































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 4, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Case Emerson. Agriculture Teacher, Lafayette High School, 160 NE Hornet Dr., Mayo, FL 32066, 

cemerson@lcsbmail.net,   https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9619-3784 
2. Brian Myers, Professor and Chair, Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 305 Rolfs Hall P.O. Box 

110540, Gainsville, FL., 32611, bmyers@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159  
3. J.C. Bunch, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, Gainsville, FL. 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349 
4. Jason Dossett, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 3-6 Rolfs Hall, Gainsville, FL. 32611, j.dossett@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-7372   

 

1 

 

Determining Collaboration Between University of Florida 
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension Agents 

and Secondary School-Based Agricultural Educators 
 

C. Emerson1, B. Myers2, J.C. Bunch3, J. Dossett4 

 
 
Article History 
Received: February 1, 2024 
Accepted: June 10, 2024 
Published: July 19, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
Cooperation; Theory of Planned 
Behavior; Motivation; SDG 4: Quality 
Education 
  

Abstract 
Successful and beneficial collaboration relies on the dedication of  
individuals to cooperate, the established culture of collaboration and 
cooperation and a desire and willingness to collaborate. Agricultural 
educators and Extension agents often find themselves in competition for 
members rather than cooperation to develop members. Working in 
conjunction with one another in a concerted effort allows the two groups 
to develop youth into more efficient and effective leaders and citizens. 
This study utilized the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985). As 
applied to this study, this theory would hold that the variables of interest, 
personal and professional demographics within the two groups, to 
influence collaboration levels between agricultural educators and 
extension agents because these factors can shape and include attitudes, 
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls. This study found 
perceptions between school-based agricultural educators and Extension 
agents do hold positive views of cooperation. However, this cooperation 
does not happen very often outside of well-established instances. Upon 
examination of this study, we recommend further research be done to 
maintain an accurate reading of cooperation between these two entities 
and delve further into what motivates them. 
 

mailto:cemerson@lcsbmail.net
https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000
https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000
mailto:bmyers@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-9159
mailto:bunchj@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349
mailto:j.dossett@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-7372


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
In a world with a growing, hungry population and an agriculture sector shrinking in population 
and acreage, both formal and informal educators of agriculture, natural resources, and applied 
sciences must remain as relevant as possible. School-based agricultural educators and 
University of Florida Extension agents essentially have the same goals but with varying target 
audiences. The role of a school-based agricultural educator is to develop students that are both 
lifelong learners and gain agricultural literacy, and to contribute to a skilled agriculture 
workforce (Roberts & Ball, 2009). Similarly, the role of an Extension agent is to take the 
research provided by the land-grant university system and disseminate that information to 
serve the citizens of a particular community by teaching and providing advice, guidance, and 
information on a variety of topics (Cooper & Graham, 2001). Murphrey et al. (2011) describe 
factors that lead to successful collaboration between the two groups, which include 
environmental factors and membership characteristics, but those factors are not always 
present. Mutually beneficial partnerships are possible when these factors are present, but 
participants in a study by Scherer et al. (2018) rarely mentioned any type of partnership. While 
both descriptions are similar and certainly overlap, the question remains: to what level do 
school-based agricultural educators and Extension agents collaborate to achieve these goals? 
Whether the two groups should collaborate or compete has been debated since each of their 
inceptions (Hillison, 1996). The recruitment, scholarship, and development of students in FFA 
and 4-H is a point of contention (Gage et al., 2004; Gates et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2010; 
Nowakowski et al., 2023; Russell, 2016). Too often we find there is a disconnect between 
school-based agricultural educators and Extension agents in relation to collaborating for 
academic purposes, with extension agents and school-based agricultural educators identifying a 
communication gap between groups (Seevers & Stair, 2015). 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
This study utilizes the Theory of Planned Behavior. The theory of planned behavior stemmed 
from the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) which was 
designed to predict volitional behaviors and to help us understand their psychological 
determinants (Azjen, 1985). In general, this theory indicates that a person’s behavior is affected 
by their intentions which is in turn affected by attitude, subjective norm, and perceived 
behavioral controls. In this study, the theory of planned behavior suggests that the variables of 
interest—personal and professional demographics within the two groups—affect collaboration 
levels between agricultural educators and Extension agents. This influence occurs because 
these factors shape attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls. The study 
was designed around this theory because if the perspectives and backgrounds of agricultural 
educators and Extension agents affect behavior, then differences in collaboration levels should 
be observable. Attitudes influencing collaboration encompass the individual's positive or 
negative feelings towards collaborative efforts. Subjective norms are shaped by the peers and 
professional community to which the extension agent or SBAE teacher belongs. Perceived 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   3 
 

behavioral control involves the availability of resources, necessary skills, and opportunities for 
collaboration. 
 

Purpose 
 
This survey study aimed to describe and determine collaboration levels between University of 
Florida Extension agents and school-based agricultural educators. A quantitative survey was 
used to determine how each group perceives the current levels of collaboration, the levels each 
group values collaboration, and if each group sees a potential for growth in collaboration. The 
objectives of this study include the following: 
1. Describe the perception of school-based agricultural educators toward cooperation. 
2. Describe the perception of extension agents toward cooperation. 
3. Describe the level of school-based agricultural educator and extension agent collaboration. 
4. Identify cooperative efforts between school-based agricultural educators and extension 

agents. 
 

Methods 
 
This study used an online survey that followed the Tailored Design Method by Dillman et al. 
(2014). Dillman et al. (2014) focused their Tailored Design Method around the notion that to 
create quality surveys, surveyors must limit coverage error, sampling error, nonresponse error, 
and measurement error.  
  
The target population for this study was secondary school-based agricultural education 
educators in the state of Florida and University of Florida Extension County faculty, also known 
as Extension agents. According to the Florida Association of Educator’s directory, in the year 
2023, there were 517 individuals employed as school-based agricultural educators in Florida. 
This included teachers at both high school and middle school level programs. Currently, there 
are 357 individuals serving as University of Florida Extension agents in some capacity in Florida. 
These agents represent various specializations including agriculture and horticulture, individual 
and family development, community resources and economic development and 4H youth 
development. This study population included all agents regardless of their specialization or 
school-based agricultural educators based on grade level taught. 
 
Using the Florida Association of Agriculture Educator’s directory, all agriculture teachers were 
emailed for input on this survey. Using the University of Florida personnel directory, all 
Extension agents were emailed for participation in this survey as well. Both groups were 
emailed and encouraged to respond by completing the survey. A preemptive email was sent to 
advise the participants a survey was on the way. The surveys themselves were initially emailed 
to the agricultural educators and Extension agents, and a reminder to complete the survey was 
sent a week later.  The final reminder was sent a week later. The last opportunity for 
agricultural educators and agents to submit their survey was two days later.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   4 
 

Agricultural educators and agents could complete the survey at a time of their choosing and at 
their own pace. The survey allowed both populations to begin the survey and return to the 
survey if time did not allow completion in one sitting. In the end, the sample comprised of 60 
school-based agricultural educators and 102 University of Florida Extension agents. In total, the 
survey was sent to 892 individual emails. Only 851 surveys made up the accessible sample, as 
two were duplicate, 29 bounced, and 10 failed. Thus, the response rate was 19%.  
 
The survey itself was based on the instrument used by Ricketts and Place (2005) but amended 
by the researchers to gain an understanding of how each group perceived current levels of 
collaboration, the levels each group valued collaboration, and if each group saw a potential for 
growth in collaboration, while the instrument used in Ricketts' and Place's 2005 study focused 
on perceptions regarding cooperation, their cooperative behavioral intentions (what motivates 
them to collaborate), and individual experiences with collaboration. The instrument was 
reviewed by a panel of experts and pilot-tested by two small groups of the target populations.   
 
This study used three main constructs to divide the items or questions asked. The first construct 
revolved around teachers’ and agents’ perceptions of collaboration. These items required the 
individuals being surveyed to respond using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 meaning the 
participant strongly disagrees with the item presented, 2 meaning the participant disagrees 
with the item presented, 3 meaning the participant is neutral with the item presented, 4 
meaning the participant agrees with the item presented, and 5 meaning the participant 
strongly agrees with the item presented). The second construct revolved around how much 
teachers and Extension agents cooperate and collaborate. These items required the individuals 
being surveyed to respond using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 meaning the participant has 
never been involved with the item occurring, 2 meaning the participant is seldom involved with 
the item occurring, 3 meaning the participant is usually involved with the item occurring, and 4 
meaning the item always occurs). The last construct revolved around identifying where 
teachers and Extension agents currently collaborate. This construct also used a four-point 
Likert-type scale (1 meaning the participant has never been involved with the item occurring, 2 
meaning the participant is seldom involved with the item occurring, 3 meaning the participant is 
usually involved with the item occurring, and 4 meaning the item always occurs). 
 
Completed questionnaires were grouped, entered, and analyzed through SPSS 27 and allowed 
the researcher to analyze the data easily and with confidence. Descriptive statistics were 
calculated to determine frequencies of each item and sorted by occupation. Figures were then 
rounded to the nearest tenth decimal place.  
 

Findings 
 
This survey study aimed to describe and determine collaboration levels between University of 
Florida Extension agents and school-based agricultural educators. A quantitative survey was 
used to determine how each group perceives the current levels of collaboration, the levels each 
group values collaboration, and if each group sees a potential for growth in collaboration. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   5 
 

Results concerning collaboration levels between University of Florida Extension agents and 
school-based agricultural educators are presented in the following sections. 
 
Objective One: Determine the perception of school-based agricultural educators toward 
cooperation. 
This survey aimed to gauge respondents’ attitudes toward cooperation within the context of 
either school-based agricultural educators for grades 5th through 8th or school-based 
agricultural educators for grades 9th through 12th. 
 
Results indicate that a high percentage of both groups value cooperation. Specifically, 92.9% (n 
= 13) of educators for grades 5th through 8th and 89.1% (n = 41) of educators for grades 9th 
through 12th agreed or strongly agreed that cooperation allows for enhanced research sharing. 
Similarly, the majority of both groups (92.9%, n = 13 for grades 5th-8th and 100%, n = 46 for 
grades 9th-12th) believed in cooperating with committed and responsible individuals. 
 
When it came to the importance of cooperation between agricultural educators and Extension 
agents, the responses were positive, with 85.7% (n = 12) of educators for grades 5th-8th and 
80.4% (n = 37) for grades 9th-12th agreeing or strongly agreeing. Additionally, most 
respondents (78.6%, n = 11 for grades 5th-8th and 91.3%, n = 42 for grades 9th-12th) felt that 
full participation from all parties was necessary for cooperation. 
 
Most educators (64.3%, n = 9) in grades 5th-8th believed that some personalities do not work 
well together, while 91.1% (n = 42) of educators for grades 9th-12th disagreed with this. 
Nonetheless, both groups recognized the importance of cooperation in making projects more 
effective, with 85.7% (n = 12) of grades 5th-8th and 95.6% (n = 44) of grades 9th-12th (n = 44) 
agreeing or strongly agreeing. 
 
All educators saw personal relationships outside of work as enhancing cooperation, with 100% 
(n = 14) agreement among those for grades 5th-8th and 78.3% (n = 36) for grades 9th-12th. 
Additionally, the majority from both groups believed that the time invested in cooperation was 
well spent (85.7%, n = 12 for grades 5th-8th and 78.3%, n = 36 for grades 9th-12th) and that 
cooperation could lead to time savings after an initial investment (85.7%, n = 12 for grades 5th-
8th and 87.0%, n = 40 for grades 9th-12th). 
 
When considering cooperation, many respondents for grades 5th-8th (78.6%, n = 11) and 
grades 9th-12th (71.7, n = 33) indicated that the characteristics of other parties, such as 
personality, responsibility, and respect influences their decision. However, a noteworthy 
percentage (30.8%, n = 4 for grades 5th-8th and 38.7%, n = 17 for grades 9th-12th) felt neutral 
about whether they could communicate freely with agricultural educators/Extension agents in 
their county. 
 
A majority of both groups (100%, n = 14 for grades 5th-8th and 76.1%, n = 35 for grades 9th-
12th) considered a congenial relationship with colleagues important for successful operation. 
Regarding the belief that people should be able to work with anyone if they try hard enough, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   6 
 

64.3% (n = 9) of educators for grades 5th-8th agreed, while 63% (n = 29) of educators for grades 
9th-12th agreed. 
 
A notable portion of respondents (57.1%, n = 8 for grades 5th-8th) believed they could work 
best with those they had a history with, while 39.1% (n = 28) of educators for grades 9th-12th 
agreed. Interestingly, most educators for grades 5th-8th (57.1%, n = 8) disagreed with the idea 
that they had nothing to reciprocate to colleagues, whereas a larger percentage (69.6%, n = 32) 
of educators for grades 9th-12th disagreed. Concerning the perception of colleagues' busyness 
and its impact on cooperation, 57.1% (n = 8) of educators for grades 5th-8th disagreed, while 
47.8% (n = 22) of educators for grades 9th-12th disagreed. 
 
Most educators from both groups did not believe cooperative relationships consumed too 
much time (57.1%, n = 8 for grades 5th-8th and 67.4%, n = 31 for grades 9th-12th). 
Interestingly, 64.3% (n = 9) of educators for grades 5th-8th disagreed with making cooperation 
decisions based on what they heard from others in their field, while 60.9% (n = 28) of educators 
for grades 9th-12th disagreed. Regarding competition between FFA/4-H for participants, most 
respondents disagreed (57.1%, n = 8 for grades 5th-8th and 56.5%, n = 26 for grades 9th-12th). 
Interestingly, a substantial percentage (34.7%, n = 16) of educators for grades 9th-12th 
remained neutral on this topic. 
 
Lastly, a significant majority of respondents from both groups rejected the idea that 
cooperation should only occur in certain situations (100%, n = 14 for grades 5th-8th and 71.7%, 
n = 33 for grades 9th-12th). Similarly, a large percentage (92.9%, n = 13 for grades 5th-8th and 
89.1%, n = 41 for grades 9th-12th) disagreed with the notion that students should not be 
allowed to participate in both FFA and 4-H. 
 
In summary, the survey revealed a generally positive attitude toward cooperation among 
agricultural educators, with a few variations in perception between those teaching different 
grade levels. 
 
Objective Two: Determine the perception of Extension agents toward cooperation. 
To the statement “cooperation allows for added research sharing,” 94.1% (n = 96) of Extension 
agents either agreed or strongly agreed. Agents overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed with 
the statement “I am more likely to cooperate with someone who is committed and follows 
through on a project”, with 86.3% (n = 88). Next, 91.1% (n = 93) of Extension agents agreed or 
strongly agreed with the statement “cooperation between agricultural educators and Extension 
agents is important to offer the best opportunities to youth. Further, 88.2% (n = 90) of agents 
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “full participation by all parties is necessary for 
cooperation to occur.” To the statement “some personalities do not work well together,” 83.3% 
(n = 85) of agents agreed or strongly agreed while 12.7% (n = 13) were neutral.  
 
Most Extension agents agreed with the statement “most projects need cooperation to be more 
effective” with 82.4% (n = 84) agreeing or strongly agreeing. To the statement “there are 
certain personalities with whom I work well,” Extension agents agreed or strongly agreed with a 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   7 
 

total of 93.1% (n = 95). The statement “personal relationships with potential cooperators 
outside of work enhance the possibility of cooperation at work” saw 68.6% (n = 70) of Extension 
agents agree or strongly agree while 23.8% (n = 24) answered as being neutral. As the to the 
statement “the time I devote to cooperation is well-invested,” a total of 83.2% (n = 85) agreed 
or strongly agreed and 14.9% (n = 15) were neutral. A total of 78.4% (n = 80) agreed or strongly 
agreed with the statement “after initial time devoted, effective cooperation will result in 
greater time savings,” while 18.6% (n = 19) answered as neutral.  
 
To the statement “successful cooperation can only occur with people I respect,” 30% (n = 31) of 
Extension agents agreed, 26% (n = 27) responded as neutral, and 36% (n = 37) disagreed. The 
majority of agents were neutral regarding the statement “I listen to the agricultural 
educator/Extension agent in my county more than they listen to me” with a total of 61% (n = 
62). Agents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with that statement totaled 30% (n = 31). The 
statement “If I want things done right, I'll do them myself” was met with various answers (30%, 
n = 31 of agents agreed, 32.6%, n = 33 responded as neutral, and 21%, n = 21 disagreed). The 
statement “I work best with whom I have a history” was agreed with by 27.3% (n = 23), 
responded to as neutral by 39.4% (n = 40), and disagreed with by 30% (n = 31).  
 
Extension agents responded to the statement “I feel like I don't have anything to reciprocate to 
the agricultural educators/Extension agents in my county” with a total of 81% (n = 83) 
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The next statement received a variety of responses. 23% (n 
= 23) of agents agreed, 27% (n = 29) responded neutrally, and 36% (n = 37) disagreed with the 
statement, “I feel like the agricultural educators slash Extension agents in my county are too 
busy to cooperate with me.” The majority (68.3%, n = 70) of Extension agents disagreed or 
strongly disagreed with the statement “I have previously tried to cooperate, and it is not worth 
the time required.” Further, the statement “cooperative relationships consume too much time” 
saw 74.3% (n = 75) of agents disagree or strongly disagree and 19.8% (n = 20) responded as 
neutral. Around 60% (n = 61) of agents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “My 
decision to cooperate is based on what I hear from others in my field,” while 22.8% (n = 23) 
responded as neutral and 15.8% (n = 16) agreed.  
 
To the statement “I feel like I am competing with FFA/4-H for participants,” 52% (n = 53) of 
Extension agents responded as disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, 21.8% (n = 22) as neutral, 
and 25.7% (n = 27) as agreeing or strongly agreeing. Most agents (89.1%, n = 91) disagreed or 
strongly disagreed with the statement “being organized and punctual are not important in a 
successful cooperative relationship.” A total of 77% (n = 79) of agents disagreed or strongly 
disagreed with the statement “FFA and 4-H should cooperate only in certain situations” while 
19% (n = 19) responded as neutral. Also, a large majority (91.9%, n = 94) of agents disagree or 
strongly agree with the statement “students should not be allowed to participate in both FFA 
and 4-H.” Finally, 94% (n = 96) of Extension agents disagree or strongly disagree with the 
statement “in general, FFA and 4H should not cooperate.”  
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   8 
 

Objective Three: Determine the level of school-based agricultural educator and Extension 
agent collaboration. 
These responses were categorized by the occupations of the participants, which included 
agricultural educators for grades 5th-8th, agricultural educators for grades 9th-12th, and 
Extension agents. Depending on the specific situation, respondents from these groups exhibited 
varying levels of cooperation with each other, as shown in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 
 
Levels and Instances in Which Agricultural Educators and Extension Agents Cooperate 

 Agricultural Educators 
(5-8 grades) (n = 14) 

Agricultural Educators 
(9-12 grades) (n = 46) 

Extension Agents (n = 102) 

Item: 

N
ev

er
 

Se
ld

om
 

U
su

al
ly

 

Al
w

ay
s 

N
ev

er
 

Se
ld

om
 

U
su

al
ly

 

Al
w

ay
s 

N
ev

er
 

Se
ld

om
 

U
su

al
ly

 

Al
w

ay
s 

State and county 
fairs 

7.1% 21.4% 21.4% 35.7% 17.4% 10.8% 30.4% 41.3% 13.1% 32.3% 22.2% 32.3% 

4-H and FFA judging 
contests 

14.3% 21.4% 35.7% 28.6% 21.7% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 32.3% 17.2% 25.3% 34.3% 

Sharing resources 21.4% 21.4% 42.9% 14.3% 11.4% 20.5% 40.9% 27.3% 7.3% 19.8% 39.6% 33.3% 
Seeking out 

resources for 
curriculum 

21.4% 28.6% 35.7% 14.3% 2.2% 40% 40% 17.9% 14.4% 37.2% 34.1% 14.4% 

Cooperating with 
local 4-H clubs 
and FFA chapters 
for community 
service projects 

15.4% 30.8% 30.8% 23.1% 20.4% 45.5% 25% 9.1% 22.7% 32% 36.1% 9.3% 

Conducting 
educational 
programs 

23.1% 15.4% 53.8% 7.7% 17.8% 44.4% 28.9% 8.9% 13.4% 22.7% 45.5% 18.6% 

Sharing curriculum 23.1% 30.8% 38.5% 7.7% 13.6% 40.9% 34.1% 11.4% 16.5% 22.7% 40.2% 20.6% 
Co-training various 

teams and 
leadership 
activities 

53.8% 30.8% 15.4% 0% 37.8% 44.4% 13.3% 4.4% 31.3% 41.7% 19.8% 7.3% 

Assisting in 
recruiting 
members 

46.1% 38.5% 15.4% 0% 42.2% 31.1% 24.4% 2.2% 45.8% 31.3% 16.7% 6.3% 

Conducting 
demonstrations/
presentations 
together 

53.8% 30.8% 15.4% 0% 37.8% 46.7% 11.1% 4.4% 33.3% 37.5% 24% 5.2% 

Conducting joint 
adult education 
programs 

57.1% 35.7% 7.1% 0% 62.2% 28.9% 6.7% 2.2% 45.8% 32.2% 17.7% 4.2% 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   9 
 

Objective Four: Identify cooperative efforts between school-based agricultural educators and 
Extension agents. 
The study revealed that cooperative efforts among these groups manifest in diverse ways. A 
strong majority (86%, n = 139) of the total participants expressed occasional to consistent 
cooperation with Extension agents and school-based agricultural educators at county and state 
fairs. Similarly, 81.7% (n = 132) reported their involvement in combined 4-H/FFA judging 
contests. A notable 90.3% (n = 146) shared resources within their county, while 88.5% (n = 143) 
sought out Extension agents and agricultural educators as valuable curriculum resources. 
Moreover, 78.6% (n = 127) engaged in cooperative ventures with local 4-H clubs and FFA 
chapters through community service projects. Additionally, 84.5% (n = 137) participated in joint 
educational programs with Extension agents and agricultural educators within their counties, 
and 83.8% (n = 136) collaborated in sharing curriculum materials locally. Furthermore, 64.9% (n 
= 105) engaged in co-training activities for various teams and leadership initiatives. Over half 
(55.2%, n = 89) extended assistance in recruiting members, and 63.6% (n = 103) jointly 
conducted demos and presentations. Lastly, 48.4% (n = 78) organized and participated in joint 
adult education programs within their respective counties. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 

The study reveals several key areas for improvement in school-based agricultural education and 
extension services. Firstly, there is a need to work together to recruit students to either and/or 
both youth development programs as each have opportunities for different age groups and 
interests. 
 
Secondly, the importance of collaboration is highlighted, especially in training groups like 
judging teams, to optimize resources and support community involvement. There is a need for 
open communication between Extension agents and school-based agricultural educators, 
especially from the prospective of 9th through 12th grade SBAE as 26% (n = 12) disagree or 
strongly disagree and 8% (n = 4) were neutral with the statement “I feel like I can communicate 
freely with Extension agents in my county.”  
 
Furthermore, there is an urgent need to foster mutual respect and active listening between 
SBAEs and extension agents, as 39% (n = 23) of school-based agricultural education teachers 
feel undervalued and ignored. Lastly, a prevalent self-sufficiency attitude among both groups 
suggests a barrier to cooperative efforts, indicating a shift towards more collaborative and 
interdependent approaches is necessary for enhancing the effectiveness of educational and 
extension programs. 
 
This study highlights a gap between the favorable perception of collaboration and its actual 
implementation among Extension agents and SBAE teachers. Despite recognizing the value of 
working together, actual cooperative efforts are infrequent, pointing to underlying challenges 
such as communication barriers, cultural differences, and resource limitations. The findings 
highlight the necessity of transforming this idea of collaboration into practical, actionable 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   10 
 

strategies. By encouraging open dialogue, aligning mutual objectives, and creating structured 
opportunities for collaboration, both groups can bridge the existing gap, leading to enhanced 
program effectiveness and better community service. The study not only identifies these 
discrepancies but also encourages a shift towards more integrated and effective collaborative 
practices. 
 
SBAE teachers and extension agents believe in the benefits of collaboration and feel that their 
professional communities value cooperation, yet reported collaboration was not frequent. 
Causes of this discrepancy could result from a lack of perceived behavioral control. Many 
extension agents and SBAE teachers could feel as though they lack the time to commit to 
collaboration and cooperation with one another. Another possible cause of the lack of 
collaboration could simply be a result of communication gaps. Whether it is a result of 
insufficient communication, where opportunities to collaborate are overlooked, or a lack of 
sharing information, the communication gap could explain the gap between behavioral 
intention and practice. 
 
Based on this study, we recommend several actions to strengthen partnerships between 
university extension agents and school-based agricultural educators, focusing on enhancing 
collaboration for community and youth programs. 
 
First, university extension agents should maintain a positive outlook on cooperation and seek 
innovative ways to engage students in their communities (Murphrey et al., 2011). Universities 
could support this by incorporating the importance of collaboration into the curriculum for 
future educators and extension agents (Seevers & Stair, 2015). 
 
A task force could be established by professional organizations from both sectors to research 
and identify new collaborative opportunities. These organizations could also model effective 
cooperation at organizational and administrative levels. Additionally, planning cross-
professional workshops and training sessions that focus on cooperative skills is essential. 
Professional development opportunities could specifically highlight strategies for effective 
collaboration in youth development programs. 
 
Administrators are encouraged to advocate for policies that emphasize collaboration benefits, 
and professional organizations should recognize and celebrate successful partnerships. 
Implementing these recommendations can significantly enhance the educational outcomes and 
community impact of these collaborations. 
 
To refine our understanding of the cooperation between school-based agricultural educators 
and university extension agents, future research should adopt the following strategic 
approaches: 
• Initially, frequent replication of the study with the same instruments should be conducted 

to monitor shifts in policy and cultural attitudes among professionals. Conducting these 
studies across different states can reveal how regions influence professional practices and 
cooperation. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   11 
 

• Comparative analysis across study replications can identify trends in perceptions, 
motivations, and factors for collaboration between the two groups (Murphrey et al., 2011). 
This analysis is critical for understanding evolving relationships and pinpointing areas 
needing intervention. Incorporating qualitative methods will provide deeper insights into 
the nature of cooperation and collaboration, adding richness to the quantitative data 
collected. 

• Additional data gathering could include analyzing event calendars for overlap and timing, as 
well as examining the impact of geographical factors like county size on collaboration 
efforts. Qualitative data could be collected to provide a richer understanding of why certain 
behaviors regarding collaboration are exhibited. The study should ensure inclusivity by 
defining "collaboration" clearly at the outset and including diverse demographic options 
such as "Hispanic" and others in ethnicity survey questions. These approaches will enable 
stakeholders to gain clearer insights into the dynamics of community education and foster 
more effective collaborations. 

 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Author Contributions: C. Emerson - writing-original draft, investigation, and formal analysis;  
B. Myers - writing-review and editing, formal analysis, and supervision; J. C. Bunch - writing-
review and editing, methodology; J. Dossett - writing-review and editing 
 
 

References 
 
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological 

Bulletin, 82(2), 261. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477    
 
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 

Prentice-Hall. 
 
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. 

Beckmann (Eds.), Action—control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2  

 
Cooper, A. W., & Graham, D. L. (2001). Competencies needed to be successful county agents 

and county supervisors. The Journal of Extension, 39(1), 10. 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol39/iss1/10  

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons. 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol39/iss1/10


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   12 
 

Gage, K. D., Place, N. T., & Ricketts, J. C. (2004). Exploring cooperation between secondary 
agricultural educators and livestock extension agents: A case study. Journal of Extension, 
42(6). https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol42/iss6/18  

 
Hillison, J. (1996). Agricultural education and cooperative extension: The early agreements. 

Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.01009  
 
Hillison, J. (1996). The Origins of Agriscience: Or where did all that scientific agriculture come 

from? Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(4), 8–13. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.04008  

 
Gates, H., Shoulders, C., Johnson, D., Edgar, D., & Blythe, J. (2020). Preservice agricultural 

education and secondary education teachers’ self-efficacy and professional identity. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 112–127. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v61i3.2332  

 
Gill, B. E., Ewing, J. C., & Bruce, J. A. (2010). Factors affecting teen involvement in Pennsylvania 

4-H programming. Journal of Extension, 48(2), Article 7. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.48.02.07  

 
Murphrey, T. P., Harlin, J. F., & Rayfield, J. (2011). An evaluation of successful collaboration 

among agricultural science teachers and Extension agents in Texas. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 52(3), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.03036  

 
Nowakowski, K. M., Marzolino, T. A., & McKim, A. (2023). Recruitment strategies used by 

school-based agricultural educators in Michigan. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(2), 
1–10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i2.49   

 
Ricketts, K. G., & Place, N. T. (2005). Cooperation between secondary agricultural educators and 

extension agents. Journal of Extension, 43(6). 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol43/iss6/7   

 
Roberts, T. G., & Ball, A. L. (2009). Secondary agricultural science as content and context for 

Teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 81–91. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01081  

 
Russell, R. A. (2016). Perceptions of secondary agricultural education programs, the National 

FFA Organization, and agricultural careers of students not enrolled in a high school 
agricultural course [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Kentucky. 

 
Seevers, B., & Stair, K. (2015). Exploring Community Partnerships in Agricultural and Extension 

Education. Journal of Extension, 53(3), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.53.03.15   
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol42/iss6/18
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.01009
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.04008
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v61i3.2332
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.48.02.07
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.03036
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i2.49
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol43/iss6/7
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01081
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.53.03.15


Emerson et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469   13 
 

Scherer, H. H., Wilk, A., Wiley, S., & Spindler, M. (2018). The graduate extension scholars 
program: Professional development to connect research and education. Journal of 
Extension, 56(6), Article 16. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol56/iss6/16  

 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i4.469
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol56/iss6/16

