without his invaluable help this dissertation would not be finished. Grateful acknowledgment is also extended to members o f my committee Drs. Fred Whims, Luke Reese and Frank Brewer for their guidance, comments and suggestions throughout my graduate program. Appreciation is expressed to Michigan State University Extension field staff for participating in the survey. Thanks are also given to ANR Computer Services led by Dr. Luke Reese, for providing some financial support for the study. Special thanks goes to my parents for providing me opportunities to grow and learn, for their love, patience, unending encouragement and support during my whole life. I would also like to thank my wife Hui for everything she has done for me. The most exciting moment in my graduate study was the birth o f my daughter Kimberly. Thanks to her, my life has been made more enjoyable. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S..........................................................................................................viii CHAPTER I STATEM ENT OF PR O B L E M ......................................................... 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Theoretical Foundations o f the S tu d y...................................................................3 Research Q uestions.................................................................................................. 5 Research M ethodology.............................................................................................6 A ssum ptions...............................................................................................................7 Importance o f the S tudy.......................................................................................... 8 Definition o f T erm s.................................................................................................. 8 Limitations o f the Study.......................................................................................... 9 Organization o f the D issertation..........................................................................10 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 12 Learner M otivation and Principles o f Adult L earning................................... 12 Learner Characteristics and Principles o f Adult L earning.............................. 16 E fficiency....................................................................................................... 19 Feedback.........................................................................................................20 Achievem ent ........................................................................................ 20 Physical conditions.......................................................................................21 Competencies for Extension Educators.............................................................. 22 Design and Development o f Computer Program s............................................ 30 S um m ary.................................................................................................................. 38 CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND M ETHOD OLO GY.................................. 39 Introduction............................................................................................................. 39 Development o f C -C A P ........................................................................................ 39 M ethodology D esign..............................................................................................42 Instrum entation........................................................................................................43 Population.................................................................................................................46 The Sam ple.............................................................................................................. 47 Data Collection........................................................................................................48 Data A n aly sis.......................................................................................................... 50 S um m ary.................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FIN D IN G S................................................52 Introduction..............................................................................................................52 Population................................................................................................................. 53 Respondent Characteristics - Demographic V ariables.....................................54 Job T itle.......................................................................................................... 54 Program A re a ................................................................................................ 55 Years Worked for M ichigan State University Extension...................... 56 Percentage o f Assignment Providing Educational Services................. 56 Mileage from home to office...................................................................... 57 Years used a co m p u ter................................................................................ 58 Using a Com puter at H om e........................................................................ 59 Purposes for Using a Computer at H om e.................................................59 Assigned Own Com puter at O ffice ...........................................................60 Purposes for Using a Computer at O ffic e ................................................61 Total Hours per W eek Using a Com puter................................................ 62 Summary o f Demographic Inform ation............................................................. 64 Usage o f C -C A P......................................................................................................64 Times using C-CAP during C-CAP field te s t.........................................65 W here C-CAP was u se d ..............................................................................65 M inutes C-CAP was used each tim e......................................................... 66 Ease o f Using C-CAP the first time and the last tim e ........................... 67 Using C-CAP from hard drive or floppy drive........................................68 Rate the importance o f each feature o f C-CA P....................................... 68 Copy C-CAP for other person.................................................................... 71 Using C-CAP with another person............................................................ 71 Reviewing a prior session o f C -C A P ........................................................71 Reason for reviewing a prior session o f C -C A P .....................................72 Problems using C -C A P ............................................................................... 73 Help from other people using C -C A P ...................................................... 75 Knowing other people using C -C A P.........................................................75 Helping others in their use o f C -C A P ...................................................... 75 Rating in terms o f helpfulness o f C -C A P.................................................76 Rating in terms o f ease o f u s e ....................................................................76 Rating in terms o f being w orthw hile.........................................................77 Com puter Operating S ystem ...................................................................... 78 Time o f day that C-CAP was u se d ........................................................... 78 Assessing C-CAP a reas............................................................................... 79 vi Feedback provided by C -C A P....................................................................80 Strengths o f C -C A P...................................................................................... 81 W eaknesses o f C -C A P ................................................................................ 82 Improvement o f C -C A P .............................................................................. 83 Summary o f Usage o f C -C A P.............................................................................. 85 Value o f C -C A P ......................................................................................................85 Summary o f Value o f C -C A P .............................................................................. 89 Findings o f Diskette D ata......................................................................................90 Relationship Between the Use, Value o f C-CAP and Demographic Variables................................................................................................................... 92 S um m ary.................................................................................................................. 94 CHAPTER V SUMM ARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECO M M EN D A TIO N S................................................................................................ 95 Introduction............................................................................................................. 95 Summary o f F indings.............................................................................................95 L im itations.............................................................................................................103 C onclusions............................................................................................................103 R ecom m endations................................................................................................ 110 APPENDIX A LETTERS AND CONSENT FO RM ........................................ 113 APPENDIX B INSTRUM ENT...............................................................................121 APPENDIX C SAMPLE SCREENS FROM C -C A P....................................... 131 APPENDIX D INCORRECT Q U ESTIO NS/AN SW ERS............................... 138 APPENDIX E SUPPLEM ENTARY AN ALYSIS..............................................141 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 L IST O F TA B LES Table 4. 1 W hat is your current jo b title?..................................................................... 54 Table 4. 2 W hat is your program area(s)?.................................................................... 55 Table 4. 3 How many years have you worked for MSU E xtension?......................56 Table 4. 4 W hat percentage o f your assignment with MSU-E is actually spent in providing educational services to clientele (rather than supervising, administering, etc.)?...........................................................................................57 Table 4. 5 How many miles do you travel from your home to your office? 58 Table 4. 6 How long have you been using a com puter?........................................... 58 Table 4. 7 Do you use a computer at hom e?............................................................... 59 Table 4. 8 Purposes for using a computer at h o m e .................................................... 59 Table 4. 9 Are you assigned your own computer at your o ffice?........................... 60 Table 4. 10 For what purposes do you use a computer at your office?.................. 61 Table 4. 11 How many total hours each week do you use a computer (at both home and the o ffice )? ....................................................................................... 62 Table 4. 12 Comparing the Demographic information o f the 6 non-users o f CC AP with 18 users o f C-CA P.......................................................................... 63 Table 4. 13 Approximately how many times during the field testing period did you use C-CAP?................................................................................................. 65 Table 4. 14 W here did you use C -C A P?...................................................................... 66 Table 4. 15 Approximately how many minutes (on the average) did you spend each time you used C -C A P ?............................................................................66 Table 4. 16 How easy was it to use C-CAP the first time and last time that you used it? ................................................................................................................. 67 Table 4. 17 How did you configure C-CAP for use on your com puter?............... 68 Table 4. 18 Rate the importance o f each feature o f C-CA P......................................69 Table 4. 19 Did you ever make a copy o f C-CAP for another p erso n ?................. 71 Table 4. 20 Using C-CAP, did you ever review a prior session o f C -C A P ?........ 72 Table 4.20. 1 Why did you review a prior session o f C -C A P?................................ 72 Table 4. 21 How would you rate C-CAP regarding helpfulness?.......................... 76 Table 4. 22 How would you rate C-CAP regarding ease o f u s e ? .......................... 77 Table 4. 23 How would you rate C-CAP regarding being w orthw hile?...............77 Table 4. 24 W hat kind o f operating system did the computer have where you mainly used C -C A P ?........................................................................................ 78 Table 4. 25 At what time(s) o f the day did you primarily use C-CA P?................. 79 Table 4. 26 How many different core competency areas did you typically access each time you used C -C A P ?............................................................................ 80 Table 4. 27 Respondents’ valuing o f C-CAP by item s.............................................. 87 Table 4. 28 Statistics o f collecting diskette d a ta .........................................................91 Table 4. 29 Num ber o f users for competency areas................................................... 92 Table 4. 30 Relationship between how long a person has been using a computer and ease o f use o f C -C A P ................................................................................ 93 Table 4. 31 Relationship between how many hours per week used and ease o f use o f C -C A P .............................................................................................................93 Table E. 1 Value o f C-CAP relative to length o f MSU-E se rv ice ........................ 142 Table E. 2 Differences in valuing based on amount o f time spent providing educational services....................................................................................... 144 Table E. 3 Differences in valuing based on years using a co m p u ter.................. 146 Table E. 4 Differences in valuing based on number o f times o f using C-CAP during the field testing period...................................................................... 148 X CHAPTER I STATEM ENT of PROBLEM Introduction With the development o f m odem technology, people need to learn more and more in order to adapt to society and contribute to it. Because time is a limited commodity, gaining more knowledge in a set amount o f time and at the lowest cost is a very critical issue. The computer has become a good facilitator, helping people obtain this goal. Considering that advancements in computer technology have revolutionized education and the work force, the growing use o f computers in business, industry, and education, along with the demand for increased educational productivity, has made the acquisition and efficient use of computer skills o f primary importance in society today. The computer can help adults learn while providing the following advantages: 1. Unlike regular students, adult learners are usually very busy, having little or no time to attend regular classes to learn new technology and obtain more knowledge. With computer program s available now, people can leam at their convenience. Moreover, the computer can “provide individualized instruction; it’s more accurate, it’s more patient, and it lets the student progress at his own pace” (Hemandez-Logan, Carmela. 1982). 2. According to adult learning principles, people feel embarrassed when asked questions about topics with which they are unfamiliar. But with the facilitation o f the computer, they are more likely to feel comfortable and confident answering questions, knowing the computer never laughs at them for giving incorrect answers. Therefore, computer programs can motivate people to leam. 3. With current economic developments, manpower has become more and more expensive. However, as computers become cheaper and more accessible, adults who use computers to leam, need only to be provided with well developed computer programs. If such programs can motivate adults to leam, enhance their competency and give them feedback, computers could be the cheapest mode o f instruction for adults. This is especially appropriate for Extension educators because the increasing technological sophistication o f this society requires them to master a variety o f complicated subjects, and an increased set o f sophisticated skills, and to perform these skills at higher standards o f performance. In the field o f Extension education, competency has become a very important subject, focusing on two aspects: measurement and improvement o f competency among Extension educators. Traditionally, in order to measure Extension educators’ competency, answer sheets were prepared, including questionnaires related to what Extension educators should know. The questionnaires were prepared by several experts o f 3 the State whose services usually cost a lot; they were administered inefficiently, and were hard to keep track o f from evaluation to evaluation. In view o f these facts and the above listed advantages o f computer facilitated adult learning, M ichigan State University Extension set up a committee in 1992 lead by Dr. S. Joseph Levine to investigate areas o f competency needed for Extension educators. The committee developed a list o f ten areas o f competency (Core Competencies for Extension Service Professionals: Selected Resource Materials for the M SU-E Core Competency Development Team ) as well as a computer program - the Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP), (Levine, S. Joseph). C-CAP was created by taking content that had already been defined, developing a computer-based selfassessment framework, and organizing the content in the computer-based selfassessment framework to yield an instrument. This study investigates the value o f the C-CAP as expressed by C-CAP users, and the specific uses to which they adapt C-CAP. Theoretical Foundations o f the Study Since the establishment o f the Smith-Lever Act, Extension educational programs have been developed and improved in order to meet the needs and interests o f the clientele. An essential component o f Extension education is a group o f staff who have excellent competencies. The nature o f Extension 4 education is such that it utilizes the specific knowledge, skills, competencies and attitudes o f the staff. Knowledge competency in agriculture, resource development, home economics, and Extension administration, as well as communication skills, are the most important competencies for Extension field staff. Extension field staff need competency in specific areas in order to serve their clientele better. M aunder (1972) wrote: All extension workers require special knowledge or competency in a num ber o f broad areas. While each employee has special training needs according to his own requirements, knowledge and understanding is needed by all in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Technical subject m atter Extension service organization and operation Human development Program development The educational process The social system Communication Research and evaluation Each Extension field staff member has his/her own particular area o f responsibility. Each staff member chooses a specific area in which to take responsibility and show competency. M aunder (1972) outlined six such competencies as: 1. Establishing one's self in job performance 2. Achieving team status 3. Achieving organizational mindedness 4. Becoming management conscious 5 5. Achieving a professional attitude 6. M aking way for one's own replacement Within the organization o f the Cooperative Extension Service, Extension field staff function as on-line facilitators and work directly with their clientele. Knowles (1980) describes a num ber o f principles o f adult learning which are appropriate for Extension educators. These principles include the concept o f helping learners diagnose their needs, planning with learners a sequence of experiences that will produce desirable learning, creating conditions that will cause learners to want to leam, selecting the most effective methods and techniques to produce the desired learning, providing the human and material resources necessary to produce the desired learning, and helping learners measure the outcome o f their learning experiences. This study uses Knowles principles o f adult learning to investigate how Extension educators use and value C-CAP. It was felt that the Extension educators’ perceptions and evaluations were o f value to the Core Competency Assessment Program Development Committee. Research Questions Computer programs help learners obtain current knowledge and the CCAP program was developed for improving and measuring Extension field staff competency. O f primary concern to this study are the following four research questions: 6 1. In what ways is C-CAP used? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? 3. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 4. In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success? Research Methodology The research methodology used in this study reflects a descriptive approach. The sample that was surveyed consisted o f those Extension field staff members who were full time employees and who spent at least twenty-five percent o f their work time providing educational services in their counties. The C-CAP program was sent to these Extension field staff members who were instructed to use C-CAP for a period o f 10 weeks. Then, a questionnaire was sent to them which asked how much value C-CAP was to them and how they used CCAP. While a self-reporting instrument, such as a questionnaire, has certain limitations (Cronbach, 1960), the Extension field staff were asked to use the questionnaire as a way to document their use o f C-CAP and the value they placed on C-CAP. The items on the questionnaire fell under three categories as follows: 1. the first general area focused on characteristics o f Extension field staff (Demographic Information). 2. the second area o f questions focused on the usage o f C-CAP, including how, where, and how many hours were spent using C-CAP. 3. the third area o f questions focused on the value o f C-CAP and how it may improve the competency o f the user. These questions included feelings about C-CAP, and whether it is worthwhile to use C-CAP. The survey results were analyzed through the use o f statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. Assumptions In conducting the research for this study, the following assumptions were made: 1. The participants’ responses to the questionnaire reflect their true reactions regarding the use and value o f the C-CAP program. 2. The questionnaire’s construction, content and sample testing are appropriate for the research. 3. The sample chosen for this research truly represents the whole Extension field staff o f the state o f Michigan. 4. Extension educators are willing to participate in the study and will actually use the C-CAP program during the trial period. Importance o f the Study C-CAP is a computer program that was developed by the Core Competency Development Committee o f the Michigan State University Extension. It is important for both the C-CAP development committee and the Extension field staff to know whether or not C-CAP actually meets the development needs o f Extension professionals. Knowing whether C-CAP is useful and valuable or not will assist in the development o f the C-CAP program in the future. Definition o f Terms Cooperative Extension Service (CES): An organization with a unique partnership between the federal government, state government, educational institutions, local governments and the people o f the United States that provides a direct educational link with local communities. In M ichigan, the Cooperative Extension Service offers non-formal educational programs in three areas: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Economic and Community Development, and Children, Youth and Family programs. The Cooperative Extension Service o f M ichigan has recently begun to use the name Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E). The Cooperation Extension Service, though located in conjunction with institutions o f higher education, is different from University 9 Extension. University Extension defines the off-campus academic offerings o f higher education institutions and is not a part o f this study. Core Competency Assessm ent Program (C-CAP): A computer-based selfassessment program which assists Extension field staff in assessing their competency in ten specific areas. Different screens from the C-CAP program are presented in Appendix C. Extension Field Staff: M ichigan State University Extension county agents, including 4-H youth, home economics, agricultural and natural resources, and public policy agents. They are employed by M ichigan State University Extension and work at the county level educating people through the diffusion o f useful and practical information. Extension agents are assigned according to the major program area. This study involves only those staff members who are employed full time and spend at least 25% o f their time providing educational services in the county. Limitations o f the Study This study is subject to the following limitations: 1. The extent o f data collection will be influenced by the amount o f time available to the researcher for selecting the samples and collecting data. 10 2. The participants who respond to the questionnaire are providing a subjective report o f their perceptions. Because every one has his/her bias toward C-CAP, misunderstandings may affect the nature o f C-CAP. 3. The instrum ent’s ability to truly assess an extension agent’s use and valuing o f C-CAP is not perfect. Because the instrument was designed by the researcher, it will not be easy to assess the C-CAP program use and value objectively. In addition, this study has been extremely limited due to the very small size o f the sample, the large percentage o f non-respondents and the very nature o f the study since it is exploratory in nature. Exploratory studies o f this type are designed to provide an initial understanding o f a concept or practice rather than designed to make definite decisions. Organization o f the Dissertation Chapter I o f this study provides an overview o f how the C-CAP program was examined by a descriptive study o f users. A description o f the theoretical foundations for the study, its importance and limitations, as well as the research questions posed and a definition o f the terms is presented. Chapter II provides a summary o f the theoretical and conceptual foundations gleaned from literature relating to adult learning roles. This chapter 11 also includes a review o f literature pertaining to related studies about extension competencies, and roles o f software design, in general. Chapter III describes the procedures used in planning and conducting the research. Chapter IV contains the findings o f the research with reference to the specific descriptions o f the use and value o f the C-CAP program by Extension field staff. Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions o f this study based on the data obtained. Implications are drawn, with specific suggestions for the improvement o f the C-CAP program and for future research in this particular area as well. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This study is a description o f both the usage and value o f the Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP) developed by M ichigan State University Extension field staff. The theories o f this study are based on a review o f pertinent literature related to (a) learner motivation and principles o f adult learning, (b) learner characteristics and principles o f adult learning, (c) competencies for extension educators, and (d) design and development o f computer programs. Each o f these four areas is reviewed and organized separately. A hierarchically organized review provides the reader with a clear view o f the study and how it moves from the theoretic stage, to the design stage, and then to the implementation stage. Learner M otivation and Principles o f Adult Learning M otivation has been defined as "an act or activity by one person designed to stimulate or arouse a state within a second person or group o f persons that under appropriate circumstances initiates or regulates activity in relation to goals; or, is the aroused state o f the individual that under appropriate circumstances initiates or regulates behavior in relation to goals," (Klausmeier, 12 13 1961). M otivation helps to explain different aspects o f human behavior and it is believed to be a vitally important factor in various types o f Extension programs that involve professionals and laymen (Lewis, 1972. and Quartrick, 1965). Traditionally, motivation can be divided into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to content factors, and is inherent in either the task itself or the student himself. Intrinsic motivation is the basis o f most m odem educational theories concerning activity and discovery, since exploration and curiosity are intrinsic to most people. And extrinsic motivation, which refers to context factors, is imposed on the task or the student by a teacher or other external agent. Extrinsic motivation usually takes the form o f rewards or punishm ents o f one type or another. Although most teachers focus on extrinsic motivation, in adult education, intrinsic motivation is more important. Morrison and M cIntyre (1969) argue that most teachers tend to be more interested in extrinsic motivation; a concern that is apparent, for instance, in the perennial arguments over the place o f punishment and other classroom sanctions. Accordingly, the real power o f intrinsic motivation has often been overlooked or too readily associated with permissive styles o f teaching. One way to talk about intrinsic rewards is in terms o f the kinds o f needs that motivate people, (Quarrick 14 e ta l. 1965). M aslow (1954) offers a theory o f human motivation based on a hierarchy o f needs which he defines as: 1. Physiological needs (e.g. thirst, hunger, sex) 2. Safety needs (e.g., survival, security, order) 3. Love and Affection needs (e.g., identification, friendship, love) 4. Esteem needs (e.g., success, self-respect, confidence) 5. Self-actualization needs (e.g., desire to fulfill oneself) The physiological needs are the basic needs which must be attended to before a person can cope with safety needs. The need for self-actualization manifests itself in a desire for self-fulfillment, for becoming what one has the potential to become. These needs are hierarchical, but "people who are normal are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time," (Maslow, 1954). It is interesting to note that M aslow felt that self-actualization was only possible in adulthood: "Self-actualization does not occur in young people. In our culture, at least, youngsters have not yet achieved identity, or autonomy, nor have they had time enough to experience an enduring, loyal, post-romantic love relationship ... Nor have they worked out their own system o f values; nor have they had experience enough (responsibility for others, tragedy, failure, achievement, success) to shed 15 perfectionistic illusions and become realistic; nor have they generally made their peace with death; nor have they learned to be patient; nor have they learned enough about evil in themselves and others to be compassionate; nor have they had time to become post-ambivalent about parents and elders, power and authority." W hat Maslow is speaking o f here is the accumulation o f experience that not only serves to define the individual person, but also can, as Knowles pointed out, be used as a resource for learning activities. The self-concept o f an adult, more independent than that of a child, has evolved from experience, which in turn can assist them toward even greater self-direction or self-actualization. To a very large extent, intrinsic motivation is associated with Maslow's two higher order needs, whereas extrinsic motivation is associated with his three lower order needs. Davies (1973) states that Maslow's classification is o f obvious interest to a classroom teacher, but it fails to indicate which strategies are likely to be optimal in fulfilling human needs. Furthermore, there is an important difference between Maslow's first three needs, and the two higher order needs for esteem and selfactualization. It is useful, therefore, to distinguish between two general classes o f motive in terms o f the strategies involved in realizing them. 16 Learner Characteristics and Principles o f Adult Learning Adult learning is significantly different from teaching children, as are the terms that define andragogy and pedagogy, respectively. The use o f the word andragogy has been traced back as far as 1833, but Malcolm Knowles is generally credited with the popularization o f the term and the concept in the United States. Knowles (1970) defines andragogy as "the art and science o f helping adults learn" and contrasts it with "pedagogy" which is concerned with the teaching o f children. According to Knowles (1970), andragogy is premised on at least four crucial assumptions about the characteristics o f adult learners that are different from those o f child learners, on which traditional pedagogy is premised. These assumptions are that, as a person matures, (1) his self-concept moves from one o f being a dependent personality toward one o f being a self­ directing human being, (2) he accumulates a growing reservoir o f experience that becomes an increasing resource for learning, (3) his readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks o f his social roles, and (4) his time perspective changes from one o f postponed application o f knowledge to immediacy o f application, and accordingly his orientation towards learning shifts from one o f subject centeredness to one o f problem centeredness. These assumptions encapsulate much that is important about adult 17 learning and development. The first two assumptions, that adults are independent beings and have forged their identities from unique personal experiences—are drawn from humanistic philosophy and psychology and readily generate implications for adult learning. The third and fourth assumptions, dealing with the adult's readiness and orientation to learning, provide the links to understanding adult learning from a psychosocial developmental perspective. Some knowledge o f both the humanist and developmental orientations, when combined with principles related to the learning process itself, can offer the adult educator an understanding o f the complex interrelationship between adulthood and learning. Self-direction, or independence, is believed to be the most significant characteristic o f adults learners. Adult learners have different experiences throughout their lives, they come back to learn because they may meet challenge or want to change work conditions. Knowles (1975) indicates that in its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help o f others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes. "In most instances in which adults purposefully engage in systematic and sustained learning activities, their intent is to modify performance. Their reasons for engaging in the learning activity and their 18 anticipated uses o f the new learnings are typically related to a coherent area o f activity or performance," (Knox, A. B 1977). Knox (1977) also states, "Because adults typically want to use what they learn soon after they learn it, it is usually easy to establish the connection between specific learning activities and area o f perform ance to which the new knowledge is to be applied." Such characteristics attribute to the difference between self-directed learners and teacher-directed learners. Because adults engage in a learning activity on a self-directed basis, their own expectations provide the primary guide to activity, and other people serve mainly as sources o f encouragem ent and learning resources, (Tough, 1967, 1971). The other important characteristic o f adult learners is experience. Usually, when an adult sets out to learn about something, it is largely related to the amount o f experience and information that the adult already possesses. Knox finds that, "The adult's motivation and cooperation in the learning activity is more likely when the tasks are meaningful and o f interest to the learner. Active interest and participation are more likely when the learner helps identify objectives, selects learning tasks, and understands procedures," (Knox, A. B 1977). If adults understand major aspects o f a topic, they are more able to relate it to what they already know and to accumulate additional knowledge. 19 Besides self-direction and experience, adult learners display characteristics in four other areas as well: efficiency, feedback, achievement and physical conditions. Efficiency Unlike school children who spend many years in school, the adult is only willing to commit to short term experiences, a number o f weeks rather than a num ber o f years. The content o f learning is related to the particular problem or workshop which solves a specific issue. Adults learn more effectively if they can participate, control the environment, or select their own learning resources. Efficiency is the key issue to motivate these learners. Tough (1971) found that efficiency is often the most important criterion in selecting the planner for learning activities. W hen adult learners begin to learn, the first question the learner is likely to ask him self or herself is: What is the fastest, easiest, cheapest way for me to learn whatever I want to learn? The choice o f the planner depends heavily on the answer to that question. Knox (1977) states the following characteristics a planner must emphasize: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ability, Clarify o f Structure, M emorable Encounters, Personal Pacing, Varied Resources. 20 Feedback Learning persistence and effectiveness are enhanced if adults can obtain feedback about (1) the things they are learning, and (2) the extent and type o f change in competency that results from educative activity. This feedback can result from test situations, comparisons with external standards, and reactions by peers (Belasco and Trice, 1969). Feedback about current performance helps learners evaluate themselves on a scale o f progress in the educational activity. This is especially important, because objectives are often broad and progress gradually. Immediate feedback, recognition, and rewards help shape and reinforce new learning. Feedback also helps preserve the persistence o f adults learners, because in a learning activity, persistence is encouraged by a sense o f progress in closing the gap between current and desired competency and in redefining, and sometimes extending, the reference point o f desired competency. Information about excellent performance helps clarify goals for learning efforts. Positive reinforcement or reward is far more effective than negative reinforcement or punishment. Achievement Adults who engage in intentional learning, whether they do so on a self­ directed basis or through participation in an educational program, usually do so 21 with an orientation towards an application o f the increased competency. For almost all adults, and almost all learning tasks adults are likely to undertake, successful achievement is a function o f perseverance (Sjogren, 1967). Physical conditions Physical conditions including location, time o f day and length o f sessions have a great influence on what tools one can and cannot use. If a meeting room has fixed chairs, there will be obvious problems in using small group discussions (with the exception o f diads and triads). A room with an unusual shape may also be limiting. Cross (1986) states, "O f all the variables studied in connection with adult learning preferences, the matter o f location illustrates better than any other the adage that people tend to like what they know rather than to know what they would like”. In contrast, people say that convenience o f learning location is important to them. And in recent years, educational providers have made considerable efforts in establishing convenient locations in shopping centers, work sites, downtown stores and businesses, and even mobile vans. Time o f day influences the choice o f tools. W ork-weary participants coming to a class at day's end often require teaching tools that excite and involve them. A long boring lecture will promptly lull them to sleep, unless the topic is riveting. Using a variety o f tools and changing the pace fairly often should be considered. The length o f the sessions also influences which tools to choose. An all day workshop 22 provides a great opportunity for trying a variety o f teaching tools, while an hourlong session is considerably more confining, (Apps, 1991). Adult learners are concerned about efficiency, feedback, achievement, and physical condition. If these conditions are satisfactory to adult learners, they are more likely to be motivated, and their competencies improved. Competencies for Extension Educators Due to the rapid growth o f new knowledge and technology, it is estimated that within 10 to 12 years o f receiving their formal professional education, human service professionals will become approximately h alf as competent as they were upon graduation in meeting the demands o f their profession, (Dubin, 1972). Frandson (1980) states that, "degree obsolescence is today's way o f life. The 'half-life' knowledge in any given profession may now be as little as two to three years. The degree, in short, is today the beginning o f the education o f a professional." Therefore, there is no doubt that, to remain a competent professional, an individual must continually be involved in some type o f learning. Extension educators represent the state, the Land-Grant University and the Department o f Agriculture at the county level in carrying on an educational program to improve public welfare, which involves agriculture and natural resources, home economics, 4-H youth programs and administration, community and business development, etc. Extension educators are the largest and most 23 important group in the Extension service. They are in constant contact with people in rural areas. Extension educators are in a strategic position to study the problems and to serve the needs and interests o f thousands o f families. In order to perform their duties effectively, Extension educators must gain appropriate competencies. Hyatt (1966) indicates that there are eleven general areas o f competency relevant to the Extension educator’s job, although different competencies are needed for different positions, and necessary for different programs. These competencies are as followings: 1. Extension workers need to understand the Cooperative Extension service, its objectives, organization, and relationship to the Land-Grant Institution. 2. Extension workers need to know and understand technical subject matter appropriate to their needs and the needs o f people with whom they work. 3. Extension workers need to know and understand the principles and processes o f programming and to have a high degree o f proficiency in applying these concepts. 4. Extension workers need to know and understand the principles o f learning and teaching and to have a high degree o f proficiency in applying these principles. 5. Extension workers need to understand and to have a high degree o f proficiency in the communication process. 24 6. Extension workers need knowledge about and understanding o f the structure and dynamics o f human society. 7. Extension workers need to understand human development processes and to maintain a high degree o f skill in human relations. 8. Extension workers need to understand the principles o f management and to attain a high degree o f proficiency in applying these principles. 9. Extension workers need to be informed about current issues and problems confronting people and proficient in discussing them in an objective and informative manner with groups. 10. Extension workers need to understand the principles o f administration and supervision. 11. Extension workers need to know, understand, and be proficient in applying the principles and techniques o f evaluation. Kelsey and H eam e (1963) state that county extension workers must have qualifications such as: background and experience which includes the concept o f rural background, experience as a farm operator, hom em aker or a 4-H member, teaching experience, experience in working with public; training which includes the concept o f the minimum requirement being a bachelor's degree from an institution o f recognized standing, special courses in extension work and related subjects, and high technical ability in a broad field; characteristics which includes the concept o f teaching ability, ability to plan and cooperate with others, vision 25 and leadership, sympathetic attitudes towards associates, clear and systematic thinking, effective speaking and writing, tact and interest in people, enthusiasm with reliability, faith and courage, and integrity and dependability. Several writers have researched the role o f county extension educators in respective states. Schuster (1962) described the job o f the county agricultural agent in W isconsin by categorizing the various responsibilities into the areas o f administration, programs development and implementation, personnel, office management, finance and public relations. Similar studies were made by Baker (1975), Swanson (1975), and Jahi and Newcomb (1981). According to Swanson (1975), in order to meet professional standards, the extension worker, as an educator for the county, the Land-Grant College and the USDA, should: 1. be particularly skillful and proficient in his work. 2. have a strong sense o f public responsibility. 3. place service to others higher in importance than personal gains. 4. be especially dedicated to one's jo b and what it stands for. 5. be essentially self-directing and self-motivated. 6. try to continually improve oneself. 7. be concerned about and work toward improvement o f his colleagues’ welfare. 26 8. work within acceptable ethical standards. 9. know and be familiar with professional literature o f the field. 10. be willing to change methods o f job procedure when new information based on research is received. 11. believe in the exchange o f information. 12. use and understand the specific language employed in the profession. Creek, et al. (1980) listed nineteen professional competencies to be used in an evaluation form for Extension interns, which includes appearance, speech, enthusiasm, responsibility, ability to work with others, leadership, flexibility, originality, administrative duties, reliability, knowledge o f subject matter, instructor skill, neatness, extension planning and preparation, evaluation program ability, empathy, motivational ability o f clients, responsibility to supervise, and professional potential. Levine et. al. (1994) states the following thirty-one competencies in the Core Competencies For Extension Service Professionals: Selected Resource Materials for the MSU-E Core Competency Development Team: 1. Adult-Learning Understanding - Knowing how adults acquire and use knowledge, skills, attitudes. Understanding individual differences in learning. 2. A/V Skill - Selecting and using audio/visual hardware and software. 3. Career-Development Knowledge - Understanding the personal and organizational issues and practices relevant to individual careers. 27 4. Competency-Identification Skill - Identifying the knowledge and skill requirements o f jobs, tasks, roles. 5. Computer Competency - Understanding and being able to use computers. 6. Cost-Benefit-Analysis Skill - Assessing alternatives in terms o f their financial, psychological and strategic advantages and disadvantages. 7. Counseling Skill - Helping individuals recognize and understand personal needs, values, problems, alternatives and goals. 8. Data-Reduction Skill - Scanning, synthesizing, and drawing conclusions from data. 9. Delegation Skill - Assigning task responsibility and authority to others. 10. Facilities Skill - Planning and coordinating logistics in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 11. Feedback Skill - Communicating opinions, observations and conclusions such that they are understood. 12. Futuring Skill - Projecting trends and visualizing possible and probable futures and their implications. 13. Group-Process Skill - Influencing groups to both accomplish tasks and fulfill the needs o f their members. 14. Industry Understanding - Know the key concepts and variables that define an industry or sector. 28 15. Intellectual Versatility - Recognizing, exploring and using a broad range o f ideas and practices. Thinking logically and creatively without undue influence from personal biases. 16. Library Skill - Gathering information from printed and other recorded sources. Identifying and using information specialists and reference services and aids. 17. Model-Building Skill - Developing theoretical and practical frameworks which describe complex ideas in understandable, usable ways. 18. Negotiation Skill - Securing win-win agreements while successfully representing a special interest in a decision situation. 19. Objectives-Preparation Skill - Preparing clear statements which describe desired outputs. 20. Organization-Behavior Understanding - Seeing organizations as dynamic, political, economic, and social systems which have multiple goals; using this larger perspective as a framework for understanding and influencing events and change. 21. Organization Understanding - Knowing the strategy, structure, power networks, financial position, and system o f a specific organization. 22. Performance-Observation Skill - Tracking and describing behaviors and their effects. 29 23. Personnel/HR-Field Understanding - Understanding issues and practices in other HR areas (Organization Development, Organization Job Design, Human Resource Planning, Selecting and Staffing, Personnel Research and Information Systems, compensation, and Benefits, Employee Assistance, Union/Labor Relations). 24. Presentation Skill - Verbally presenting information such that the intended purpose in achieved. 25. Questioning Skill - Gathering information from and stimulating insight in individuals and groups through the use o f interviews, questionnaires and other probing methods. 26. Records-M anagement Skill - Storing data in easily retrievable form. 27. Relationship Versatility - Adjusting behavior in order to establish relationships across a broad range o f people and groups. 28 Research Skill - Selecting, developing and using methodologies, and statistical and data collection techniques for a formal inquiry. 29. Training-and-Development-Field Understanding - Knowing the technological, social, economic, professional, and regulatory issues in the field; understanding the role T&D plays in helping individuals learn for current and future jobs. 30. Training-and-Development-Techniques Understanding - Knowing the techniques and methods used in training; understanding their appropriate uses. 30 31. W riting Skill - Preparing written material which follows generally accepted rules o f style and form, is appropriate for the audience, is creative, and accomplishes its intended purposes. Design and Development o f Com puter Programs Increasingly, computers have become a part o f skill training. Mozes (1987) indicates that certain characteristics o f microcomputers make them wellsuited for adult learning. Indeed, in some instances, characteristics o f the adult learner that could not be observed using traditional teaching methods have become obvious through the use o f microcomputers. Computers can be a powerful tool both to help the teacher and to enhance participant learning. People leam by interacting with a patient, never complaining, intelligent program which doesn’t hinder their motivation. Information is presented on a screen, either in printed format or through graphic or audio media, or some combination o f these forms. The learners, each working individually on a computer, answer questions or solve problem s and receive immediate feedback. Learners can interact with the instructional material, proceeding at their own pace, (Apps, 1991). One o f the most important characteristics o f adult learners is selfdirection, which means, first o f all, self-diagnosis o f the need for learning. Adults, who know to some extent what their interests are, could certainly develop a full and competent list o f their needs if properly helped. Such inquiries into an 31 individual’s background, needs, and interests can be easily handled by the microcomputer. A well developed computer program can help individuals see the strengths and weaknesses o f their performance, and thus, can use this knowledge to decide what they need to leam to increase competency. Self-direction also means one has freedom to choose from among many learning experiences. A large num ber o f professionals are unfortunately unable to benefit from traditional continuing education programs because o f scheduling. There is a need to develop programs that allow for self-directed study. The computer can make a significant contribution toward this goal for three major reasons. First, the computer provides a flexible source for teaching and learning, in terms o f both place and time. Professionals can use computers programs at home, at work, or at any other location, at any given time, day or night. They can use a program at their own pace, interrupt it at any point, and continue from that point the next time they turn the computer on. Second, taking into account the background and characteristics o f the individual, the com puter can provide a wide range o f levels o f difficulty on a given program. Tailoring a program to an individual’s characteristics makes it more meaningful and acceptable, and increases the chance o f successful completion. 32 Third, the computer can be used as a delivery system for an entire curriculum through the development o f a large number o f programs covering the entire range o f learner needs and interests. The computer program can monitor, evaluate, advise and guide the learner. M ozes stresses that only a system having all or most o f these characteristics can provide the learning environment needed by professionals which will allow them the freedom to choose from a large selection, the information or program preferred and presentation method preferred. All this is done while providing professionals, as needed, with information, feedback, and help to make these choices. Self-direction also means self-evaluation. Adults should be given the opportunity to see for themselves how well they are progressing toward their learning goal. One o f the general characteristics o f continuing education in the professions is the push for continuous self-evaluation activities on the part o f the professional. M ost educators think that self-evaluation is not only a tool, but a general attitude, a way o f life for the professional, and should become second nature to all professionals. The computer, when requested to do so, can collect and provide a host o f data regarding learning performance. Comparisons can be made between performance at the beginning and at the end o f the learning sequence, or between present competencies and the required competencies. The computer can also provide constant and immediate feedback during the learning process. 33 The idea o f letting adults decide what their needs are makes sense, not only because this is part o f the drive behind self-directed learning, but also because, as a result o f this decision making, they are more motivated to leam. Adults bring a very valuable resource into the teaching/learning process— their own experiences. Computers programs should take these experiences into consideration and should build upon them. Moreover, adults tend to view educational activities from a problem-centered point o f view, mainly because they seek immediate applications o f the knowledge and skills learned, applications that are usually related to their work or their lives. This characteristic requires the use o f those teaching/learning techniques that are action-oriented, that emphasize problem solving. Furthermore, although evaluation is an issue less related to the characteristics o f the adult learner and more related to the way learning activities are organized, a good computer program should include evaluation. The evaluation results can provide incentive for participants to do their best. As m odem technology beckons more and more educational institutions to invest in computers for instructional and educational purposes, and therefore, the increased use o f computers, skills needed for the design and development of effective computer technology and good educational programs are required. Ould and Sneed (Ould 1990, Sneed 1989) suggest that computer program quality can be measured with the 10 following indices: functional completeness, 34 reliability, security, user friendliness, efficiency, maintainability, extensibility, portability, interface ability, and documentation. Functional completeness is the extent to which a software system meets its requirements and is divided into informational completeness and procedural completeness. Informational completeness means that all the results or output data requested by the user are actually produced. Procedural completeness means that all the actions and conditions requested by the user are actually carried out. Reliability entails the user being able to use the program and get correct results, this always being the main goal o f the program developer. It includes correctness and robustness. Correctness is the relationship between the number o f correct or error-free transactions and the number o f normal transactions. A correct transaction is one which develops as expected and produces a correct result. Robustness is the relationship between the number o f transactions handled correctly and the number o f all abnormal transactions, i.e. transactions with incorrect inputs or exceptional cases. A correctly handled transaction will recognize the erroneous or abnormal situation and either correct or reject it. Security is a software system's capacity to protect itself against external and internal disruption which includes data integrity and function integrity. Data integrity is the degree o f protection against all wrong inputs. And function integrity means checking the execution o f all functions. 35 User friendliness is a measure o f how comfortable a user finds a system and can be determined by the ease o f use and comprehensibility. Efficiency means the optimal use o f available computing resources. There are two sides o f efficiency: time efficiency and space efficiency. Time efficiency means minimizing the time required by the software, and space efficiency means minimizing the space required by the software. Efficiency is dispensable for many applications. Maintenance is the softw are’s process o f being responsive to user n e e d sfixing errors, or making user-specified modifications, honing the program to be more useful. M aintainability measures how simple it is to correct and change a software system. It is measured in terms o f the original development expenditure. The sm aller the expenditure on maintaining the system—relative to the expenditure on development—the greater the maintainability. Extensibility is a measure o f how easily new component modules, programs, files or data records can be introduced into an existing software system without having to change components already there. Portability is the capacity to move program systems from one technical environment to another with a m inim um o f changes. The fewer the modules which are affected by the transfer, the better. Although some people argue the computer's impersonal characteristics, the computer's usefulness and value in adult learning is unquestionable. Those o f 36 who are in adult education cannot overlook the importance o f microcomputers in our society, (Apps, 1982). Every computer program performs some task correctly. W hat is o f interest to computer scientists is whether a program performs its intended task. To determine this, a precise and independent description o f the desired program behavior is needed. Such a description is called a program specification. Two m ajor developments in technology during the past two decades are greatly influencing adult learning: (1) how information is stored and retrieved, and (2) how information is transmitted. Almost unlimited information is available in various electronic forms. Optically scanned information storage systems, such as CD-ROM , provide adult learners quick access to information. Some people prefer learning when they are talked to—that is, they enjoy a well-developed, carefully presented lecture. Still others prefer to leam visually; they enjoy films, video tapes, and other visual materials. Learning from words is often more difficult for them, particularly if no visual materials are included. Some prefer to leam by doing, a hands-on approach. If they can actually do something, whether it's practice on a computer or leam about group dynamics by practicing with a group, they prefer it. Adult learning consists of: 1. accumulation o f information; 2. change in behavior; 37 3. improved perform ance or proficiency; 4. change in knowledge, attitudes, and skills; 5. a new sense o f meaning; 6. cognitive restructuring; 7. personal transformation. A well designed computer program must facilitate adult learners in obtaining these results. The good Extension educator must: 1. make certain learners know how to operate the computers. 2. be available to help learners who have difficulty with the computer's instructions. 3. be aware that not all participants leam equally well with interactive computer programs. 4. realize that some learners will take much longer than others to master the same skill. 5. allow them time to repeat the program until they have mastered the skill. The good Extension educator must not 1. closely observe participants while they work. 2. encourage individual learners to cover the skill training in unison, as if they were a group. 38 3. make negative comments to participants who take longer to leam a skill. Summary In this chapter, a review o f selected pertinent literature was presented. Those areas reviewed were: learner motivation and principles o f adult learning, learner characteristics and principles o f adult learning, competencies for extension educators, and the design and development o f a computer program. The next chapter concerns the research methodology and procedures that were used in this study. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND M ETHODOLOGY Introduction This study is concerned with investigating how users o f the C-CAP computer program use and value the C-CAP program. The following research questions guided the research: 1. In what ways is C-CAP used? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? 3. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 4. In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success? In this chapter, the development o f C-CAP and the methodology and analysis processes used in the research are presented. Development o f C-CAP Based on the study Core Competencies for Extension Service Professionals: Selected Resource Materials for the MSU-E Core Competency 39 40 Development Team, (Levine, et. al., 1994), the contents o f the C-CAP program include the following ten areas o f competency: 1. Professional and Career Development 2. Educational and Informational Technology 3. Written and Spoken Communication and Skills 4. Program Planning and Development 5. Program Implementation 6. Applied Research and Evaluation 7. Organizational Knowledge, Leadership and Management 8. Diversity and Pluralism 9. Marketing and Public Relations 10. Audience Identification and Development Each area o f competency includes 11 to 49 questions, and 2 to 5 answers related to each question. The guiding principles used during the development o f the C-CAP computer program are as follows, (Apps, 1982): 1. make certain learners know how to operate the computers. 2. be available to help learners who have difficulty with the com puter’s instructions. 3. be aware that not all participants learn equally well with interactive computer programs. 41 4. realize that some learners take much longer than others to master the program until they have mastered required skills. 5. avoid making negative comments to participants who take longer to learn a skill. C-CAP utilizes a user-friendly, menu-driven computer program approach. The C-CAP program actually consists o f three sub-programs: one being the main program which instructs users to answer questions, the second for reviewing prior results, and the third, to process and print the output o f C-CAP, including graphic output o f scores and wrong answers. C-CAP screens are shown in Appendix C. The C-CAP program utilizes the user’s name and a user selected password for program security. A user’s data can be accessed only by the individual who knows both the user’s name and his/her password. It is assumed that such security would encourage users to describe their usage and valuing o f C-CAP more honestly. When the user enters the correct name and password, the C-CAP program offers three choices for selection, including: (1) selecting one or more o f the ten areas o f competency and responding to the questions, (2) reviewing the previous results, or (3) quitting the C-CAP program. The C-CAP program also takes into consideration the experience and competency o f Extension field staff according to their service time with M ichigan State University Extension and groups them into one o f three stages: 42 1. Introductory Career Stage - Extension field staff who belong to this stage have worked for Extension less than 2 years. 2. Early Career Stage - Extension field staff who belong to this stage have worked for Extension more than 2 years and less than 6 years. 3. Continuing Career Stage - Extension field staff who belong to this stage have worked for Extension more than 6 years. When users at different stages select the same answer to a particular question, their scores may differ due to the competency required at the different stages. C-CAP provides the user with a printout o f the items that were answered incorrectly. A sample o f such a printout is shown in Appendix D. M ethodology Design The design chosen, according to the terminology used in Research in Education, (Best and Kahn, 1986), can be categorized as a descriptive study in the form o f a mailed questionnaire. A descriptive study describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist, opinions that are held, processes that are going on, effects that are evident, or trends that are developing, (Best and Kahn, 1986). The data obtained from the completed questionnaires were used to describe how the study population is distributed for different variables. The 43 primary goals o f this study were to provide data, draw conclusions, and describe how the C-CAP program is being used and how the Extension field staff value CCAP. The survey method has been chosen for this study since it satisfied certain descriptive research aspects. The survey method o f research is an established strategy that offers many advantages. According to Babbie (1986): “Survey research is probably the best method available to the social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to observe directly. Surveys are also excellent vehicles for measuring attitudes and orientations in a large population (p.209).” This study utilizes a descriptive survey methodology to collect information and ascertain the perceptions commonly held by the users o f the CCAP computer program regarding the use and the value o f the program. Instrumentation The initial step toward the development o f the instrument for this study was a review o f literature. Studies by Knowles (1975) were especially important in considering items for inclusion in the research instrument. The sample selected consisted o f those Extension field staff who were full-time employees and who spend at least twenty percent o f their assignments 44 providing educational services in their counties. Once the sample was selected, an initial invitation letter, duplicated on the Department o f Agricultural and Extension Education, M ichigan State University letterhead, and signed by the researcher, along with a consent form, was mailed to the subjects. The invitation letter outlined the reasons for the study, the nature o f participation, confidentiality o f responses, and usefulness o f the study. The letter also asked the individual if they agreed with the invitation letter’s statements to sign and return the Consent Form, informing the researcher o f their willingness to participate in the study. In March, 1995, the C-CAP program, an operating manual and an instructional letter were sent to these individuals. They were instructed to use the C-CAP program for at least 10 weeks. These materials are shown in Appendix A. Then, a designed questionnaire and an extracting diskette used to collect practice data, were sent to each individual o f the sample for surveying their use and valuing o f C-CAP. The designed questionnaire consisted o f three sections: Section one solicited basic demographic information from the respondents which included their job title, program areas, service time with Extension, percentage o f assignment providing educational services, mileage from home to office, and purpose for using a computer at home and office. Section two focused on their usage o f C-CAP. Extension field staff were asked to respond to twenty-two questions. 45 Section three solicited responses to items which were directed toward determining the value o f C-CAP. Extension field staff were asked to respond to a five point Likert type scale for each item where 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Not sure, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix B. The second step in the process was the presentation o f the survey questionnaire to a panel from the Core Competency Development Committee. Members o f the Committee were asked to evaluate the instrument for format, clarity, and content. Then, the dissertation committee which is composed o f four professors who are familiar with C-CAP and M ichigan State University Extension, served to further verify the questions and content for the questionnaire. Each o f them was asked to read the statements and make suggestions pertaining to wording changes in each statement. Suggestions from each professor on each questionnaire item were carefully studied. Changes in wording were made when two or more professors agreed to a change and suggested the same/similar wording for the change. Changes to the instructions and the format o f the questionnaire were kept to a minimum. A cover letter, signed by the researcher, accompanied the questionnaire. The letter outlined the reasons for the study, the nature o f participation, confidentiality o f responses, and usefulness o f the study. Respondents were asked to make further suggestions and offer their perceptions o f the usage and value o f 46 C-CAP if they felt the questionnaire did not fully reflect their insights. They were also asked to sign their name on the postage-paid self-addressed return envelope. The cover letter was duplicated on the Department o f Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State University letterhead. Necessary instructions on how to complete the survey and an explanation o f the scale were also provided. A field test o f the survey questionnaire was also conducted using a focus group consisting o f three Extension field staff who discussed with the researcher the data and conclusions. They also helped interpret the meaning and understanding o f C-CAP. Population Identification o f the survey population is a critical step in the research process. Two types o f populations are generally described in the research literature: the “target” population and the “survey” population. According to Rossi, et al. (1983), the target population is the collection o f elements that the researcher would like to study. The survey population is the population that is actually sampled and from which data may be obtained. The target population for this study included all Michigan State University Extension field staff who are involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation o f Extension education programs. 47 The Sample Due to time and m anpower limitations, it was beyond the scope o f this study to provide coverage o f the total population. In order to respond appropriately to the stated problem and provide answers to the research questions, a survey sample consisting o f full-time employed M SU Extension field staff who provide educational service at least twenty five percent o f their time in their counties, were considered for this study. A total o f 79 subjects was randomly identified and invited to participate in this study. O f this group, 31 signed the consent forms and agreed to participate in the program. Finally, 24 returned the survey questions. One o f them was no longer working for MSU-E, one o f them said they did not have time, four o f them answered demographic questions only and eighteen o f them completed the whole survey. A sample is a strategically and systematically identified group o f people or events that meets the criterion o f representatives for a particular study, (Merriam et. al, 1989). Several approaches to sampling are available depending on the nature and objectives o f the research. As indicated earlier, the purpose o f this research was to describe the use and value o f C-CAP. There were 31 Extension field staff who agreed, and were expected to participate in the study, having responded to the survey. An invitation letter signed by the researcher was the initial m ailing to the subjects. The invitation letter outlined the reasons for the study, the nature o f 48 participation, confidentiality o f responses, and usefulness o f the study. The letter asked the individual to complete and return an Agreement Form to signify their willingness to participate in the study. The invitation letter was duplicated on the Departm ent o f Agricultural and Extension Education, M ichigan State University letterhead. Data Collection After the dissertation committee approved the research proposal, MSU approval from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) was requested. After UCRIHS approved, approval from the MSU Extension Office was requested. After the MSU-E office approved, in March, 1995, the C-CAP program and an operating manual and an instructional letter were sent to those selected individuals who were then instructed to use C-CAP for at least 10 weeks. Then, a designed questionnaire and an extracting diskette were used to collect their practicing data, and a cover letter were sent to each individual o f the sample for surveying their use and valuing o f C-CAP. In order to facilitate individualization, the name and address o f each respondent was printed directly on the cover letter. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was included with the questionnaire for follow-up mailing purposes. To increase the ease o f completion, each part o f the questionnaire was preceded by adequate instructions. 49 An invitation cover letter explained the purpose o f the study and its importance for future usage o f C-CAP. In addition the invitation cover letter included information required by M SU ’s University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). The invitation letters, signed by researcher, were sent to the 79 selected subjects. If they agreed to participate in the survey research, they received C-CAP and were allowed to use it for at least 10 weeks. A fter 10 weeks, a survey packet was sent which included a short cover letter, questionnaire, postage paid self-addressed return envelope, and an extracting diskette which was used to collect the practice data from each participant during their use o f C-CAP. They were mailed to each member o f the survey population using first class metered postage service, from East Lansing on June 20, 1995. An individual identification number was recorded on the first page o f each questionnaire for follow-up mailing purposes. To increase the ease o f completion, each part o f the questionnaire was preceded by adequate instructions. A self-addressed stamped envelope was included with the questionnaire. Initially, ten surveys were returned. The same cover letter, extracting diskette and questionnaires were sent to individuals who did not return the survey. Four more surveys were received. A month later, the second cover letter, extracting diskette, and questionnaire were sent to individuals who did not return the survey; four more were then received. In early September, the last cover 50 letter, extracting diskette, and questionnaire were sent to the remaining thirteen individuals who did not return the surveys. Six surveys were received. There were twenty-four field staff who eventually returned the survey. Completed questionnaires were carefully checked upon return. All usable questionnaires were given a new identification number. The information was coded and entered into a microcom puter data file. D ata A nalysis The focal point o f the research was to determine the use and the value o f the C-CAP program as perceived by M ichigan State U niversity’s Extension field staff. Data on respondent demography were tabulated. Data gathered from those items requiring a quantity scale were analyzed utilizing the M icrosoft Excel package. Means and percentages were derived. Some data on usage o f C-CAP were grouped according to different criteria and the rest o f them were tabulated. Data gathered from those items were analyzed utilizing the M icrosoft Excel package. Means, standard deviations, and percentages were derived. Data on the value o f the C-CAP program were tabulated. Data gathered from those items requiring a response to a five point Likert-type scale were 51 analyzed utilizing the M icrosoft Excel package. Means, standard deviations, and percentages were derived. Data on the extracting diskette were tabulated. The relationship between the value o f C-CAP and demographic data and relationship between the value o f C-CAP and the usage o f C-CAP were analyzed utilizing the SPSS for Windows package. Correlation coefficience and T-tests were derived. Summary A variety o f appropriate methods for examining the outcome o f usage and the valuing o f the C-CAP program by participants in M ichigan State University Extension was described. This chapter has provided an overview o f the methods utilized including the context o f the study, instrument development, and data collection. Chapter IV presents the findings o f the research. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Introduction In this chapter, the results o f the data collected in the survey questionnaires are presented and summarized. The data collection was completed in accordance with the procedures identified in the previous chapter. The data were collected through a survey o f 31 MSU-E field s ta ff. Twenty-four o f the 31 returned completed surveys. This represents a return rate o f 71%. The completed surveys (see Appendix A) were mailed to the Department o f Agricultural and Extension Education in a pre-addressed stamped envelope. The field staff responded to the survey questionnaire by means o f a modified Likert-type scale, rank ordered and/or open ended questions. The returned surveys were scrutinized by means o f computer analysis using M icrosoft Excel and SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. There were three general areas examined in this study. The first dealt with demographic information. The other two general areas reflected the research questions. These are: 1. How Extension field staff use the C-CAP program. 52 53 2. How Extension field staff value the C-CAP program. This study is concerned with investigating how the users o f the C-CAP computer program use and value the program. The following research questions guided the research: 1. In what ways is C-CAP used? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? 3. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 4. In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success? In the following pages, the findings o f this study are presented. For the sake o f clarity, the findings are presented in the general categories o f the three areas previously discussed. Population The population for this study consisted o f all the M ichigan State University Extension field staff. Using the random selection method, 79 field staff were selected, o f which 31 agreed to participate in the study. O f those, 24 returned the survey questionnaire. However, six o f the returned survey questionnaires were incomplete and not useable: one participant no longer worked for MSU-E, one o f them said he/she had no time to actually use C-CAP, and four o f them completed only the demographic section o f questionnaire. This yielded a total o f 18 useable survey questionnaires. In addition, the subjects were asked to return a diskette with their survey questionnaire that included certain files from the C-CAP computer program. A total o f 14 o f the 18 respondents returned the diskette also. Respondent Characteristics - Demographic Variables Throughout the survey questionnaire there were a num ber o f items which provided insight into the sample. Job Title The respondents were asked to identify their current jo b title. Their responses are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4. 1 What is your current jo b title? Response Category County Extension Director Extension Home Economist Extension 4 - H Youth Agent Home Economist/Community Development/Land Use Agent Community and Economic Development Agent Extension Agriculture Agent Resource Recovery Agent Total No. (%) 7 (3 8 ) 5 (2 8 ) 2 (1 1 ) 1 (6) 1 (6) 1(6) 1(6) 18(100) 55 As is seen in Table 4.1, 38% were County Extension Directors, 27% were Extension Home Economists, 11% were Extension 4 - H Youth Agents, 6% were Home Economist/Community Development/Land Use Agents, 6% were Community and Economic Developm ent Agents, 6% were Extension Agriculture Agents, and 6% were Resource Recovery Agents. Program Area The respondents were asked to identify their program areas. Their responses are shown in Table 4.2. Table 4. 2 What is your program area(s)? Response Category Children Youth and Family (CYF) Agriculture (AG) Community and Economic Development (CED) Home Economics (HE) CED + AG CED + HE Total No. (%) 9 (5 0 ) 3 (1 7 ) 2 (1 1 ) 2 (1 1 ) 1 (6) 1 (6) 18 (100) As seen in Table 4.2, 50% were from the Children Youth and Family (CYF) area, 17% were from the Agriculture (AG) area, 11% were from the Community and Economic Development (CED) area, 11% were from the Home Economics area, 6% were from a combination o f the Community and Economic Development (CED) area plus the Agriculture (AG) area, and 6% were from a 56 combination o f the Community and Economic Development (CED) area plus the Home Economics (HE) area. Y ears W orked for M ichigan State U niversity Extension. The respondents were asked how many years they worked for MSU-E. Their responses are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4. 3 How many years have you worked for MSU Extension? Y ears W orked for M SU-E < 2 years 2 - 6 years > 6 years Mean Standard Deviation N (% ) 4 (2 2 ) 2 (1 1 ) 12(67) 9.7 yrs 7.2 yrs As seen in Table 4.3, the average length o f time the respondents worked for MSU-E was 9.7 years. When the respondents are organized according to the C-CAP career stage , the data show that 22% worked for less than two years Introductory Career Stage, 11% worked between two and six years - Early Career Stage; and 67% worked for more than six years - Continuing Career Stage. P ercen tage o f A ssignm ent P roviding E d u cational Services The respondents were asked what percentage o f their assignment with MSU-E was actually spent in providing educational services to clientele, rather 57 than supervising, administering, etc. Their responses are shown in Table 4.4. Table 4. 4 W hat percentage o f your assignment with MSU-E is actually spent in providing educational services to clientele (rather than supervising, administering, etc.)? Percentage o f Time Spent Providing Educational Service <25% 25% - 50% 51% - 75% >75% Mean Standard Deviation IN (% ) 0 (0 ) 6 (3 3 ) 2 (1 1 ) 10(56) 67.2 24.2 As seen in Table 4.4, the average percentage o f time spent on education by respondents was 67.2%; 12 o f them spent 50% or more o f their time providing educational service. M ileage from home to office The respondents were asked how many miles they traveled from home to office. Their responses are shown in Table 4.5. As seen in Table 4.5, the average mileage traveled by the respondents between home and office was 17.8 miles. The standard deviation was 18.3. 58 Table 4. 5 How many miles do you travel from your home to your office? M iles T raveled Betw een H om e and Office 0 - 5 miles 6 - 1 0 miles 11 - 25 miles 26 - 50 miles 51 - 100 miles Mean Standard Deviation N (% ) 6 (33) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 5 (2 8 ) 1 (6) 17.8 miles 18.3 miles Y ears used a c o m p u ter The respondents were asked how many years they had used a computer. Their responses are shown in Table 4.6. Table 4. 6 How long have you been using a computer? Y ears used a co m p u ter 0 - 5 years 6 - 1 0 years > 10 years Mean Standard Deviation N (% ) 5 (2 8 ) 9 (5 0 ) 4 (2 2 ) 8.8 yrs 4.3 yrs As seen in Table 4.6, the average time field staff had used computers was 8.8 years; the majority o f the respondents had used computers for over five years. Using a C o m p u te r a t H om e The respondents were asked if they used a computer at home. Their responses are shown in Table 4.7. As seen in Table 4.7, 78% used a computer at home; 22% did not use a computer at home. Table 4. 7 Do you use a computer at home? R esponse C ategory Yes No Total No. (% ) 14(78) 4 (2 2 ) 18 (100%) P u rp o ses fo r Using a C o m p u te r a t H om e The respondents were asked for what purposes they used a computer at home. Their responses are shown in Table 4.8. Table 4. 8 Purposes for using a computer at home R esponse C ategory W ord Processing Games/Recreational uses Educational/Learning uses Accessing Information sources Electronic Mail (E-M ail) Connecting with bulletin boards Spreadsheet Database use Other No. (% ) 13 (72) 9 (5 0 ) 6 (3 3 ) 5 (2 8 ) 4 (2 2 ) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 1 (6) 3 (1 7 ) 60 As seen in Table 4.8, 72% used a computer at home for word processing purposes; 50% used a computer at home for games/recreational purposes; 33% used a computer at home for educational/learning purposes; 28% used a computer at home for accessing information sources; 22% used a computer at home for Electronic mail (E-M ail) purposes; 17% used a computer at home for connecting with bulletin boards; 17% used a computer at home for spreadsheet purposes; 6% used a computer at home for database purposes; and 17% used a computer at home for other purposes such as checkbook management, a spouse’s business and reporting for consulting. Assigned Own Computer at Office The respondents were asked if they were assigned their own computer at the office. Their responses are shown in Table 4.9. Table 4. 9 Are you assigned your own computer at your office? Response Category Yes No Total No. (%) 18(100) 0 (0 ) 18 (100%) As seen in Table 4.9, 100% responded that they were assigned their own computer at their office. 61 P urposes for Using a C o m p u te r a t Office The respondents were asked for what purposes they used a computer at the office. Their responses are shown in Table 4.10. As seen in Table 4.10, 94% used a computer at the office for word processing purposes; 78% used a computer at the office for database purposes; 72% used a computer at the office for Electronic mail (E-Mail) purposes; 56% used a computer at the office for educational/learning purposes; 44% used a computer at the office for accessing information sources; 28% used a computer at Table 4. 10 For what purposes do you use a computer at your office? R esponse C ategory W ord Processing Database use Electronic Mail (E-Mail) Educational/Learning uses Accessing Information sources Spreadsheet Connecting with bulletin boards Games/Recreational uses Other No. (% ) 17(94) 14(78) 13 (72) 10(56) 8 (44) 5 (2 8 ) 2 (1 1 ) 1 (6) 3 (1 7 ) the office for spreadsheet purposes; 11% used a computer at the office for connecting with bulletin boards; 6% used a computer at the office for games/recreational purposes; and 17% used a computer at the office for other purposes such as educational programs, graphic design and software programs, etc. 62 T otal H o u rs p e r W eek U sing a C om puter. The respondents were asked how many hours per week they used a computer. Their responses are shown in Table 11. As seen in Table 11, the average hours o f computer usage by field staff each week was 11.2 hours. The majority o f the respondents used a computer Table 4. 11 How many total hours each week do you use a computer (at both home and the office)? T otal H ours Using a C o m p u te r p e r W eek 0 - 5 hours 6 - 1 0 hours > 10 hours Mean Standard Deviation N (% ) 5 (2 8 ) 5 (2 8 ) 8 (44) 11.2 hrs 7.0 hrs more than 5 hours each week. The majority o f the respondents had also used a computer for over five years in their career. An additional analysis was done to compare the demographic information provided by the 6 respondents who did not actually use the program and the 18 respondents who used the program. These data are shown in Table 4.12. As is shown in Table 4.12, there are two demographic areas that appear to differentiate between the 6 non-users and 18 users. The non-users apparently live considerably closer to their place o f work. Additionally, the non-users seem to use their computers twice as much as the 18 users. This finding is very 63 Table 4. 12 Comparing the Demographic information o f the 6 non-users o f CCAP with 18 users o f C-CAP. Demographic Information How many years have you worked for MSU Extension? W hat percentage o f your assignment with MSUE is actually spent in providing educational services to clientele (rather than supervising, administering, etc.)? How many miles do you travel from your home to your office? How long have you been using a computer? How many total hours each week do you use a computer (at both home and the office)? 6 non-users 10.5 18 users 9.7 51.7 67.2 4.8 17.7 7.8 8.8 22.7 11.2 confounding and it is very difficult to interpret specific meaning. It might be that the non-users chose to not participate in the study because o f the large numbers o f hours each week spent on using the computer. They may be too skilled in computer use to be attracted by the C-CAP program. Or, it may be that they use computers a considerable amount in conjunction with their regular office work and are not interested in using the computer for an additional task such as computer self-assessment. This area would have to be examined in closer perspective to begin to answer this question. 64 Summary o f Demographic Information The majority o f the respondents worked for MSU-E for over six years, they used a computer at home for word processing purposes, alt o f them were assigned their own computer at the office, almost one hundred percent o f them used a computer at the office for a combination o f word processing purposes, database, E-mail, and educational/learning purposes. The majority o f field staff used a computer more than five hours per week. Usage o f C-CAP The second general area reflected in the research questions was how Extension field staff used C-CAP. The following questions were concerned with describing and assessing the Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP) by Extension field staff. The following two research questions guided the research: 1. In what ways was C-CAP used? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? In the following section, the findings o f the Extension field s ta ff‘s usage o f C-CAP were presented. Throughout the questionnaire, there were a num ber o f items which provided details about the Extension field s ta ffs usage o f C-CAP. 65 T im es using C -C A P d u rin g C -C A P field test The respondents were asked how many times during the field testing period they used C-CAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.13. Table 4. 13 Approximately how many times during the field testing period did you use C-CAP? How m any tim es w as C -C A P used? ltim e 2 times 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 10 times No. o f U sers (% ) 3 (1 7 ) 5(2 8 ) 2 (1 1 ) 3 (1 7 ) 1(6) 1(6) 3 (1 7 ) As seen in Table 4.13, 18 o f the respondents responded to the question. The average number o f uses o f C-CAP was 4, the majority o f the respondents used C-CAP for more than one core competency area. W h ere C -C A P w as used The respondents were asked where they used C-CAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.14. As seen in Table 4.14, 61% used C-CAP at the office; 17% used C-CAP at home; and 22% used C-CAP at both the office and home. 66 Table 4. 14 W here did you use C-CAP? W here w as C -C A P used? At Office At Home At Home and Office Other Total No. (% ) 11(61) 3 (1 7 ) 4 (2 2 ) 0 (0 ) 18(100) M inutes C -C A P w as used each tim e. The respondents were asked approximately how many minutes, on the average, they spent each time they used C-CAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.15. Table 4. 15 Approximately how many minutes (on the average) did you spend each time you used C-CAP? M inutes spent using C -C A P each tim e 0 - 1 5 minutes 1 6 -3 0 minutes 31 - 60 minutes > 60 minutes M ean Standard Deviation N (% ) 2 (1 1 ) 7 (39) 5 (2 8 ) 4 (2 2 ) 46.9 minutes 26.7 minutes As seen in Table 4.15, the average amount o f time for each usage o f CCAP was 46.9 minutes; the majority o f the subjects spent at least half an hour each time they used C-CAP. 67 E ase o f Using C -C A P the first tim e and the last tim e The respondents were asked how easy it was to use C-CAP the first time and the last time they used it. Their responses are shown in Table 4.16. Table 4. 16 How easy was it to use C-CAP the first time and last time that you used it? R esponse C ategory Very hard to use (1) Hard to use (2) Neutral (3) Easy to use (4) Very easy to use (5) Total Mean Standard Deviation H ow easy first tim e? No. (% ) 0 (0 ) 0 (0 ) 3 (1 7 ) 9 (5 0 ) 6 (3 3 ) 18 4.2 0.7 How easy last tim e? No. (% ) 0 (0 ) 0 (0 ) 2 (1 1 ) 5 (28) 11(61) 18 4.5 0.7 As seen in Table 4.16, 17% responded neutrally to how easy it was to use the first time; 50% responded it was easy to use the first time; and 33% responded that it was very easy to use the first time. In contrast, 11% responded neutrally to how easy it was to use the last time; 28% responded it was easy to use the last time; and 61% responded that it was very easy to use the last time. The mean o f the last time usage o f C-CAP had greatly improved in comparison to the first time usage o f C-CAP. 68 Using C-CAP from hard drive or floppy drive The respondents were asked how they configured the C-CAP program for use on their computer. The concept was whether they copied it to the hard drive o f their computer or used it in floppy drive. Their responses are shown in Table 4.17. Table 4. 17 How did you configure C-CAP for use on your computer? Response Category Copied it to hard drive Used it in floppy drive Both Total No. (%) 14(78) 3 (1 7 ) 1 (6) 18 As seen in Table 4.17, 78% used it on their hard drive, 17% used it from their floppy drive; and 6% used both the hard drive and the floppy drive. Rate the importance o f each feature of C-CAP. The respondents were asked to rate the importance o f each feature o f CCAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.18. As seen in Table 4.18, 22% responded by rating “password protection” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 50% rated “password protection” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “password protection” was 2.5. Table 4. 18 Rate the importance o f each feature o f C-CAP N = 18 Password Protection Show Bar G ra p h Printout W ro ng Answers Review Previous Sessions Function Keys Screen Color C-CA P Response Response C ategory No. ( % ) No. (% ) No. (% ) No. (% ) No. (% ) No. ( % ) Not very important (1) 6 (3 3 ) 2(11) 0(0) 1 (6) 0(0) Not important 3 (17) 3 (17) 2(H ) 3 (17) (2) Neutral (3) 5 (28) 4 (2 2 ) Important (4) 2 (11) 7 (39) 2 (11) 6 (33) Very important 2(H) 2( 11) Mean 2.5 Standard Deviation 1.4 C -C A P M anual Use C -C A P at home No. (% ) No. (% ) No. ( % ) 1 (6) 1 (6) 2(H ) 3 (17) 3 (17) 5(28) 3 (17) 2 (1 1 ) 1 (6) 6 (33) 11 (61) 10(56) 6(33) 9 (5 0 ) 6 (3 3 ) 5(28) 3(17) 6 (3 3 ) 5 (28) 4 (2 2 ) 8 (44) 3 (17) 1 (6) 2(H) 0(0) 2( 11) 0(0) 4( 22) 3.2 4.1 3.3 3.1 2.7 3.3 1.0 l.l 0.8 0.8 3.3 l.l 2.9 1.2 0.9 14 Ability (5) 70 Fifty percent responded by rating “show bar graph” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 28% rated “show bar graph” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “show bar graph” was 3.2. Seventy-seven percent responded by rating “printout wrong answers” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a I to 5 rating scale; 11% rated “printout wrong answers” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “printout wrong answers” was 4.1. Forty-five percent responded by rating “review previous sessions” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 23% rated “review previous sessions” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “review previous sessions” was 3.3. Twenty-three percent responded by rating “function keys” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 17% rated “function keys” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “function keys” was 3.1. Eleven percent responded by rating “screen color” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 34% rated “screen color” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “screen color” was 2.7. Forty-four percent responded by rating “C-CAP response ability” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 23% rated “C-CAP response ability” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “C-CAP response ability” was 3.3. Twenty-eight percent responded by rating “C-CAP manual” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 22% rated “C-CAP manual” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “C-CAP m anual” was 2.944. Forty-four percent responded by 71 rating “use C-CAP at home” as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 23% rated “use C-CAP at hom e” as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for “use C-CAP at home” was 3.3. Copy C-CAP for other person The respondents were asked if they copied the C-CAP program for other persons to use. Their responses are shown in Table 4.19. Table 4. 19 Did you ever make a copy o f C-CAP for another person? Response Category Yes No Total No. (%) 0 (0 ) 18 (100) 18 (100) As seen in Table 4.19, none o f respondents copied C-CAP for another person. Using C-CAP with another person The respondents were asked if they used C-CAP with another person. Only one respondent said he/she used C-CAP with his/her colleague. Reviewing a prior session o f C-CAP The respondents were asked if they reviewed a prior session o f C-CAP 72 when doing the C-CAP field test. Their responses are shown in Table 4.20. Table 4. 20 Using C-CAP, did you ever review a prior session o f C-CAP? Response Category Yes No Total No. (%) 8 (44) 10(56) 18 As seen in Table 4.20, 44% responded that they reviewed a prior session; 56% responded that they had not used the reviewing a prior session function. Reason for reviewing a prior session o f C-CAP The respondents were asked why they reviewed a prior session o f C-CAP? Their responses are shown in Table 4.20.1. As seen in Table 4.20.1, among those who reviewed previous sessions, 25% reviewed the previous sessions in order to see how the review feature worked; 63% reviewed previous sessions in order to compare two or more prior Table 4.20. 1 Why did you review a prior session o f C-CAP? Response Category To see how the review feature worked To compare two or more prior scores Both Total No. (%) 2 (2 5 ) 5 (6 3 ) 1(12) 8 73 scores; and 12% reviewed previous sessions for both seeing how the review feature worked and comparing two or more prior scores. Problems using C-CAP The respondents were asked what problems they had when using C-CAP. Three respondents said that they did not have any problems at all, and fifteen respondents described their problems while using the C-CAP program. There were two types o f problems described by these respondents. One type o f problem, the type that is the focus for this research, was related to various aspects o f the computer program. The other type o f problem, not the focus o f this research, was related to aspects o f the core competency content. These are separated into two categories and shown below. The following is a list o f problems regarding the C-CAP computer program, written verbatim. No printer so could not see wrong answers or have hard copies o f scores, etc. to compare for improvement (1) Offer an option to display the questions the agent got wrong on the screen, rather that having to print them out each time - save a tree! (1) Not able to leam from my mistakes by printing (1) Not seeing what answers I answered wrong (1) Not enough time to use it. 74 Suggest that printouts o f scores, questions, etc. be automatically dated by the computer so that when the agent reviews his/her past work there is a date reference. (1) Current system requires student to choose between print out o f either scores or answers. Need to be able to allow both. (1) Offer an option to recall correct/incorrect questions and answers on any given test, rather than ju st being able to recall the scores (1) Getting it started (1) 1 had difficulty determining if 1 had tried all 10 core competencies. The program does not register them unless you exit and re-enter (1) Having the time not getting the wrong answers (1) Not having the ability to go back to a previous question (1) I think I forget the first password I used so couldn't find what I'd done previously. I also would have liked being able to go back just one or two questions rather than all the way back to # 1 (1) Password (1) Could not use the program from my hard drive (1) The following is a list o f problems regarding the C-CAP content, not the C-CAP computer program, written verbatim. Was and still confused as to its purpose. The program's concept o f Extension work is o f the old ways, does not really "fit" me (1) Not really but I did not find the questions very relevant so I never went through all the sections (1) The questions are very academic level and not related as much to implementation and applying research to general audience "Sometime the 75 reality o f doing something is quite different then the written academic methods" (1) I would like to go back and look at questions on the computer screen after I had taken the test. I don't understand questions 37-45 o f your questionnaire. I didn't find anything on C-CAP that give me answers. Did I miss something? (1) Help from other people using C-CAP The respondents were asked if they got help from other people during the C-CAP field test. Sixteen o f the respondents said they did not get help from other people. Two o f the respondents said they got help from other people such as getting it started and accessing the diskette. Knowing other people using C-CAP The respondents were asked if they knew anyone else in M ichigan State University Extension that was using C-CAP during the C-CAP field test. Thirteen o f the respondents said they did not know anyone else using C-CAP. Five o f them said they knew other people using C-CAP. O f those five, three o f them discussed their use o f C-CAP with one another. Helping others in their use o f C-CAP The respondents were asked if they helped others use C-CAP. None o f the respondents helped other people. R atin g in term s o f helpfulness o f C -C A P The respondents were asked how they would rate C-CAP in terms o f helpfulness. Their responses are shown in Table 4.21. Table 4. 21 How would you rate C-CAP regarding helpfulness? Response C ategory 1 (Not at all helpful) 2 3 4 5 (Very helpful) Total Mean Standard Deviation No. (% ) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 5 (2 8 ) 4 (2 2 ) 3 (1 7 ) 18 3.1 1.3 As seen in Table 4.21, 39% responded by rating its helpfulness as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 34% rated its helpfulness as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for helpfulness was 3.1. R atin g in term s o f ease o f use The respondents were asked how they would rate C-CAP in terms o f ease o f use. Their responses are shown in Table 4.22. 77 Table 4. 22 How would you rate C-CAP regarding ease o f use? Response Category 1 (Not at all easy to use) 2 3 4 5 (Very easy to use) Total Mean Standard Deviation No. (%) 0 (0 ) 1 (6) 5 (2 8 ) 6 (33) 6 (3 3 ) 18 3.9 0.9 As seen in Table 4.22, 66% responded by rating the ease o f use as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 6% rated the ease o f use as low with a 2. The mean rating for the ease o f use was 3.9. Rating in terms o f being worthwhile The respondents were asked how they would rate C-CAP in terms o f worthwhileness. Their responses are shown in Table 4.23. Table 4. 23 How would you rate C-CAP regarding being worthwhile? Response Category 1 (Not at all worthwhile) 2 3 4 5 (Very worthwhile) Total Mean Standard Deviation No. (%) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 3 (1 7 ) 6 (3 3 ) 18 3.3 1.5 78 As seen in Table 4.23, 50% responded by rating its worthwhileness as high with either a 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 rating scale; 34% rated its helpfulness as low with either a 1 or 2. The mean rating for worthwhileness was 3.3. Com puter Operating System The respondents were asked what kind o f operating system they used during the C-CAP field test. Their responses are shown in Table 4.24. Table 4. 24 W hat kind o f operating system did the computer have where you mainly used C-CAP? Response Category W indows DOS OS/2 Total No. (%) 12(67) 6 (3 3 ) 0 (0 ) 18 (100) As seen in table 4.24, 67% responded that they used W indows, and 33% used DOS. Time o f day that C-CAP was used The respondents were asked what time(s) o f the day they primarily used C-CAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.25. 79 Table 4. 25 At what time(s) o f the day did you primarily use C-CAP? R esponse C ategory Early Morning (6:30 am - 8:00 am) M orning (8:30 am - 10:00 am) Late Morning (10:00 am - 12 Noon) Lunch Time (12 Noon - 1:00 pm) Early Afternoon (1 :00 pm - 3:00 pm) Late Afternoon (3:00 pm - 5:00 pm) Evening (5:00 pm - 10:00 pm) Late Night (10:00 pm - 6:00 am) No. (% ) 4 (2 2 ) 4 (2 2 ) 5 (2 8 ) 1 (6) 4 (2 2 ) 6 (3 3 ) 5 (2 8 ) 2 (1 1 ) As seen in Table 4.25, 22% responded that they used C-CAP during the Early M orning (6:30 am - 8:00 am); 22% used C-CAP during the M orning (8:00 am - 10:00 am); 28% used C-CAP in the Late Morning (10:00 am - 12 Noon); 6% used C-CAP at Lunch Time (12:00 Noon - 1:00 pm); 22% responded that they used C-CAP during at Early Afternoon (1:00 pm - 3:00 pm); 33% responded that they used C-CAP in the Late Afternoon (3:00 pm - 5:00 pm); 28% used C-CAP in the Evening (5:00 pm - 10:00 pm); and, 11% used C-CAP in the Late Night (10:00 pm - 6:00 am). A ssessing C -C A P a reas The respondents were asked how many core competency areas they accessed each time they used C-CAP. Their responses are shown in Table 4.26. 80 Table 4. 26 How many different core competency areas did you typically access each time you used C-CAP? Response Category One area More than one area Total No. (%) 2 (1 1 ) 16(89) 18(100) As seen in Table 4.26, 11% responded they accessed only one area, and 89% responded that they accessed more than one area. Among them, 69% accessed less than four areas, 31% accessed more than four areas, and six percent accessed more than seven areas. Feedback provided by C-CAP The respondents were asked to describe the ways in which C-CAP provided feedback to them. Seventeen o f the respondents described the ways in which C-CAP provided feedback as follows: Printout o f score (1) Do not really know (1) Compares what I know/believe/value with what MSU-E state staff feel I should know/believe/value (1) Give a "quick fix" picture o f core competency status (1) Show areas I need to improve (1) Not enough time (1) 81 Very little (1) Self evaluation (1) W hat I need to know, what I want to know, what I already know and 1 thought I would learn more (1) Did not really tell me anything I did not already know (1) It did not, I did not find many o f the questions relevant to what Extension staff actually do in their jobs in the fields (1) The scores and printouts o f the questions missed (1) Scores and wrong answers (1) I repeated some progresses based on initial results (1) I'd like to know the answers - why was wrong (1) Given the scores for each competency to see where I need more inservice (1) Helped to identify areas where I was not knowledgeable (1) Strengths o f C-CAP The respondents were asked to describe the strengths o f C-CAP. Seventeen o f the 18 respondents provided comments. The 17 comments regarding the strengths o f C-CAP are as follows: Easy o f use (4) Learn organization expectations (3) Instant feedback as to what's wrong (2) 82 personal/private (2) Good evaluation tool (1) It is self-directed (1) Review my skills (1) Make you step back and consider overall goals and methods (1) I could get a print-out o f questions I missed (1) Applicability, Relevance (1) W eaknesses o f C-CAP The respondents were asked to describe the weaknesses o f C-CAP. Sixteen o f the 18 provided comments. There were two types o f weaknesses described by the respondents. One type o f weakness, the type that is the focus for this research, was related to various aspects o f the computer program. The other type o f weakness, not the focus for this research, was related to various aspects o f the core competency content. These are separated into two categories and shown below. The following is a list o f 5 weaknesses identified the respondents regarding the C-CAP computer program. Not enough feedback (1) Some groups are too long to do in one setting (1) 83 I would like to be able to see a print out o f all questions (1) May intimidate non-com puter users o f which Extension has many (1) Does not give users a baseline for comparison (Is 65% terrible, OK, or g rea t?)(1) The following is a list o f weaknesses regarding the C-CAP content, not the CCAP computer program. I did not like some o f the ambiguity in possible answers (2) Questions were ambiguous (1) Looks at the extension educator through an old outdated perspective (1) We have not been taught what they are attem pting to test for in any systematic approach (1) I'm sure some o f these questions had no good answers or now I deemed right (1) I like immediate feedback, questions were ambiguous (1) Some questions seem repetitive and ambiguous (1) By doing this you can see that academic level wrote the process. I'd like to have seen more input from field staff (1) Same questions need to be checked for accuracy and interpretation (1) Improvement o f C-CAP The respondents were asked to describe how C-CAP can be improved. Fourteen o f the 18 respondents provided comments. There were two types o f 84 improvements described by the respondents. One type o f improvement, the type that is the focus for this research, was related to various aspects o f the computer program. The other type o f improvement, not the focus for this research, was related to aspects o f the core competency content. These are separated into two categories and shown below. The following is a list o f improvements regarding the C-CAP computer program. Provide baseline for comparison (1) Expanded (1) Adding sound would be nice or expanding the system into a CD-ROM program where agents can access articles on areas in which they may not be knowledgeable. Note: (the greatest problem was finding time for the system during work hours) (1) The following is a list o f improvements regarding the C-CAP contents and not the C-CAP computer program. Fix some o f the ambiguity in possible answers (1) Providing training to staff so that the material being tested is useful and relevant - otherwise why even have such an evaluation tool (1) Changing the assessment tool on regular basis (1) Provide set up so other areas o f expertise can plug in their questions and answers. All the areas o f expertise are o f need o f this (1) More appropriate questions (1) 85 It would help to have some rationale for some (1) Summary o f Usage of C-CAP During the field test, the majority o f the respondents did the field test alone and did the field test at their office. They thought the more they used CCAP the easier it was and that C-CAP was a good educational program. Other comments included that there are a lot o f strengths in C-CAP, that C-CAP is a good way to learn about the organization and expectations, that skills can be evaluated, as well as ease o f use, privacy, portability, instant feedback, identification o f areas within cores that administrators feel are important, and that it is self-directed. The weaknesses o f C-CAP included that some questions were repeated, that there was ambiguity in possible answers, and that some groups took too long to do in one sitting. Value o f C-CAP The third general area reflected in the research questions was how Extension field staff valued C-CAP. The following questions concerned the description and assessment o f the value o f the Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP) by Extension field staff. The following two research questions guided the research: 86 1. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 2. In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success? In the following section, the findings o f Extension field sta ffs value o f CCAP are presented. Throughout the questionnaire, there were a number o f items which provided detailed responses o f how Extension field staff valued C-CAP. Extension field staff were asked to respond to a five point Likert type scale for each item where 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree. Their responses are shown in Table 4.27. As seen in Table 4.27, the mean o f all questions regarding the value o f CCAP is above the midpoint o f the scale. Two o f them are rated at 4 and above. “C-CAP is a self-directed learning tool” is ranked highest, it is equal to 4.4. “CCAP is a user-friendly program ” is ranked second, and its mean is equal to 4.0. In contrast, “It is possible to learn as much about my core competency through CCAP as it is through learning in a workshop setting” is ranked the lowest. “CCAP is more motivational than attending a class” is ranked the second lowest. Finally, the respondents were asked to give any final comments they might 87 Table 4. 27 Respondents’ valuing o f C-CAP by items. C a te g o ry /I te m C -C A P is a se lf-d irec te d learn in g tool. C -C A P is a u se r-frie n d ly pro g ram . C -C A P is helpful fo r p ro fe ssio n a l im p ro v em en t. C -C A P is a self-d irec te d c o m p ete n cy d ev e lo p m e n t tool. C -C A P p ro v id es a m o tiv atio n al w a y to assess m y co re co m p ete n cy stren g th s/w eak n esses. C -C A P help ed m e to und erstan d areas in w hich I n eed to im prove. C -C A P is n o t a very' risky w ay to leam . I feel that u sin g C -C A P is an efficien t m eth o d to leam ab o u t m y co re com petencies. T he in form ation w as presen ted thro u g h C -C A P at a p ace that en ab led m e to leam . C -C A P 's co m p ete n cy areas a re clea rly d efin ed . C -C A P is a g o o d ex am p le o f p articip a to ry learning. C -C A P is m o re m o tiv atio n al th a n read in g a book. C -C A P to p ic s are se q u en ced in a log ical o rd er to en h an ce learning. I learned so m e n ew ideas and co n c ep ts from C -C A P . S ince I h av e used C -C A P , I h av e a b etter u n d ersta n d in g o f m y co re co m petency. T h ro u g h m y use o f C -C A P I n o w know m o re ab o u t m y sp ecific c o re co m petency. C -C A P is m o re m o tiv atio n al th an atten d in g a class. It is p o ssib le to leam as m uch ab o u t m y co re co m p eten cy th ro u g h C -C A P as it is th ro u g h learn in g in a w o rk sh o p setting. M ean A g re e m e n t 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 S.D . 3.9 1.0 3.8 3.7 0.9 1.0 3.6 0.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 3.4 3.2 1.4 3.1 1.2 3.1 3.1 1.4 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 have regarding the C-CAP program. Twelve o f the respondents provided comments. There were two types o f final comments described by the respondents. One type o f comment, the type that is the focus for this research, related to various aspects o f the computer program. The other type o f comment, not the focus o f this research, related to various aspects o f the core competency content. These are separated into two categories and shown below. 88 The following is a list o f final comments regarding the C-CAP computer program. I think it could be a good program, but as you can see from my usage it wasn't interesting enough for me to utilize it, maybe if I felt it was really a learning tool - I didn't get that out o f it (1) I understand this to be a beta version. N o doubt the questions will be checked for reliability and validity in the final version. This is necessary ( 1) This was not high on my priority list but I finally got to it and enjoyed doing it. My computer at work is not hooked to a printer - we made a copy o f what I had done on hard disk and I used it on a 2nd computer at work and mine at home. Diskette copy is enclosed (1) Good tool for core competency development. However, it will not do the job by itself (1) Loved it. W ould like to continue to use. I like the reporting time limit. I really like the confidentiality (1) There were times I felt very frustrated not being able to discuss questions and answers with someone else. If there were some suggested study materials that might help. I was also frustrated by not being able to go back to the last question I had completed. Though I'm becoming more adept at the computer I still don't know enough and only found out what I needed to know when I went to reinstall the program. Manual need to be very specific, I don't think passwords are needed (1) The following is a list o f final comments regarding the C-CAP content, not the C-CAP computer program. Need to take a look at the role o f the Extension educator before continuing. Needs a fresh look (1) Having a device that we can periodically use for self-assessment and/or learning at our own pace without traveling is a great idea. However, I 89 found many o f the items to involve issues never clearly presented to staff and/or more o f a personal opinion/preference rather than important, basic fact (1) I am still not sure what I gained from the time I put into this effort (1) Test o f relevant information that Extension staff need to know in order to be competent (1) Sorry I did not take the time needed to really appreciate the value o f CCAP. I do believe it is a tool which has value in assisting staff in gaining a better understanding o f core competencies (1) Concept is good! (1) I'd like to see answers given so you can use it more as a learning tool. Also the need to realize the counties have a variety o f resources. In actuality we could have 83 different counties with all different resources. I found that the questions in applying and wording with program participants related more to a higher academic - social economic background (1) Summary o f Value o f C-CAP The majority o f the respondents thought that C-CAP was a self-directed and user-friendly learning tool, and not a very risky way to learn. Other comments included that C-CAP was helpful for professional improvement, that it helped field staff to understand areas in which they needed to improve, that CCAP also provided a motivational way to assess core competency strengths/weaknesses, and moreover, the majority o f the respondents thought they learned some new ideas and concepts from C-CAP and that C-CAP was a good exam ple o f participatory learning. 90 Findings of Diskette Data Based on the study, Core Competencies for Extension Service Professionals: Selected Resource Materials for the MSU-E Core Competency Development Team (Levine et. al. 1994), the contents o f the C-CAP program included the following ten areas o f competency: 1. Professional and Career Development 2. Educational and Informational Technology 3. W ritten and Spoken Communication and Skills 4. Program Planning and Development 5. Program Implementation 6. Applied Research and Evaluation 7. Organizational Knowledge, Leadership and M anagement 8. Diversity and Pluralism 9. M arketing and Public Relations 10. Audience Identification and Development Each area o f competency included 11 to 49 questions, and 2 to 5 answers related to each question. The respondents could select each individual area, then C-CAP guided the respondents to either complete the questions according to their own pace, to terminate the program, to access more than one area. 91 There were a total o f 14 respondents who returned the diskettes. The number o f uses o f C-CAP and the num ber o f users o f each C-CAP program area were analyzed, and responses are shown in Table 4.28. As seen in table 4.28, the minimum number o f uses for a C-CAP program area was 15 times in area 10 - Audience Identification and Development, and the maximum number o f uses for a C-CAP program area was 31 times which was area 3 - W ritten and Spoken Communication and Skills. The average usage o fC CAP was 4 times. The total usage time for all areas was 210. Table 4. 28 Statistics o f collecting diskette data Uses per U ser 22 No. o f U sers per A rea 14 25 14 1.8 31 11 2.9 20 22 20 18 12 12 11 10 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 20 17 15 12 12 10 1.7 1.4 1.5 C -C A P A rea No. of Uses Area 1 - Professional and Career Development Area 2 - Educational and Informational Technology Area 3 - Written and Spoken Communication and Skills Area 4 - Program Planning and Development Area 5 - Program Implementation Area 6 - Applied Research and Evaluation Area 7 - Organizational Knowledge, Leadership and M anagement Area 8 - Diversity and Pluralism Area 9 - M arketing and Public Relations Area 10 - Audience Identification and Development 1.6 92 There were a total o f 14 respondents who returned the diskettes whose responses are shown in Table 4.29. As seen in Table 4.29, the majority o f the respondents accessed more than three core competency areas. Only one respondent accessed only one area, and one respondent accessed two areas. Relationship Between the Use, Value of C-CAP and Demographic Variables The relationship between how long a person had been using a computer, the ease with which C-CAP was used, and the relationship between how many hours o f use per week and ease o f use o f C-CAP was analyzed. The results are shown in Tables 4.30 and 4.31. Table 4. 29 Num ber o f users for competency areas Number o f Categories Used C-CAP in all 10 areas Used C-CAP in 9 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 8 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 7 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 6 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 5 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 4 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 3 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 2 o f 10 areas Used C-CAP in 1 o f 10 areas Total Number of Unique Users 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 14 93 Table 4. 30 Relationship between how long a person has been using a computer and ease o f use o f C-CAP Dependent Variable Easy the first time Easy the last time Relationship to Years o f Using a Computer 0.1361 0.2463 As seen in Tables 4.30, the correlation coefficients between how long a person had been using a computer and the ease o f using C-CAP for the first time is 0.1361. The correlation coefficients between how long a person had been using a computer and the ease o f using C-CAP for the last time is 0.2463. Both coefficients are considered to show a weak relationship. Table 4. 31 Relationship between how many hours per week used and ease o f use o f C-CAP Dependent Variable Easy the first time Easy the last time Relationship to Hours Used per W eek 0.1966 0.5184* As seen in Tables 4.31, the correlation coefficients between total hours o f using a computer per week and the ease o f using C-CAP for the first time is 0.1966. The correlation coefficients between total hours using a computer per 94 week and the ease o f using C-CAP for the last time is 0.5184, this coefficient is considered to be a moderately strong relationship. A supplementary analysis was conducted to further examine the C-CAP program in relation to its value. This supplementary analysis is presented in Appendix E. Summary In this chapter, the findings o f the pertinent data have been presented. Because the data are interrelated, for the sake o f clarity, the chapter was divided into several sections. The first section examined the field staff demographic characteristics. The second section examined the MSU-E staff usage o f C-CAP. The third section examined the MSU-E field staff value o f C-CAP. In the next chapter, a summary o f the data will be provided, conclusions will be drawn, and an analysis, as well as recommendations, will be shared. CHAPTER V SUM M ARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS Introduction This study is concerned with investigating how the users o f the C-CAP program use and value the program. There are four main research questions which served to focus the investigation. These research questions are: 1. In what ways is C-CAP used? 2. W hat are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users? 3. In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators? 4. In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success? Summary o f Findings As has been presented in Chapter IV, findings have been derived for all four o f the study's research questions. Regarding Research Question One, "In what ways is C-CAP used?," the study has shown the following: 95 96 The C-CAP program is used by the M ichigan State University Extension staff mainly in their offices. This finding is easily understood when it is known that 100% o f the respondents have access to office computers for their own use. The majority o f the respondents indicated that the primary times for use o f CCAP at their offices was either in the late morning - 10:00 am until 12:00 noon, or in the late afternoon - 3:30 pm until 5:00 pm. As could be expected, the least used time for C-CAP was during the mid-day period o f 12:00 noon until 1:00 pm, with the assumption being that most o f the respondents would be eating lunch at that time. The majority o f the respondents used the C-CAP program by themselves without involving other people. This includes the actual use o f the program for their self-assessment and also the need to gain assistance from others if they had problems with the program. In only two instances did respondents ask others for help in some aspect o f getting the C-CAP program to initially operate on their computer. Additionally, when asked if they had discussed their use o f the C-CAP program with other persons, the majority indicated that they had not. This finding is supportive o f the concept o f self-directed learning, self­ directed learning describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help o f others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing 97 and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes (Knowles, 1975). The majority o f the respondents indicated that the C-CAP program was easy to use the very first time that they tried it. The major problem associated with the use o f the C-CAP program was the user forgetting his/her password and not being able to review prior scores on the program due to this. The qualities o f the C-CAP program that they found most important were that it was easy to use, self-directed in nature, user friendly, private, able to provide immediate feedback and it accommodated their individual learning pace. Though the C-CAP program is designed as a non-W indows program and can be used in either a W indows or non-W indows environment, 67% o f the respondents used the program within a W indows environment. No single problem was identified by a large group o f the respondents regarding their use o f C-CAP. The C-CAP program consists o f 10 different self-assessment areas and it was found that the majority o f the C-CAP users accessed more than one o f these areas during their field trial use o f the program. Only two respondents used the C-CAP program in a limited m anner and accessed only one o f the selfassessment areas. The written and spoken communication and skill area was the most used area which was used nearly three time per user. The m arketing and 98 public relations area was the least used area which was used less than one and h alf times per user. The review feature o f the C-CAP program, allowing the user to review scores o f prior sessions, was used by the C-CAP users. Research Question Two focused on the strengths and weaknesses o f the CCAP program. "What are the strengths and weaknesses o f C-CAP as seen by its users?" The findings associated with Research Question Two clarify' that the extension educators found the C-CAP program to be private, user-friendly, and self-directed. These are all viewed as strengths o f the C-CAP program. Since the C-CAP program is designed for self-assessment it is designed with a safeguard to limit who can access the scores o f the user. By using a password at the beginning o f the program, the C-CAP program will only allow the viewing o f prior scores by a user who knows the password o f the individual whose prior scores are to be seen. This concern for privacy was seen as an important feature and a strength by the users o f the program, when they were asked directly on the survey form. However, an entirely different understanding can be drawn from the data collection diskette. On this diskette, which documents all o f the times each study participant accessed/used the C-CAP program, it is apparent that a num ber o f the respondents could not rem em ber their password at each use o f the program and continually created new user’s Ids in order to gain access to the C-CAP program. 99 By so doing, it was impossible for these subjects to review prior uses o f C-CAP. This unique situation, whereby they responded on the survey that password protection was good yet in use found it to stand in their way, is a very confounding finding o f the study. Another strength o f C-CAP as seen by the users is that it is a user friendly program - reported by 83% o f the users. Aspects o f user friendliness included the availability o f the program to be used at a time convenient to the extension educator and the ability o f the program to allow the user to operate at his/her own pace. Respondents also indicated that they viewed the C-CAP program as an example o f participatory learning. An important strength o f the C-CAP program in the view o f the extension educators who participated in the field test was that it allowed them to be self­ directed in their use o f the program. The C-CAP program could be used by them without having to depend on anyone else for the assessment o f their competency. The program provided immediate feedback on their skills. This is in support o f (Belasco and Trice, 1969) who suggest that learning persistence and effectiveness are enhanced if adults can obtain feedback about (1) the things they are learning, and (2) the extent and type o f change in competency that results from educative activity. 100 In terms o f weaknesses in the C-CAP program, respondents indicated two different categories o f weaknesses - those weaknesses associated with the design o f the program and those weaknesses associated with the content o f the specific questions/answers. Since the focus o f this research was on the design o f the program, this discussion will only examine the weaknesses in that area. It should also be understood that the actual questions/answers included in the C-CAP program were created for the purposes o f the field testing and were not designed to be the questions/answers eventually defined for full usage by the Extension staff. There were identified by the users two main weaknesses in the C-CAP program. The first o f these weaknesses was the concept o f a baseline for comparison o f one's scores derived by the C-CAP program. Though the design o f the C-CAP program allows the user to compare his/her scores attained in successive uses o f the program, there is no indication within the program o f how the user compares to some normative standard. In other words, if a user achieves a score o f 65%, there is no indication o f how "good" or "bad" such a score is. The second weakness identified by the users was the m anner in which CCAP provided feedback to the user regarding his/her incorrect responses. The CCAP program provides a printout o f the incorrect answers without any indication o f which answer choice might be the correct one. It was felt that it might be 101 helpful if the correct answer was provided within the feedback mechanism. This would allow the user to know not only which items he/she got incorrect but also what the correct response to each item was. Research Question Three focused on the ways in which the C-CAP program is able to improve the competency o f Extension educators. "In what ways does C-CAP improve the competency o f Extension educators?" The findings associated with Research Question Three show that the users o f the C-CAP program felt that it assisted them in understanding and learning more about their competency, helped them know areas in which they needed to improve, and that such a program as C-CAP is helpful for professional improvement. Users o f the C-CAP program during the field test felt that it was a motivational way to improve their professional competency and the majority agreed that they were able to learn new ideas and concepts through the use o f the C-CAP program. Research Question Four focused on the ways in which the C-CAP program can be improved in the future. Regarding Research Question Four, "In what ways can C-CAP be improved in order to help Extension educators achieve career, and therefore, personal success?" the study has shown the following: 102 The C-CAP program would be improved if, in addition to recalling the scores o f previous sessions when the review feature is activated, the C-CAP program also redisplayed the correct and incorrect items. This redisplaying o f the correct and incorrect items would allow a more detailed review o f progress by the user. In addition to providing feedback to the user in terms o f the score and incorrect items, it was felt by the field test users that the C-CAP program would be improved if actual learning resources were identified. This listing o f learning resources could assist the user in improving his/her competency. A detailed manual to assist the user was identified as another improvement that would improve the C-CAP program. Such a manual would provide clarity o f the CCAP program features and therefore provide more o f a guarantee that users would make full use o f the program. The users suggested that a way to guarantee the quality o f the questions used in the C-CAP program would be to regularly change/update the content. This would allow the program to be more dynamic and to more accurately reflect the practices o f Extension educators. In addition, ambiguous items could be identified and removed and more appropriate questions in some areas could be brought into the program. 103 Limitations It is important for the reader to understand the very severe im itations o f this study and care should be taken into trying to extend these findings to other situations. These limitations are evident due to the very small sample size, the large number o f non-respondents and the exploratory nature o f the research. Exploratory studies o f this type are important as initial steps into a new area but can not, and should not, be used to explain situations in other studies and populations. C onclusions The following conclusions are drawn from the findings o f this study. Conclusion 1. It is possible to develop a computer-based self-assessment program to facilitate the learning o f Extension field staff. Clearly, the C-CAP computer program was designed as a functioning selfassessment computer program that could be used by individuals to assist in their own self-assessment. However, the real question was not so much in the development o f the program as it was in the issue o f whether or not the field staff o f M ichigan State University Extension would actually use the program. W ould individuals go through the steps to install the program on a computer? For many field staff who are not assigned their own computer, would they find a computer 104 that they could access for their use during the field testing? W ould the field staff take time out o f their busy schedule to actually use the program? It is these questions that the research attempted to more fully understand. I f the field staff would not go through the steps to put the C-CAP computer program to use, then regardless of how good the program was as a self-assessment tool it would have limited value in actual practice. The findings o f this research clearly indicate that it is possible to develop such a program and that the program was, in fact, used by the Extension field staff. The concept o f the C-CAP program was compelling enough for field staff to take the time to actually install it on a computer and the computer was most typically at their office and not at home. The flexibility and ease o f use o f the CCAP program allowed the field staff to fit their use o f the program into their very busy and demanding schedule. Regardless o f the time o f day, if the Extension field staff member had a few minutes o f available time the program was available to be used. Conclusion 2. M aintaining one's privacy while using a self-assessment computer program is not an important concern o f the user. A major design feature o f the C-CAP self-assessment com puter program was the inclusion o f password protection that allows the user to effectively hide the results o f his/her self-assessment from the view o f others. The findings o f 105 this research indicate that the inclusion o f such a privacy feature was not an important concern o f the users. In fact, analysis o f the actual computer files returned to the researcher show that, for a number o f users, the password was potentially more o f an annoyance than it was a help. For this group o f users the concern was not so much on privacy as it was on actually rem embering the password that they had chosen. In subsequent uses o f the C-CAP program these users were blocked from reading their prior scores due to their entering o f unique passwords each time they used the program. In essence the C-CAP program responded to these users as if each use by them was by a different person. The privacy feature was not important enough for them to remember from use to use. However, it should be pointed out, that only selected individuals from throughout M ichigan State University Extension participated in this research and in no case was there a situation where an entire county office staff were given access to the C-CAP program. It could be expected that in such situations, which would more closely resemble the actual implementation o f C-CAP throughout Michigan State University Extension, where each user knew that many others were accessing the program on the same com puter that the value o f the privacy o f a password would be increased. The motivation, therefore, to remember one's own password could be expected to be considerably stronger. 106 Conclusion 3. The instruction manual that accompanied the C-CAP selfassessment program was an important feature o f the total self-assessment package. Computer programs have "grown up" with a tradition that seems to clearly indicate that a manual must be included with the program but the quality o f the manual is often less than acceptable. Frequently written by computer programmers, the manuals that accompany computer programs are often written in awkward language, lack consistency o f presentation, and are not prepared with a clear understanding o f the user needs that must be facilitated through the manual. In many cases the manual is included more as a requirement o f the sale o f a computer program rather than to actually facilitate the use o f the program. For this research the manual was included in two forms - as a printed publication that accompanied the disks and also as a printable file included with the other files needed for running the program. The label on the program disk included clear instructions on how to print the manual that was included as a file. The users o f the C-CAP program indicated that the manual was an important part o f the total package. However, it was evident that a number o f the users did not consult the manual due to the type o f problems that they experienced and reported. Some users had initial difficulty in installing the program - a topic that was presented at the beginning o f the manual. And, for 107 one user who made a number o f phone calls to the researcher regarding help in using the program, each o f the questions that were asked o f the researcher were dealt with in the manual. It becomes clear that the inclusion o f a manual is important but it is also important to create some mechanism whereby the user actually reads the manual and is able to easily derive the needed information from the manual. Conclusion 4. An important aspect o f a self-assessment computer program is the feedback that is provided to the user. The availability o f feedback on their progress with the C-CAP computer program was a strong concern o f the users. It is through the availability o f timely and meaningful feedback that the learning potential o f a program such as the CCAP program can be enhanced. The inclusion o f such feedback appears to be an essential element in the program and without feedback it could be expected that the importance and value o f the program to the user would be greatly diminished. Conclusion 5. The investment in the development and dissemination o f a self-assessment computer program for Extension field staff is a good choice. The actual cost o f the development o f the C-CAP computer program was not very large. In fact, since the researcher was going to use the program as the basis for this research, much o f the time needed for program development was done by the researcher on his own and not charged to M ichigan State University 108 Extension. The other tangible costs associated with the C-CAP program, computer disks and printing, were minimal in nature and did not incur much expense. The reported value o f the C-CAP program, as perceived by the users, far outweighs the very small investm ent made to prepare the program. Certainly it will be difficult to maintain such an equitable cost situation in the future, but computer programs as a vehicle for self-assessment should not be avoided without first identifying real costs associated with the development. And, through the inclusion o f students as a major aspect o f such development it is possible to keep costs extremely low. Conclusion 6. A concern has emerged from this research regarding w hether or not Extension field staff will really use a device like C-CAP when it is made available to them. Though this research has looked primarily at the strengths and weaknesses o f the C-CAP program it should not be assumed that the program will actually be used regardless o f the strengths o f it. In particular this research indicates that it was difficult getting a large percentage o f those who volunteered to participate in the research to actually use C-CAP and complete the post-use survey. It may be necessary to accompany the general dissemination o f C-CAP with an extensive promotional program to attempt to entice field staff to actually use the program. 109 Conclusion 7. It is difficult for the respondent in survey research o f this nature to differentiate between providing feedback on the medium o f the selfassessment rather than the content o f the self-assessment. Many o f the respondents continually went beyond the computer program focus o f the research and the questions asked on the survey instrument and provided comments and regarding the content that was included in the C-CAP program. Though not solicited from the users, concerns were raised regarding the validity o f questions, the comprehensiveness o f questions and the potential alternative answers to questions. Since the C-CAP program that was used for the research was a preliminary version and the included questions were only tentative in nature, the survey instrument only focused on the workings o f the computer program itself and not the content o f the program. Through this research it has become clear that such a division between the medium o f the self-assessment and the content o f the self-assessment is an artificial one and not consistent with the expectations o f the users. In fact, it becomes apparent through this research that the medium o f the self-assessment and the content should not be separated but, in fact, should both be examined through the research. This would be consistent with the reality o f the users o f the program who do not differentiate between the medium and the content. 110 R ecom m endations The following recommendations are made as a result o f this research. Recommendation 1. It is recommended that the manual for the C-CAP program be reexamined and rewritten with the views o f the user clearly in mind. The information that is presented in the manual must respond to the problems that were identified in this research. In addition, it would seem most appropriate if a committee o f Extension field staff cooperated in the development o f the revised manual so that it might best fit their learning styles. Recommendation 2. It is recommended that computer programs such as CCAP can become a viable development focus for university-based organizations such as Extension if the organizations are able to effectively capitalize on the involvement o f students in the development efforts. The potential for including students in the development o f such programs is a major cost saving factor that makes such development extremely reasonable. In addition the opportunity for the students to gain direct experience in the development o f software is in direct support o f their academic pursuit. Recommendation 3. It is recommended that in further research o f this nature that the examination o f a computer program be conducted with a parallel Ill concern for the content o f the program. The two concerns, the medium and the content, should not be assumed to be separate and non-interacting functions. Recommendation 4. It is recommended that when conducting research of this nature that the researcher carefully examine the potential o f the research throughout the beginning stages and to periodically decide whether to proceed as planned, or to make changes in the plan. For instance, it might have been most appropriate in this research study to have stopped the study at an early stage in order to define a larger population base from which to draw a large sample. Recommendation 5. It is recommended that steps be taken in the redesign o f the C-CAP program to compensate for the inability o f some subjects to rem ember their password. This might be best accomodated by structuring the selection o f the password (“what is your birthday? what is the color o f your car?”, etc.) rather than the unstructured procedure o f selecting any password that was used with C-CAP. Recommendation 6. It is recommended that other areas o f Extension practice that can benefit from self-assessment and reflection be identified and examined for potential implementation through a computer self-assessment procedure. Recommendation 7. It is recommended that future research o f this nature focus more on a qualitative approach to build a stronger foundational view. 112 Through a qualitative approach it would be possible to collect richer data that would inform the researcher from the perspective o f the subject which is essential in exploratory studies o f this nature using a telephone survey technique or inperson interviews would seem to be approaches that would hold merit for research o f this nature. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A LETTERS AND CONSENT FORM January 10, 1995 Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; I'd like to ask your assistance in participating in the field testing o f the MSU-E Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP) computer program which will be the focus o f my doctoral dissertation research. As you may be aware, I have been working with Dr. Joe Levine for the past several months in the development o f a computer program that is designed to be used by MSU Extension staff to self-assess their core competency. The program has been through a series o f revisions and is now at a point where we need to have some feedback from MSUE staff on the program - its use and its value. If you would like to participate in this field testing o f C-CAP, here is what will be expected o f you: a) Use the C-CAP computer program. The latest version o f C-CAP will be sent to you for your use and exploration. You can use it at home, at the office, with colleagues, or wherever you'd like. 113 114 b) Complete and return a questionnaire. The questionnaire will be sent out approximately 10 weeks after you initially receive C-CAP. The questionnaire will include questions regarding your use o f C-CAP and your perceptions o f the value o f C-CAP. c) Copy some o f the C-CAP files for returning to us for analysis. This will provide further information regarding how often you used C-CAP, the specific subtests that you used, items that appear confusing, etc. If you agree to participate in this field testing, your identity will be kept confidential and you will not be asked at any time to reveal your name on either the questionnaire or the returned data files. Further, the identities o f those participating in the field testing will only be known to me and not disclosed to any other person. All records that show names o f participants in this research will be destroyed as soon as the data collection has been completed. The clear intention o f this research is to examine the use and value o f the C-CAP computer program to provide the basis for further improvement o f it and not to evaluate the competency o f Extension staff. I am in the process o f identifying 30 members o f MSU-E to participate in this research and I hope you will agree to be one o f them and try the new C-CAP program. I think you will find the experience interesting and not at all intrusive in your busy schedule. In fact, you can easily adjust your tryout o f C-CAP to whatever constraints you have. Would you please fill out the enclosed consent form to let me know whether or not you would like to participate. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, G uilin Cui D octoral C andidate 115 Field Test of the C-CAP Computer Program CONSENT FORM Please complete the appropriate section of this form and return in the enclosed stamped envelope as soon as possible. No, I do not want to participate in the field testing of C-CAP. I understand that 1 am in no way obliged in any way to participate in this research and my refusal to participate will be known only to the researcher and not reported to any other person. Name________________________________________ Yes, 1 would like to participate in the field testing of C-CAP. I understand that I will be receiving a computer diskette with the C-CAP program on it, that I will be expected to use it in my own way for approximately 10 weeks, and that after that time I will be expected to complete a questionnaire to assess my reactions to the use and value of C-CAP. In addition I will be expected to copy some of the C-CAP files for returning with the questionnaire. I further understand that my name/identify will in no way be used throughout this research and that all my responses will be made anonymously, that data will be reported in aggregated ways and no attempt will be made to identify me by name. In addition, the recording of my participation in this research along with the names of all participants in the research will be destroyed once the data collected phase has been completed. Name________________________________________ Signature_____________________________________ Mailing Address_______________________________ Date_________________________________________ Return this form to: Guilin Cui Agricultural & Extension Education 410 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1039 116 April 19, 1995 Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; Thank you for your participating in Core Competency Assessment Program (CCAP) field test, there is ten weeks since the C-CAP was shipped out. Enclosed are a C-CAP data collecting diskette and survey questionnaire to access your reactions to the use and value o f C-CAP. I hereby declare that your name/identity will in no way be used throughout this research and that all o f your response will be made anonymously. If you have any technical problems for extracting the C-CAP data, please feel free to contact me. My Email address is cui@ m suces.canr.msu.edu. When you extract the C-CAP data, only thing you need to do is type a:\extract.exe or b:\extract.exe on DOS prompt. Sincerely, G uilin Cui D octoral C andidate 117 May 26, 1995 Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; Three weeks ago I sent to you a questionnaire regarding the pilot testing o f the CCAP computer program. As o f this time I have not yet received your questionnaire and was hoping that it might soon be on the way to me. I know how busy this time o f year is for Extension staff and hope that it will be possible for you to find a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. In the event that you might have misplaced the original questionnaire and diskette, I am including in this envelope a second copy for your use. Please read over the original cover letter that is attached - it clarifies exactly what information I need from you. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns that I may be able to answer. I certainly appreciate your willingness to have tried C-CAP and look forward to your reactions on the questionnaire. Sincerely, G uilin Cui D octoral C andidate 118 June 20, 1995 Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; Two month ago I sent to you a questionnaire regarding your participation in the field testing o f the C-CAP com puter program. Two weeks ago I sent a follow-up note and included another copy o f the questionnaire. As o f this date I have yet to receive your completed questionnaire. If you have not received the questionnaires that 1 have sent, would you please contact me at your convenience and I can send another copy. If you have any questions about your participation in the study I would be happy to answer them. As you know, the data from this study will be used to improve the C-CAP computer program. I am hoping that it will be possible to include your reactions to C-CAP in the results/recommendations. Sincerely, G uilin Cui D octoral C andidate August 25, 1995 Forth Request Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; This will be the last time that I write to ask for your cooperation in providing me with your reactions to the C-CAP program. Once again I am enclosing a copy o f the questionnaire, a diskette for copy some o f your C-CAP files and a return envelope. I hope I will be able to include your information in the final write-up for this project. As you know, this research is a part o f my doctoral degree requirements and the final report will also be used by MSS-E to assist in the refinement and continued development o f C-CAP. I would really appreciate receiving your completed questionnaire. If for any reason you are not able to complete this question would you please get in touch with me. Sincerely, Guilin Cui Doctoral Candidate encl.: Copy o f original consent form 120 September 25, 1995 Final Request Guilin Cui 1441 D Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 [Extension Agents First and Last Name Street Address City, State and Zip] Dear [Extension Agents First Name]; Help! I am trying to collect as much information as I can on the C-CAP program and I hope that I can include your information. Please take just a few minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Sincerely, Guilin Cui Doctoral Candidate APPENDIX B APPENDIX B INSTRUM ENT Core Competency Assessment Program (C-CAP) Field Test User Survey This survey instrument has been designed to assess C-CAP user reactions to the preliminary field testing o f the C-CAP computer program Background Information 1. What is your current job title? 2. W hat is your program area(s)? 3. How many years have you worked for MSU Extension? years 4. What percentage o f your assignment with M SUE is actually spent in providing educational services to clientele (rather than supervising, administering, etc.)? _______ % o f time providing educational services 5. How many miles do you travel from your home to your o ffice? 6. How long have you been using a computer? 7. Do you use a computer at home? YES 121 miles years NO (If NO, go to question #8) 122 7a. If YES, for what purposes do you use it? (check all that apply) Word processing Spreadsh eets Database use Games/Recreational uses Electronic mail (E-Mail) Accessing information sources Educational/Learning uses Connecting with bulletin boards Other (please sp ecify _________________________________ ) 8. Are you assigned your own computer at your office? YES (If YES, go to question #9) NO (If NO, go to question #8a) 8a. If NO, is there a computer at your office that you are able to use? YES N O (If NO, go to question #10) If YES, what is the position/title o f the person whose computer you usually use? 9. For what purposes do you use a computer at your office? (check all that apply) W ord processing Spreadsheets Database use Games/Recreational uses Electronic mail (E-M ail) Accessing information sources Educational/Learning uses Connecting with bulletin boards Other (please sp ecify _________________________________ ) 10. How many total hours each w eek do you use a computer (at both home and the office)? hours 123 C-CAP USAGE INFORM ATION This section o f the survey asks about how you used C-CAP during the field testing period. 11. Did you actually use the C-CAP computer program that was provided to you? YES ____ NO (If NO, please disregard remaining survey items - return questionnaire in stamped envelope) 12. Approximately how many times during the field testing period did you use C-CAP? times 13. W here did you use C-CAP? at home at office at home and office other (please specify)_____________________________ 14. Approximately how many minutes (on the average) did you spend each time you used C-CAP? minutes/each time used 15. Please rate how easy it was to use C-CAP the first time that you used it (circle appropriate number). Very hard to use the first time 1 2 3 4 5 Very easy to use the first time 124 16. Please rate how easy it was to use C-CAP the last time that you used it (circle appropriate number). Very hard to use the last time 1 2 3 4 5 Very easy to use at last time 17. How did you configure C-CAP for use on your computer? copied it to my hard drive used it in my floppy drive 18. Rate the importance to you o f each o f the following C-CAP features: Not very important Very important My scores protected by a password Presentation o f my scores on a bar graph Printout o f my wrong answers Able to review my previous sessions The availability o f F(function) keys Color o f the screen Capability o f program to wait for me The C-CAP manual Able to use program at home 1 2 3 4 5 125 19. Did you ever make a copy o f C-CAP for another person? YES ( NO times) 20. Did you ever use C-CAP with another person? NO (I always used it alone) YES (I used it with others) If YES (you used C-CAP with another person): How many other people?_____ Who were they? (colleagues? family? friends? etc.) 21. When using C-CAP, did you ever review a prior session o f C-CAP? YES NO If yes, why? to see how the review feature worked to compare two or more prior scores other______________________________________ 22. What problems did you have in using C-CAP? 23. Did you get help from other people in using C-CAP? YES NO If YES, what kind o f help? 126 24. Did you know anyone else in MSUE that was also using C-CAP during this field test? YES NO If YES did you discuss C-CAP with them? YES NO 25. Did you help others in their use o f C-CAP during this field test period? YES NO If YES, what kind o f help? 26. I f you were to talk about C-CAP to others in MSUE, how would you rate it? Not at All In term s o f helpfulness? 1 In terms o f ease o f use? 1 In terms o f being worthwhile? 1 Very 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 27. W hat kind o f operating system did the computer have where you mainly used C-CAP? Windows DOS (Non windows) OS/2 28. A t what time(s) o f the day did you primarily use C-CAP? (check all that apply) Early M orning (6:30 am - 8:00 am) Morning (8:00 am - 10:00 am) Late Morning (10:00 am - 12 Noon) Lunch Time (12 Noon - 1:00 pm) Early Afternoon (1:00 pm - 3:00 pm) 127 Late Afternoon (3:00 pm - 5:00 pm) Evening (5:00 pm - 10:00 pm) Late Night (10:00 pm - 6:30 am) 29. How many different core competency areas did you typically assess each time you used C-CAP? only one core area each time I used C-CAP more than one core area each time I used C-CAP (how m an y ? ) 30. Describe the ways in which the C-CAP program provided feedback to you? 31. W hat are the strengths o f C-CAP? 32. W hat are the weaknesses o f C-CAP? 33. How can C-CAP be improved? 128 C-CAP's VALUE TO YOU This section o f the survey asks about the value that you feel C-CAP has for you. Please circle the answer which best indicates your degree o f agreement with each statement. K EY . 1 = I strongly disagree with this statement 2 = I disagree with this statement 3 = Neutral 4 = I agree with this statement 5 = 1 strongly agree with this statement 34. C-CAP helped me to understand areas in which I need to improve. 1 2 3 4 5 35. C-CAP provides a motivational way to assess my core competency strengths/weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5 36. It is possible to learn as much about my core competency through C-CAP as it is through learning in a workshop setting. 1 2 3 4 5 37. I feel that using C-CAP is an efficient method to learn about my core competencies. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Through my use o f C-CAP I now know more about my specific core competency. 1 2 3 4 5 129 39. Since I have used C-CAP, I have a better understanding o f my core competency. 1 2 3 4 5 4 0 .1 learned some new ideas and concepts from C-CAP. 1 2 3 4 5 41. C-CAP is more motivational than reading a book. 1 2 3 4 5 42. C-CAP is more motivational than attending a class. 1 2 3 4 5 43. C-CAP is a self-directed learning tool. 1 2 3 4 5 44. C-CAP is helpful for professional improvement. 1 2 3 4 5 45. C-CAP is a self-directed competency development tool. 1 2 3 4 5 46. C-CAP is a user-friendly program. 1 2 3 4 5 47. C-CAP is not a very risky way to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 130 48. C-CAP's competency areas are clearly defined. 1 2 3 4 5 49. The information was presented through C-CAP at a pace that enabled me to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 50. C-CAP is a good exam ple o f participatory learning. 1 2 3 4 5 51. C-CAP topics are sequenced in a logical order to enhance learning. 1 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C SAM PLE SCREENS FROM C-CAP MS-DOS Prompt Welcome t o C—COP Core Competency A s s e s s m e n t Pro gr am P r o d u c e d hy D e p t, of A g r i c u l t u r a l 8r E x t e n s i o n E d u c a t i o n Mi c h ig an S t a t e U n i u e r s i t y E a s t L a n s i n g , Micliigan 4 882 4 - 10 3 9 C517)-355-6S80 em ail: anraeeGmsuces.can r.m su .e d u c 1994 MSU E x t e n s i o n = Re t u r n t o C o n t i n u e 131 132 C-CAP is a s e l f - a s s e s s n e n t i n s t r u n e n t designed to a s s e s s conpetence in 10 core a r e a s f o r MSU Extension f i e l d s t a f f . To c o n t in u e with t h i s p r ogr an, you w i l l be ashed to e n t e r your nane and a password of your own c hoosin g. This procedure w i l l allow you, and only you, to reoiew your s c o re s a t a f u t u r e d a t e . P l ea se re ne nbe r your password. ----------------------------------------------------- Return to continue MS-DOS Prom pt Please e n t e r your nane: Please e n t e r your password: F5 = Quit MS-DOS Prom pt >CAP— MAIN HENU A) Assess your core conpetency B) Review a p r i o r s e ssi o n Q> Quit S e le c t