W4006: Multistate Agricultural Literacy Research

(Multistate Research Project)

Status: Approved Pending Start Date

W4006: Multistate Agricultural Literacy Research

Duration: 10/01/2024 to 09/30/2029

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

The overarching goals of our research include assessing agricultural knowledge and decision-making, understanding attitudes and motivations, evaluating literacy programs, appraising nonformal instruction and policy impacts, and identifying innovative agricultural literacy models. Our desired outcomes encompass positively influencing knowledge and decision-making among consumers, producers, and stakeholders, measuring increased positive behavioral changes in attitudes and motivations towards agriculture, and improving agricultural literacy programs to benefit current and future careers. The sustained collaboration of a multistate agricultural literacy research team is essential for fortifying agricultural programs and supporting industry professionals.

Statement of Issues and Justification

In 2022, U.S. households spent an average of $9,343 on food, equating to approximately 13% of annual household budgets (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). U.S. farm products contribute roughly $164.7 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) annually, which equates to approximately 5% of total U.S. GDP. The number of farms in the United States has steadily decreased since the 1970s, with the amount of farmland in the U.S. also on a downward trend, with 22 million fewer acres in production from 2012 to 2022 with only 1% of the U.S. population being primary farm owners or operators (USDA ERS, 2023). However, the global population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion in 2050, a more than 20% increase in nearly 25 years (United Nations, n.d.). Less land produces more commodities to provide for a growing global population. 

In the past 20 years, 13 states have put forward 19 ballot initiatives or legislative bills directly addressing food and animal welfare (Hopkins et al., 2022). These initiatives addressed using gestation crates in hogs and laying hen facilities. Genetically engineered foods saw so much attention in state governments that the federal government passed a national disclosure standard for such products to assist in clarity and truth in labeling on the topic (Bovay & Alston, 2018). As technology use in Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR) increases to meet global demands and adjust for a changing climate, such legislative action will continue to impact production methods, trade, and supply chain economics. From the grocery aisle to the voting booth, decisions that impact agriculture are made by people who need an applicable understanding of agricultural production. 

While AFNR might not be the largest sector of the U.S. economy, this vital industry provides for our daily needs. Agriculture and associated industries are expected to have 59,400 openings annually through 2025. Most (61%) of these positions will be filled with new college graduates with agriculture, food, or natural resources degrees; however, the remaining 39% will be filled by individuals who have obtained degrees in allied fields such as biology, engineering, or accounting (Fernandez et al., 2020)

Whether in the grocery aisle, voting booth, as neighbors, or in career decision-making, daily life requires decision-making in AFNR. The concept of agricultural literacy was initially published in 1988 by the National Research Council. The council indicated agriculture was too essential to be taught only to those enrolled in vocational agriculture programs and that all Americans needed an understanding of the economic, social, and environmental significance of the ways agriculture, food, and natural resources affected their daily living (National Research Council, 1988). More recently, the American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) published the organization’s research values. One of the nine values indicates the need for the public to be informed decision-makers about AFNR topics. The organization advises that research about informal, non-formal, and formal education efforts must inform stakeholders about issues and practices in advancing human knowledge in this area (AAAE, 2023). Additionally, AAAE indicates that enhancing environmental health and fostering healthy living are the organization's research values, as research in these topics is closely associated with the general public’s understanding and application of knowledge about AFNR topics.

Nationally, the leading agricultural literacy outreach program is Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC), which has a presence in 40 states, one territory, and the District of Columbia (2022 AITC Program Report, 2022). Stakeholders in the agricultural industry primarily support AITC. In a recent survey of states, nearly half (49%) reported that their entire budget came from private, agriculture-related organizations or donors, and 41% reported a combination of state and private money, signaling financial support for agricultural literacy at a grassroots level (Spielmaker, 2018). Stakeholders have supported agricultural literacy programs in the hope that people (primarily youth) will understand the necessity of agriculture, value agricultural production, and support agricultural science that ensures an affordable, safe, abundant, high-quality food system.

AITC and similar agricultural literacy efforts have developed and implemented programs over the last 30 years. However, there has been limited research to detect program effectiveness or the effects of interventions on baseline knowledge, perceptions, or attitudes concerning agricultural literacy concepts and agriculture’s relationship to the environment, plants, and animals for food and fiber use, lifestyle, technology, and the economy. This multistate research project seeks to measure agricultural literacy knowledge, perceptions and attitudes, and conduct program or intervention evaluations to assess whether programming has made progress toward the goal of an agriculturally literate populace that “understands and can communicate the source and value of agriculture as it affects our quality of life” (“National Agriculture in the Classroom,” 2013).

Few nationwide studies have been published related to understanding the effectiveness of agricultural literacy interventions or measuring the agricultural literacy of specific populations.  Previous agricultural literacy research has been limited to a particular locale, population, or content area. This multistate approach will provide validated instruments for measurement and increase external validity. This proposal's objectives require a coordinated, multistate approach to research that results in generalizable conclusions. The information gathered will provide programming staff and stakeholders solid data for future program planning to achieve agricultural literacy outcomes.

A coordinated agricultural literacy research effort has been developed and needs to be maintained. The COVID-19 pandemic created one of the most significant disruptions in societal history, particularly within education systems worldwide (United Nations, 2020). Society’s values shifted due to the pandemic (Daniel et al., 2022). Science literacy experts suggested that identifying common values is paramount to building trust in communication about complex scientific topics (Besley & Dudo, 2022). Furthermore, many agricultural literacy interventions’ audiences are K-12 classrooms or teachers. Further research is needed to understand how society’s shifting values and school structures in a post-pandemic world have affected knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors, and practices related to agriculture, food, and natural resources.

Related, Current and Previous Work

For over three decades, researchers have systematically engaged in the study of agricultural literacy. Their endeavors have spanned various dimensions, including the conceptual realm, as evidenced by Frick et al. (1991); the cognitive domain, as explored by Powell et al. (2008); and active engagement, a focus emphasized by Meischen & Trexler (2003) and Spielmaker et al. (2014). Additionally, researchers such as Kovar and Ball (2013) have directed their efforts toward investigating evidence-based decision-making in the agricultural context. Beyond these explorations, there has been a concerted effort to comprehend the impact of agricultural literacy programs and to develop instruments capable of measuring the progression of agricultural knowledge and awareness (Cosby et al., 2022). Members of the AES multistate agricultural literacy research committees have conducted and published many relevant research projects (W1006, WERA207, W2006, and W3006). The work of the W3006 committee is cataloged in the National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS). The findings of related, current, and previous work in this area support this proposal’s objectives to formalize an instrument and conduct research for generalization. The following paragraphs outline the findings of related, current, and previous work on effective methods of promoting agricultural literacy, models of agricultural literacy, and agricultural literacy programs.

While the COVID-19 global pandemic did disrupt outreach and research during the duration of the W3006, 2021-2023 saw increases in research conducted by AES committee members. Addressing objective one, researchers assessed agricultural knowledge of diverse population segments related to agriculture. One such study focused on a population of viewers of the television show Clarkson’s Farm through a social media content analysis of posts about the show (Hill et al., 2022). Previous work conducted by this committee resulted in developing and validating agricultural literacy assessment tools for grades kindergarten through twelfth grade (Judd-Murray et al., 2019).

In recent decades, professionals in agricultural literacy have primarily concentrated on incorporating agricultural knowledge into elementary and secondary education. Agriculture once had a prominent place in the curricula of both rural and urban schools, but a significant shift occurred at the turn of the 20th century. The American education system transformed agriculture from a general education component to a specialized vocational study (Dewey, 1918).

This shift led to the disappearance of agriculture from the general academic experience and removed it as a central aspect of American daily life, contributing to an agricultural literacy crisis (Burrows et al., 2020; Vallera, 2016). The National Research Council’s 1988 publication was the first to spotlight the agricultural literacy issue on a large scale. It advocated for changes to enhance agricultural education, emphasizing that “agriculture is too important of a topic only to be taught to a small percentage of students considering careers in agriculture” (National Research Council, 1988, p. 1).

Agricultural literacy in schools extends beyond formal agricultural education programs and includes various local, regional, and national initiatives providing curriculum development, teacher training, and experiential learning opportunities (Bellah et al., 2004). Examples include Agriculture in the Classroom initiatives, Cooperative Extension/4-H programs, Land-Grant agricultural education, and community-focused agricultural education programs. Yet, challenges still exist in implementing effective strategies across different contexts due to teacher knowledge, perception of valuing agriculture, and stakeholder support. Educators, despite generally favorable attitudes toward agriculture, face obstacles in effectively aligning agricultural topics with core curriculum standards due to insufficient knowledge and perceived relevance to align with high-stakes testing environments; additionally, they lack administrative, parental, and larger community support as agriculture being a worthy context for learning core subjects (Bennett et al. (2022). 

No matter the setting, the K-12 development stage is crucial for cognitive and emotional development (Kuhn, 1979), making it an opportune context for implementing agricultural literacy opportunities. Some theorists argue for starting agricultural literacy education as early as possible for maximum impact (Zoern, 2019).

Impacts of Agricultural Literacy

The National Center for Agricultural Literacy outlines a logic model for agricultural literacy programming, highlighting short-term outcomes such as knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Spielmaker et al., 2014). These outcomes align with broader K-12 education goals, aiming to promote student achievement and global competitiveness readiness (US Department of Education, 2007). Integrating agricultural literacy into K-12 education contributes to developing crucial cognitive and emotional capacities, preparing students for active engagement in a rapidly changing global landscape.

Agriculture has long been valued as a context for learning due to its practical and applicable conceptual framework across diverse student populations (Knobloch et al., 2007). Integrating agriculture into the curriculum fosters an interdisciplinary approach, enhancing students’ comprehension and critical thinking skills compared to conventional learning contexts (Grossman et al., 2000; Miller & Boix-Mansilla, 2004). Agricultural themes stimulate student engagement and curiosity (Knobloch et al., 2007). Zaremohzzabieh et al. (2022) highlight the significant influence of agricultural activities on shaping the attitudes and motivations of young individuals, including students’ intentions to pursue agriculture career paths. Impacts of Agricultural Literacy Interventions on Outcomes:

Agricultural literacy interventions promote the development of competencies (Cosby et al., 2022; Kovar & Ball, 2013) and have been shown effective in enhancing understanding (Boyd & Miller, 2005), relevant skills (Vallera & Bodzin, 2016), attitudes toward agriculture (Alrawashdeh et al., 2023), and values (Martin & Enns, 2017). Agricultural literacy programs improve agricultural literacy knowledge and potentially improve participants’ affinity toward agriculture (Appel et al., 2022).

While literature supports the impact of educational interventions on knowledge about agriculture, additional research on attitudinal development associated with agricultural literacy is needed (Cosby et al., 2022; Multistate Agricultural Literacy Project, 2019). This gap has prompted agricultural literacy practitioners to advocate for research focusing on the non-knowledge outcomes of agricultural literacy interventions (Cosby et al., 2022; Kovar & Ball, 2013; Trexler & Hess, n.d.). 

The studies outlined in this section have framed the future work of this multistate research group through the objectives.


  1. Assessing Agricultural Knowledge and Decision-Making. Objective: Evaluate the agricultural knowledge of diverse population segments, including consumers, students, and producers. Specifically, investigate (a) points of acquisition of agricultural knowledge and (b) decisions influenced by the assessed knowledge.
  2. Understanding Attitudes, Perceptions, and Motivations. Objective: Assess attitudes, perceptions, and motivations of diverse population segments related to agriculture (i.e., consumers, students, and producers). Specifically, explore and measure (a) the development of perceptions, attitudes, and motivations; (b) decision-making based on assessed attitudes, perceptions, and motivations; (c) behavior changes resulting from shifts in attitudes, perceptions, and motivations; (d) an Affinity Index for emotional attachment and determining its application to agriculture.
  3. Evaluating Agricultural Literacy Programs. Objective: Evaluate agricultural literacy programs to measure impact. Specifically, (a) evaluate peer and participant-centered agricultural literacy programming methods for effectiveness; (b) analyze the influence of these programs on agricultural career awareness and aspiration; (c) determine program impact on enhancing agricultural literacy while preserving indigenous knowledge.
  4. Assessing Nonformal Instruction and Policy Impacts. Objective: Evaluate agricultural literacy initiatives focusing on nonformal instruction or policy implementation. This involves (a) assessing the effects of agricultural literacy instruction on critical thinking and problem-solving skills and (b) synthesizing the efficacy of peer and participant-centered methods of instruction that result in AFNR policy development or policy change.
  5. Identifying Innovative Agricultural Literacy Methods. Objective: Identify and define innovative methods of agricultural literacy beyond traditionally-explored spaces. This includes (a) exploring spaces such as grocery stores, farmer’s markets, and agritourism locations; (b) comparing and contrasting nontraditional programs or instruction tools with traditional instruction spaces; and (c) determining the optimal use of nontraditional spaces to maximize agricultural literacy impacts.


Quantitative and qualitative research methods will accomplish each objective listed above. Researchers involved in the project will determine the appropriate methods and statistical tools based on specific research questions, design, and population. The agricultural knowledge instruments will be developed for targeted populations with consideration given to reading level, social factors, and locally relevant agricultural topics. These instruments will be adapted to fit various methodologies for data collection, such as paper questionnaires, online surveys, online analytics, and interview protocols. Populations to be assessed will be categorized by age, education, geographic location, regional populations, career, and affiliation or familiarity with agriculture. The multistate group will research the objectives outlined in this proposal using the same or similar research protocols to develop rigor and reliability in these research instruments. Members of the multistate groups will draft proposals at the annual meeting, and quarterly reports and milestone achievements will be communicated through conference calls and/or email distribution. Each member of the multistate group who has chosen to research an objective will be responsible for recruiting the targeted populations and collaborating with individuals diverse in expertise and educational goals (beyond the traditional stakeholder audience).

Assessing agricultural knowledge and decision-making (Objective 1) will be measured using exploratory and existing instruments to examine factual knowledge and decision-making related to agricultural content and/or issues. Questionnaire content will be developed using an established learning outcome framework, the National Agricultural Literacy Outcomes (Spielmaker & Leising, 2013), or theoretical frameworks related to knowledge acquisition and decision-making related to food and agriculture. The National Agricultural Literacy Outcomes have been validated by key stakeholders representing agricultural businesses, commodity organizations, public relations firms, government agencies, and educators of both traditional audiences and nontraditional agriculture stakeholders. The topics of these instruments will vary in scope and size to replicate the complexity of agriculture and differences in agricultural knowledge across the nation.  

Quantitative and qualitative research approaches will be employed to understand attitudes, perceptions, and motivations (Objective 2). The quantitative instruments include semantic differentials and Likert-type scale response choices. Items for these instruments will be developed by thoroughly reviewing relevant literature and consulting with agricultural education and communications researchers. Qualitative methods for this objective include interviews, document analysis, visual analysis, and focus groups. The qualitative and quantitative methods will consist of various agricultural viewpoints and values across the United States. This research aims to describe how people perceive agriculture objectively, are motivated to make decisions, and how to change behaviors. Data will inform future investigations on best practices for communicating with and educating individuals with different perspectives to collectively influence community development through agriculture.  

The objective of evaluating agricultural literacy programs (Objective 3) will require multifaceted approaches. Programs to be analyzed include a variety of formal and nonformal agricultural literacy programming efforts (e.g., Agriculture in the Classroom, Seed to Table, after-school programs, farmers’ market organizations, Cooperative Extension, commodity-specific initiatives, or online certification programs) with a variety of goals (e.g., instructional or curriculum development, advocacy). The programs and groups are diverse—including rural, urban, and suburban—and areas of investigation will address multiple agricultural topics (e.g., from sustainable farming to youth leadership). Evaluation strategies and methods will be developed uniquely with these groups to meet their specific needs and program goals. The evaluation methods will include a quantitative analysis of benchmarks developed by each group.

Further evaluation strategies could include qualitative and quantitative investigations of specific outcomes identified as significant by each group. Multiple agriculture literacy programs will be examined for characteristics of effective programming and impact (e.g., age, motivation, goals). Multistate participants and their unique stakeholder partners will collaborate to provide varied and diverse information. While the assessments of the individual programs will vary, standard assessment questions will be implemented across all programs to determine similar impacts across locations and programs.

The methodologies for assessing nonformal instruction and policy (Objective 4) involve a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative measures may include surveys, pre-and post-tests, attendance rates, and statistical analysis. Qualitative approaches encompass interviews, focus group discussions, case studies, and content analyses. Integrating both methods through mixed-methods research and triangulation can provide a comprehensive understanding, allowing for ongoing adjustment based on feedback. Multistate practitioners will focus on various instructional techniques to determine the best approaches for influencing policy change and development that benefit AFNR-related outcomes.

Identifying innovative agricultural literacy methods (Objective 5) is a comprehensive process encompassing diverse research strategies. Quantitative insights can be gathered through surveys, evaluating the adoption and impact of various methods. At the same time, qualitative perspectives are captured through case studies, interviews with educators and experts, and focus group discussions. Observational studies in classrooms and community settings may provide firsthand experiences complimented by action research projects that allow real-time testing and refinement. Pilot programs offer practical insights into the feasibility and effectiveness of innovative methods before broader implementation. Assessing the role of technology, such as educational apps and virtual reality, is crucial in enhancing agricultural literacy. Collaboration with agricultural education organizations, industry partners, and participation in workshops and conferences contribute to a holistic methodology and effective strategies in agricultural literacy education.

Reaching a more diverse audience (e.g., urban, suburban, and under-represented populations) is necessary to advance the objectives of our proposal. The needs of these segments of the population must be considered and addressed. Efforts will be made to develop research studies investigating these populations’ agricultural literacy knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and motivations. As a result, we will recruit diverse researchers to collaborate with this multistate team to meet the objectives effectively and access broad research populations. First, we will recruit experts from multiple agricultural content fields, such as agricultural communications, agricultural leadership, agricultural literacy, Extension, educational valuation, and school-based agricultural education. Second, we will engage with researchers and professionals in fields outside of the agricultural education, leadership, and communications nexus to engage transdisciplinary teams to establish and evaluate agricultural literacy efforts. Furthermore, we will strive to recruit researchers representing various locations in the country, including researchers working in various urban and suburban communities, as well as established networks with underrepresented individuals. The importance of this topic crosses all disciplines, regions, and research agendas.

Measurement of Progress and Results


  • Comparative multistate data obtained by using the K-12/Adult agricultural literacy assessments (from the National Center for Agricultural Literacy) that determine agricultural literacy proficiency within similar population groups (i.e., Cooperative Extension, policymakers, students, community educators).
  • Development of a model to investigate the decision-making processes regarding key agricultural topics, particularly those that influence AFNR policy.
  • Compilation of innovative methodologies or nontraditional spaces that have shown to be effective in improving agricultural literacy.
  • Description of program models that have proven to impact agricultural literacy (i.e., best practices, pedagogies, problem-solving methods)
  • A measurable increase in agricultural literacy peer-reviewed publications

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

  • The projected impact is to positively affect the knowledge acquisition and decision-making processes of consumers, producers, and other stakeholders
  • A measurable increase in positive behavioral changes in attitudes, motivation, and perception from consumers, producers, students, or engaged professionals toward agriculture and AFNR systems.
  • Agricultural literacy program improvement that benefits current and future agricultural careers and industry.


(2024):Each committee member will select a specific research objective to pursue. Research teams will form between committee members with similar objectives. These research teams will identify key research opportunities in their chosen objectives. Finally, research teams will begin to develop research plans to ensure that each study can be conducted on most sites.

(2026):Research teams will finalize research plans, develop and/or adapt instrumentation, and conduct the research studies. The goal of each research study will be to replicate it across as many research sites as possible to build credibility in the research methods and data. Research teams will be expected to communicate with each other frequently and regularly during this process.

(2028):Research teams will disseminate their findings into scholarly publications as well as professional development venues for practitioners.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

This project’s research findings will be disseminated through diverse outreach endeavors. This involves submitting and presenting research initiatives focusing on agricultural literacy to various journals and conferences. Potential avenues for publication in peer-reviewed forums include, but are not restricted to:

  • Journal of Applied Communications

  • Journal of Agricultural Education

  • Advancements in Agricultural Development

  • North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal

  • Journal of Extension

  • Journal of Human Sciences and Extension

  • Association for Career and Technical Education Research

  • Journal of Career and Technical Education

Possible non-refereed but peer-reviewed publications include, but are not limited to:

  • The Agricultural Education Magazine

  • National Science Teachers Association Magazines (i.e., Science & Children, Science Scope, Science Teacher, Journal of College Science Teaching)

  • Extension Outcomes & Impacts

  • National Agriculture in the Classroom Research and Curriculum Matrix

Possible presentations (non-refereed but peer-reviewed) include, but are not limited to:

  • Stakeholder presentations

  • Pre-K-20 professional development workshops

  • Post-secondary professional workshops

Possible conference presentations at the regional and national level for the following professional organizations, but are not limited to:

  • American Association for Agricultural Educators

  • National Association of Agricultural Educators

  • North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture

  • National Agriculture in the Classroom

  • National Family and Consumer Sciences Educators Association

  • National Agricultural Communications Symposium (NACS)

The following websites will be updated with the work of this committee:

  • National Agriculture in the Classroom (and each state’s website)

  • National Center for Agricultural Literacy


The Multistate Agricultural Literacy Research Committee will use the standard form of committee governance outlined in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities, except for the secretary position. The secretary will serve a two-year term without moving into the chair-elect position. This multistate committee met before this proposal writing and elected officers as follows:

Chairperson: Michelle Burrows (Utah State University), two-year term. Responsible for organizing the meeting agenda, conducting the meeting, and completing task assignments. 

Chair-elect: Annie Specht (Ohio State University), two-year term. Supports the chair by carrying out duties assigned by the chair. The chair-elect serves as the chair in the absence of the elected chair.

Secretary: Amelia Miller (Utah State University), two-year term. Responsible for distributing documents before the meeting and keeping records on meeting decisions (a.k.a. Keeping the minutes).

The complete list of committee members is detailed in the NIMSS Appendix E. In addition to carrying out the agreed research collaboration, research coordination, information exchange, or advisory activities, project members are responsible for reporting progress, contributing to the ongoing progress of the activity, and communicating their accomplishments to the committee members and their respective employing institutions.

Literature Cited


2021 AITC Program Report. (2021, June). https://www.jotform.com/report/22048559108405518

AAAE. (2023). AAAE Research Values. American Association of Agricultural Education.

Bellah, K., A., Dyer, J. E., & Casey, G. R. (2004, August). Agricultural Education = Agricultural Literacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 77(I).

Bennett, J., Spielmaker, D., & Burrows, M. (2022, May 16). A Synthesis of Recommendations within Agricultural Literacy Intervention Research [Poster presentation]. The American Association for Agricultural Education National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. http://www.aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2022Meeting/PosterSessions_2022AAAEConference.pdf

Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2022). Strategic Science Communication: A guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bovay, J., & Alston, J. M. (2018). GMO food labels in the United States: Economic implications of the new law. Food Policy, pp. 78, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.02.013

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Average annual household food expenditure in the United States from 2000 to 2021 (in U.S. dollars). In Statista. https://www-statista-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/statistics/237211/average-food-expenditures-of-united-states-households/

Cosby, A., Manning, J., Power, D., & Harreveld, B. (2022). New decade, same concerns: A systematic review of agricultural literacy of school students. Education Sciences, 12(4), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040235

Daniel, E., Bardi, A., Fischer, R., Benish-Weisman, M., & Lee, J. A. (2022). Changes in Personal Values in Pandemic Times. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211024026

Fernandez, J. M., Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Moran, E. R., & Wilson, Christine A. (2020). Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, and the environment, United States, 2020-2025 (9; p. 2). Purdue University. https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/USDA-2020-25-Employment-Report-Summary.pdf

Hill, N., Claflin, K., Specht, A., & Hock, G. (2022, October 6). Edutainment on the farm: A content analysis of tweets about Clarkson’s Farm [Paper presentation]. North Central Region American Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference, Columbia, Missouri. https://aaea.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/North%20Central/2022Conference/2022Conference/2022%20NCAAAE%20Research%20Poster%20Proceedings.pdf

Hopkins, K. A., McKendree, M. G. S., & Schaefer, K. A. (2022). Resolving the reality gap in farm regulation voting models. Food Policy, p. 112, 102357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102357

Judd-Murray, R., Warnick, B. K., Spielmaker, D. M., Longhurst, M. L., Coster, D. C., & Stewart, C. D. (2019). Development and validation of an agricultural literacy instrument using the National Agricultural Literacy Outcomes. Paper Presentation. Western Region Conference of the American Association for Agricultural Education, Anchorage, Alaska. http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/Western%20Region/Meeting%202019/2019WesternRegionAAAEProceedings.pdf.

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=766

United Nations. (n.d.). Population. United Nations; United Nations. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population

United Nations. (2020). COVID-19 and Education. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf

USDA ERS. (2023). Farming and Farm Income. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-income/


Land Grant Participating States/Institutions


Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Sul Ross State University, Utah State University
Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.