An Evaluation of the Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Short Course
Clay Tracy, Texas Cooperative Extension
Scott R. Cummings, Texas A&M University
Gary E. Briers, Texas A&M University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course by examining characteristics of participants, determining their reactions to the short course (satisfaction), and analyzing influences of the course on participants’ adoption (behavior) of beef cattle management practices.
Most participants (93.4%) in the research lived in Texas. The average age of participants was 53, and 74.3% were male. Herd size varied greatly with the most common (46%) herd size being fewer than 50 head. Participants spent an average of 55% of their time ranching and received approximately one fourth of their income from cattle. A majority (59%) of the attendees were returning participants. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents reported that they were satisfied with the course, and, on average, they rated the course “good” to “excellent.”
Sixteen items in the questionnaire addressed beef cattle management practices. To determine the extent to which participants were using new or preferred beef cattle management practices, a scoring rubric was developed to differentiate participants. Each individual response choice received a score—established by animal production specialists with Texas Cooperative Extension, with preferred practices being awarded more points. The “high scoring” management practives were those taught at the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course. So, each respondent was then scored based on the “level” of adoption (use) of approved beef cattle management practices. A total score of “use of approved practices” was calculated for each producer. A higher score indicated that a producer used more preferred or suggested management practices. For example, “ear tag” and “branding” were the identification methods used most by beef cattle producers. Those producers who did not brand could receive top dollar for their unbranded hides; these producers received a higher score for this management practice. The highest beef cattle management score possible as determined by the animal scientists and educational measurement specialists was 70. Respondents’ scores followed a normal distribution curve closely, with a range of 1 to 57 and a mean of 34.1. Producers who had attended the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course previously and more often used more advanced or preferred methods than did first time attendees. That is, there was a positive relationship between attending the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course and adoption of approved practices in beef cattle production. Thus, the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course was evaluated to be a success.
Introduction and Conceptual Framework
Scarce resources and budget difficulties require educational programming to be more efficient. Much of the funding for Texas A&M University’s education programming is derived from federal and state sources. Many government agencies allocate their funds based on program evaluations (Worthen, Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Federal, state, and local appropriations committees are pressing harder for program accountability. For policy makers to make intelligent decisions, thorough program evaluations must be conducted to illustrate relative effectiveness of each program (Worthen, Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Due to increased pressure for efficiency and effectiveness, it is imperative that The Texas A&M University System use extensive evaluation measures in its programming efforts as well.
Texas continues to be a national and world leader in beef cattle production. Consequently, substantial components of Texas A&M University’s agricultural programs are designed to educate producers on advances in the beef industry. In 2000, cattle production contributed 51% of total cash farm receipts in Texas. Texas leads the United States with a total of 152,000 cattle operations. In addition, Texas leads the United States in all cattle and calves (13,700,000 head), all cows (5,810,000 head), and cattle on feed in lots with 1,000 head capacity (2,930,000). Consequently, Texas value of cattle and calves leads the nation at $8.4 billion (Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000). Due in large part to the Texas cattle industry, the estimated agricultural income in Texas for 2000 totaled almost $14 billion (Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 2001).
Beef cattle management practices vary greatly among producers. A producer’s herd location, breed of cowherd, and available resources can influence management approaches. Beef cattle management involves knowledge of the entire cattle industry from the basic disciplines (breed selection, feed, forage utilization, and medication) to business principles (record keeping, market plans, and financing). Two hundred eighty-six ranchers were surveyed in Iowa; record keeping, marketing strategies, soil fertility, disease management, weed/pest management, and feeding nutrition were found to be in need of more educational support (Trede & Whitaker, 1998). In order for agricultural producers to remain economically afloat, they must stay abreast of new advances in the industry. Texas beef producers surveyed at the Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Short Course in 1997 mentioned management concerns and requested that future educational programs involve genetics, carcass grading, expected progeny differences, embryo transfer, palpation, fertility rates, cattle alliances, and market alliances (Murphy, 1998). For those who remain in farming, technology is becoming more complex, the industry is becoming more highly structured, and the market for their agricultural products is being affected by international events. Today’s farmers must have strong managerial skills and be aware of modern agricultural technologies if they are to succeed (Ladewig, 1984).
Beef producers must adopt new methods of production to ensure their own economic viability producing safe, wholesome, and consistent quality beef for consumers. With rapid industry transformations, beef producers must stay informed of new technologies and management practices. In its effort to help producers remain on the cutting edge of agriculture, Texas A&M University has developed the annual Texas A&M University (TAMU) Beef Cattle Short Course to educate beef cattle producers. The TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course (BCSC) is recognized nationally and internationally as the most widely attended beef cattle educational program of its type in the world (Boleman, 2002). A program that began in 1942 has developed into a three-day program designed to inform and educate producers in many areas of the beef cattle industry.
Thus, the program is about adult learning. Adult learning is the process of adults gaining knowledge and expertise (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). Although the definition of adult learning does not suggest a difference from typical education, the audience (adults) creates the discrepancy. Adults can and do want to learn regardless of age, they have a rich background of knowledge and experience that can be used in the learning process, and they want to apply their learning to present situations (Cafferella, 1994). For learning to occur, the participant must remain engaged and interested. With this in mind and considering the variety of experiences adults have, it is imperative to conduct an audience analysis. Knowles, Holton, & Swanson (1998) suggest six principles to analyze with respect to adult education: (1) learner’s need to know, (2) self-concept of the learner, (3) experience of the learner, (4) readiness to learn, (5) orientation to learning, and (6) motivation to learn.
Educational programs are conducted for a variety of audiences and for five primary purposes: to encourage continuous growth and development, to assist people in responding to practical problems, to prepare people for current and future opportunities, assist organizations to adapt to change, and to provide opportunities to examine community and societal issues (Merriam, 1993). Educational programs foster three kinds of change: individual change related to acquisition of new knowledge, building of skills, and examination of personal values and beliefs; organizational change resulting in new or revised policies, procedures, and ways of working; and community and societal change that allows for differing segments of society to respond to the world around them in alternative ways (Caffarella, 1994). Extension education is an intentional effort to fulfill predetermined and important needs of people and communities (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997).
The goal of many educational programs is the successful transfer of an innovation (knowledge or skill) in order to improve participants’ existing environments. With a successful program, participants will adopt (implement) the suggestions made and hopefully spread them through their community. Typically, people fall into five adoption categories: innovators (first to adopt a new method), early adopters, early majority, late majority, and the last to adopt are the laggards (Rogers, 1995). There are several characteristics that highly influence whether an innovation is adopted. Adoption of an innovation depends on its relative advantage (how much better is it than the current process), compatibility (how well it can replace the current process), complexity (how difficult is it to use), trialability (can the participants try it out), and observability (the degree at which the results are visible) (Rogers, 1995). Economics associated with an innovation is highly influential in the adoption process. Part of the relative advantage of an innovation is the financial effect of its adoption. According to Rogers (1995), for some innovations (such as high-cost and highly profitable new ideas) and for some farmers, economic aspects of relative advantage may be the most important single predictor of rate of adoption. Diffusion of innovations is the spread of new ideas, opinions, or products throughout a society (Valente, 1995). The rate of diffusion is positively related to the rate of adoption; rapid adoption will create a higher rate of diffusion.
Evaluation is the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation object’s value (worth or merit), quality, utility, effectiveness, or significance in relation to those criteria (Worthen, Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Evaluation can exist in two forms: formative evaluations occur during a program evaluating the current process in order to make adjustment during the program; and summative evaluations usually occur at the end of an educational program evaluating the program as a whole in order to determine the program’s merit and whether to continue (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 1985). According to Kirkpatrick (1998) and his four-level assessment model, an evaluation should address four concerns: reaction (a participant’s satisfaction with the course), learning (did the participants increase their knowledge or skills), behavior (are the participants actually using their newly acquired skills), and results (what happened to the community as a result of the program).
Coordinators of the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course have conducted several informal evaluations that addressed participant demographics and participants’ satisfaction with the course. While the past evaluations served an important purpose in that they contributed to the design of the next TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course, they failed to measure the influence of the course on producers’ adoption of management practices. Which elements of the course did participants like/dislike? Are they adopting the new beef management practices being taught? Are those who have attended before realizing any benefits from earlier courses?
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study was to determine characteristics of TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course participants (demographics, knowledge, location) and evaluate participants’ satisfaction with the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course and it influence on behavior of participants with respect to their adoption of recommended beef cattle management practices. The following questions were targeted in this study:
1. What were personal characteristics of participants of the 47th Annual TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course?
2. How satisfied were participants with respects to both individual aspects of and the overall 47th Annual TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course?
3. Did participants of previous TAMU Beef Cattle Short Courses adopt suggested beef management practices more fully/often than did first time attendees?
Methods and Procedures
This ex post facto, descriptive study identified its target population as Texas “area” beef cattle producers. The sample for the study consisted of 612 participants in the 47th Annual Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Short Course held August 6-8, 2001. The course and subsequent evaluation were conducted at the Texas A&M University campus in College Station.
The instrument used to collect data consisted of 53 items. Section one elicited descriptive information from participants. Section two asked participants to rate elements of the 47th Annual TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course. Questions pertaining to specific beef cattle management practices were included in section three. Both animal scientists and agricultural educators examined the instrument for content validity. Items in sections two and three of the instrument were evaluated for internal consistency using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Section two of the instrument consisted of a Likert scale with 16 statements concerning participant satisfaction with the 47th Annual TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course. The internal consistency of the satisfaction section of the questionnaire was .89. Level of adoption of approved beef cattle management practices was analyzed in a similar manner resulting in an alpha of .73.
Due to the casual nature of the TAMU Beef Cattle Short Course, questionnaires were distributed throughout the course. At registration, all participants received a questionnaire to be returned at the conclusion of the course. During the course, additional questionnaires were made available. Labeled boxes were placed in various locations around the program grounds for completed questionnaires. Participants could also return questionnaires to any administrator or at the registration desk. All data were entered into Microsoft Access (Microsoft, 2000) and tabulated and analyzed using SPSS for Windows (SPSS, 1999). Of the 612 participants, 249 returned valid questionnaires to be used in this study for a response rate of 40.7%.
Findings
Participants varied greatly with respect to age, length of time ranching, and herd size. As shown in Table 1, males dominated the attendance with a 74.3% share. Ages of respondents ranged from 17 years of age to 77. A plurality of respondents (29.3%) were in age category 50 to 59, with an average age of 53 years. In addition to the 228 (93.1%) respondents from Texas, 12 (4.3%)came from other nearby states, and four (1.6%) hailed from Mexico, Concerning length of time they had been ranching, some participants reported that they had not yet begun ranching (0 years) and others reported that they had been ranching most of their lives (70 years). The average length of time the respondents had ranched was 17.5 years, with a plurality (30.5%) reporting they had ranched 5 to 10 years. The percentage of time respondents spent raising cattle was bimodal; 30.8% stated they spent 10-29% of their time raising cattle while another 30.4% stated that they spent 90-100% of their time. The mean percentage of time spent raising cattle was 55.1%. Also shown in Table 1 are the respondents’ estimates of the percentage of their income as a result of raising beef cattle. One hundred forty-three (70.1%) respondents reported that they received 29% or less of their income from raising cattle. The mean of the respondents’ estimated share of income associated with raising beef cattle was 25.4%.