Browning, N. (author / Mississippi State University), Courson, J. (author / Mississippi State University), and Gardner, D. (author / Mississippi State University)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1998-07-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 106 Document Number: C09912
Notes:
International Agricultural Communicators in Education Conference. Pacific Grove, California. July 15, 1998. 6 p.
14 pages., The 4-H Youth Development program prohibits all forms of discrimination which includes disability. 4-H Extension professionals provide the essential interface between Extension and the local community to create an inclusive environment for all youth, including those with disabilities, that is welcoming and accessible. Attitudes and self-efficacy for working with youth who have disabilities impact how well 4-
H delivers positive youth development programs. The purpose of this study was to determine state-wide 4-H Extension professionals’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceptions of inclusion toward youth with disabilities. In addition, the researchers sought to examine their use of a training program to better serve youth with disabilities. All 4-H Extension professionals in Ohio were surveyed (N = 135) with 71
responding (response rate of 53%). Results indicated the attitudes of Extension professionals for accepting of and feeling comfortable around youth with disabilities was overwhelmingly positive. They also perceived that youth with disabilities felt that they were included in 4-H activities. For self-efficacy,
4-H professionals reported they could effectively provide inclusive opportunities for youth with disabilities and adapt their level of instruction, take extra time, and pay attention to the needs of youth
with disabilities. However, about a third of the respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that their workload would increase by having youth with disabilities in their organization. The disability training program was used by over three-fourths of the 4-H professionals and helped them to engage with parents to learn more about their children with disabilities. The program also improved accommodations and
creating a more inclusive 4-H environment.
26 pages, Farmers’ perception on soil erosion has not adequately reported in the conditions of Ghana though its causes and effects are time and site-specific. The objective of this study was to assess farmers’ perception on soil erosion and implication for developing soil management strategy in the Eastern and Northern Regions of Ghana. A total of 130 household head farmers were interviewed and complemented with field observation and group. Data was analyzed using descriptive, chi-square test, T-test and binary logistic regression. The results show that there was significant variation in socioeconomic, farm and institutional attributes among the farmers`in the study regions. In the Eastern and Northern Regions, significantly higher proportions of the farmers (95.7% and 86.7%, respectively) perceived soil erosion as serious problem. Significantly higher proportions of the respondents (80%) perceived severe erosion problem at homestead land in the Eastern Region whereas severe erosion in the Northern Region was more noticed at distance farmlands (85.0%). In the two regions, the major causes of severe erosion as perceived by most farmers were over-cultivation, deforestation and heavy rainfall events. In the Eastern and Northern Regions, 58.6% and 75.0% of the farmers perceived, respectively, that soil erosion severity has been increased since the past 10-years. Perceptions of most frequently noted indicators of soil erosion were declined productivity, shallow soil depth, presence of rills, sheet erosion, soil loss from farmland, and change in soil color. Results of the binary logistic regression indicate that there is heterogeneity in the factors accounting for the perception of soil fertility. In developing promising soil management strategy in the study area, attention must be given to key socioeconomic, biophysical, farm and institutional factors.
