Outlook 2010 Webinar recordings available
For those of you who missed our …
March 31, 2010 Horticulture Webinar
Sponsored by CCE Sustainable Landscapes-Horticulture Program Work Team
The recording of this webinar was divided up by speaker and is available to download and listen to from the following site. In the future we might consider: How do we create and organize a library of these presentations including ones you record in your counties? Might we have a fee structure for access? How can we effectively track who is watching the recording so we can report outcomes? But at this point we just want this current information in the hands of those who can use it.
The Pest Forecast: Insects and Mites to Watch in 2010
Daniel Gilrein, Extension Entomologist, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County
Tree Diseases Review and Preview -2010
Presented by Dr. George Hudler, Cornell University Department of Plant Pathology
Originally broadcast to 16 county offices including Chenango, Clinton, Erie, Greene, Jefferson, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Ontario, Orleans, Otsego, Putnam, St Lawrence, Suffolk, Westchester, and Wyoming.
It is my understanding that CCE’s Adobe package only allows us to have 100 participants at one time so having people connect directly from home would not have allowed us to accommodate our 102 participants. Moreover, DEC credits would not have been an option.
Total audience was 102 people.
- 24 participants were educators in our CCE horticulture educational network.
- The vast majority of the remaining 78 participants were landscaper contractors as well as other horticulture professionals including nursery and greenhouse growers, arborists, municipality/university grounds keepers and golf course superintendents.
- A handful of CCE Master Gardener Volunteers and a few homeowners also participated though they were not the intended audience.
- 64 participants received DEC pesticide recertification credits.
Feedback and considerations for future webinars
County feedback indicated that the webinar was a good idea that went well. “Awesome” is my personal favorite description provided.
Overwhelmingly the sentiment was that the speakers were very knowledgeable.
As was noted “The content of the presentations was great. Even if the technology works perfectly, if the content isn’t any good you don’t have much.”
Additional comments on the presentations included:
- Good quality of photos.
- Appreciated multiple recommendations for management.
- I noted many times how I could use this for a reference when calls come in.
- There was lots of content. A handout with all the names of plants and products would have been very useful.
- Found the new pathogen issues fascinating.
- The Q&A at the end worked well. Ability to ask questions was appreciated.
We had a slow transition between Dan and George and it was suggested that we consider incorporating a 10 minute break. Time between presentations would make it easier to set up each speaker in the share mode without having a waiting audience. Further it was noted “It was nice to have a stretch break between speakers, it’s hard to focus for too long when there’s not a face to look at and interact with.”
Possibly we should start earlier too? Long program for a weeknight.
Noted advantages with this educational approach:
- Efficient access and connection with state specialists.
- Chance to connect better with the local commercial businesses.
- Inclement weather, failed airline connections or other impedances might not be such an issue for speakers.
- Though we did not do this you can record the presentation in advance in case technical difficulties derailed things.
It was indicated that doing some technology practice runs with the speakers and counties made a difference with the technology.
In our “dress rehearsals” Dan and I learned that uploading the PowerPoint had its own disadvantages including some imbedded objects such as tables and images could not be viewed. If we didn’t go with the share desktop option, Dan and George were going to have redo many slides in their presentations in order for us to upload them and use them via Adobe content library.
Everyone is still not completely comfortable with the system and this approach to education will demand that educators and others on site be more acquainted with the technology and their computer settings. This would include changing the settings so the computer doesn’t go into screen saver mode or log you out of your network connection during the broadcast.
I learned a lot as the “host” including that it was my messing with the microphone button that resulted in us losing Dan’s voice for a few moments. Sorry. Also in messing with Adobe more I now think some people were getting feedback/echoing (bad audio) on their end at times because their microphone button was on maybe on hands free. Further research is needed on audio issues.
Possibly different audience experiences in different locations could be based on speed of their connection or their equipment? It was also suggested that we probably hit the Internet when it’s the busiest on the east coast. Though one perspective noted: “This worked MUCH better than polycom as far as audio goes, and for the flow – no time delays, jammed signals, garbled voices.”
It was recognized by several that a significant speaker-audience rapport is sacrificed with this educational approach. Adding video using a web camera could be a simple enough option we can try in the future. Some find the video distracting during the PowerPoint, and video will significantly increase the size of the recorded file so maybe we can try having the camera on the presenter only during the question and answer phase. I don’t see how we could orchestrate a camera on every audience location.
Securing DEC credits was a good way to get people there but some still felt they did not have a good turnout. For those counties who did well recruiting participants what approaches have you found to be most successful in recruiting horticulture professional?
Next time we do need to start a bit more ahead of time in securing DEC credits so you have plenty of time to advertise.
As promised the target audience was horticulture professional. Some content was not appropriate for do it yourself gardeners. Time limitations possibly drove speakers to focus on changes in management options which tend to be chemical controls not cultural.
Topics we should consider for future programs
- topics of general horticulture concern
- time sensitive topics
- lawn variety/cultivar update
- lawn fertilization update
- turf disease/insects/weeds
- more on woody diseases/insects
- update on tree shrub cultivars
- roses in general
- flowering shrubs
- current research going on at Cornell
- weed management
- soil amending
- mulching options
- invasives
- market trends or ideas
- perm-culture
- nutrient dense vegetables
- GMO
When and how often might we have webinars?
The most common thought was that landscape contractors/lawn service, etc. have a short window for workshops, or rather, diversions from working and making money. Maybe during winter months? DEC credits are a must! Considering other regional industry sessions are offered during the winter, two of these might be enough per year to start.
Should we have an hour long webinar monthly for CCE horticulture educators? A presentation for 30 minutes followed by 30 minutes of questions?
comments off Lori Bushway | Various