Journal of the NACAA
ISSN 2158-9429
Volume 3, Issue 2 - December, 2010

Editor:

Use of Web 2.0 Technologies by Agricultural and Natural Resource Management Extension Professionals in New Jersey

Kluchinski, D., County Agent I, Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural and Resource Management
Kinsey, J., County Agent III, Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension, Department of Family and Community Health Sciences
Komar, S. J., County Agent III, Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension, Department of Agricultural and Resource Management
McDonnell, J., County Agent II, Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension, Department of 4-H Youth Development

ABSTRACT

A 2008 survey of county-based agricultural and resource management personnel was conducted. Respondents were asked about barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies, their previous use of and contributions to Internet-based communication, hardware devices used, and their use in programmatic activities. The most frequently used technologies were e-mail listservs (93%), on-line purchasing (47%) and product reviews (41%), while respondents reported never using social bookmarking (94%), instant messaging (65%) or chat rooms (61%). The most frequent contributions were via e-mail listservs (59%), on-line purchases (28%) and social networks (21%), while those never contributed to were social bookmarking (100%), web feeds (97%) or podcasting (83%). While frequent use of computers at work (100%) and home (87%), and cell phones (100%), is high, the use of Slingbox, TiVo, Gamebox and Smart phones were low indicating a lack of acceptance or availability. The greatest barriers to use were lack of time to learn the technologies (56%), and lack of knowledge about how to use these technologies (47%). These data suggest a need for training to increase awareness and knowledge of Web 2.0 technologies. An institutional commitment is essential. The creation of learning communities comprised of novices and advanced technology users may be used to increase learning, enhance motivation and interest as well as the efficiency, quality and reach of educational programming.

 

Introduction

 
Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that enables people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 is the transition from Web 1.0 static web pages to greater interactivity that allows open sharing of information via communication within communities of users. Blogs, wikis and message boards are examples of components of Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2007). Web 2.0 technologies have been adapted for educational use by Cooperative Extension professionals across the country; eXtension (http://www.extension.org/) is an example of a national effort to increase interactivity of educators and learners. 
 
In late 2008, a survey of Rutgers Cooperative Extension’s (RCE) county-based agricultural and natural resource management personnel was conducted to: 1) quantify their use of Web 2.0 technologies; 2) determine their level of interest and proficiency in Web 2.0 technologies; and, 3) recommend appropriate training and resource needs to maximize the effective use of this technology in programming. The goal is to increase the efficiency and outreach of internal and external communications and training.
 
 
Methods
 
County-based field faculty and staff in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Management Agents (ARMA), Rutgers Cooperative Extension, were surveyed. A survey instrument of 9 closed and open-ended questions was developed to quantify respondent’s frequency of use, and proficiency and interest in using Web 2.0 technologies as part of their Extension programming efforts. The survey also included a series of questions designed to quantify the barriers to using these technologies. The survey was distributed electronically using web-based survey tool SurveyMonkey® (www.surveymonkey.com) in December 2008 over a three-week period.    
 
 
Results
 
Response rate: The overall response rate was 50% (n=32). This rate is considered acceptable according to standards published in the literature (Parsons, 2007). Seventy-two (72%) respondents self-identified as faculty and 28% as staff. This ratio of respondents closely reflects the makeup of the department at the time of the survey (82% faculty vs. 18% staff).
 
Internet Connection Speed at Home and Office: A majority of respondents reported having access to a computer with Internet connectivity at home and work (Table 1). Seventy-five (75%) percent indicated at home they have a moderate speed connection (DSL/cable) to the Internet, and 18% have a fast connection (T1 or better). At work, 53% have a moderate speed connection while 47% have a fast Internet connection. 
 
Table 1. Internet access speeds available at home, work and on-the-road for ARMA personnel, 2008.
 
Slow
(Dial up)
Moderate
(DSL/Cable)
Fast
(T1 or better)
Location
% respondents
At Home (%)
7.1
75.0
17.9
At Work (%)
0
53.3
46.6
On the Road (%)
8
84
8
                           
Current Technology/Hardware Use:   In order to determine overall use or non-use of various technologies, respondents were asked to indicate their frequency of use of a list of specific hardware (Table 2) over the past year. The three most frequently used (daily, weekly or monthly) technologies were computer at work and cell phone (tied at 100%[1]), computer at home (87%) and laptop (72.4). The hardware less frequently used (less than monthly or rarely) was iPod/MP3 player (13.3%), PDA or personal digital assistant (13.8%), and laptop computer (20.7%). Those technologies never used were Slingbox (100%), Gamebox and TiVO (tied at 86.2%), and Smart phone (79.3%). Overall, ARMA personnel appear to be frequently using common or mainstream hardware technologies while others are infrequently or never used.
 
Table 2. Frequency of use of various hardware technologies by ARMA personnel, 2008.
 Technology
Frequent Use
(Daily, Weekly or Monthly)
(%)
Less Frequent Use
(Use Less than Monthly or Rarely)
(%)
Never Used
 
 
(%)
Computer home
86.7
6.7
6.7
Computer work
100
0
0
Laptop
72.4
20.7
6.9
PDA
27.6
13.8
58.6
Cell phone
100
0
0
Smart phone
17.2
3.4
79.3
TiVO
10.3
3.4
86.2
Gamebox
6.9
6.9
86.2
iPod/MP3
26.7
13.3
60.0
Slingbox
0
0
100
 
Current Use of Web 2.0 Technologies: In order to determine overall use or non-use of various Web 2.0 technologies, respondents were asked to indicate their frequency of use of specific listed Web 2.0 technologies (Table 3) over the past year. "Use" was defined as reading, viewing or subscribing. The three most frequently used (daily, weekly or monthly) technologies were E-mail listservs (93%), on-line purchases (47%) and product reviews (41%). The Web 2.0 technologies less frequently used (less than monthly or rarely) were message boards (63%), wikis (48%) and product reviews (48%). Those technologies never used by the greatest number of respondents were social bookmarking (94%), instant messaging (65%) and chat rooms (61%). 
 
Table 3. Use frequency to various Web 2.0 technologies by ARMA personnel, 2008.
Technology
Frequent Use
(Daily, Weekly or Monthly)
(%)
Less Frequent Use
(Use Less than Monthly or Rarely)
(%)
Never Used
 
 
(%)
E-mail listservs
93.3
6.7
0
Video
38.7
41.9
19.4
IM
19.4
16.1
64.5
Chat room
9.7
29.0
61.3
Message board
10.0
63.3
26.7
Product reviews
41.4
48.3
10.3
Auctions
22.6
41.9
35.5
Purchases
46.7
46.7
6.7
Social networks
16.7
30.0
53.3
Professional networks
20.0
26.7
53.3
Video conferencing
16.1
45.2
38.7
Interest Group
38.7
25.8
35.5
Calendar
25.8
32.2
41.9
Blog
32.3
41.9
25.8
Podcast
25.8
29.0
45.2
Wiki
25.8
48.4
25.8
Web feed
20.0
23.3
56.7
Social bookmarking
0
6.5
93.5
 
Contributions via Web 2.0 Technologies: Respondents were asked to indicate what frequency of contributions they made using Web 2.0 technologies, meaning that they were deliberately sharing information via these methods rather than seeking information (Table 4). The most frequent contributions were made using E-mail listservs (59%), on-line purchasing (28%) and social networking (21%); less frequently used were video (39%), message boards (36%) and product reviews (35%). Those technologies never used to actively contribute information were social bookmarking (100%), web feeds (97%), and podcasts (83%).
 
Table 4. Contribution frequency to various Web 2.0 technologies by ARMA personnel, 2008.
Technology
Frequent Use
(Daily, Weekly or Monthly)
(%)
Less Frequent Use
(Use Less than Monthly or Rarely)
(%)
Never Used
 
 
(%)
E-mail listservs
58.6
37.9
3.4
Video
17.9
39.3
42.6
IM
10.3
13.8
75.9
Chat room
3.4
20.7
75.9
Message board
3.6
35.7
60.7
Product reviews
0
34.8
65.5
Auctions
6.9
31.0
62.1
Purchases
27.6
31.0
41.4
Social networks
21.4
7.1
71.4
Professional networks
3.4
20.7
75.6
Video conferencing
0
33.3
66.7
Interest Group
14.3
17.6
67.9
Calendar
17.2
20.7
62.1
Blog
13.8
31.0
55.2
Podcast
3.4
13.8
82.8
Wiki
0
20.7
79.3
Web feed
3.4
0
96.6
Social bookmarking
0
0
100
 
Barriers to Using Web 2.0 Technologies: Although few respondents are regularly using or contributing via a majority of the Web 2.0 technologies listed, there appears to be interest among respondents to utilize these technologies in future programmatic efforts (Table 5). Less than 10% of respondents reported a lack of interest on their part or lack of interest from clientele (19%), to utilize these technologies to disseminate information. The greatest reported barrier to using Web 2.0 technologies was a lack of time to learn and use these technologies (56%), lack of knowledge about how to use them (47%), or what these technologies are (38%). 
 
Table 5. Greatest barrier(s) to using Web 2.0 technology for ARMA personnel, 2008.
 
% of respondents
Lack of time to learn and use
56.3
Lack of interest on my part
9.4
Lack of interest from clientele
18.8
Lack of knowledge about Web 2.0 technologies
37.5
Lack of knowledge how to use Web 2.0 technologies
46.9
Prefer face to face over virtual interactions with clientele
25.0
Clientele are not up to speed on use
18.8
 
 
Conclusions and Recommendations
 
Agricultural and natural resource management field personnel in New Jersey rarely or do not use many of the Web 2.0 social networking tools available.  These include RSS feeds, blogs, wikis, podcasts, online interest groups, online conferencing, social bookmarking, professional networks and online calendars. However, more common technologies such as e-mail listservs (93%), on-line purchases (47%) and product reviews (41%) are most frequently used (daily, weekly or monthly), while the most frequent contributions were made using e-mail listservs (59%), on-line purchasing (28%) and social networking (21%).
 
More research needs to be conducted to understand the root causes of why Web 2.0 technology use is so very low and how to best encourage and sustain use. Internet access and speed is not the issue; over 92% of respondents have moderate or fast-speed access at work and home. A majority of respondents have access to various hardware as well; computers at work (100%) and home (87%), and laptops (72%). However, less than 18% of the respondents indicated they frequently use hardware such as smart phones with wireless Internet (i.e. Blackberry or iPhone) or PDAs (28%). The availability and use of these tools are not institutionalized but rather a personal choice of individual department members; their cost may be the greatest deterrent to use.   Despite significant (91%) interest, lack of time to learn (56%), lack of knowledge of how use (47%), and lack of knowledge about the technologies (38%) are all contributing factors to the expansion in use of and contributions to Web 2.0 technologies.
 
These findings suggest employee training should occur to improve knowledge and utility of these tools in the context of each person’s and department’s missions, and operational and educational methodologies. Recommendations to increase personal and institutional use of Web 2.0 technologies are:
  • Establish focus groups to generate a list of topics that could be offered for Web 2.0 training sessions. Work with technology experts to develop technology education component that would build skills and confidence in Web 2.0 technologies. 
  • Develop a list of personnel currently integrating Web 2.0 technologies into their programming; plan to use their expertise as examples of successful technology integration and to serve as teachers about their proficiency. This may allow for the development of a learning community – students and faculty and staff – working together to gain skills and understanding of educational methodologies, Web 2.0 technologies and subject matter expertise and application. 
  • Cooperative Extension leadership should develop incentives for technology use in the form of seed grants. This also would provide meaningful encouragement for personnel to invest time and energy into using Web 2.0 technologies. 
  • Personnel and leaders should benchmark goals for technology adoption. Input from external universities with regards to their Web 2.0 technology use should be considered, as well as internal input from leaders who have successfully engaged their faculty and staff in technology adoption and use. 
  • Offer workshops that address content areas of interest to personnel with a technology component used to facilitate both subject matter and technology learning. For example, begin with a face-to-face session and follow-up via webinar. Use web-based filing sharing platforms, such as Google Docs, as the methodology for assignments, etc. Engage students and clientele who have subject matter interest but also technology skills for collaborative learning.
Cooperative Extension has a significant historic strength in bringing research-based information to the public in an easy to understand and utilize format. However, internal capacity building must occur to remain relevant to contemporary audiences. This includes the use of emerging and increasing popular Web 2.0 technologies, and would provide an opportunity for real life experiential learning for teacher and student. 
 
 
Literature Cited
 
O’Reilly, T. 2007. What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
 
Parsons, Chris. 2007. Web-Based Surveys: Best Practices Based on the Research Literature, Visitor Studies, 10:1, 13-33.
 

[1]Dense ranking used throughout. In dense ranking, items that compare equal receive the same ranking number, and the next item(s) receive the immediately following ranking number.