Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 529–539 | Cite as

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

  • Neil A. Knobloch


Elementary students need authentic learning experiences with community-based topics to motivate them, help develop inquiry skills, apply academic content, and connect their learning beyond the context of the classroom. In particular, the study of food, agriculture, and natural resources in elementary classrooms can bring learning to life. Elementary teachers’ decisions to teach non-required topics are informed by their personal beliefs and contextual pressures to teach required content that is aligned with state learning standards. The purpose of this descriptive study is to explore the factors underlying elementary teachers’ beliefs related to the integration of food, agricultural, and natural resources (FANR) topics and activities into their classrooms. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify factors and determine the relationship between teacher beliefs and behaviors. Two factors explained the extent teachers integrated FANR topics and activities into their classrooms: (1) if they agreed FANR topics fit in academic subjects, and (2) if they saw the educational value of integrating FANR topics and activities into the elementary school curricula. Teachers’ epistemological and motivational beliefs play a role when they consider adopting an enrichment program to integrate non-required topics into their elementary school classrooms. The findings suggest teachers’ perceptions of the educational benefits and fit within academic content areas are more important factors than their views and attitudes of the careers and industry connected to an enrichment program when teachers choose to adopt and integrate topics and activities that would enrich student learning in their classrooms.


Agricultural literacy education Curriculum integration Enrichment programs Teacher beliefs and motivation 



I wish to thank Bridget Arvold and Robert Martin for their suggestions on improving the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported in part by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-793-331. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the US Department of Agriculture.


  1. Ball, A.L., N.A. Knobloch, R.M. Silberhorn, and C.A. Allen. 2003. Elementary and junior high school teachers’ beliefs of the most beneficial aspects of teaching agriculture. In The proceedings of the AAAE north central region agricultural education research conference, 77–87. Columbus, OH, American Association for Agricultural Education, 3–5 April 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Balschweid, M.A. 2002. Teaching biology using agriculture as a context: perceptions of high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education 43 (2): 56–67.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Boix-Mansilla, V., C. Miller, and H. Gardner. 2000. On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation, eds. S. Wineburg and P. Grossman, 17–38. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borko, H., and R.T. Putnam. 1996. Learning to teach. In Handbook of educational psychology, eds. D.C. Berlinger and R.C. Calfee, 673–708. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bottoms, G., and A. Presson. 2000. Finishing the job: improving the achievement of vocational students. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.Google Scholar
  7. Calderhead, J. 1996. Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In Handbook of educational psychology, eds. D.C. Berlinger and R.C. Calfee, 709–725. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Daggett, W.R. 2000. Moving from standards to instructional practice. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 84: 66–72.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, J.A. 1971. Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  11. Eccles, J.S., and A. Wigfield. 2002. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 109–132.Google Scholar
  12. ERS (Economic Research Service). 2000. A history of American agriculture, 1607–2000. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, (ERS-POST-12).Google Scholar
  13. ERS (Economic Research Service). 2004a. Measuring rurality. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed 2 November 2006.
  14. ERS (Economic Research Service). 2004b. Profiles of America. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed 2 November 2006.
  15. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Frick, M.J., A.A. Kahler, and W.W. Miller. 1991. A definition and the concepts of agricultural literacy. Journal of Agricultural Education 32 (2): 49–57.Google Scholar
  17. Goecker, A.D., J.L. Gilmore, E. Smith, and P.G. Smith. 2005. Employment opportunities for college graduates in the U.S. food, agricultural, and natural resources system: 2005–2010. West Lafayette: United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and Purdue University.Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, P., S. Wineburg, and S. Beers. 2000. Introduction: when theory meets practice in the world of school. In Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation, eds. S. Wineburg and P. Grossman, 1–16. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hair, J.E. Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Hofer, B.K. 2001. Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review 13 (4): 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holz-Clause, M., and M. Jost. 1995. Using focus groups to check youth perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Extension 33 (3). Accessed 20 April 2004.
  22. Humphrey, J.K., B.R. Stewart, and R.E. Linhardt. 1994. Preservice elementary education majors’ knowledge of and perceptions toward agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education 35 (2): 27–30.Google Scholar
  23. Ivanitskaya, L., D. Clark, G. Montgomery, and R. Primeau. 2002. Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education 27 (2): 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen, E. 2000. Brain-based learning. San Diego: Brain Store.Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman, P., D. Bradby, and P. Teitelbaum. 2000. High schools that work and whole school reform: raising academic achievement of vocational completers through the reform of school practice. Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education University of California.Google Scholar
  26. Knapp, S.A. 1894. Let us enlarge the domain of industrial knowledge. Starkville: E.L. Rfid.Google Scholar
  27. Knobloch, N.A. 2003. Is experiential learning authentic? Journal of Agricultural Education 44 (4): 22–34.Google Scholar
  28. Knobloch, N.A., and A. Ball. 2003. An examination of elementary teachers’ and agricultural literacy coordinators’ beliefs related to the integration of agriculture. Illinois state board of education facilitating coordination in agricultural education research summary report. Accessed 6 November 2006.
  29. Knobloch, N.A., and R.A. Martin. 2002. Teacher characteristics explaining the extent of agricultural awareness activities integrated into the elementary curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education 43 (4): 12–23.Google Scholar
  30. Knobloch, N.A., A.L. Ball, and C.A. Allen. 2007. The benefits of teaching and learning about agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education 48 (3): 25–36.Google Scholar
  31. Kyle, W.C. Jr., R.J. Bonnstetter, and T. Gadsen Jr. 1988. An implementation study: an analysis of elementary students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward science in process-approach vs. traditional science classes. Journal of Research on Science Teaching 25 (2): 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawrenz, F. 1985. Impact on a five week energy education program on teacher beliefs and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics 85 (1): 27–36.Google Scholar
  33. Lawson, A.E. 1990. Science education in Japan and the United States: are the Japanese beating us at our own game? Science Education 74 (4): 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leising, J.G., C.G. Igo, A. Heald, D. Hubert, and J. Yamamoto. 1998. A guide to food and fiber systems literacy. Stillwater: W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
  35. Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140: 1–55.Google Scholar
  36. Linn, R.L. 2000. Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher 29 (2): 4–16.Google Scholar
  37. Lipton, K.L., W. Edmondson, and A. Manchester. 1998. The food and fiber system: contributing to the U.S. and world economies. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 742. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Market and Trade Economics Division.Google Scholar
  38. Lockwood, J.A. 1999. Agriculture and biodiversity: finding our place in this world. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynch, R.L. 2000. High school career and technical education for the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Education Research 25 (2): 155–198.Google Scholar
  40. Marks, H.M., F.M. Newmann, and A. Gamoran. 1996. Does authentic pedagogy increase student achievement? In Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, ed. F.M. Newmann, 49–73. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Mawby, R. 1985. Foreward. In Cultivating agricultural literacy: Challenge for the liberal arts, ed. G.K. Douglas, 7–8. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, L., and K. Smith. 1983. Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension 21: 45.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, G.E. 1987. The status of agricultural education prior to the Smith-Hughes Act. The Agricultural Education Magazine 59 (8): 8–10.Google Scholar
  44. Moseley, C., K. Reinke, and V. Bookout. 2002. The effect of teaching outdoor environmental education on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Journal of Environmental Education 34 (1): 9–15.Google Scholar
  45. NCAE (National Council for Agricultural Education). 1999. A new era in agriculture: reinventing agricultural education for the year 2020. Alexandria: National Council for Agricultural Education.Google Scholar
  46. NRC (National Research Council). 1988. Understanding agriculture: new directions for education. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  47. NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Agriculture’s role in K-12 education. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newmann, F.M. 1996. Introduction: The school restructuring study. In Authentic achievement: restructuring schools for intellectual quality, ed. F.M. Newmann, 1–16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Newmann, F.M., and G.G. Wehlage. 1995. Successful school restructuring: a report to the public and educators by the center on organization and restructuring of schools. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.Google Scholar
  50. Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Research in Education 62 (3): 307–332.Google Scholar
  51. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2002. Learning for the 21st century: a report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Washington: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Accessed 20 October 2007.
  52. Pense, S.L., J.G. Leising, M.T. Portillo, and C.G. Igo. 2005. Comparative assessment of student agricultural literacy in selected Agriculture in the Classroom programs. Journal of Agricultural Education 46 (3): 107–118.Google Scholar
  53. Stevens, J. 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 3rd edition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Terry, R. Jr., D.R. Herring, and A. Larke Jr. 1992. Assistance needed for elementary teachers in Texas to implement programs of agricultural literacy. Journal of Agricultural Education 33 (2): 51–60.Google Scholar
  55. Tolman, M.N., and M.K. Campbell. 1989. What are we teaching the teachers of tomorrow. Science and Child 27 (3): 56–59.Google Scholar
  56. Trexler, C.J., and M. Suvedi. 1998. Perception of agriculture as a context for elementary science teaching: a case of change in Sanilac County, Michigan. Journal of Agricultural Education 39 (4): 28–36.Google Scholar
  57. Trexler, C.J., T. Johnson, and K. Heinze. 2000. Elementary and middle school teacher ideas about the agri-food system and their evaluation of agri-system stakeholders’ suggestions for education. Journal of Agricultural Education 41 (1): 30–38.Google Scholar
  58. Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Woolfolk Hoy, and W.K. Hoy. 1998. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research 68 (2): 202–248.Google Scholar
  59. USDE (United States Department of Education). 1999. Key high school reform strategies: an overview of research findings. Washington: Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Accessed 4 November 2000.
  60. Winther, A., T. Volk, and S. Shrock. 2002. Teacher decision making in the 1st year of implementing an issues-based environmental education program: a qualitative study. Journal of Environmental Education 33 (3): 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Youth Development and Agricultural EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations