Project Summary:

Authorized Organizational Representative:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #1:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #2:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #3:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #4:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #5:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #6:

Description of the Agricultural Communication Network Project:

1. Project Objectives:


• To improve agricultural research underlying agricultural telecommunications.
  
  
• Make optimal use of available resources for agricultural extension, resident education, and research by sharing resources between participating institutions.
  
  
• Train learners for careers in agriculture, natural resource management, environmental science, human sciences and the food industries.
  
  
  
  Explain how the project relates to the Program Objective(s) and how the Project will contribute to achieving these.
  
  Train Learners

  Learners with careers in the sciences that are integral to the food chain need to understand biotechnology. Biotechnology provides a progressive strategy to address not only food production challenges, but also food quality and environmental issues. Farmers (Producers) have recognized the benefits in these products to their production operations and quickly adopted the technology. However, controversial perspectives and a lack of understanding of biotechnology, in particular, and the food system in general have escalated concerns regarding the safety and environmental impact of genetically engineered products. The agricultural biotechnology industry has recently supported the formation of a commission to address consumer concerns, with education being a primary mission. There are many other organizations expressing their perspectives as well, making it difficult for learners to sort out credible information. Furthermore, the above corporations and organizations specifically address biotechnology, and rarely focus on the food system or the science that underpins our food system. Corporations and organizations provide their information without the intention of providing the necessary scientific background to promote scientific literacy that is needed to make educated decisions. Consequently a void exists in the educational programming required to effectively teach biotechnology, especially to the off campus learner. Our project targets this void.

  Improve AgTelecommunications Research

  The 260 students who have worked with the programming that we have developed thus far (with funding from a previous grant) tell us we are effectively meeting their needs, but suggest that we could make some adjustments to create an even more valuable learning experience. The proposed project will improve the teaching impact of our current lessons. We will continue to use a tested and workable on-line evaluation instrument to provide student assessment of these products. We will also work with educational design specialists to test alternative strategies in lesson design using the current "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering" lessons as a model for new lesson modules.

  Optimize use of Resources

  We have also experienced first-hand the cost of time resources needed in developing programming to a high standard. It will be imperative for various components of the public sector to work together in meeting public educational needs. We propose to work together by subjecting our materials to a rigorous peer review to insure accurate and up to date content materials. We also will develop several mechanisms that will allow teachers and students from various institutions, states and countries to collectively participate in the use of these materials in structured educational events. Furthermore, with the addition of lessons in food safety, environmental impact and ethical issues related to genetic engineering, we will reach a broader audience that shares a need to understand this science and its impacts on society.

  
  
  


2. Description of Agricultural Communication Network to be Developed or Utilized.





Describe the Cost/Benefit Analysis for purchasing (or leasing) different types of facilities, equipment, components, hardware and software, or other items. (complete only if applicable to your project).



3. Agricultural Communication Network Programming:


• Agibusiness
  
• Agricultural Biochemistry
  
• Agronomy
  
• Biotechnology
  
• Dietetics Nutrition
  
• Entomological Science
  
• Food Science
  
• Genomics
  
• Plant Science
  
  
  Describe the Programming and how it will contribute to achieving the Objective(s):
  
  Background

  A network of Internet lessons has been initiated in part by the support of a previous ADEC grant. That project established collaborations across four land grant institutions (University of Nebraska, South Dakota State University, Colorado State University and the University of Wisconsin) and used the computer information technology resources at the University of Nebraska and South Dakota State University. Beginning genetics lessons now completed (http://deal.unl.edu/genetics/) have been evaluated by both learners and peer experts. Programming currently under development with that project will provide advanced lessons in teaching crop genetic engineering and additional lessons in crop biochemistry and herbicide mode of action (http://deal.unl.edu/genetics/pigment/). All of these lessons teach molecular and cellular concepts that impact crop traits and management.

  Though still in the developmental stages, the lessons from that project have been adopted and customized for a variety of uses. Extension educators and high school teachers have attended workshops utilizing these materials and then adapted the materials for teaching their own clientele or students. Also, Colorado State University has used components for their own Web site (www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/transgenic_crops) and training for Colorado teachers.

  In the past six months we have used the basic crop genetic engineering lessons from the current project to teach the subject to 180 undergraduates in a resident introductory genetics course and to 80 post college learners from eight states who participated in one or two day workshops. The evaluation of these Internet lessons has directed us to identify two major areas that we will address with this current proposal; namely, expanding content areas and improving the effectiveness of the lessons.

  Expansion of content areas

  We have found that our work with a diverse group of learners indicated a need for lessons which teach how groups might address food safety issues, environmental impacts, and ethical concerns that are influenced by genetic engineering technology. It is also evident to us that the learner needs to understand how genetic engineering fits into the larger context of plant breeding and plant genetics. Therefore, we will develop these lessons as a part of this proposal.

  Lesson effectiveness

  Students were generally satisfied with their ability to learn from these Web lessons. However, the animations in each site were not used as effectively as we had originally hoped. Furthermore, evaluations indicate that the learner should be challenged more frequently during the flow of the lesson to demonstrate his/her mastery of smaller objectives on the way to completing a lesson. Hence, our proposed project will investigate and test ways to better organize the lessons and utilize their maximum potential.

  Ten Proposed New Lessons

  The new lessons we will develop and the content contributors for each lesson are listed below.

  Social Issues Module

  1) Ethical issues concerning GMOs. - Charles Francis, Center for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Nebraska

  Food Safety Module

  2) Basics of biotechnology for nutrition practitioners. - Nancy Lewis, Dept. of Nutritional Science and Dietetics, University of Nebraska

  3) Genetic engineering to improve nutritional composition. - Nancy Lewis

  4)Testing for potential allergens. - Nancy Lewis

  
  Environmental Impact Module

  5) Genetic Relationship between crops and weeds. - Sarah Ward, Dept. of Soil and Crop Science, Colorado State University

  6)The impact of genetic engineering on weed populations. - Anita Dieleman, Dept. of Agronomy, Kansas State University and Sarah Ward

  7) Bt resistance in insects. - Frank Peairs, Dept. of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University; Blair Sigfied, Dept. of Entomology, University of Nebraska.

  
  Crop Genetics and Breeding Module

  8) Crop traits determined by several genes. - Pat Byrne, Dept. of Soil and Crop Science, Colorado State University, and Patrick Hayes, Dept. of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University.

  9) Genetic markers to improve plant breeding efficiency. - Jenny Kling, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Pat Byrne and Patrick Hayes.

  10) Genomics. - Pat Byrne and Patrick Hayes
  

  Further Goals

  In addition to the improvement of current lessons in the Internet Library and the development of new lessons, we intend to:

  - Promote the use and distribution of these lessons to a wide array of learners.

  - Continue the peer review process of these lessons through the American Society of Agronomy or other Scientific Societies as appropriate for the specific content discipline covered. Lessons completing the review can serve as on-line autotutorials for earning CEU credits.

  - Extend the use of these materials in conjunction with workshops by using Internet II to deliver programming between the University of Nebraska and other institutions.

  - Adapt materials for use by teachers of pre-college students.

  -Internationalize the audience for these lessons by adapting the basic genetic engineering lessons and delivering workshops to International crop scientists.

  -Offer a workshop in western Nebraska (Panhandle Learning Center) which targets the nutrition and dietetic professionals. The workshop will be presented about a year from now at the completion of the proposed nutrition lessons which will complement current workshops.

  The proposed project will provide much needed programming that can be easily shared and will be widely promoted across disciplines and geographic regions.
  



Detailed description of methods to be used in producing and/or delivering the programing.

Lessons, Modules and an Internet Library:

In our proposal an Internet lesson is a set of: (1) objectives; (2) content that allows learners to master those objectives; and (3) quizzes that test and document the students mastery. We define a module as a group of related lessons. We are developing lessons that package into logical modules. We are organizing these lessons and modules into a Web format that can be easily accessed and logically grown into an electronic library that becomes a valued resource for many educators and learners.

The library is organized in the following way. A home page (http://deal.unl.edu/zeljka/genetics/frmset02a.htm) welcomes the learner to the library and provides navigation options. Students can enter different topic pages that will launch modules and lessons. These topic pages use visuals to organize and show relationships between lessons. Clicking on pictures (icons) in the page will produce a drop down menu of lessons. The menu will include the lesson title, author and peer review date. As lessons are added to the library, they can be launched from these topic pages. It may be appropriate to launch some lessons from more than one topic page. Lessons are listed on the bottom of http://deal.unl.edu/genetics/pigment/ now for our review but will be moved to their appropriate topic page. We will also add a search feature into the home and topic pages to help learners find the desired lesson. The American Society of Agronomy will list reviewed lessons on their web site and direct people to the library home page.

A programming system and an Internet lesson template have been developed and tested for delivering the Web-based materials. This administration site can be viewed at http://deal.unl.edu/genetics/pigment/maint/InstructorsAdmin/
From this site a lesson contributor can add or edit text, glossary words, images, or quiz questions. They can also access student accounts. Each lesson has its own administrative site and password protection controls access. We can now continue to use this system with ease to add additional lessons that will support four new modules focused on issues or problems related to crop genetic engineering.

Lesson Construction

A team approach will be employed to develop the lessons. We will hire a full time masters level educational specialist to oversee the project. This person will work closely with technical experts at the "Distributed Environments for Active Learning" (DEAL) lab at the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska to assemble the interactive lessons and supporting visuals and animations. Instructional development facilities and personnel at Colorado State University will also be used for construction of some of these lessons. The educational specialist will also work closely with the project PIs to assemble the content of each lesson and write appropriate text. The specialist will oversee the testing and evaluation of these lessons at various stages of development. Finally, the specialist and lesson authors will submit the lessons for peer review to the American Society of Agronomy and Journal of Life Sciences and Natural Resource Education. The lessons will then be used in a variety of educational settings.


Extending the use of the Internet materials

We will use several strategies to extend the use of the Internet modules. These include promoting and offering workshops that utilize the modules and adopting the modules to a broader audience of learners.


Promotion, Sharing and Internet II Delivery of Workshops

The "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering" module developed to initiate this Internet lesson library has proven to be a valuable resource to supplement workshops on this topic. The module serves to both prepare a student for the workshop and guide their review of the workshop content. The quizzes have been a useful tool to measure subject matter competence. Our most successful use of these materials this past winter was with a distance-learning workshop taught to 33 students at two sites in Nebraska using two-way interactive satellite connections. Workshop participants were taught by a teacher at each site. Thus, the students at each site experienced both distance and local learning. The model was very successful and allowed us to "cover the state" with one teaching event. Student evaluations revealed that the distance delivery was a valuable and rewarding tool for the learners. However, having a teacher present for one-on-one interaction at each site was critical. We intend to use resources from this proposal to establish a system for Internet II delivery and expand this model to a broader region. This will increase the exposure of learners and educators to these lessons by identifying partners at other institutions who are interested in delivering this programming to their constituents.

We will use the expertise and connections of Andrea Engebretson, Manager of Professional Education from The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) to identify partners in this project. Ms. Engebretsen will notify key contacts in the U.S. and Canada of the opportunity to deliver this program as a one day workshop. Contacts interested in being a site organizer will recruit a site facilitator to provide local support during the workshop. Facilitators will work with our educator team ahead of time to prepare themselves for their roles. Facilitators will have a prior familiarity with crop genetic engineering and be able to lead "hands on" exercises and small group discussions. Some facilitators may also deliver a part of the workshop materials. ASA and each partnering location will promote the events. Workshop fees will be collected and used locally to support each site. Workshop participants will be registered into the "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering" Internet module prior to the workshop. Facilitators will register their own students into the site and monitor the students quiz performance. At the University of Nebraska, the workshop and on-line module are components of a one credit hour graduate/undergraduate course, "Crop Genetic Engineering". Students participating at all locations could opt to enroll for academic credit with this course or a similar course offered by a partnering institution. We will also have CEU credit approved for the workshop participants.

This model is expected to be a successful means for land grant institutions to provide distance programming for their constituents. For example, we intend to demonstrate that an institution can meet the continuing education needs of their students without investing the considerable resources needed to develop high quality on-line materials and assembling and delivering an effective workshop "from scratch". Other institutions that recognize the need for their constituents to understand the basic principles behind genetically engineered crops can efficiently do so by offering the workshop. Their cost will be an investment in time for a faculty member or instructor to become familiar with the workshop materials and then commit time to the workshop and follow-up with their distance students. No institution has the resources to provide a complete program of instruction to meet the needs of all their prospective off campus students. However, if institutions can share high quality programming and still work personally with their students, a viable distance program can be offered. We believe this proposal could help establish this model for use in a wide array of program areas in the future.

Internet Resources for Secondary Schools

Many of the controversial issues associated with genetic engineering extend beyond the science of genetics into fields such as ecology, ethics, economics, and food safety. Educating pre-college students about important issues by presenting them in an unbiased case study format would give students a holistic view and teach them to use critical thinking to propose solutions. These case studies should help the student to discover the science behind each issue and decide merits of risk and benefit arguments. Developing the case studies and providing an appropriate resource to understand the genetic engineering science will be accomplished by working with secondary school science teachers.

This project would provide teachers in agriculture (as well as other areas, such as biology, economics, and food science) an on-line resource of valuable and proven information and lesson plans.

This resource package would include the following materials:

1) A customized version of the "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering" Internet lessons. This would provide the source of information to educate the teachers about the genetic science behind each topic.

2) Three ready-to-go on-line case study lesson plans that could be easily incorporated into an existing course in any one of a number of areas. The case study lesson plans would be based on current issues in the field of genetic engineering such as those listed below.

A. Does Bt Corn Hurt or Help The Monarch Butterfly?

B. Is Genetically Engineered Food Safe? Should it be Labelled?

C. Will Resistance Management of Bt Corn Help Farmers?


Activities to Develop these Materials

Workshop

The project will be inititated with a 2-day workshop for high school teachers in late May or early June of 2001. The goals of the workshop would be to: (1) educate teachers about the subject matter; (2) familiarize them with the existing Internet-base lessons which they can return to for reference, or take for college or CEU credits; and (3) outline lesson plan ideas appropriate for the pre-college level.

The lesson plan outlines will guide the work of our high school teacher collaborators during the rest of the summer.

Workshop schedule: Participants will take the "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering" module lessons on-line prior to the workshop.

Day one of the workshop will be primarily for instruction and modelling of hands-on activities that the teachers can bring into their own classrooms. Participants will be divided into groups, assigned a case study topic and given a folder with a few articles about their case study topic. Groups will also have time to search the Web for materials related to their case study topic or finish their Internet lessons.

The second day the participants will brainstorm lesson plan ideas and search the Web for additional resources to support their lesson plan. They will devise one mock activity to try out on the entire workshop group. Each group will then have an hour to direct this activity and present their case study lesson plan to the entire workshop.

Example Case Study Lesson Plan:
At a recent workshop to educate high school agricultural education teachers, they were able to develop the following plan in merely 45 minutes:

Topic: The Monarch Butterfly Controversy

Pre-Teaching: :
- Development of Bt (corn borer resistant) corn
- Life cycle of the Monarch butterfly

Problem Statement: Should producers use Bt corn?

Objective: To increase the awareness of Bt corn and the environment with emphasis on the Monarch butterfly.

Procedure:

1. Student teams will research Bt corn and the Monarch butterfly using resources listed in the Case study page and additional resources.

2. Student teams will develop a presentation showing the advantages and disadvantages of Bt corn.

3. Students will participate in an on-line debate with another high school. The debate would be posted on an on-line bulletin board.

Evaluation:
One or two objective outside people would critique the debate arguments. Students can be graded on both the team presentations and quality of the debate arguments.

Note: The debate could be held between high schools located from different regions or countries where opposing views of the technology are predominant.

Case Study Material Development:

We will hire two high school teachers who have an interest in teaching this subject and developing Internet materials. They will attend the workshop and then work with us throughout the summer to implement the lesson plan ideas and improve existing materials to be used in this package. A high school teacher could use his/her expertise in designing high-school level curriculum to develop the case study lessons plans at the appropriate level.

- Teacher duties would include the following:

1)Modify "Basics of Crop Genetic Engineering Internet Lessons" to appropriate level. Write a bank of questions for on-line quizzing.

2) Assemble Case study lesson plans that contain materials outlined by the workshop teams.

3) Work with computer technology experts in the UNL Agronomy Department and DEAL lab to develop web pages for viewing and downloading these case study materials.

4) Post lists of Web sites where more information can be obtained for both teachers and students.

The short term accomplishment of this part of the project would be to establish the "pre-college" version of the basic lessons and a case study download site. In the long term we hope that the secondary school teachers will adopt this resource as their own and continue to work with us in adding and improving materials.

Internationalization of the Educational Materials

We will enhance the International impact of these Internet lessons with several projects.


Adapting Lessons for African Learners

Dr. Jennifer Kling, from the International Institute of Tropical agriculture will oversee an adaptation of our materials to meet the needs of an audience of learners from developing countries. Dr. Kling has worked as a plant breeder in Africa for over 10 years and is familiar with the considerations necessary for reaching this audience. We anticipate that this adaptation may be very similar to the "young student/general audience" version we will develop with our secondary school collaborators. This lesson set can be launched from the current "Crop Genetics" home page or also be delivered via CD-ROM to learners who lack Internet access.

International Workshop

We will organize, promote, and deliver a workshop that targets the International audience at the ASA annual meetings in October, 2001. Andrea Engebretson, Manager of Professional Education, will lead the scheduling, promotion, and organization of this program. The ASA annual meetings attract many international crop scientists. This workshop will focus on providing them with tools to effectively teach this topic to their clients and students in their home countries.






4. Population to be Served and Target Audience(s):

The primary audience targeted with this programming is the information disseminators, i.e., those professionals who work directly with the public or clients. This would include but not be limited to:

Agricultural and Nutrition Extension Educators
Agribusiness Professionals
Certified Crop Consultants
Agricultural and Nutrition Professionals
Dieticians
High School Teachers
International Crop Scientists

A secondary audience is comprised of students, producers, consumers, and nutrition patients. The programming currently developed meets the needs of post-secondary school learners such as students in a college biology or genetics course. Our collaborations with high school and middle school teachers will allow us to reach the populations of learners with less background such as high school students and learners from disciplines other than the agricultural sciences.



5. Collaborating Institutions and Other Partners:

The progress and momentum we have established in this field is a result of collaborations between disciplines and institutions. We believe this proposed project will benefit from what we have learned about collaboration. The team of project leaders already assembled shares a commitment and vested interest in finding better ways to provide high quality distance learning for their students. This is the driving force of our collaboration.

We are enthused about the student reception of our initial efforts in Internet lesson development. While the Internet makes it easy to quickly generate pages of content, we believe it more valuable to invest more substantial time and financial resources to develop a high quality product that is reviewed and evaluated at several levels before its release to students. We will continue to hold our lessons to this standard and will work closely with societies such as the ASA to maintain a rigorous peer review. Using our established model with ASA, we propose to formulate similar review processes with the Weed Science Society of America and the American Dietetics Association.

The Web sites we have cited in this proposal represent the collaborations of content specialists with the University of Nebraska DEAL lab and/or South Dakota State Instructional Technology Center. The strategic member of the collaborative team is an educational specialist that serves as the go between for these two parties. Dr. Deana Namuth and Patricia Hain have served this role and Ms. Hain will continue in this position under our proposal. The DEAL lab will continue to be the center for Web development, design and maintenance in this proposal. We will also subcontract with the Colorado State University Information Technology group for development of materials for lessons from Colorado State faculty. We have a framework established in our current lesson library that will accommodate the growth from the proposed new lessons and future lessons in agricultural technology. Therefore, the efficiency at which we can create important, high quality lessons to contribute to the educational needs described represents a distinct advantage of our proposed project.

We are confident in the success of the proposed workshop collaborations because of our experience in giving workshops to various audiences and at different venues. It is realized that a key component in this venture will be in finding partners. These partners must be educators that recognize that they have a viable audience of constituents that need to better understand biotechnology. Unfortunately, many individual educators lack the time and financial resources to assemble a high quality program "from scratch". The key collaborator in sharing distance workshops will be Andrea Engenbretson, the American Society of Agronomys Manager of Professional Education. In addition we will rely on the technical expertise from Communications and Information Technology at the University of Nebraska to use the Internet II infrastructure for connection and delivery to workshop sites.

Another significant collaboration we are proposing involves secondary school teachers to direct the adaptation of materials to the younger audience and general consumer. We have presented several workshops for high school agricultural science teachers in Nebraska and had teachers from urban high schools (Omaha and Lincoln) participate at other workshops. These teachers have advised us on the merits of our current lessons and have demonstrated to us that we will find creative and insightful collaborators from their ranks. In addition, Patricia Hain has provided consultation to the Mead, Nebraska high school as they continue to establish a curriculum that integrates agriculture into a variety of classes. As our educational specialist, she would be the key contact person in working with these collaborators.

The final major collaboration is overseen by Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel for the process and outcome evaluation of this entire proposed project. She will work closely with UNL evaluators who have designed the TOP evaluation framework.

A complete listing of collaborating Institutions is given below

University of Nebraska:
Department of Agronomy
Department of Nutritional Science and Dietetics
Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Panhandle Learning Center

Colorado State University:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management

Kansas State University:
Department of Agronomy


Oregon State University:
Department of Crop and Soils Science

Organizations and Professional Societies
Nebraska Dietetics Association
American Society of Agronomy
Nebraska Corn Board
Colorado Wheat Board

High School
Mead, NE Public High School
Nebraska Ag Science teachers

International Organizations
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture)






6. Additional Rationale for Project

With current intense debates abounding, it is imperative for public educators and researchers to be a viable resource for understanding genetic engineering and its implications on the food system. Several limitations to our progress in meeting this responsibility are addressed with this proposal. First, we can afford to develop the expensive programming needed to teach this science and reach distance learners because we will work together and share the final products. Second, we can more effectively leverage the time of public sector researchers with the team approach that is central to the proposal. Researchers will be motivated to contribute because in many ways we are modeling the publication process to which they are already accustomed. The modular approach to programming will allow contributers to focus on a single lesson. The lesson will help the learner stay up to date on the key advances in this rapidly changing science. The modules will show how the new information changes our understanding of plant genetics or how new technology impacts the genetic engineering process. Third, the lessons contributed to the library will be peer reviewed. This will promote lesson quality and allow the contributors to account for their professional contribution. In turn, this will provide incentives for contributors to invest the work necessary to develop new lessons that contribute to future programming to this library. Finally, the module library concept will form the basis of a learning economy that can be systematically accessed and expanded over time. The housing of this library on the Internet will certainly enhance the distance learning that will be required of the agribusiness audience.



7. Significant Impacts:

Meeting the Needs of Educators with Packaged Resources

Agricultural Educators in both extended education and resident education programs have the challenge of closing the gap between the introduction of new products from genetic engineering and their students understanding of how the technology was used to produce their unique characteristics. These educators find that their audience has a higher expectation for their programming. Educators commonly have a responsibility to teach a diverse array of topics and can only succeed if they have quality resources and the opportunity to learn as well. This program will help meet this need.

The demand to better understand the impact of crop genetic engineering is considerable. In Nebraska alone there are currently 780 Certified Crop Advisors (CCA), with another 80 pending certification. Internationally there are 14,000. Each CCA is required to obtain 40 continuing education units every 2 years. Similar educational demands are placed on registered dieticians. As an association, the American Dietetics Association has specified that they wish dieticians to receive training on biotechnology and related topics. High school teachers we have worked with are in need of resources that use effective visuals to simplify the key elements of this science. Finally, the international audience from developing countries is usually several years behind in accessing resources that will allow them to understand new technologies. Our goal is to impact this broad audience by developing well-crafted and versatile materials.

Providing Educational Events

We will also mobilize our expertise in face to face teaching of genetic engineering and enhance the impact of the Internet lessons as part of this project. Hands-on educational workshops are an effective way for learners to more fully understand complex scientific concepts. Having visual elements, a live instructor and an environment that emphasizes hands-on experience and inquiry increases student interest, comprehension and confidence are vital components. Over the past four years, Don Lee, Deana Namuth and Patricia Hain at the University of Nebraska have conducted one-day or two-day workshops and shorter field presentations that explain crop genetic engineering. Adult participants included agricultural extension educators, plant breeders, certified crop advisors, researchers, high school teachers and even students from third grade on up. Participants attended the training simply to learn more about the concepts of crop genetic engineering, to earn continuing education units (CEUs), or for academic credit. The uniqueness of this scheme is that it brings together adult learners of diverse backgrounds into the same workshop, which we found to enrich their educational experiences. A majority of the learners targeted for the workshops have direct contact and influence on small to mid-size producers, from the crop advisors and extension educators to the high school teachers in rural communities.

A long term goal of ours is to take this same model of workshops supplemented with on-line lessons and branch out not only geographically, but also into more nutrition related professions. If this proposal is funded, we anticipate offering a kick-off workshop for nutrition educators at the Nebraska Panhandle Learning Center once the on-line lessons are completed.





8. Describe the plans for research, assessment, evaluation and dissemination as applicable to the project:

Research and Assessment of Lesson Effectiveness:

We will assess both the Internet lessons and workshops we deliver that implement these lessons.

The evaluation plan will include both a process and outcome evaluation component. The process aspect will focus on identifying what has been learned from the project. It will measure the delivery of the principles which assisted in the development of the lesson. The process evaluation will allow the lesson developers to modify and adapt the lesson during the implementation phase. It will also increase the body of knowledge of collaborative on-line/satellite course development which can be shared with fellow professionals.

The outcome evaluation will be grounded in the Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) theoretical framework developed by evaluators Kay Rockwell (University of Nebraska - Lincoln) and Claude Bennett (Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, USDA). TOP assists in identifying outcomes in program development and performance and helps assess the degree to which the outcomes targets are reached. The seven levels of TOP (from the broadest long-term to the narrowest short-term benefits) include: 1) SEE - social, economic and environmental conditions or situations; 2) practices; 3) KASA - knowledge, attitude, skills, and aspirations; 4) reactions; 5) participants; 6) activities; and 7) resources.

Data collection for the process evaluation will be obtained through written or telephone surveys. Outcome evaluation data collection will be designed and implemented using on-line methods. Internet connectivity will allow for a six month follow up evaluation to help identify changes in practices or social, economic, or environmental conditions or situations. Additional follow up with participants may also be warranted.

Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel will be the primary program evaluator. Kay Rockwell, Unit Leader (University of Nebraska Cooperative Extensions Program Evaluation Unit) will function in a consultant role. We have collaborated with Dr. Fiona Nah, assistant professor of Management Information Systems in the UNL Management Department to study the impact of animations on effectiveness of learning. In the study, one of the Crop Genetic Engineering lessons was adapted for the study by creating two versions, one which included the animation in addition to its text equivalent, and the other in which there was no animation. Each site was administered to approximately 15 students and data collected using a questionnaire and a computer log following the students' pathway through the lesson. They are also using the same model to test the impact of a hyper-linked glossary on student learning. We will continue to pursue these collaborative opportunities as we test ways to improve the Internet lessons.

Evaluation of Lessons and Modules:

The lessons or modules will undergo three levels of peer evaluation.

1) The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) will conduct an evaluation of modules for their appropriateness as on-line auto-tutorials for the agriculture professional. The review will be conducted by content experts familiar with the target audience. The reviewers will determine if the lesson objectives cover pertinent information, are written at the appropriate level and effectively teach the targeted concepts. A $200 fee will be charged for each module that goes through this review. Approved modules will be listed on the ASA Web site and assigned CEU credits for the CCA (certified crop advisor) accreditation.

2) The Journal of Life Sciences and Natural Resource Education (JLSNRE) will conduct a review of individual lessons. This review will be similar to a review of a journal article. Each lesson will be evaluated for content accuracy and unique contribution to the resources available to learners. A lesson that meets recommended edits will be referenced as a peer reviewed on-line lesson in the JLSNRE. Lessons originally assembled into modules will go through both this review and the review for CEU credits. Additional lessons developed later to complement or supplement a module will go through this review only.

3) The JLSNRE will also conduct a media review of new modules. This review will describe and assess the lesson package as a set of learning materials.

This rigorous review of the Internet lessons will accomplish several objectives. First, the quality of the materials will increase to meet recommendations from the peer reviewers. Second, learners can determine the reliability of the lesson content from the cited date of review. Third, the ability of a contributor from academia to document these completed lessons as peer reviewed products will provide an incentive for their commitment to these projects. Finally, the review process will help establish criterion for lesson quality and unique contribution to public learning resources.

Stakeholders Advisory Committee

We will organize an Advisory Committee of approximately 12 stakeholders representing our collaborating states and disciplines. Some potential Advisory Committee members in Colorado and Nebraska have already been approached and agreed to serve. We have written commitments of support for this expanded project from both the College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources plus Cooperative Extension at the University of Nebraska. Similarly, at Colorado State University we have written commitments from Cooperative Extension, University Media Relations and the Division of Educational Outreach. We have also contacted and received written support from the Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Dietetics Association, and the Colorado Wheat Board.

We feel their role will be vital in directing the depths of topics covered, critical evaluating materials as they are developed and providing networks for marketing final products.

Dissemination through Academic Programs

Lesson modules will be valuable components providing up-to-date crop genetics and agricultural biotechnology education within existing resident and distance education programs that already serve a wide clientele, such as the Master of Agriculture degree and distance dietetics courses (both at the University of Nebraska) or the Seed Technologist Certification Program (at Colorado State University).

Quiz package marketing:

The lessons we develop are free, open-access Internet sites with the exception of the quizzes. Students must log into their own account each time they take a quiz. This provides teachers with the control needed to use these materials in "for credit" offerings. We will expand upon this quiz access feature.

The lesson pages have an account request button. The learner clicks in to request an account and a teacher must access an administrative Internet site and approve the request. We will promote these lessons and offer teachers the opportunity to have their own administrative site established by the DEAL lab at the University of Nebraska. Their students will request an account for the proper course or workshop and their request will go to the teachers administrative site. When the teacher approves the request, the student is automatically e-mailed their account access information. The teacher can then access the quiz records of their students. The DEAL lab will establish a fee for providing this service that compensates them for setting up the course account and providing the maintenance of the Internet lessons. This service will encourage the dissemination of the Internet lessons by providing educators with an efficient means to supplement courses and workshop content and assess student proficiency.





9. Broader Impacts:

With growing public access to the Internet in homes, schools, and workplaces, the World Wide Web has become a ubiquitous medium for providing and finding information. This is especially true for fast changing subject areas, where traditional print sources of information become rapidly outdated. Besides currency, other advantages of Web-based communication for complex subjects like crop biotechnology include the ability to blend different media formats (text, photographs, animation, sound and video clips); to offer interactive features rather than relying on purely passive information transfer; and to provide links to other Web sites presenting different information or opinions. Although there are a number of Web sites dealing with genetically engineered crops, many are sponsored by groups advocating a particular point of view, and thus are biased in their presentation. We feel there is a need for an accessible, balanced, science-based source of information on genetically engineered crop technology and related issues and the Internet is an appropriate means of delivery.

New technologies are being discovered in so many areas so rapidly that pre-college teachers have neither the time nor resources to first locate a reputable and easily accessible source of comprehensive and unbiased information, learn the material, and then distill the information to develop lesson plans and quality materials appropriate for their students.

Professionals in the crop production stage of the food system want to know how food saftey experts deem genetically engineered foods as "safe to eat". Therefore, the proposed lessons addressing these issues will provide a broader background of knowledge for these learners. Additionally, the nutrition professionals, many of whom work with the programs that provide services to low income residents, will be able to provide these educational materials directly to their clientele.

Bringing the Science of Agriculture to Young People

Many rural schools do not have the funding to hire an agricultural education teacher or agricultural education is not part of their course offerings. Students at urban schools are only directly involved with the consumption end of the food system. As a result there are few opportunities for students to learn about agricultural issues that have an impact upon them and their environment. Consequently, we anticipate that the programming developed from this project will impact many students who otherwise would not understand this science and how it impacts the food system.

We believe that this project has the potential to attract young people into agriculture who would not traditionally enter this area. In some ways agriculture can benefit from the controversies surrounding technologies such as genetic engineering because media attention has made people think more about the source of their food. If the science behind our food system is presented to young students in the right way, they can see the potential to apply their own interests in science to agriculture. By understanding that agricultureal and food sciences range from field to molecular studies, students will see that people of both sexes, from diverse backgrounds and who have all levels of physical abilities can impact agriculture. Therefore, this project embraces the participation of women, under represented minorities and persons with disabilities.





10. Proposed Timetable:

September 2000: Educational specialist works with content specialists to assemble objectives for each lesson. Content specialists provide sketches or examples of illustrations to be included. Specialist teams discuss key animation scenes that will be needed.

October 2000: Manager of Professional Education at ASA announces "Crop Biotechnology" workshops and works with contacts to establish four workshop sites. She identifies the facilitator at each site to begin working with the Nebraska educational team. Work begins on Internet II connection details.

November - December 2000: Content specialists work on lesson texts. Educational specialist works with educational research specialist to design improvements in the "Basic Lessons" module.

January-March 2001: Internet II workshops are delivered. Audience outcomes are assessed. International workshop is organized and announced as a part of the ASA annual meeting. Secondary school teacher workshop is announced. Summer positions for secondary school teachers are advertised. New lesson development continues. Jenny Kling arrives and begins work on International adaptation and plant breeding lessons.

April 2001: Secondary school teachers for summer position are selected. First new lessons that are completed are sent through peer evaluation.

May-June 2001: Workshop for secondary school teachers is presented. Secondary school case studies are developed. High school adaptation of basic lessons is developed. Other lesson development continues.

July-August 2001: Research results are written into publication. All lesson development continues and reaches launch stage. Peer evaluation continues.

Fall 2001: International workshop given in Charlotte, N.C. Ten lessons and secondary school case studies are completed. Peer reviewed lessons are posted on ASA Web site and Web sites of other professional societies.






11. Project Personnel and Time Commitment:



Don Lee 10
Will work with the revisions of the current genetics lessons and will be a presenter at workshops.

Nancy Lewis 5
Responsible for writing content for lessons.

Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel 1
In charge of assessment procedures.

Deana Namuth 10
Workshop presenter and help with lesson revisions.

Andrea Engebretson 5
Help coordinate regional and international crop genetic engineering workshops.

Patricia Hain 100
Serve as Educational Specialist.

Sarah Ward 5
Will write content for new lessons.

Pat Byrne 5
Will write content for new lessons.

Patrick Hayes 2
Will write content for new lessons.

Anita Dieleman 2
Will write content for a new lesson.

Frank Peairs 2
Will write content for a new lesson.

Charles Francis 2
Will write content for a new lesson.

Blair Sigfreid 2
Will write content for a new lesson.

Carola Strauss (Dept of Agronomy Web specialist) 5
Provide assistance in web page designs, html coding and functioning of on-line materials.

Jenny Kling 50
Edit lessons for appropriate use in African audiences.