You are here: Home / Archives for The Learning Center

Democracy and higher education: A discussion with Cornell prof Scott Peters

October 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Cornell education professor Scott Peters has dedicated his career to the intersection between academia and community life. His new book, Democracy and Higher Education: Traditions and Stories of Civic Engagement, examines how higher education contributes to a democratic society. Evidence-based Living sat down with Scott to learn about his vision of Cooperative Extension.

What first inspired you to research the topic of the public role for higher education?

“I spent 10 years working for a community-university non-profit that was located on the campus of the University of Illinois.  The experiences I had and people I worked with awakened an interest in exploring the history of American higher education’s public mission and purposes.  I was especially interested in understanding the origins and meaning of the “land-grant mission.”  I often heard people use this phrase like it had some deep profound meaning.  But I couldn’t find anyone who could explain exactly what it meant.  So I would trace the origins of my interest to those experiences.”

Do you feel that academics have a duty to contribute to democracy and civic life more-so than other professionals?

“I don’t think academics have a duty that is greater than other professions.   Professionals in every field and sector of society who want to be what William Sullivan calls “civic professionals” face the same challenge.  They have to learn how, as Sullivan puts it, to deploy their technical expertise and judgment “not only skillfully but also for public-regarding ends and in a public-regarding way.”  There’s no one “correct” way to do this.  But there is a debate about what it can and should look like.  I take that debate up in my new book.”

Do you think there are shortfalls in the current higher education system as a whole – that universities, in general, could do a better job of engaging in public life?

“We can and should do much better, yes.  But my work has been more focused on illuminating, interpreting, and analyzing the many positive roles and contributions academic professionals and institutions are taking up and making despite the challenges and shortfalls.  We give very little attention to faculty members’ civic engagement work.  And we devote very little time and space for serious conversation about it.  By ‘serious,’ I mean research-based, with robust theoretical and historical groundings.”

Do you have a vision of what the world would look like if engaged professors did a better job of reaching out to help communities?

“I have a vision of what it would look like if we invested more time and attention to understanding and learning from stories of the civic work that professors (and students and staff) are already doing.  If we did, there would be a much richer understanding of the public and academic significance of this type of work.  We’d see it as a multidimensional activity that has both academic and civic value.  But we’d also see it as something that can and needs to be improved. “

Is there anything else people should know about your work?

“I’ve been spending a lot of time investigating the ways the public work of the academy helps to strengthen democracy.  That’s helped me to see that things like extension, outreach, and engagement aren’t just “service” activities.  They aren’t just about helping communities and solving problems.  And they’re certainly not just about transferring information and technologies. At their best they are also avenues for pursuing and improving our teaching and our research.  They’re avenues for making better colleges and universities. This isn’t a theoretical hope.  It’s being demonstrated every day by civically-engaged faculty, staff, and students at Cornell and elsewhere, and has been for well over a hundred years.  One of the most important things I’ve been learning in my research is that engagement work absolutely depends on the development of strong public relationships between the academy and its various external publics.  My work is all about helping people to think deeper and better about what it takes to build and sustain these relationships in ways that strengthen democratic processes, principles, and ideals.”

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

How older adults make decisions

October 26, 2010 By 1 Comment

As the U.S. population continues to grow older and technology moves ahead at break-neck speeds, older adults are being asked – in many cases required – to make more complex decisions than ever before.

 Should they stay in their homes or invest in a senior living community where care will be available when they need it?  Which prescription drug plan is best?  What course of treatment is best for serious illness?

But are we giving older adults the information they need to make quality decisions? The evidence suggests that the way older adults make decisions differs substantially from the way younger adults do. Research conducted by psychologist Joseph Mikels and economist Kosali Simon, both Human Ecology faculty members, offers practical insights for improving older adults’ decision-making. Their findings are summarized in a paper created by Human Ecology’s Department of Human Development.

For starters, research has shown that emotional functioning and regulation improve with age. Older people report more frequent positive emotions and fewer negative emotions, and they are more likely to focus on, and remember, positive information. When helping older adults make complex decisions, it may be best to encourage them to focus on their feelings as opposed to the specific details. They may not only make better decisions, but also feel more satisfied with their choices.

Studies also show that older adults do not desire or value choice to the same extent that younger adults do. In a series of large-scale surveys, hundreds of adults over 65 and undergraduate students reported how many options they wished to choose from in a variety of domains, from prescription drug plans to ice cream flavors. Older adults desired on average less than half as many options as younger adults did.  When older adults face a decision, it’s better to present them with a reasonable number of options.

“For example, instead of listing all of the available home health care agencies in the area, first present the five or so most popular ones,” the paper suggests. “If the person you are assisting isn’t satisfied with any of them, present an additional few options. By restricting the flow of information in this manner, you will increase the odds of making a high-quality, satisfying decision.”

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

Financial education: Behavior change is possible

October 21, 2010 By 1 Comment

One-third of U.S. adults report that they have no savings. More than a quarter of them admit to not paying their bills on time. And more than half of American households don’t have a budget.

Given these figures, it’s not surprising that more than 40 percent of U.S. adults would give themselves a grade of C, D, or F for their personal finance knowledge.  These figures come from the 2009 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey by HarrisInteractive, which surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. adults last year.

Given this dim view of personal finance in our nation, it’s clear that many households would benefit from programs that provide financial education.  But do these programs actually help families improve their financial situations?

A new study reveals the answer is yes. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison pulled together evaluations from 41 financial education and counseling programs in a systematic review. Their article is published in the Fall 2010 issue of the Journal of Consumer Affairs. They used a research process called a qualitative systematic literature review to summarize evaluations that measured financial education and counseling’s impacts on financial knowledge and behavior.

The majority of studies cited in their review conclude financial education and counseling are beneficial and hold the promise of improving financial knowledge and facilitating behavior change. But the study also notes that many of these evaluations share methodological weaknesses including selection bias and measurement issues.  Many of the programs also do not utilize an explicit theory or framework for behavior change, which would lend precision to both program development and the measurement of program impacts, the authors wrote.

They encourage researchers and educators who run these programs to pay more attention to theory-based evaluations and invest in randomized field experiments may be fruitful.

Here at Cornell Cooperative Extension, we offer classes to help families develop a household spending plan, save energy and reduce their energy bills and use credit wisely through a program called EmPower New York. The free workshops are offered in 46 counties and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

EmPower is doing its  part to collect viable data on the programs’ effectiveness.  This year, they’re conducting phone surveys with the Survey Research Institute at Cornell to determine the extent of behavior change for those who’ve participated in the workshop.  They’re expecting results sometime in June.

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Evidence-Based Living Never Takes a Vacation: Resistance to Science

August 24, 2010 By Leave a Comment

While hanging with my large and boisterous family on the Massachusetts shore this week, the conversation turned to people’s resistance to scientific information. Now this is not actually all that surprising, because my extended family includes an unusual number of individuals who either are or were practicing scientists. Indeed, the gathering over the week involves several psychologists, a research dietician, a sociologist, two young budding researchers (one studying mood disorders, the other conducting research in a business school), a physician, and a historian.

Discussions emerged about issues of barefoot running (see previous post) and athletes’ use of steroids (this trumped our usual Yankees versus Red Sox debate for a while). Niece Julianna then posed the following question: Why are people so resistant to scientific evidence on some issues? Indeed, why does their resistance often approach the first-grade tactic of putting fingers in the ears and singing “I can’t hear you?” Several family members noted that when they have suggested, in the course of an argument, that the scientific evidence be consulted they get responses like: “I don’t care, I just know this is right.”

Of course, scientists haven’t left a topic like that alone. There is a body of research about why individuals reject even what the scientific community views as fundamental facts. An interesting article by Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg provides a useful review. They begin by noting the prevalence of erroneous beliefs, including the curious finding from a Gallup poll that one-fifth of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Bloom and Weisberg suggest that a primary reason “people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive.” Further, science involves asserted information (so we believe that Abraham Lincoln was a U. S. president, even though we can’t validate that information personally). There are few scientific findings we can validate directly – e.g., whether vaccines cause autism, whether natural selection operates, or whether repressed memories exist.

In sum, the data Bloom and Weisberg review suggest that people resist science when:

  • Scientific claims clash with intuitive expectations
  • Scientific claims are contested within society
  • A non-scientific alternative explanation exists that is based in common sense and is championed by people who are believed to be trustworthy and reliable.

A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology provides additional explanation. In a series of experiments, Gerald Munro found that when presented with scientific information that contradicts one’s beliefs, people invoke the “impotence of science” hypothesis; that is, they argue that it’s a topic that science can’t effectively study.

When people have very strong beliefs about a topic, research has shown that scientific evidence that is inconsistent with the beliefs has little impact in changing them. But even more problematic, Munro’s research suggests that this inconsistency between beliefs and scientific conclusions actually reduces people’s overall faith in science.  

All this provides interesting challenges for proponents of evidence-based living. We need not only to get scientific information out to the public, but we also need a much better understanding of how beliefs create resistance to information that might improve people’s lives.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , ,

What is translational research?

August 18, 2010 By 3 Comments

Today, we’re talking with Elaine Wethington, associate professor in the Departments of Human Development and Sociology at Cornell. Wethington is a medical sociologist and an expert in the areas of stress and social support systems. She’s also one of the nation’s leading experts in translational research methods.

Cornell’s College of Human Ecology is pursuing a translational research model to better link social and behavioral science research to extension and outreach, creating a more seamless link between science and service. But the question arises: What is “translational research?”

Evidence-Based Living sat down with Wethington to talk about the growing field of translational research.

To start off, what exactly is translational research?

Many definitions have been given for translational research, but the definition I like best is that it is a systematic effort to convert basic research knowledge into practical applications to enhance human health and well being. 

Translational research was designed for the medical world.  It emerged in response to concern over the long time lag between scientific discoveries and changes in treatments, practices, and health policies that incorporate the new discoveries.

What is applied research, and how does it differ?

Translational research is broader than the traditional term “applied research.”  Applied research is any research that may possibly be useful for enhancing health or well-being. It does not necessarily have to have any effort connected with it to take the research to a practical level. 

For example, an applied research study might analyze longitudinal data that tracks participants’ health and social relationships.  The researchers would report their findings in an academic journal.

But in translational research, the same study would include some “action steps.”  The researchers would partner with a community and ask for ideas about how their findings might apply there.  Together, they would come up with an intervention plan that would also include scientific evaluation of its effectiveness. 

Why are social science researchers slower to adopt these models compared to the medical community?

I think the answer to this question is that researchers have followed where the money has been allocated. The opportunities for social and behavioral scientists have not been established as rapidly.

More recently, three major government institutions have been funding projects that emphasize public health outreach using translational research – the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging.  All three have been establishing translational research centers across the country, primarily focused on underserved communities and health disparities.

Thus, social scientists are only now being encouraged to take part.  More recently economic stimulus funds dispersed the National Institute of Health funded a number of translational research projects headed by social scientists, including three funded at Cornell.  I predict that soon there will be social scientists engaged in translational research across the country, not just at funded centers.

What are the benefits of moving toward translational research?

For researchers, there is benefit to being affiliated with a center that provides seed funding for projects, methodological assistance, advice on developing proposals and experience in getting community input into research projects.

For universities, translational research centers provide a tactical advantage for attracting more funding.  Translational research centers also provide a way for universities to meet public service goals in their strategic plans.

For communities, translational research provides opportunities to make a difference in their own communities.  As part of one of the Cornell centers, we engaged public service agency directors in events where they could contribute to our research agenda.  With a stake in the research, communities feel that they are making a valued and important contribution.  We heard over and over from the community members that this was a real source of pride and accomplishment for them.

How can extension programs participate?

One way local extension programs can participate in translational research is to take part in community stakeholder groups that meet with researchers who are designing intervention and prevention research programs.  Typically, a wide variety of stakeholders need to be engaged.  County Cooperative Extension offices have many collaborative relationships in their counties and can work with researchers to make contacts.

Typically, local extension professionals do not have time to engage in research themselves.  Yet they have valuable experience that can be shared.  This makes Cooperative Extension an ideal contributor for implementing programs.

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

Redefining climate change

July 26, 2010 By Leave a Comment

A major challenge for researchers focused on climate change is actually convincing the public that climate change is happening.

Now new research from George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication shows that framing climate change as a public health issue helps people better understand and relate to the topic – even those who aren’t convinced that global warming exists.

In the exploratory study, researchers asked participants to read a short essay on the human health implications of global warming then interviewed them about their beliefs on climate change. Even those classified as “doubtful” that climate change is happening found the information valuable. And those classified as “disengaged” said the essay offered valuable information on how to take action on climate change.

Edward Maibach, director of the center who conducted the research, said the idea is to shift the debate away from remote regions and foreign cultures and help Americans understand the personal implications.

“Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and infectious diseases,” he said. “The public health perspective offers a vision of a better, healthier future – not just a vision of an environmental disaster averted.”

The study also provides clues about specific public health messages that trigger negative reactions, such as eating less meat. (You can read the full study in the latest issue of the BioMed Central Public Health journal.)

Maibach’s research shows the importance of sharing evidence in a context that people can relate to. What other fields could frame their discoveries to make them more relevant to the general public?

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, The Learning Center

Video feature: Science education outreach

July 16, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Researchers and scientists across the country are making new discoveries every day, but continually must find the best ways to share that knowledge with the public.  The Cornell Center for Materials Research sets outstanding example of the best way to accomplish this.

The center’s mission is to advance, explore and exploit the science and engineering of advanced materials. It is part of a  national network of centers for Materials Research encompasses 29 centers funded by the National Science Foundation.

Nev Singhota is the director of the center’s Educational Programs Office, which reaches out to thousands of students, hundreds of parents and teachers, and many undergraduates from across the country. Many Cornell faculty, post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students contribute to the center’s outreach efforts by visiting schools, hosting family and teacher workshops and coordinating an “Ask the Scientist” column in the local newspaper.

Singhota describes her role a facilitating interactions between Cornell scientists and all sorts of people in the community. “We create this web,” she said. “We’re like the spider who is trying to connect everyone together .” 

Interested in hearing more about Cornell Center for Materials Research’s outreach efforts?  Check out this conversation with Singhota:

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , ,

Cornell NutritionWorks: Addressing obesity at the community level

July 7, 2010 By 3 Comments

Approximately one-third of all adults in the United States are obese and nearly 17 percent of youth are obese.  This national epidemic leads to an increased risk of diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, sleep disorders, joint problems, as well as social and psychological problems for millions of Americans.  

While there is an urgent need to address obesity with a focus on prevention, it can be difficult – even for a professional – to sort through all of the information about diet and health in the media, on the Internet, and even at grocery stores.

Enter Cornell NutritionWorks, an online professional development program for nutrition, health, and youth professionals such as registered dietitians, extension nutrition and 4-H educators, public health nutritionists, health education specialists, and school food service directors.   

Cornell NutritionWorks uses distance-learning technology to provide cutting edge nutrition information, interaction with Cornell experts, discussion forums for practitioners and continuing education credit for nutrition professionals. The program is lead by Cornell Senior Extension Associate Christina Stark, who’s spent nearly 30 years interpreting and communicating research-based information on food and nutrition issues to extension educators, other professionals, consumers and the media.

“To prevent childhood obesity, professionals need to look beyond focusing just on individual behavior change,” Stark says “We need to work collaboratively with community partners to change local environments so they support healthy eating and active living. For many professionals, this is a new way of thinking and working. Cornell NutritionWorks provides training in using this new evidence-based approach.”

Current offerings on the website include:

  • Preventing Childhood Obesity: An Ecological Approach, an in-depth six-week online course, offered three times a year, that helps participants use an ecological approach to identify local factors that contribute to childhood obesity and develop an action plan for their communities.  The next session will be offered fall 2010. There is a fee for this course.
  • Has the Food Revolution Reached Washington?, a cyber-presentation by Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University and a visiting professor at Cornell. The talk examines how the U.S. food system contributes to our obesity epidemic, describes current food industry trends that affect consumers’ ability to choose healthy foods, and outlines the evidence for a food revolution in the United States.
  • The Built Environment, Food, and Physical Activity, a cyber- presentation by Ann Forsyth, professor in Cornell’s Department of City and Regional Planning, that discusses ways to think about the built environment, food, and physical activity measures to improve community health.

To get the latest, research-based information on nutrition and health, Cornell NutritionWorks is the place to go.  All of the content, with the exception of the in-depth course, is available to members at no charge. And membership is free.

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

Educating parents: The parts of a successful program

July 1, 2010 By 4 Comments

Before having children, many parents-to-be – me included – assume that taking care of a child will come naturally every step of the way. They think, “Of course I’ll know what to do when my toddler has a temper tantrum in the middle of the grocery store, or when my kid hits someone at the playground.” Until it actually happens.

The good news is parent education programs abound. Cooperative extension offices, medical facilities, government agencies and non-profit organizations across the country offer a wide-range of workshops and courses to help parents who need additional information and even practice at parenting. We recently heard from Jennifer Birckmayer, a true pioneer of parenting education in New York State, who asked Evidence-based Living about the evidence base for such programs. She wondered, does the research show they really work?

The answer is yes. Two recent analyses by the Center for Disease Control and researchers at the University of Kansas demonstrate parent education programs are effective, and that specific program components work better than others to help parents learn new skills and reduce children’s negative behaviors.

The research shows that parent training programs yield better results for parents and children when they:

  • teach parents emotional communication skills, like actively listening to their children and identifying children’s emotions.
  • teach parents the correct use of time out including removing all forms of attention and using a designated location when possible.
  • teach parents to respond consistently when disciplining their child.
  • teach parents positive interaction skills, like playing with their children and praising good behavior.
  • require parents to practice with their child during the training sessions so the facilitator can provide the parent with immediate feedback.

There are also some aspects of parent education programs that are clearly less effective in teaching parents new skills and modifying children’s behavior, according to the research.  They are:

  • teaching parents how to problem solve about child behaviors
  • teaching parents how to promote children’s academic and cognitive skills
  • including ancillary services, such as  job skills training or anger management, as part of the parenting program

According to the analyses, a major component of improving children’s behavior boils down to providing

parents with the skills they need to improve their relationships with their children. This reflects a major conclusion of child development research: Children who have positive relationships with their parents are much less likely to misbehave.

For more information about parent education programs, check out Parent Training Programs: Insight for Practitioners and “A Meta-analytic Review of Components Associated with Parent Training Program Effectiveness” in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

Do you have a question for Evidence-Based Living?  E-mail it to Karl Pillemer at kap6@cornell.edu. 

– Sheri Hall

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, The Learning Center, Youth Development

Fostering sustainable behavior: What works?

June 25, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Everyone agrees that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a horrendous event, one so profoundly damaging that we have trouble getting our minds around it. The corporation responsible, BP, has been excoriated in Congress and by the press. Media images of oil covered sea birds and fishing boats in dry dock daily reinforce our sense of the scope of this disaster.

Given the level of upset and outrage, one might ask: Has it changed what Americans are doing on a daily basis? Everyone knows that there’s only one real solution to problems like this: reduce dependence on oil. So are we lining up to trade in our gas guzzlers for hybrids? Winterizing our homes? Rushing to install solar panels?

The answer, of course, is no. Despite pro-environmental attitudes, a general desire for a cleaner world, and many options for action, most of us don’t take meaningful action, despite the growing sense of urgency. So what can be done to foster sustainable behavior.

I recently came across an excellent evidence-based resource, devoted entirely to disseminating research information on methods of encouraging behaviors that help the environment: Fostering Sustainable Behavior: Community-Based Social Marketing. This web site covers five resource areas: conservation, energy efficiency, transportation, waste reduction, and water efficiency. The site offers for free the complete contents of the book, Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Under each of the five themes are searchable databases of articles, case studies, and strategies to promote environmental behavior. It also has discussion forums where people exchange ideas. Registration is free. The more we can implement evidence-based strategies to help save the environment, the better off we (and our children) will be.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , ,

When studies collide: Making sense of contradictory research findings

June 4, 2010 By Leave a Comment

I know blogs are supposed to be current – otherwise, what’s the point of posting entries that get archived after a few weeks? However, every once in a while I come across a resource from a year or two back, which is so useful I feel the need to share it. Such is the case with this article from the New York Times Science Times. It shows how a journalist can do a superlative job of helping the public understand the complexities of science.

NYT Science Times published an invaluable special issue in 2008 entitled “Decoding Your Health.” The issue responded to the huge amount of medical information available now to consumers on the web, in the press, and in the doctor’s office. The articles are very helpful in “decoding” all this information, and deciding what is useful and what isn’t.

One particular article, however, really grabbed me: “Searching for Clarity: A Primer on Medical Studies.” I’ve rarely seen such a good job of laying out the kinds of studies we should trust, and how medical evidence accumulates to create guidelines for what people should do.

They take an example which could serve as the poster child for the dilemmas consumers face. In the 1990s, everyone was enthusiastic about the idea that the antioxidant beta carotene, which is found in certain fruits and vegetables (such as carrots, squash, apricots, and green peppers), could be good for your health. And this idea was backed up by some animal and observational studies suggesting that beta carotene protected against cancer. Supplement makers had a heyday selling beta carotene capsules.

Then it happened: results were published from three large, very well-done clinical trials, in which people were randomly assigned to take beta carotene or a placebo. These findings showed that beta carotene supplementation not only didn’t prevent disease, but it might even place people at greater risk of cancer.

If you were watching TV back then, you may remember seeing Frankie Avalon on a commercial (for you youngsters, Frankie was a 50’s teen idol with such hits as “Cupid,” “De-De-Dinah,” and “Tuxedo Junction”). As the article notes, he sat in front of a big pile of papers that said “beta carotene works,” and a tiny pile representing the three studies showing it doesn’t. The message: Who are you going to believe?

The answer is: the clinical trials. The article lays it out clearly, showing that there are three fundamental principles that make a more definitive study:

  • You have to compare like with like: “the groups you are comparing must be the same except for one factor — the one you are studying.”
  • The bigger the group studied, the more reliable its conclusions. They make a very helpful point: scientific studies don’t come up with a single number; instead, they come up with a margin of error (like you have a 10-20 percent reduction in risk). Larger numbers = greater certainty.
  • And the finding should be plausible. There should be some supporting evidence for the finding, such that it doesn’t come out of nowhere.

This is a good article to pass along when you are presenting scientific findings that contradict deeply-held beliefs. It shows that when it comes to research on health, more studies aren’t necessarily better – it’s having the right kinds of studies.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

Behave! Using the science of behavior change

June 3, 2010 By Leave a Comment

There are some problems we can’t do much about — hurricaines and earthquakes, for example. But a vast amount of things that make life tough — and sometimes miserable — relate to the choices human beings make and the way we behave. For this reason, a whole science of behavior change has grown up, focusing both on theoretical models and empirical studies of how to change damaging human behaviors, ranging from smoking, to crime, to overeating, to taking excessive risks.

A very helpful new article reviews models to promote positive behavior change that are highly relevant to people designing or implementing interventions. The authors note that getting individuals to make lasting changes in problem behaviors is no easy matter. They synthesize various models of behavior change “to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how educators can promote behavior change among their clientele.”

The authors apply their framework to the issue of financial management. Very interesting reading, available here.

(While you’re at it, take a look at other issues of this free on-line journal, called the The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, published by North Carolina State University Extension — many interesting articles related to program development and evaluation.)

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
Skip to toolbar