Duration: 10/01/2006 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

In the year 2000, the earth's human population topped six billion. This growing population is experiencing changes in demographics, increased urbanization, increased worldwide agricultural production needs and changes in agricultural trade policies. The world population is dependent upon an agricultural system that will provide them with food and clothing, and a variety of other products to enhance their living environment (Dyer & Osborne, 1995). In areas all over the world, including Arizona, homes and businesses are being built on prime farmland to accommodate this growth in population. There is less farmland, but it is imperative that the three basic human needs of food, clothing, and shelter are provided for by the agricultural industry.

Agriculture in America is a broad-based growing industry, which employs people in virtually every community in the nation, which has played a vital role in the history of the nation and the food and fiber system, and which continues to play a vital role in our nation's economy and national security. Vital to the continued success of this industry, and the nation as a whole, is a well-informed literate society with regard to knowledge about agriculture(Elliot, 1999b). The ability to produce food and materials for human usage is a system in which the average American has taken for granted. This attitude has proliferated through the years and when combined with the population shift from rural communities to more urbanized areas, the real success story of American agriculture has been lost (Pope, 1990). As special interest groups involved in issues such as animal rights, pesticide usage, soil and water conservation, and other environmental concerns gain media and public attention, it becomes even more important that the general public have some background and understanding of not only what agriculture is all about, but of how it affects each person's life on a daily basis (Law, 1990).

The future of agriculture rests in the hands of the ninety-eight percent of the United States population who are not from the farm. As fewer people are directly involved in production agriculture, public support of the industry becomes even more important (Elliot & Olson, 1995). Agriculturally literate people can make personally informed decisions about agriculture related topics such as food safety, genetic engineering and pesticides versus non-pesticide issues. Those without this basic understanding react without reason, frightened for themselves and their families. The resulting damage to the industry in not repairable (Tisdale 1991). Many of the issues and problems facing agriculture today are important to more than those persons who are employed by the industry. Food safety, soil conservation, and animal welfare are examples of issues which directly affect agriculture, but are of serious concern to a broad range of citizens (Birkenholz, 1990).

Related, Current and Previous Work

A thorough CRIS search revealed that in 1988, Agricultural Literacy was defined by the National Research Council as the goal of education about agriculture. It has been noted that an agriculturally literate population aids in ensuring that citizens make intelligent and informed decisions concerning agriculture policies that benefit society (Ryan & Lockaby, 1996). Agriculturally literate people are defined as those who have some knowledge of food and fiber production, processing, marketing and the practical knowledge needed to care for their outdoor environments, which include lawns, gardens, recreational areas and parks (National Research Council 1988). Though functional agricultural literacy does not imply a perfect level of understanding about agriculture, it does consist of minimum levels which take into account an understanding of basic agricultural methods, the basic vocabulary of agricultural terms, and the ability to understand the impact of agriculture on society (Frick & Spotanski, 1990). Yet, the problem of agricultural illiteracy is widespread, having serious ramifications in the arenas of public policy development, development of personnel to serve the broad agricultural industry, and in the education of people from kindergarten through adult levels (Russell, McCraken, & Miller, 1990; Jepsen, Pastor & Elliot, 2006).

According to the National Research Council (1988), approximately two percent of the U.S. population lives on a farm. Contrasting this low percentage with 30% in 1920 and 15% in 1950 what this means is that most of today's elementary school children are at least two generations away from first-hand knowledge of agriculture (American Farm Bureau Federation, 1983). Technological and economic advances have led to a reduction in the number of farms and a comparable increase in average farm size. Today about 1 percent of U.S. farms account for nearly two-thirds of net cash farm income (National Research Council, 1988). There exists a general belief among K-16 educators, as well as scientists, that people must be scientifically and agriculturally literate in order to make wise and informed economic and political decisions about the use of renewable resources (Cardwell, 1994).

During the 1960's and 70's, as experienced agriculture, conservation and forestry organizations realized the need for quality material, many excellent films, literature and classroom aids were financed and produced by businesses, foundations, nonprofit groups and associations, as well as state and federal agencies (Morell, 2003). There was, however, little coordination of effort or exchange of ideas among the groups and no central point for national coordination. In 1981, at the invitation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, representatives of agricultural groups and educators came to a meeting in Washington, D.C. to discuss agricultural literacy and establish a national task force. This group recommended that the USDA be the coordinator and that it sponsor regional meetings to help states organize their own programs.

As a result, in 1981 the USDA established Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC), which has the endorsement of all living former Secretaries of Agriculture, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Conference of States Legislatures, most of the governors of the states and the major agricultural organizations and commodity groups.

Each state approaches AITC from the basis of its own needs and resources and is responsible for organization, funding, public outreach, materials development and teacher training (Traxler, 1990). States have formed educational nonprofit organizations which have the benefit of a tax-deductible status. In some states leadership is provided through the departments of education, agriculture or other government agencies; in other states through agricultural organizations or commodity groups; some through universities or colleges; and in some cases through the dedicated efforts of one or two individuals. The Arizona Farm Bureau is actively involved along with the University of Arizona Experiment Station in providing agricultural literacy activities (Tomerlin & Elliot, 2005).

Beginning in 1976, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and other agencies encouraged incorporation of education on agriculture, food and natural resources in the public and higher education curriculum (Elliot, 1999a). Since 1988, the State of California has funded and supported public school agricultural literacy programming. This resulted in the establishment of the Framework for Agriculture, a literacy strategy for grades K-12 which includes five themes: (1) Food and Fiber Systems; (2) Historical, Cultural, and Geographic Significance; (3) Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence; (4) Business and Economics; and (5) Food, Nutrition and Health (Elliot, 1999a).

In 1999, a study was completed to assess food and fiber knowledge of selected students in kindergarten through eighth grade before and after receiving instruction. It was discovered that while students at each site had some prior knowledge of food and fiber systems, it was possible to increase student knowledge about agriculture by infusing instruction into the classroom. Additionally, this study highlighted that it was possible to infuse education about agriculture into core academic learning using thematic areas as a guide for instruction. A positive relationship was discovered between the number of connections teachers made to the Food and Fiber Systems Literacy Framework (the instrument) and increases in student knowledge (Igo & Frick, 1999).

Elementary school students lack knowledge about the importance of agriculture - primarily its social and economic significance and its link to human health and environmental quality (Swortzel, 1996). The purpose of the Swortzel study was to assess fourth grade students' knowledge about animal agriculture in Ohio before and after receiving instruction about agriculture by integrating the content of The AgVenture Magazine into core curriculum. The study found that receiving instruction about agriculture through the integration of the content of AgVenture Magazine into the core curriculum does increase fourth grade students' knowledge about the importance of agriculture in Ohio. The results from this study offered hope that worthwhile efforts exist in providing instruction about agriculture and making school-aged students more aware about the importance of agriculture (Swortzel, 1996). Fourth grade students in an Arizona experiemental study improved in agricultural literacy regardless of the type of treatment compared to the control group (Glassman, Elliot & Knight, 2006).

A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent groups pretest-posttest research design was used by Meunier, Talbert and Latour (2002) in fourteen Indiana schools. Seven hundred thirty-six fourth graders and 39 teachers were randomly assigned by classroom to receive hands-on instruction with egg hatching or to be in a control classroom with no additional instruction. The treatment group increased agriculture-related science knowledge (Meunier, Talbert & Latour, 2002).

Realizing that no single approach may prove to be a panacea for all educational programs, several concepts have been explored for consideration for the offering of agricultural instruction at the elementary level in Virginia (Crunkilton, 1990). These USDA Ag In The Classroom (AITC) methods include curriculum guides for teachers, lesson materials, the insertion of teaching aids, actual textbooks, mini-projects and experiments, school farms, laboratories, greenhouses and agricultural classrooms, and resource people. AITC can introduce students to the concepts of plant growth and component parts of greenhouses, horticulture in the areas of gardening and commercial ornamental plant production, environmental concerns such as campus beautification and landscaping, and technological innovation such as with various methods of hydroponics and drip irrigation (Kuempel & Spivey, 1990). However, academic effectiveness was not studied in this or any of the previously mentioned studies.

The country's forefathers once said that democracy is dependent upon an educated public; they wanted education for all, not just the elite (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The forefathers have since been validated; education is necessary for the growth and prosperity of our country. As education has become more advanced and inclusive, it has greatly influenced the advancement of American economic and political leadership. Because education is so important, the task of educating people has been left up to state and local governments. As a result of visionary contributions by Noah Webster (dictionary, spellers, and readers), Benjamin Rush (public education for females), Horace Mann (improved physical facilities of schools and developed teacher training program), and Thaddeus Stevens (pushed for public schools), the first public high school opened in New York and then rippled throughout the country creating the public school system (U.S. Department, 2004).

The federal government has since recognized the importance of education and assumed a larger role in financing public schools. With this newfound recognition, the federal government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. The ESEA has been reauthorized throughout the years with new specifications, the most recent is known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act signed by President Bush in 2001. This Act asks that states set standards for student performance and teacher quality. High stakes testing continues to play a prominent role in this legislation (U.S. Department, 2004).

High stakes testing is a concept that began in 1983 as a direct result of A Nation at Risk, a report released by the National Commission on Education. According to Amerin and Berliner (2002), this report proposed an end to minimum competency testing and called for a movement that would raise the nation's standards of achievement. This report led legislators to require the development of educational standards. As a result, state policy makers created educational standards (Amerin & Berliner, 2002).

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is currently being implemented in all 50 states. Yet, no two states implement NCLB the same way. Twenty states offer financial rewards to schools that have high achievement on scores, and nineteen of these states provide financial bonuses to school that show improvement between years. Forty-five states publish school and district reports containing test scores. This holds the schools accountable for how effective they are in meeting the states' education standards. Test scores play a critical part in letting the public know about a school's, district's, and state's accomplishments (Amerin & Berliner, 2002). In an Arizona study 3rd and 5th grade students who were taught by a teacher who attended an Agriculture in the Classroom week-long workshop scored higher on the state's high stakes test, AIMS, in language then other students (Schimdbauer, Pastor & Elliot, 2005).

Stakeholders are College of Agriculture faculty, USDA's Ag in the Classroom (AITC) Program under the auspices of the USDA CSREES, and public school teachers who can integrate agricultural knowledge and concepts into their curriculum and utilize the AITC hands-on approach to teaching to improve academic achievement.

Problem Statement:
Although many studies evaluated agricultural knowledge levels (or literacy), no studies were found that document the impact of AITC program pedogogy on academic achievement as measured by high stakes tests and through agricultural literacy assessments. Given the overwhelming emphasis on the national No Child Left Behind initiative and its focus on test scores, it is imperative that AITC determine its effectiveness within this educational environment. Educators are scrambling to find teaching strategies that can improve test scores. Quantifiable justification as to the benefits of Agriculture in the Classroom is essential if the program is to be seen as an effective component within public education. Therefore, a multistate effort to determine AITC program effectiveness in an era of high stakes testing is imperative because of the various ways AITC programs are offered and the various ways each state measures achievement as it relates to NCLB. An agriculturally illiterate citizenry that exercises its voting rights on issues that impact agriculture is our future if we don't determine the value of programs like AITC with research studies like the one proposed.

The purpose of this proposal is to determine the agricultural literacy and academic achievement impact of AITC.

Objectives

1. Continue developing an AITC baseline of knowledge and data.
   
2. Identify those specific components and practices (including pedagogical strategies and curriculum materials) which correlate with AITC measurable program success.
   
3. Determine the significant impacts (including agricultural literacy and academic achievement) of AITC measurable program success.
   

Methods

Objective 1: To continue utilizing the annual AITC on-line survey data to assemble trend data on the AITC programming. The initial baseline was established during WERA 207 where the committee found that there was limited AITC program data. The committee established a process to collect state data so trend analysis could begin. At this point in time only two year's of data has been collected. It is extremely important to continue this phase of the research. Most committee members will assist in providing data with Utah and Oregon as the leads. To continue posting all AITC research publications on the AITC website (Another product from the planning stages [WCC 106, WCC 207, and WERA 207] was the establishment of a central location to compile reports - Utah is the lead.): www.agclassroom.org/consortium/reports.htm Objectives 2 & 3 (Arizona will be the lead, with three other states [to be determined through an application process] involved after year one): The procedures below represent one of the proposed studies that address these two objectives. However, it is anticipated that other research efforts will follow similar procedures. The research design is a posttest only control group design (the R indicates that the groups will be randomly selected thus internal sources of potential threats to validity will be controlled such as history): R O (control group) R X O (treatment group: where the treatment is being taught by AITC prepared teachers) 2007 January: Identify three elementary schools in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area that have multiple 5th-grade classrooms. Complete the University of Arizona Human Subjects Review process. Meet with principals and teachers from the participating schools. Randomly select six teachers/classrooms to be the treatment and six teachers to be the control group. However, treatment and control teachers will be in each school. February: Begin preparing and disseminating a one-page AITC monthly newsletter to the treatment and the control group. The idea is to provide a continual medium of communication between the researchers and the two groups. Note: the treatment and the control group will receive different newsletters. The control group newsletter will consist of generic items associated with educational issues whereas the treatment group will receive information directly related to agriculture including lesson plan ideas. April: Complete enrollment in the Arizona Summer Agricultural Institute for the six Arizona treatment group teachers. June: The six Arizona treatment group teachers participate in the 2007 Arizona Summer Agricultural Institute. Interview the six treatment teachers and determine when they will infuse AITC ideas within their curriculum. Fall: Obtain 2007 AIMS data from all twelve classrooms to provide a teacher baseline. December: Prepare the 2007 report. 2007/08 School Year: Interview six treatment teachers and determine which AITC themes were actually delivered within their curriculums. Interview the six control teachers and review their curriculum. 2008 January: Identify up to three other states that want to replicate (the actual grade level to be studied will depend on which grade level is evaluated within the state's high stakes testing process - probably the 4th or 5th grade (Also, identify researchers from this committee who want to collaborate with the primary investigators from Arizona). Begin the other states' Human Subjects Review processes. Spring: Meet with the other states' principals and teachers from the participating schools. Randomly select teachers/classrooms to be either the treatment or the control groups. April: Complete enrollment in the Arizona Summer Agricultural Institute for the six Arizona control group teachers (as a reward for participating in the research study). Complete enrollment for the treatment teachers in the other states' AITC In-service. June: The six Arizona control teachers participate in the 2008 Arizona Summer Agricultural Institute. Fall: Obtain 2008 AIMS data from the 12 Arizona classrooms so a comparison between the two groups can occur. Obtain 2008 high stakes testing data from the participating other states' classrooms. Winter: Prepare the 2008 report. 2008/09 School Year: Interview Arizona treatment and control teachers and determine how their curriculums were altered because of their participation in this project. 2009 June: The other states' control group of teachers participate in the 2009 AITC In-service as a reward for participating in the study. Fall: Collect high stakes testing data from the other states' classrooms. Interview the other states' treatment and control teachers and determine how their curriculums were altered because of their participation in this project. December: Prepare the academic achievement final report and begin developing the Academic Achievement Model and the Agricultural Literacy Model as well as the Best Practices Guide for Academic Achievement.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Agricultural Literacy Model
• Academic Achievement Model
• Best AITC Practices Guide for Academic Achievement

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• AITC programs will be deemed pedagogically sound within today's educational environment of high stakes testing, and therefore a more agriculturally literate society will be the ultimate outcome which will lead to a better informed citizenry, consumers and a future agricultural workforce (i.e., business leaders, scientists, legislators, educators, etc.).
• A citizenry that understands the relationships of food, fiber and natural resources has the potential to make informed political decisions on water usage, urban encroachment, public lands and other related issues that is visionary and environmentally sound.

Milestones

(2009): Initial Academic Achievement study will be completed and work on creating the Agricultural Literacy Model and Academic Achievement Model can begin.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

All products and results will be available on the AITC website:

www.agclassroom.org/consortium/reports.htm

Research will be presented at the national and regional American Association for Agricultural Education's annual research meetings, The Journal of Agricultural Education, The annual AITC meeting and other related venues.

Organization/Governance

The recommended Standard Governance for multistate research activities will be followed and it includes the election of a Chair, a Chair-elect, and a Secretary. All officers will be elected for at least two-year terms to provide continuity. Administrative guidance will be provided by an assigned Administrative Advisor and a CSREES Representative. Initially, the annual meeting of this group will be at the annual meeting of the Western Region American Association for Agricultural Education.

Because the committee members represent the three areas within the Land-Grant System, Extension, Teaching and Research, and because the committee members worked well together in the planning stages (five years) as it relates to collaboration and dissemination of the results to the various research outlets, no formal involvement of the groups was described in this proposal.

Literature Cited

Amerin, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/


American Farm Bureau Federation (1983). Reasons for the Agriculture in the Classroom Program. Unpublished proposal. Macon GA: Author.


Birkenholz, R.J. (1990, July). Expanding our mission: Pre-secondary agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 63 (1), 12-13.


Cardwell, V.B. (1994, November). Report from Conference on the Role of Scientific Societies in K-16 Food, Fiber, and Environmental Science Education. Abstract of Meeting held September 1994, Greenbelt, MD.


Crunkilton, J.R. (1990). Agriculture in Elementary School: A Challenge, Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.


Dyer, J.E., & Osborne, E.W. (1995). A factor analysis of attitudes of Illinois guidance counselors toward agriculture programs. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 22. Denver, CO.


Elliot, J. (1999a). A prototype three-dimensional model for assessing international agricultural and environmental literacy. Proceedings of the 15th Annual AIAEE Conference, 15. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.


Elliot, J. (1999b). Food and agricultural awareness of Arizona public school teachers. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 17. Corpus Christi, TX.

Elliot, J., & Olson, J. (1995) Identifying and understanding Arizona consumers' agricultural and environmental issues. Proceedings from the 14th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 14. Phoenix, AZ.

Frick, M.J., & Spotanski, D. (1990). Coming to grips with agricultural literacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62. (8).

Glassman, R., Elliot, J., & Knight, J. (2006). Interactive Agricultural Experiences of 4th Grade Students in the Arid Southwest: An Examination of the Impact of Hands-on-Learning Experiences as a Component of Agriculture in the Classroom, Proceedings of the 2006 American Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference, Charlotte, NC.

Jepsen, H., Pastor, M. & Elliot, J. (2006). Agricultural Perceptions of Participants of the Summer Agricultural Institute, Proceedings of the 2006 Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, Boise, ID.

Igo, C. & Frick, M. (1999). A case study assessment of standard and benchmarks for implementing food and fiber systems literacy. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 18. Corpus Christi, TX.

Kuempel, D., & Spivey, W.F. (1990). What a bean can do for you. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 63 (1).

Law, D.A. (1990), March). Implementing agricultural literacy programs. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62 (9), 5-6, 22.

Meunier, R., Talbert, B. A., & Latour, M. A., Evaluation of Incubators in the Classroom Program: Does It Increase Fourth Grade Student's Knowledge of Agriculture-Related Science Concepts? Journal of Agricultural Education, 43 (3).

Morrell, Patricia, D. (2003). Cognitive Impact of a Grade School Field Trip. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15 (1).

National Research Council, Board of Agriculture, Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools (1988). Understanding Agriculture: New Directions in Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Pope, John. (1990). Agricultural literacy: A basic American need. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62 (9).

Russell, E. B., McCracken, J. D., & Miller, W. W. (1990). Position statement on agricultural literacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62 (9).

Ryan, D., & Lockaby, J. (1996) An assessment of agricultural literacy level of city and government leaders. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Western Region Agricultural Educational Research meeting, 15, 77-88, Moscow, ID.

Schmidbauer, K., Pastor, M. & Elliot, J. (2005). The Academic Impact of Agriculture in the Classroom on AIMS Test Scores of Select 3rd and 5th Grade Classes in the Gilbert, Arizona Public Unified School District, Proceedings of the 2005 Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, Prescott, AZ.

Swortzel, K.A. (1996). Systematic educational efforts teaching about agriculture and the effects on fourth-grade students knowledge of animal agriculture in Ohio. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 23, 2-5. Cincinnati, OH.

Tisdale, J.F. (1991). Needed: Agricultural Literacy. Agricultural Education Magazine, p. 38 (8) 11.

Tomerlin, K., & Elliot, J. (2005). Effectiveness of the Desert Ventures Agricultural Literacy Program, Proceedings of the 2005 Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, Prescott, AZ.

Traxler, S. (1990). Why, "Ag in the Classroom?" The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62 (8).

U.S Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs (2004). A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, Washington, DC, 2004.

Zubrick, P.R. (1990). Agricultural literacy: Why! The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62 (8).

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AZ, CA, CO, HI, IA, MI, MN, MT, OK, OR, UT, WA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions