Search Results

This research examines student perception of sustainable landscaping at the University of Delaware (UD), Newark and the impact of interpretation on student perception of the landscape. Students living on UD’s Laird Campus were surveyed before and after an interpretive campaign designed to describe the benefits of sustainable landscaping. The results of this study found that the majority of students surveyed perceive the landscape to be attractive, sustainable, well maintained, and functional, providing encouragement for the use of sustainable landscaping practices on university campuses. Reduced mowing (once per year), as it is implemented on Laird Campus, was identified as the sustainable practice least likely to be considered acceptable by students. Sustainable landscaping interpretation improved student awareness and acceptance of sustainable landscaping practices. Greater levels of engagement with the interpretation campaign increased students’ awareness and acceptance of sustainable landscaping. In contrast to students’ increased awareness and acceptance of sustainable landscaping practices, students’ perception of the landscape’s appearance did not significantly improve after the interpretation campaign, suggesting the need for future interpretation campaigns to directly address aesthetic issues in addition to interpretation of environmental benefits.

In the 2015 Delaware (DE) Master Gardener training, instructors synchronously delivered content to two trainee cohorts (Cohorts A and B) who met at three locations (Sites 1, 2, and 3) via video web conferencing (VWC). This reduced instructor delivery and travel time but warranted close examination of trainee learning outcomes and experiences. To evaluate the pilot implementation of remote delivery, trainees [number of trainees (N) = 30] answered two open-ended application questions after 11 instructional sessions. One cohort received instruction face-to-face, while the other cohort synchronously received instruction via remote delivery [number of participants in cohort 1 (n₁) = 17; number of participants in cohort 2 (n₂) = 13]; each cohort was remote for about half of the sessions. The overall average face-to-face score assessing session content mastery was higher than the overall average remote score by 0.1, a 5% difference given the possible scores range of 0 to 2.0. When we grouped sessions by remote delivery site, delivery mode only significantly predicted average session scores for those sessions delivered remotely to Site 2 and not those delivered remotely to either Site 1 or Site 3. When we considered each session individually, delivery mode significantly predicted session scores for 2 of the 11 sessions, both broadcast remotely to trainees at Site 2, where the bandwidth was 10% of those at Sites 1 and 3. We suggest the VWC system performed particularly poorly for these sessions due to limited bandwidth. Posttraining survey results suggest the VWC system did not function well enough to approximate face-to-face instruction. The overall educational rating of the training was significantly higher than the media naturalness rating suggesting poor technical functionality did not substantially undermine trainees’ perception of the education they received. This study indicates remote delivery is a viable strategy for improving the efficiency of training programs if it is consistently implemented with the appropriate technical infrastructure.