The document discusses barriers to using technology in Extension education and proposes embracing open education as a solution. It analyzes that Extension staff are often not ready for technology in teaching, and audiences are more tech-savvy than perceived. Implementing open education would mean investing in online learning infrastructure, lowering costs for online courses, developing faculty skills, and recognizing technology use. This would allow Extension to reach broader audiences while maintaining value to funders.

1. How can technologies
for teaching and
learning enhance
Extension education?
Amy Baker
Chief Technology Officer
University of Minnesota Extension

2. EXTENSION: AN OLD INSTITUTION WITH NEW CHALLENGES
For over one hundred years, Extension has operated throughout the United States disseminating information
and recommendations from researchers at land-grant universities to the residents of their states. A century ago,
over 30% of the workforce was agriculturally-based and in need of a connection to technological innovations
coming out of universities. Today, Extension has adapted to be less agriculturally-focused, adding more
emphasis on youth programs, mandated certification education, and specialized adult education to its portfolio.
Extension is a cooperative agreement of funding by federal, state, and county sources. Remaining relevant to all
of these funders (not to mention grants), and ultimately to the clientele, is a challenge Extension has seen
looming since at least the 1980s, when it became obvious the future of agriculture was large-scale operations
run and advised by university-educated agricultural professionals. The value of Extension as a unique source of
information has only been further eroded since then by the emergence of the internet. Extension’s many
competitors now include YouTube, Twitter, and countless websites, collectively referred to as the “competitive
knowledge marketplace” by King & Boehlje (2000).
The Short Course Train (left) brought the Extension short course to the people. It removed barriers to our
audiences getting our information--barriers like cost, time, travel.
How are we removing barriers today?
Short Course Train, 1915
Photo copyright University of Minnesota

3. BARRIERS TO TEACHING AND LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN EXTENSION
Much of the literature on Extension’s use of technology debates the clientele's readiness and appetite for
technology-delivered Extension learning. There is a perception that Extension’s audiences are not tech savvy, a
perception that is likely quite false, even with Extension’s most traditional audiences. A 2011 study found potato
farmers to be even more tech savvy than incoming university freshmen (Guenthner & Swan, 2011). Although
23% of rural residents on average nationwide have no availability of high-speed internet access in their home,
this percentage is shrinking as national investments are made in broadband infrastructure (U.S. Congressional
Research Service, 2012).
Perhaps the question should be the other way around: not whether Extension’s audiences are ready for learning
technologies, but is Extension staff ready. This question is thoroughly addressed by Diem et al. (2009) and Seger
(2011), who both conclude that Extension staff are in denial about the importance of current and future
technology trends. This barrier of Extension staff negative perception of their digital self is especially visible by
how few places they are participating in low-barrier electronic discussions with audiences. Many Extension
staff do not see themselves as capable of functioning as effectively and comfortably in the online learning world
as they do in their face-to-face world.
A very real barrier to Extension’s widespread adoption of open education, is the local nature of its funding.
Although it varies widely, many Extension organizations throughout the nation are funded somewhere around
20% by county governments. Extension needs to maintain value and connection to its invested communities.
“Catering to existing, high-maintenance traditional audiences is being done while sacrificing the opportunity to
reach new audiences,” (Diem et al., 2009).
Extension staff are in
denial about the
importance of current and
future technology trends

4. A VISION FOR EXTENSION
Extension is ideally and uniquely situated to embrace the changes happening in higher education today. Open education, a
growing trend in online learning and higher ed, is a term that refers to creating education that is available to a wide audience,
without the usual barriers of location, cost, and admission requirements.
The open education movement fits Extension well; Extension’s educational mission is mostly publicly funded as well as devoid
of a tuition-based credit/degree structure. Declaring and supporting open education as a core value of Extension would be a
shift away from a century of traditional information transfer. This shift would mean recognizing that the value of Extension
education is not in the content. The competitive knowledge marketplace (King and Boehlje, 2000) has already made this the
case. As a University of Minnesota academic technology leader asked, for the sake of discussion,
“What is Extension’s value over a Google search?” (Anon., 2012).
Extension’s true strength lies in its ability to provide educational context customized to a community, to provide learning
opportunities based on relationships, and to empower people with access to their own peer expert communities. It is
fortuitous serendipity that these strengths coincide with the current societal shift in learning preferences from authoritative
sources to social networks. The new reality is that traditional information transfer is not what learners will value enough to
pay for in the future, either directly (fees) or indirectly (public funding).
Another aspect that makes open education a feasible vision for Extension is the widespread availability of online tools for use
in this goal. Ten years ago, building an online course costs tens of thousands of dollars. Today, there should be no such barriers.
Extension, being embedded in the land-grant system, has access to university resources and investments in learning tools.
Committing to an open educational model opens Extension to new and diverse audiences, aligning with today’s federal priority
shift to reaching urban and international audiences, expanding Extension’s base beyond the traditional rural. Open education
resources are also how Extension could be a key contributor to international work, such as the four UN Millennium
Development Goals in Extension’s areas of expertise: eliminate hunger, empower women, environmental sustainability, and
global partnerships (http://www.undp.org).
A last and possibly most convincing argument for embracing open education in Extension is that delivering Extension
education via a modern delivery format increases its credibility. Meeting or exceeding clientele’s expectations in delivery
method by using today’s available technologies, such as social networks, video streaming, and online courseware, is no less
important to Extension’s argument for relevancy than the quality of the information disseminated.

5. IMPLEMENTING AN OPEN EDUCATION VISION
In order to most effectively incorporate learning and teaching technologies into Extension education, Extension
needs to embrace open education as a value, investing in and supporting it with the belief that it is an essential
move toward making Extension education better, and it is not about the technology itself.
In order to do this, Extension organizations need to create a reproducible online learning environment
infrastructure that especially plays to Extension’s strength by allowing for maximum social connections,
including connections with the Extension staff. This environment could be created at a national level, perhaps
this is ideal for the learner, but recognizing the failures of eXtension to fill this role despite years of expensive
attempts, creation at a state level is more realistic. Make the environment extremely easy to access for both the
educator and the learner. The key to social connection is frequent information updates, and a well-crafted, easy
environment leads to a network of updates ideal for continual learning (Siemens, 2008).
Extension needs to lower the bar on online courses. An iterative but finite design-based research process and
inexpensive tools should be utilized to create courses. A reproducible pipeline for online course creation allows
for consistency in learner experience as well as a tried-and-true template for educators to start from. Only when
Extension stops spending tens of thousands of dollars to create each online course from scratch will open
education be a viable option.
Next, Extension needs to develop and empower faculty to use technology for teaching. This is done by modeling
excellent use of technology in professionally developing staff, which not only builds staff confidence as a digital
learner, but also yields reflective educators who have increased knowledge, skills, and dispositions to innovate
in their own teaching (Teemant, 2005).
“Technology
doesn’t make it
better.
Making it better
makes it better.”
Barb Chamberlin, Learning Games
Lab, New Mexico State University

6. IMPLEMENTING AN OPEN EDUCATION VISION, continued
Extension needs to promote and recognize technology use by educators, through internal grants and
recognition programs. Use of technology for teaching should be an expectation of new hires, preventing a
culture of poor digital self-esteem perpetuated by “hiring in your own image” (Diem et al., 2009).
A priority should be put on making Extension learning available on the device and in the environment the
audience desires (Siemens, 2008). Designing educational strategies and environments around a learner’s
preferences and access restrictions is critical to the success of the education.
Last, implementing an open education vision in Extension has the essential caveat of knowing when not to do it.
Each Extension organization should recognize their unique situational value, and identify the times of local
need when an online learning environment is not an appropriate response. Identify these situations--for
example, natural disaster response, after school programs, areas of sensitive local value--and set them aside as
unique. These situations are often examples of Extension at its best; however, they should not be used as an
excuse for not implementing open education in the other programs of the organization.
Following these implementation recommendations could lead Extension to a future very different in method
than its past, but very much the same in its educational mission. Some key duties on a future Extension
educator’s plan of work could include: tweeting to clientele and stakeholders, updating program page on
Facebook, communicating the latest information releases via blog, uploading quick videos to a video learning
community, responding to posts on a peer-moderated subject-specific forum, and holding a twice per year
MOOC (massive open online course). Extension learners could be world-wide, connecting across the state or
globe to form learning communities, exchanging advice and experiences over Extension’s forums or a social
network, earning Extension virtual “badges” through course participation and community helpfulness.
Many Extension staff
do not see themselves
as capable of
functioning as
effectively and
comfortably in the
online learning
world as they do in
their face-to-face
world.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The best uses of teaching and learning technologies for Extension education are
those that broaden Extension’s learning audience while demonstrating value to
public funders.
To this end, Extension needs to embrace open education as a value to remain relevant and effective. The
competitive knowledge marketplace of today’s content-rich world puts Extension in a new niche, one where its
value is in the community it can bring together. Investing in staff development, appropriate process and tools,
and utilizing a reproducible design-based approach are recommendations for implementing open education in
Extension.
Cow Comfort tour, 2011
Photo copyright University of Minnesota

8. REFERENCES
Anonymous academic technology leader, University of Minnesota. Personal interview. 25 Sept. 2012.
Case, P., & Hino, J. (2010). A Powerful Teaching Tool: Self-Produced Videos. Journal of Extension [Online], 48(1) Article 1TOT3. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/tt3.php
Chamberlin, Barb. (2012). “How to make games: Interactive tools and media that don't stink.” Presentation at University of Minnesota
Extension professional development conference. Bloomington, MN. 9 Oct. 2012.
Diem, K., Gamble, K., Hino, J., Martin, D., & Meisenbach, T. (2009). Assessing county Extension programs' readiness to adopt technology; An OSU
case study of two Oregon counties. Oregon: Author. Retrieved from:http://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/for-
employees/administrative-resources/initiatives/CountyTechAssessFinalReport.pdf
Guenthner, J.F. & Swan, B.G. (2011). Extension Learners’ Use of Electronic Technology. Journal of Extension [On-line], 49(1) Article 1FEA2.
Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2011february/a2.php
King, D., & Boehlje, M. (1992, October). Extension: on the brink of extinction or distinction? Journal of Extension [Online], 38(5) Article 5COM1.
Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.php
Nayak, R. K. (2012). County Extension Agents' use of technology in distance education, and extension program delivery issues. Doctoral
dissertation, Tarleton State University.
Olsen, C. S., Jones, R., Jost, J., & Griffin, C. L. (2009). Integrating economics, management, and human relationship issues into training for
successful farm family businesses. Journal of Extension [Online], 47(5) Article 5IAW6. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2009october/iw6.php.
Seger, J. (2011). The New Digital [St]age: Barriers to the Adoption and Adaptation of New Technologies to Deliver Extension Programming and
How to Address Them. Journal of Extension [On-line], 49(1) Article 1FEA1. Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2011february/a1.php
Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu.com.
Teemant , A. (2005). Evaluating socio-cultural pedagogy in a distance teacher education program . Teacher Education Quarterly 32 (3), 49-62.
U.S. Congressional Research Service. Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs (RL30719; Sept. 7, 2012),
by Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy. Accessed: November 22, 2012.