7/28/2019 Waste Management Education

1/3

Waste Management EducationAbstract Waste management issues have become pervasive and emotionally charged in recent years. Asa first step in meeting the pressing educational needs inherent in this multifaceted problem, theNorth Carolina Cooperative Extension Service has chosen to ensure that its county agents havethe necessary knowledge and tools to be active partners in local waste management solutions.

Waste management issues have become pervasive and emotionally charged in recent years.Statements such as "not in my back yard" and "not in my elective term" are commonly heardfrom the public and politicians. Rules, regulations, financing, and ecosystem costs as well associetal and emotional concerns are constant reminders that a complex problem exists.

Extension has identified waste management as one of its National Initiatives, recognizing theneed for an array of educational programs focusing on the many different aspects of wastemanagement. As a first step in meeting the pressing educational needs inherent in thismultifaceted problem, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service has chosen to ensurethat its county agents have the necessary knowledge and tools to be active partners in localwaste management solutions.

Waste Management Training

Extension's initial response was to structure intensive training for agents from half of NorthCarolina's counties through a Waste Management Institute. Planning for the institute started inthe Fall of 1989, and training began in January 1990. One agent selected from each of 48 countyunits participated in this intensive educational process and technical training program. Theinstitute included five sessions with an average of three days training per session. The sessions

spanned a five- month period.

The training included discussion of basic hydrology; interactions between soils, water, andpesticides-fertilizers; and agricultural, residential, industrial, business, and municipal water andwaste management systems. Attention was given to economics, regulations, and public policyissues of waste management. Educational programing principles such as community decision-making processes, development of networks between public and private entities, and theformation of objectives and teaching strategies were integral parts of the total trainingexperience. Technical and social scientists and other experts from North Carolina StateUniversity and other public and private organizations provided the content through lectures,demonstrations, printed materials, and field study.

As a result of this training, each participant was expected to develop a database for his/hercounty and to integrate new knowledge into a realistic plan of action for a comprehensive wastemanagement educational program.

Participant Evaluations

7/28/2019 Waste Management Education

2/3

In an evaluation of the institute immediately following its completion, 42 participantscompleted a questionnaire to measure the value of the training. The questionnaire was designedto assess change in technical competencies and perceptions of the value of the integrativeprogram planning experience. Participants also rated the training in terms of the time it tookversus the value of the information gained as well as their willingness to recommend the

training to another agent with similar responsibilities.A t-test statistical analysis was used to determine differences in individual evaluations of thetraining by level of formal education, years of service, and job classification. No significantdifferences in assessment were found among participants with B.A. degrees, versus those withmaster's or Ph.D.'s. Agents with less than 10 years' service were significantly more positive inratings (p

7/28/2019 Waste Management Education

3/3

use of their plans than the agricultural agents. No differences were indicated between countydirectors and agent participants in implementation of their plans.

The follow-up survey also sought to determine whether the participants and/or their staffsexpanded their waste management program emphasis during the year after the training. The

results showed a highly positive impact on educational programming among both individualparticipants and other staff members. While the participants developed educational plansfocused only on one subject area during the institute, they reported placing emphasis on morethan four subject areas (mean 4.84) a year later. They also indicated receiving educationalprogramming help from other staff in most areas (mean 4.70) as a result of the instituteinvolvement.

Participants further reported that a mean of 2.84 program areas had received at least someprogramming emphasis by their staff before the institute. Following the institute, they reportedexpanded emphasis either by themselves or others in the unit in a mean of 4.66 areas.

Implications and Conclusions

The results of the follow-up survey show the value of the Waste Management Institute inpreparing agents for educational programming in waste management. The results also indicatethat training a selected group expands educational programming both among the participantsand their fellow staff members. The study demonstrates that intensive training initiatives canhave an impact on issues-based programs such as waste management.

The findings suggest that experienced Extension staff are more comfortable in addressing newissues and problems and in their ability to develop educational programs for those issues. Lessexperienced agents valued the opportunity to gain knowledge and also receive guidance inintegrating the new information into educational programs. Thus, newer staff may need moreindividualized help and guidance in the integration of technology and educational processes todevelop programs than more experienced staff.

A second implication of this study is that those who express generally positive attitudes towardeducational plan development may not necessarily complete actual implementation of theirplans. Conversely, those who have less positive attitudes toward plan development may, infact, still act on them. This finding suggests the need for follow-up to training programs thatinclude planning activities since a plan is of little value if it's not implemented, regardless of thegood intentions of the planner.

Analysis of the success of the initial training resulted in a second Waste Management and WaterQuality Institute during the Summer and Fall of 1991. At the conclusion of this second institute,29 participating agents gave the training a positive rating of 4.53, indicating the trainingprogram continues to be on target in meeting agent needs.