The Benefits Of Teaching And Learning About Agriculture In Elementary And Junior High Schools

Abstract

The beliefs and mental images that teachers have about agriculture likely influence what and how they integrate agriculture into their instruction. The purpose of this action research study was to explore the beliefs and needs of elementary and junior high school teachers in regard to integrating agriculture into their classrooms. The sample consisted of 452 teachers from public schools in Illinois. Teachers responded to three, open-ended questions regarding their beliefs of the most beneficial aspects and needs of teaching and learning about agriculture. Teachers believed that agriculture provided situatedness, connectedness, and authenticity to teach their content areas to their students. Teachers also shared topics and instructional resources that they wanted to know more about regarding the integration of agriculture. The findings from this study can inform agricultural literacy coordinators and agricultural teacher educators regarding inservice programming for integrating agriculture into classrooms.

Factors of teacher beliefs related to integrating agriculture into elementary school classrooms

“…This finding supports the relationship that teacher beliefs influence instructional decisions (Borko and Putnam 1996;Moseley et al 2002;Pajares 1992). The relationship suggests that teachers make instructional choices based on their epistemological beliefs (Hofer 2001) and expectancy value motivational beliefs (Eccles and Wigfield 2002), which are mediators of integrating agriculture (Knobloch et al 2007;Lawrenz 1985;Trexler et al 2000). The ''fit in academic subjects'' factor is a cognitive belief that represents the teachers' epistemological beliefs (Hofer 2001) about agriculture in the context of teaching and learning.…”

“…Teachers' ways of knowing can help them see the interrelationships of knowledge and how the FANR system provides a context to apply academic content for their students. This finding suggests that teachers could cognitively see the possibilities for interdisciplinary learning (Boix-Masilla et al 2000;Grossman et al 2000) and food, agriculture, and natural resources as a means to connect learning to real-world applications (Knobloch et al 2007;NRC 1998). In light of teachers being driven by standards, standardized tests, and administrator expectations to teach core academic subjects, they are more likely to teach academic subjects with topics such as agriculture if they fit within the context of the academic subject matter.…”

“…Moreover, teachers think about integrating non-required topics into their instruction based on societal norms and what they believe is important to students and society. Knobloch et al (2007) found that elementary and junior high teachers believed agricultural literacy taught students to appreciate the community and environment in which they lived the importance of the food and agricultural system, and to be stewards of natural resources. Lawrenz also found that teachers will not implement available instructional resources into their classroom instruction if they are not convinced of the value of the material and do not understand how to use it (Lawrenz 1985).…”

“…Conceptually, teacher choice was viewed through the lens of reasoned action (Fishbein and Azjen 1975) and the personal beliefs teachers have that can influence their decisions (Borko and Putnam 1996;Moseley et al 2002;Pajares 1992). Cognitive and motivational beliefs inform elementary and junior high teachers' decisions and actions regarding the integration of FANR topics Knobloch et al 2007;Knobloch and Martin 2002). Moreover, teachers think about integrating non-required topics into their instruction based on societal norms and what they believe is important to students and society.…”

“…In spite of these benefits, researchers (Tolman and Campbell 1989;Trexler et al 2000) have found that educational programs used to integrate real-life applications as enrichment programs (e.g., Agriculture in the Classroom; Food, Land, and People; Project Learning Tree) have limited adoption in science education. Although there are strong arguments (Balschweid 2002) and supporting evidence (Pense et al 2005) why the food, agricultural, and natural resources system should be integrated into public school instruction, there are several factors why teachers do not choose to integrate this subject into curricula such as an overcrowded curriculum (Daggett 2000;Moore 1987), increased accountability through standardized testing (Linn 2000), being uncomfortable with the content (Moore 1987), and not seeing the benefits of integrating the subject in their classrooms (Knobloch et al 2007). …”