Yow, Z. , Extension Agent, Mississippi State University
Denny, M.D., Assistant Professor and Staff Development Specialist, Mississippi State University
Wilson, J., Assistant Professor and State Master Gardener Coordinator, Mississippi State University
Downey, L., Associate Extension Professor and Evaluation Specialist, Mississippi State University

ABSTRACT

Extension agents often must lead a Master Gardener (MG) program, but lack the knowledge and skills to properly manage and advise volunteers. This study used the ISOTURE Volunteer Management Model and a modified Delphi method to determine specific competencies needed. Promoting a positive image of the MG Program; recruiting diverse volunteers; understanding volunteer motivation; empowering veteran volunteers to take on leadership roles; and articulating the public value of the MG Program were deemed the most important competencies for agents to successfully train and manage MG volunteers. This study can inform future professional development training with new and existing agents.

During the second round, respondents were asked to review the competencies and rate their perceived importance. Based on the literature, three rounds of questionnaires are common to reach consensus among respondents (Boyd, 2004). However, a detailed analysis of responses from the second round revealed no new information and yielded consensus. As such, it was deemed that a third round was unnecessary. 

Identification and Selection of Participants

This study utilized a non-random, purposive sampling technique to identify and select participants. “The purposive sampling technique, also called judgement sampling, is a deliberate choice of an informant due to the qualities the informant possesses” (Tongco, 2007, p.147). Twenty-six county-level Extension agents in Mississippi who manage a local MG Program were identified to participate in the study. Sample sizes ranging from 11 to 30 are typical for the Delphi method and have been shown to be effective and reliable (Dalkey, 1969).

The first criterion when making the selection of participants was their geographic location in the state.  Then, participants were selected based on years of employment, experience with the Master Gardener Program, gender, and race. The years of employment criteria were broken down by late (>15 years of employment), middle (6 to 15 years), and early career (5 or fewer years) stages. The criterion of experience with the MG Program was evaluated by determining how involved each agent is with their county program (e.g., hosted past Mississippi Master Gardener Association State conference, regularly conduct educational programs on county and regional levels, received awards for accomplishments, oversee plant sales as fundraising events), as determined by the State MG Coordinator. This intentional selection of agents allowed for diversity among our participants. 

Data Analysis

Likert-scale data were collected, except for the single competency statement for the Recognition construct. Derrick & White (2017) stated a Likert item is a forced choice ordinal question which captures the intensity of opinion or degree of assessment in survey respondents. Likert scales seek information for understanding a subject’s attitude by combining the individual’s responses to a series of opinion questions designed to address relevant aspects of the attitude in question (Willits et al., 2016). The reason for using Likert-scale data was to provide a quantitative measure of Extension agents perceived importance of each competency.

The Likert-scale data for each competency statement were combined into a single composite score to provide a quantitative measure (Boone & Boone, 2012).  The frequency, mean, median, mode, and standard deviation were calculated using Excel to identify the competency perceived to be of highest importance from each construct of the ISOTURE model and the General Knowledge and Skills section.

To test for internal consistency among the competencies in each construct, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated (Santos, 1999).  It is important when analyzing the importance of the competencies of each construct that if the questionnaire was to be administered again the competencies would produce the same responses.

 

Results

There were 26 Extension agents identified to participate in the study. In Round 1, 24 agents responded to the survey, for a 92% response rate. The average years of employment among respondents was fifteen years, and the average number of years working with MG volunteers was 10. For Round 2, 21 agents responded to the survey, for a response rate of 81%.

We calculated Cronbach’s alpha to test for internal consistency among the competencies within the constructs of the ISOTURE model, except for Recognition, as there was only one competency statement for that particular construct. Coefficient alphas ranged from 0.77 to 0.92, well above the minimum accepted standard for reliability (Cortina, 1993). The scores indicate a high level of internal consistency among the competencies within each construct.

For the Identification construct (Table 2), 95% (n=20) of respondents rated the “Ability to promote a positive and recognizable image of the MG Program within the county” as Important or Very Important (M=4.48, SD=0.60). In response to the competency, “Ability to promote the Advanced MG Training to increase knowledge and provide opportunities to meet educational requirements,” there was more variability among respondents (M=4.00, SD=0.95). This was despite 77% (n=16) of respondents rating this competency as Important or Very Important.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for Identification competencies (n=21)

Identification Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Ability to promote a positive and recognizable image of the MG Program within the county.	9 43%	11 52%	4.48	0.60
Knowledge of advertising the MG Training to reach potential volunteers.	9 43%	10 48%	4.38	0.67
Ability to promote the MG Program so members of the community understand its purpose.	10 48%	8 38%	4.24	0.70
Ability to promote the Advanced MG Training to increase knowledge and provide opportunities to meet educational requirements.	9 43%	7 34%	4.00	0.95

 

For the Selection construct (Table 3), 90% (n=19) of the respondents rated the “Ability to recruit MG Volunteers to strengthen and increase the longevity of the program” as Important or Very Important (M=4.43, SD=0.68). There was more variability among respondents for the competency “Ability to recognize and select appropriate volunteer for leadership positions” (M=4.24, SD=0.83). Even though, 86% (n=18) of respondents rated this competency as Important or Very Important.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for Selection competencies (n=21)

Selection Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Ability to recruit MG volunteers to strengthen and increase the longevity of the program.	8 38%	11 52%	4.43	0.68
Ability to recruit volunteers that represent the diverse audiences of local communities.	9 43%	9 43%	4.29	0.72
Ability to recognize and select appropriate volunteers for leadership positions.	9 43%	9 43%	4.24	0.83
Ability to understand and recognize personality traits of MG volunteers.	10 48%	8 38%	4.19	0.81

 

Within the Orientation construct (Table 4), the competencies “Understanding of the mission and purpose of the MG Program” (f=62%, M=4.57, SD=0.60) and “Ability to assign new volunteers a MG number/password and set them up in the reporting system” (f=67%, M=4.48, SD=0.87) were more frequently rated as Very Important. However, there is less variability among respondents regarding the competency “Ability to explain the importance of the training session and final evaluations.” More than half of the respondents rated this competency Important (f=67%, M=4.14, SD=0.57).

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for Orientation competencies (n=21)

Orientation Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Understanding of the mission and purpose of the MG Program.	7 33%	13 62%	4.57	0.60
Ability to assign new volunteers a MG number/password and set them up in the reporting system.	4 19%	14 67%	4.48	0.87
Knowledge of how and why to set up a county MG board of directors.	7 33%	9 43%	4.19	0.81
Ability to explain the importance of the training session and final evaluations.	14 67%	5 24%	4.14	0.57
Ability to create MG project committees to allow volunteers to prioritize group efforts.	11 52%	6 29%	4.10	0.70

For the Training construct (Table 5), the competency “Understanding of volunteer motivation” (f=52%, M=4.33, SD=0.86) was more frequently rated as Very Important, even though there was more variability among respondents. However, there is less variability among respondents regarding the competencies, “Ability to provide educational training opportunities on horticulture topics for volunteers by utilizing appropriate teaching tools and techniques” (f=80%, M=3.95, SD=0.59) and “Understanding of adult learning principles and non-formal education techniques” (f=71%, M=3.90, SD=0.54), which well over half of the respondents rated as Important.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for Training competencies (n=21)

Training Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Understanding of volunteer motivation.	7 33%	11 52%	4.33	0.86
Ability to make the training Introduction session personal for your county.	12 57%	7 33%	4.24	0.62
Ability to train volunteers to use technology relevant to the MG Program. (Reporting System Desktop Version, Reporting System Smartphone App, Remind Communication App, Email)	12 57%	7 33%	4.19	0.75
Ability to plan for different delivery methods used for the MG training. (In person, Zoom, hybrid, online)	12 57%	7 33%	4.19	0.75
Ability to train volunteers to provide horticulture education to the public.	7 33%	9 43%	4.14	0.91
Ability to match training to the delivery method used.	13 62%	5 24%	4.10	0.62
Ability to collaborate with other MG County Coordinators to provide learning opportunities for volunteers.	14 66%	5 24%	4.10	0.70
Ability to train volunteers to recognize potential MG projects.	10 48%	6 28%	4.00	0.84
Ability to provide educational training opportunities on horticulture topics for volunteers by utilizing appropriate teaching tools and techniques.	17 80%	2 10%	3.95	0.59
Ability to set up the training room to create an environment conducive for learning.	13 62%	3 14%	3.90	0.62
Understanding of adult learning principles and non-formal education techniques.	15 71%	2 10%	3.90	0.54

Within the Utilization construct (Table 6), 52% (n=11) of respondents rated the “Ability to identify and use veteran MG Volunteers to help manage the training session” (M=4.38, SD=0.80), “Ability to accommodate and provide appropriate opportunities for volunteers that have physical limitations” (M=4.38, SD=0.80), and “Ability to manage conflict among volunteers with varying opinions” (M=4.29, SD=0.90) as Very Important, although there was more variability among respondents. However, there was less variability among respondents regarding the competency “Ability to delegate tasks to volunteers that are appropriate to their knowledge/ability,” which more than half of the respondents rated as Important (f=71%, M=4.05, SD=0.67).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for Utilization competencies (n=21)

Utilization Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Ability to identify and use veteran MG volunteers to help manage the training sessions.	8 38%	11 52%	4.38	0.80
Ability to accommodate and provide appropriate opportunities for volunteers that have physical limitations.	8 38%	11 52%	4.38	0.80
Ability to manage conflict among volunteers with varying opinions.	6 29%	11 52%	4.29	0.90
Ability to work with MG volunteer leaders (board) to plan and implement meetings and events.	11 52%	8 38%	4.29	0.64
Ability to retain MG volunteers over time by keeping them engaged in appropriate activities.	12 57%	7 33%	4.19	0.75
Ability to delegate tasks to volunteers that are appropriate to their knowledge/ability.	15 71%	4 19%	4.05	0.67
Ability to successfully guide volunteers throughout their volunteering efforts.	13 62%	4 19%	4.00	0.63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Recognition construct, 57% (n=12) rated the “Ability to motivate volunteers by recognizing and rewarding them for volunteer service,” as Very Important. Twenty-four percent (n=5) felt it was Important (M=4.38, SD=0.80).

Within the Evaluation construct (Table 7), 57% (n=12) of the respondent rated “Ability to promote the effectiveness and benefits of the MG Program to county government officials” as Very Important (M=4.33, SD=0.91). In response to the competency, “Ability to process MG volunteer annual reports,” there was significant variability among respondents (M=4.10, SD=1.04). This was in spite of 81% (n=17) of respondents rating this competency as Important or Very Important. 

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for Evaluation competencies (n=21)

Evaluation Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Ability to promote the effectiveness and benefits of the MG Program to county government officials.	5 24%	12 57%	4.33	0.91
Ability to effectively use the MG Volunteer Reporting System.	9 43%	9 43%	4.29	0.72
Ability to process MG volunteer annual reports.	8 38%	9 43%	4.10	1.04
Ability to evaluate MG projects to determine the continuation of the project.	11 52%	5 24%	3.95	0.80

For the General Knowledge and Skills competencies (Table 8), 57% (n=12) of the respondents rated, “Knowledge of conflict and conflict management” as Very Important (M=4.38, SD=0.80). However, there was less variability among responses for the competencies, “Ability to handle and adjust to changes in the MG Program participants (lose interest, move away, pass on, or have bad health)” (M=4.38, SD=0.59), and “Ability to enroll volunteers for the training and explain what is expected as volunteers” (M=4.33, SD=0.58). Considering 95% (n=20) rated both of the competencies as Important or Very Important.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for General Knowledge and Skills competencies (n=21)

General Knowledge and Skills Competencies	Important f/%	Very Important f/%	Mean	SD
Knowledge of conflict and conflict management.	5 24%	12 57%	4.38	0.80
Ability to handle and adjust to changes in the MG Program participants. (lose interest, move away, pass on, or have bad health)	11 52%	9 43%	4.38	0.59
Ability to enroll volunteers for the training and explain what is expected as volunteers.	12 57%	8 38%	4.33	0.58
Understanding the criteria for approval of MG county projects.	10 47%	8 38%	4.19	0.81
Ability to utilize computer-based software to keep MG information organized.	9 43%	9 43%	4.19	0.93
Ability to relay information from State MG Coordinator to Master Gardener volunteers using face to face and digital communication.	8 38%	9 43%	4.19	0.87
Understanding the importance of social media for all aspects of MG volunteers and the MG Program.	12 57%	5 24%	4.00	0.77
Ability to use appropriate social media platforms.	11 52%	5 24%	3.86	0.96
Understanding of how and why to create a MG banking account.	8 38%	6 28%	3.86	0.96
Knowledge of fundraising for MG projects.	9 43%	4 19%	3.71	0.90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions and Discussion

While competency-based professional development is common in the private sector, it is still an emerging focus within Cooperative Extension. Overarching core competencies such as effective oral communication and knowledge of the land-grant mission, regardless of an agent’s program area, may be addressed during onboarding and subsequent in-service training opportunities. Yet, there is little evidence that targeted development plans are available for agents either by program area or by career stage. One reason for this may be that Extension specialists working in a particular program area may not agree on the specific competencies needed by agents. This hypothesis is supported by ongoing research in the Family and Consumer Sciences realm (Hardman et al., 2021). Another reason for this may be that the diversity of agents and their respective education and career experience make it difficult to develop “one-size-fits-all” learning opportunities. However, a tailored approach to professional development requires significantly more time and resources than what is currently available within most states’ Extension systems.

Regardless of these challenges, the need for program area-specific and topic-specific professional development for Extension personnel remains, and volunteer management is no exception. This study identified several competencies that were deemed the primary competencies needed for agents to successfully train and manage MG volunteers. These are promoting a positive image of the MG Program; recruiting diverse volunteers; understanding volunteer motivation; empowering veteran volunteers to take on leadership roles; and articulating the public value of the MG Program. These primary competencies align with those identified by Boyd (2004) that assessed the competencies needed by Extension agents to be volunteer administrators.

Since most agents are not trained in specific volunteer management competencies, our recommendation is to first introduce them to the ISOTURE model and highlight these primary competencies for each construct. Extension specialists and administrators could collaborate with their institution’s program and staff development specialists to design a strategic volunteer management professional development program for their respective agents and staff that work with MG volunteers. This training would be critical, in particular, for early career agents that may have little to no experience working with volunteers. More seasoned agents could also benefit from this training by using it to either confirm what they are already doing well or help them “unlearn” ineffective behaviors with their volunteers.

Several secondary competencies that were rated as Important from this study should also be taught to agents. Examples of these include the ability to recognize and select appropriate volunteers for leadership positions, the ability to manage conflict among volunteers with varying opinions, and an understanding of adult learning principles and non-formal education techniques. These competencies may not need to be developed early on in an agent’s career, but they certainly should be addressed as an agent succeeds to later stages in their career. There is a need for more research on the secondary competencies to determine how best to prioritize them for scaffolded professional development during early, middle, and late career stages. Future research could build on this study with more in-depth interviews with agents that have successful MG groups in their county as well as agents that don’t have MG volunteers.

References

Berven, B. C., Franck, K. L., & Hastings, S. W. (2020). Investing in Extension's Workforce: Assessing and Developing Critical Competencies of New Agents. Journal of Extension.

Boone, H.N. and Boone, D.A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. The Journal of Extension, 50, 1-5.

Boyce, V. M. (1971). A Systematic Approach to Leadership Development. U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare Office of Education.

Boyd, B. L. (2004). Extension Agents as Administrators of Volunteers: Competencies Needed for the Future. Journal of Extension, 42(2). https://archives.joe.org/joe/2004april/a4.php

Brodeur, C. W., Higgins, C., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Craig, D. D., & Haile, T. (2011). Designing a Competency-Based New County Extension Personnel Training Program: A Novel Approach. Journal of Extension, 49(3), Article 3FEA2. https://www.joe.org/joe/2011june/a2.php

Bumgarner, N. R., & Donaldson, J. L. (2017). Assessing the Tennessee Extension Master Gardener Program Using Both County Coordinator and Extension Volunteer Perspectives. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 5(3). https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/775

Cortina, J. (1993). What is a coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-19965-001

Culp III, K., Deppe, C., Castillo, J., & Wells, B. (1998). The GEMS model of volunteer administration. The Journal of Volunteer Administration.

Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The modified Delphi technique – A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2). https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v15n2/custer.html

Dalkey, N. C. (1969, June). The Delphi method: An Experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica,    CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM5888.html

Denny, M. (2019). ISOTURE: A Model for Effective Volunteer Management. Mississippi State University Extension. http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/isoture-model-for-effective-volunteer-management

Derrick, & White. (2017, August 17). Comparing two samples from an individual Likert question. International Journal of Mathematics and Statics, 18(3). https://uwerepository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/882913

Dodd, C., & Boleman, C. (2010). Volunteer Administration in the 21st Century: ISOTURE: A Model for Volunteer Management. AgriLIFE Extension Texas A&M System.

Gibby, D., Scheer, W., Collmen, S., Pinyuh, G., & Fitzgerald, T. (2008). The Master Gardener Program A WSU Extension Success Story Early History From 1973. http://mastergardener.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MasterGardenerProgramHistoryrev2009.8.pdf?9d7bd4&78857a

Hardman, A. M., Denny, M. D., Story, A., & Denny, G. (2021). Determining Human Development Competency Training Needs of Family and Consumer Sciences Extension Professionals. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 49(3), 222-237. DOI: 10.1111/fcsr.12390

Hange, J. S., Seevers, B. S., & VanLeeuwen, D. (2002). 4-H Youth Development Extension Agent's Attitudes Towards Volunteer Management Competencies. Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Conference. Las Vegas, NV: December 2002.

Polush, E. Y., Grudens-Schuck, N., Exner, D. N., & Karp, R. (2016). Delphi Survey of Needs for On-Farm Research: Forecasting Changes in a Farm Organization. Journal of Extension, 54(3). https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2012&context=joe

Santos, J. R. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales. Journal of Extension, 37, 1-6.

Seevers, B. S., Baca, J. S., & Van Leeuwen, D. (2005). Training Methods and Needs Related to Volunteer Management Competencies of Extension 4-H Youth Development Agents. Journal of Extension, 43(6). https://archives.joe.org/joe/2005december/index.php

Stone, B. B., & Bieber, S. (1997). Competencies: A New Language for our Work. Journal of Extension, 35(1). http:/www.joe.org/joe/1997april/tt2.php

Tongco, M. D. (2007). Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5:147-158. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/227

Willits, F. K., Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E. (2016). Another Look at Likert Scale. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 31(3), 126-139.

Wilson, J. C., & Newman, M. E. (2011). Reasons for Volunteering as a Mississippi Master Gardener. Journal of Extension, 49(5). https://archives.joe.org/joe/2011october/

---