14 pages, Agriculturalists can be divided into broad ideological camps with differing value sets. While many different groups exist, there are two primary ideological groups: (1) conventional or agrarian populists and (2) non-conventional or neo-agrarians. Agricultural education students’ values about agriculture shape how they will work in their future classrooms, schools, and communities, as well as how they will interact with students and community members. The purpose of this narrative study was to describe undergraduate agricultural education students’ conceptualization of their values about agriculture. The findings from this study highlighted the polarization of ideologies in American agriculture. The agricultural education students’ conceptualization of agricultural values was largely conventional. Some students formed conventional agriculture values as they grew up, while other students experienced a change of their values towards conventional attitudes while in college. Students’ responses to others with differing values ranged from indifferent to negative. These differences indicate a real challenge for post-secondary agricultural educators. Students have the right to maintain their own values in agriculture, however they must be able to work with others who have differing values. Research is needed to evaluate effective ways to help students learn how to work with people who have differing agricultural values.
Sharing the importance of agriculture, agricultural education, and programmatic efforts through Extension is vital to ensuring policy makers and the general public understand the need for supporting the overall agricultural industry. However, communicatingsuch importance can be challenging without accurate, evidence-based language to describe what makes agricultural initiatives unique and effective. Furthermore, having knowledge of the unique strengths of Extension builds a foundation of resources agricultural staff can use in problem-solving, communication, and education techniques. A Delphi study was conducted to research the unique strengths of University of GeorgiaExtension in an effort to better educate and communicate with local and state stakeholders. Findings resulted in 11 strengths that gained 100% agreement from research respondents. Six thematic categories covering all agreed-upon strengths document strengths in an explicit way that can also help with internal communication and education effortswithin the Extension organization.
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.
Chris Clemons (author), James R. Lindner (author), Bruce Murray (author), Mike P. Cook (author), Brandon Sams (author), and Gwendolyn Williams (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-04-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10105
Via online issue. Pgs. 283-252, The purpose of the study was to examine the confluence of agricultural literacy, what it means to
be agriculturally literate, and if a gap between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally
literate existed. Two primary research questions framed this study: 1) How do agriculture
professionals define agricultural literacy? 2) What does it mean to be agriculturally literate? While
the terms literacy and literate are often used synonymously they have important and different
meanings. This study used the Delphi Study Technique for determining consensus. The Delphi panel
consisted of engaged agricultural professionals from seven states. These professions represented
a broad spectrum of agricultural careers and experience. Each panel member was recognized as
a leader in his or her field. The findings indicated that participants did not discern a difference
between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate in regards to reading, writing, and
speaking about agriculture. This study supports the conclusion that the terms agriculturally literate
and agricultural literacy are used interchangeably. Agricultural professional may not be aware of
the inherent differences between possessing agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate.
