October 2017 // Volume 55 // Number 5 // Ideas at Work // 5IAW6
Straight from the Horse(man)'s Mouth: Innovative 4-H Camps
As 4-H evolves to include a wide breadth of youths' modern interests, innovative educational opportunities and evaluation practices become necessary. Horsemanship and safety-based horse camps were created in response to a statewide challenge to develop competitive 4-H members and retain those members as they approach adolescence. This article addresses the development, implementation, and review of Arkansas's horse 4-H camps. The article content includes a practical example of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model and a description of how a goal-based evaluation led to planned program modifications.
One in five Arkansas households owns at least one horse (University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, 2016). In early spring 2016, Arkansas had 922 youths, aged 5–19, enrolled in horse 4-H projects; these participants comprised roughly 7% of the total population of enrolled 4-H members in the state (4-H Online, n.d.). Since 2010, the state 4-H horse show has become increasingly popular for youths (Russell, 2015), yet the horse 4-H program is facing the national battle of losing members as they approach adolescence (Defore, Fuhrman, Peake, & Duncan, 2011; Seevers & Graham, 2012). Currently, many members lack proper horsemanship, a situation that contributes to an overall frustration with horse projects, adding to the growing drop-out rate for horse 4-H clubs. In response to these issues, fee-based horse camps were developed via a statewide initiative (Cochran, Ferrari, & Arnett, 2014) and were specially designed by the state equine specialist to incorporate a wide breadth of resources and strategies. A spring break horse 4-H camp was first developed in 2010, and a growing participation rate necessitated the addition of a summer horse 4-H camp in 2013; both camps involve similar curricula and have been dually offered since 2013.
Purpose of the Camp
Goals of the horse 4-H camp include providing Arkansas horse 4-H club members with expert guidance and, ultimately, increasing members' desire to continue involvement with horse projects. The following objectives guide camp activities:
- Increase knowledge of horsemanship principles related to the horse 4-H program.
- Increase knowledge of safety practices related to the horse 4-H program.
- Provide youths with applicable resources to decrease challenges with their horse projects.
Design and Implementation of a Horse 4-H Camp Curriculum
Camp developers found benefit in using a pragmatic logic model as a framework for formulating a curriculum, recruiting volunteers, recruiting participants, and, for the summer camp of 2016, determining areas of impact through goal-based evaluation (see Figure 1) (Futris & Schramm, 2015; Rennekamp & Arnold, 2009; Rennekamp & Engle, 2008).
Arkansas Horse 4-H Camp Logic Model
The state equine specialist primarily manages the horse 4-H camps with heavy assistance by a county agent and the Arkansas 4-H Center camping coordinator. The program curriculum is implemented by the state equine specialist, county agents with a personal investment in the equine industry, the Arkansas 4-H Center, Diamond TR Ranch, and a wide variety of volunteer equine experts. The target audience includes all current members of Arkansas horse 4-H clubs, aged 12–19, with riding experience and a horse that can be delivered to and from Diamond TR Ranch. During the 2016 summer horse 4-H camp, participants were exposed to equine professionals with a variety of backgrounds, such as collegiate equestrian, horsemanship, speed, performance, English, and ranch-style riding. Most activities were conducted in small groups and led by one or two volunteer experts. One camp highlight included a field trip to a nearby thoroughbred breeding farm and specialized wound care research center. The participants were transported to Diamond TR Ranch each morning to engage in horse activities and from the ranch to the 4-H center located near Little Rock, Arkansas, each evening for meals and lodging; the distance between the locations is roughly 30 mi. Transportation was provided by the 4-H center. While the campers were at the 4-H center, their evening activities included swimming, canoeing, making s'mores, and watching the film Unbranded. The 4-H center camping coordinator was responsible for the activities and care of camp participants throughout their duration at the 4-H center. The camp participants (n = 15) were from nine counties throughout the state (see Figure 2).
Native Location of 2016 Horse 4-H Summer Camp Participants
Participants' perceptions of the 2016 summer camp experience provided a measurement for the program's effectiveness and impact. Kirkpatrick's (1998) model guided daily field observation and pre- and posttest questionnaires and allowed the flexibility to tailor question content directly to the camp curriculum and atmosphere through the four major content areas of the model: (a) learners' reactions, (b) learning, (c) behaviors, and (d) overall results of a program. The purpose of using this framework was to fulfill the camp coordinator's desire for program accountability, enhancement of services to participants, and increased recruitment of all stakeholders (Arnold & Cater, 2016; Bennett, 1975; Diem, 2003; Lekies & Bennett, 2011).
Average group scores on questionnaires indicated that interactions with equine experts enhanced participants' horsemanship skills, decreased unsafe practices, and increased youths' desire to continue investing time with equine projects. Group averages in nearly all content areas were above the median level on Likert-type scales. Scores in horsemanship etiquette and safety increased by 22%; aspirations to seek magazines and training videos were expressed by 53% and 47% of respondents, respectively. Confidence levels increased in 70% of horsemanship skill areas (e.g., riding with a group of people, staying balanced while riding), and nearly all participants aspired to recommend that other horse 4-H members attend the 2017 summer camp. The vast majority of responses were above the "undecided" or "sometimes" descriptors; however, some decreases in posttest data did exist. Data trends illustrated that older participants and those with fewer years' equine experience finished the camp feeling less confident about completing equitation patterns. Recommendations include making a more consistent impact in the diverse population by using older participants in leadership roles (Hamilton, Northern, & Neff, 2014) and tailoring the educational components to participants' ages and/or riding levels rather than focusing on group activities (Harder, Lamm, Lamm, Rose, & Rask, 2005).
Establishment of the horse 4-H camps was a creative response to a specific need in the Arkansas youth population (Seevers & Graham, 2012). The results of the 2016 summer camp evaluation were developed into a report and condensed into a vignette for key stakeholders. The vignette illustrated the significant findings of the study and included photographs of camp activities. The purpose of this communication piece is to increase motivation, participation, and retention of expert volunteers. Aligned with the expressed concern of Borden, Perkins, and Hawkey (2014), the multiphase evaluation was designed to be innovative and provide camp coordinators insight on the target population's needs. For more information about the evaluation practices or instruments, please contact the Arkansas equine specialist, Mark Russell.
4-H Online. (n.d.). 4-H online enrollment. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from https://www.4honline.com
Arnold, M. E., & Cater, M. (2016). Program theory and quality matter: Changing the course of Extension program evaluation. Journal of Extension, 54(1), Article 1FEA1. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2016february/a1.php
Bennett, C. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 13(2). Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/1975-2-a1.pdf
Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F., & Hawkey, K. (2014). 4-H youth development: The past, the present, and the future. Journal of Extension, 52(4), Article 4COM1. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2014august/comm1.php
Cochran, G. R., Ferrari, T. M., & Arnett, N. (2014). Using an initiative to focus programming efforts: A case study of the Ohio 4-H workforce preparation initiative. Journal of Extension, 52(3), Article 3FEA8. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2014june/a8.php
Defore, A. B., Fuhrman, N. E., Peake, J. B., & Duncan, D. W. (2011). Factors influencing 4-H club enrollment and retention in Georgia. Journal of Youth Development, 6(2), 60–73. Retrieved from https://nae4a.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/JYDfinal0602.pdf
Diem, K. G. (2003). Program development in a political world—It's all about impact! Journal of Extension, 41(1), Article 1FEA6. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/a6.php
Futris, T. G., & Schramm, D. G. (2015). Program development from start-to-finish: A case study of the healthy relationship and marriage education training program. Journal of Extension, 53(3), Article 3FEA4. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2015june/a4.php
Hamilton, S. F., Northern, A., & Neff, R. (2014). Strengthening 4-H by analyzing enrollment data. Journal of Extension, 52(3), Article 3FEA7. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2014june/a7.php
Harder, A., Lamm, A., Lamm, D., Rose, H., & Rask, G. (2005). An in-depth look at 4-H enrollment and retention. Journal of Extension, 43(5), Article 5RIB4. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/rb4.php
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Lekies, K. S., & Bennett, A. M. (2011). The evaluation attitudes and practices of 4-H educators. Journal of Extension, 49(1), Article 1RIB2. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2011february/rb2.php
Rennekamp, R. A., & Arnold, M. E. (2009). What progress, program evaluation? Reflections on a quarter-century of Extension evaluation practice. Journal of Extension, 47(3), Article 3COM1. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2009june/comm1.php
Rennekamp, R. A., & Engle, M. (2008). A case study in organizational change: Evaluation in Cooperative Extension. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(120), 15–26. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.273/epdf
Russell, M. (2015). 2015 State 4-H Horse Show wrap. Horse e-News, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.uaex.edu/farm-ranch/animals-forages/horses/Summer%202015.pdf
Seevers, B., & Graham, D. (2012). Education through Cooperative Extension (3rd ed.). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Bookstore.
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. (2016). Horses in Arkansas. Retrieved from http://www.uaex.edu/farm-ranch/animals-forages/horses/