IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205883.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Extension agents’ preferences on teaching methods: An ordered probit with selection model

Author

Listed:
  • Andrango, Graciela
  • Bergtold, Jason S.

Abstract

Outreach and Extension services are important to enhance human capital by providing with useful and practical research findings in a way that farmers can understand. A limited number of studies have been conducted to understand the methods Extension agents use to deliver information. The research to date has tended to primarily focus on identifying learning methods preferred by farmers and has compared them with the teaching methods used by Extension agents. However, little is known about how Extension agents decide the types of methods they use for outreach and why they prefer those methods. A clear understanding about these mechanisms could prove crucial in closing the existing gap between farmers’ needs for information and extension’ teaching preferences, and assuring the development and delivery of effective educational programs. Davis (2006) theorized that educators tend to teach the way they prefer to learn. This study attempts to provide quantitative evidence on how Extension educators’ personal preferences for learning methods impact their teaching methods decisions. Specifically, the goals of this study are: 1) to identify Extension agents’ characteristics that affect their selection of different types of educational methods, and 2) to explain how Extension agents’ perception of farmers’ reception affects this selection. Results from this study will help enhance learning among farmers by understanding educators’ preferences of learning and teaching methods. The data used in this study was collected through an electronic survey administered to Extension and other outreach agents in 10 western states of the U.S. on December, 2012. Statistical analysis indicates that Extension and other outreach agents work primarily with farmers and agribusiness groups. Extension agents surveyed for this study showed preference for learning and outreach methods such as: field days, seminars, face-to-face meetings with farmers, community educational events, and internet. Using an ordered probit model corrected for selection bias, this paper aims to explain the Extension educators’ characteristics that influence their decision of the type of educational methods they use to transfer agricultural information. Various factors are believed to explain the use of learning methods by Extension agents, including: education level, age, region, area of expertise, target group, perception on the farmers’ use of information, and years of experience. Results will shed light on the understanding of how Extension agents choose teaching methods will provide with tools to better design and conduct training activities and ultimately help farmers improve their productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrango, Graciela & Bergtold, Jason S., "undated". "Extension agents’ preferences on teaching methods: An ordered probit with selection model," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205883, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205883
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205883/files/AAEA%20Extension%20and%20Outreach%20Efforts%20Paper%20Andrango%20et%20al%202015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    2. Shaheen, Mohamed & Choi, Michael & Ang, Woon & Zhao, Yupeng & Xing, James & Yang, Ray & Xing, Jida & Zhang, Jian & Chen, Jie, 2013. "Application of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound to increase bio-ethanol production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 462-468.
    3. Ira Altman & Jason Bergtold & Dwight R. Sanders & Thomas G. Johnson, 2013. "Market Development of Biomass Industries," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 486-496, September.
    4. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    5. Bansal, Ankit & Illukpitiya, Prabodh & Singh, Surendra P. & Tegegne, Fisseha, 2013. "Economic competitiveness of ethanol production from cellulosic feedstock in Tennessee," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 53-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Stefan Boes, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of treatment effects in ordered response models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 81-109, February.
    3. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    4. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    5. Das, Ujjwal & Das, Kalyan, 2018. "Inference on zero inflated ordinal models with semiparametric link," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-115.
    6. Andrew Powell & Pilar Tavella, 2012. "Capital Inflow Surges in Emerging Economies: How Worried Should LAC Be?," Research Department Publications 4782, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    7. Kaili Wang & Sanjana Hossain & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2022. "A hybrid data fusion methodology for household travel surveys to reduce proxy biases and under-representation of specific sub-group of population," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1801-1836, December.
    8. Ghimire, Ramesh & Green, Gary T. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Cordell, H. Ken, 2017. "Visitors' Preferences for Freshwater Amenity Characteristics: Implications from the U.S. Household Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Chappell, Henry W. & McGregor, Rob Roy, 2018. "Committee decision-making at Sweden's Riksbank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 120-133.
    10. Päivi Karhunen & Svetlana Ledyaeva, 2021. "Is Chain Affiliation a Strategic Asset or Constraint in Emerging Economies? Competitive Strategies and Performance in the Russian Hotel Industry," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 403-427, June.
    11. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    12. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    13. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    14. Priscilla Twumasi Baffour & Festus Ebo Turkson, 2015. "Selection into Employment Sectors in Urban Ghana and Tanzania: The Role of Education," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(4), pages 78-92, December.
    15. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Jeffrey A. Edwards & Tara R. Wade & Mark L. Burkey & R. Gary Pumphrey, 2014. "Forecasting the Public's Acceptability of Municipal Water Regulation and Price Rationing for Communities on the Ogallala Aquifer," Journal of Economic Insight, Missouri Valley Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-30.
    17. Simona Iammarino & Elisabetta Marinelli & Elisabetta Marinelli, 2011. "Is the Grass Greener on the other Side of the Fence? Graduate Mobility and Job Satisfaction in Italy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2761-2777, November.
    18. Falco, Paolo & Maloney, William F. & Rijkers, Bob & Sarrias, Mauricio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in subjective wellbeing: An application to occupational allocation in Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-153.
    19. Jin, Olivia S. & Wunnava, Phanindra V., 2020. "Feeling Richer and Happier? Self-Perceived Economic Welfare and Life Satisfaction: Evidence of 'Easterlin Paradox' from Russian Longitudinal Data," GLO Discussion Paper Series 625, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    20. Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "To bid or not to bid: An empirical study of the supply determinants of crowd-shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 468-483.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.