Community IPM

Chief personnel, activities and programs - 2014

Master Gardener Volunteers - Pam Bennett and Denise Johnson, Extension
Due to funding reallocation, this program area is no longer being formally supported by the IPM Program.

2014 - Diagnostic Workshops for Master Gardener Volunteers - Pam Bennett and Denise Johnson, Extension

Increasing the confidence levels in diagnosing plant problems with a focus on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was the goal for four Master Gardener Volunteer Diagnostic Workshops were held in 2014.  Two renowned Ohio State University Extension Entomologists provided instruction at all four workshops.

Dr. Curtis Young and Dr. Celeste Welte developed and taught the same program at all 4 locations in order to maintain consistency in the morning session and to evaluate the learning.  Curtis taught Landscape IPM and Celeste taught Vegetable IPM.

The workshops were focused on IPM for landscape plants for the first 1.5 hours with Dr. Curtis Young, and IPM for the backyard vegetable gardener for the second half of the morning session with Dr. Celeste Welte.  Pretests and posttests  (see attached) were given to measure the change in confidence levels using the likert scale as well as knowledge gained test through with a fix question multiple-choice pre and post tests.  In three of the counties, the pre and post tests are matched to the same participant; Lake county was unable to comply with this request.  There were a total of 153 participants.

The afternoon sessions in all four workshops involved hands-on exercises with fresh horticultural and vegetable samples provided by various specialists around the state.

During the morning session, other instructors sorted samples and selected the most appropriate for MGV learning.  The numbered samples and question sheets were placed on tables for participants to examine. Instructors were available during the time participants were work on  diagnosing the samples, answering questions and guiding learning.  After the participants had time to complete the answer sheets, each instructor would present the sample and discuss the answer as well as the diagnostic process for that particular samples.  To enhance learning samples were magnified with the use of a document reader or other mechanism.  All were engaged in the afternoon discussion of the samples.

Date                         Location                            No. of Participants
May 28                  Franklin County                                 30
June 11                 Lake County                                      39
July 18                  Huron County                                    40
August 27             Montgomery County                          44

All pre and post test responses were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and compared.

The data indicates there was an increase in confidence levels for all five questions between the pretest and the posttest.  Interestingly, the greatest increase in confidence level occurred for Question 2 - I understand what Key Plant/Key Pest means.  This suggests this was a new term or concept for the participants.   Only four (4) of the 153 participants did not increase in confidence for all five questions.

The data for the vegetable IPM knowledge questions indicates inconsistent increases in understanding what was presented.  Questions 2 - Biological control in vegetable gardens can be promoted by: and question 4 - Pest management by exclusion with row covers is most suitable for which pest? had the greatest percentage of correct responses between the pre and post tests.  However,  Question 1- A first step in diagnosing the cause of wilting in a squash plant in July is" - had the lowest increase in correct responses.   In fact, two counties there were more correct responses for Question 1 in the pretest than the post test.  Interestingly, Question 3 -  A general pest monitoring method that is suited to vegetable gardens - also had an increase between pre and post test scores by less than 50% and there was one county that had more correct responses on the pretest than the posttest. This information will be shared with the presenters so they can evaluate if changes should be made to their presentation.