1) The document describes implementing problem-solving activities into pesticide recertification programs in Ohio to increase farmer participation. Educators developed hands-on group activities covering topics like pesticide record keeping, alfalfa pest problems, and water quality issues. 2) Farmers worked in groups of 6-8 to tackle problems using their expertise and extension publications. Educators provided support and groups shared information. Short presentations followed each activity. 3) Farmer feedback indicated the problem-solving approach kept them engaged for the full three hours and they found the programs highly educational, in contrast to traditional powerpoint presentations.

1. Implementing Problem Solving Activities
Into Pesticide Recertiϐication Programming
BarreƩ, E.E.1; Hogan, M.P.2; Snyder, W.R.3
1
Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension, 490 S. Broad St. Canfield, OH, 44406 barreƩ.90@osu.edu
2
Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension, Lancaster, OH 43130
3
Extension Program Assistant, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Extension, Canfield, OH, 44406
Teaching Outline Group Dynamics Group Activity Example Evaluation & Impact
1. Register - Packet of InformaƟon to ParƟcipants, including: Room Set-up is a must for interacƟon:
•All tables pre-set before program
- Blank Group AcƟvity Sheets
•8’ Tables, Four ParƟcipants per side
- Water Quality Book and Proceedings Book •Short end of table faces screen
- EvaluaƟon Forms •Materials placed in center of table
- State Survey InformaƟon
2. Brain Teaser AcƟvity (working as a group)
3. AcƟvity #1— Core
- AcƟvity: PesƟcide Record Keeping Problem
- Materials: Record books; ODA Revised Code; PublicaƟons
- Slides: Recordkeeping & New Categories
4. AcƟvity #2— Grain & Cereal Crops
- AcƟvity: Alfalfa Pest Problem
- Materials: Forage Field Guide; Factsheets
- Slides: Geƫng the most out of Glyphosate
Materials for Group Activities
ObservaƟons and verbal feedback were also uƟlized as an
5. Break
evaluaƟon tool. Some highlights include:
6. FumigaƟon Category: Phosphine and Safety Slides •ParƟcipants were interacƟng and sharing personal experi-
7. AcƟvity #3— Core ences with pesƟcide use on their individual farms.
•Individuals asked quesƟons during group exercises and
- AcƟvity: Water Quality Problem parƟcipated more than during slide presentaƟons.
- Materials: pH test kits; Water boƩles (pH adjusted); Book •ParƟcipants stayed aŌer the program to ask quesƟons.
- Slides: Water Quality Makes a Difference •One farmer stated, “I want to make a complaint...that the
pesƟcide recerƟficaƟon meeƟngs in the past have not
8. Slides: Fruit and Vegetable Updates on Insects been this good!”
9. Slides: Nursery and Forest Updates on Invasive Pests •One farmer listed on his comments on a separate teach-
ing evaluaƟon, “Painless.”
10. Complete RecerƟficaƟon Forms & EvaluaƟon
Curriculum Used Abstract
Farmers in Ohio are required to gain three hours of recerƟficaƟon to keep their pesƟcide
applicator license in good standing with the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Many presen-
• PresentaƟons: taƟons given throughout the state include technical, professional power point presenta-
- Scripted power points from State Specialists/Other Educators Ɵons intended to update these farmers on the newest chemicals or the latest research on a
given crop. PresentaƟons such as this made it difficult to keep the interest of parƟcipants
- Based on 2011 research or cumulaƟve research for a three hour period. Thus, these educators made it an objecƟve to increase parƟcipa-
- InformaƟon edited to fit acƟviƟes Ɵon of famers through hands-on problem solving, rather than rely on power point presen-
taƟons. The educators developed specific acƟviƟes for general pesƟcide use and record
• Group AcƟviƟes: keeping to meet state requirements. They developed hands-on acƟviƟes, including the Al-
falfa Problem, a Livestock Fly Problem, Spray Water Quality Issues and more. Farmers
- Designed by Educators to meet Ohio Department of worked in groups of 6-8, tackling problems using their own experƟse and OSU Extension
Agriculture Categories publicaƟons at their tables. Educators worked the room to answer quesƟons, explain spe-
cific problem parameters and to assist struggling groups. The groups then shared infor-
- Chosen based on categories of parƟcipants Interested in our set of problem solving maƟon with the enƟre group as a presentaƟon. Much shorter, yet informaƟonal Power
Point PresentaƟons were then presented by these educators as a follow up informaƟon for
• State Developed EvaluaƟon Form acƟviƟes? Send an email request to: each acƟvity to drive the message home. Farmers rate these programs as highly educaƟon-
Eric BarreƩ barreƩ.90@osu.edu or al and have made comments that these are some of the best Extension programs they have
aƩended.
Mike Hogan hogan.1@osu.edu