Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the Interest of German Students in Agriculture: the Role of Knowledge, Nature Experience, Disgust, and Gender

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modern knowledge-based societies, especially their younger members, have largely lost their bonds to farming. However, learning about agriculture and its interrelations with environmental issues may be facilitated by students’ individual interests in agriculture. To date, an adequate instrument to investigate agricultural interests has been lacking. Research has infrequently considered students’ interest in agricultural content areas as well as influencing factors on students’ agricultural interests. In this study, a factorial design of agricultural interests was developed combining five agricultural content areas and four components of individual interest. The instrument was validated with German fifth and sixth graders (N = 1,085) using a variance decomposition confirmatory factor analysis model. The results demonstrated a second-order factor of general agricultural interest, with animal husbandry, arable farming, vegetable and fruit cropping, primary food processing, and agricultural engineering as discrete content areas of agricultural interest. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that prior knowledge, garden experience, and disgust sensitivity are predictors of general agricultural interest. In addition, gender influenced interest in four of the five agricultural content areas. Implications are directed at researchers, teachers, and environmental educators concerning how to trigger and develop pupils’ agricultural interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. After 4 years of primary school, the German school system provides three main secondary school tracks. Gymnasium is the most academic track and the only one that allows direct entry into a university. Realschule finishes after year 10, and Hauptschule finishes after year 9. Some federal states combine Hauptschule and Realschule in secondary modern schools. Comprehensive schools comprise students of all academic levels. Waldorf schools are private schools that follow the anthroposophic education model.

  2. Further details on the instrument development can be found in Bickel and Bögeholz (2013b).

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1993). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013a). Landwirtschaft als Bildungsgegenstand: Lernziele, Lerngelegenheiten auf Schulbauernhöfen, Schülerinteressen und Lernpotentiale [Agriculture as object in education: learning goals, learning opportunities on school farms, students’ interests and learning potentials]. In D. Haubenhofer & I. Strunz (Eds.), Raus auf's Land - Landwirtschaftliche Betriebe als zeitgemäße Erfahrungs- und Lernorte für Kinder und Jugendliche [Going to the countryside - Agricultural enterprises as modern places of experience and learning for children and adolescents] (pp. 117–138). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Hohengehren.

  • Bickel, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013b). Schülerinteressen an landwirtschaftlichen Themen [Pupils’ interests in agricultural topics]. In J. Friedrich, A. Halsband, & L. Minkmar (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of Biodiversity and Society. Societal dimensions of the conservation and utilization of biological diversity (pp. 59–72). Goettingen (Germany): Goettingen University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bixler, R., & Floyed, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S. (1999a). Qualitäten primärer Naturerfahrung und ihr Zusammenhang mit Umweltwissen und Umwelthandeln [Qualities of primary nature experience and its connection with environmental knowledge and environmental actions]. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S. (1999b). Muster der Naturerfahrung—Wege zu umweltgerechtem Handeln [Patterns of nature experience—approaches to environmentally responsible behavior]. Mensch, Natur, Technik, 120–122.

  • Bögeholz, S. (2002). An empirical study of gender differences relevant to environmental education. In U. Pasero & A. Gottburgsen (Eds.), Wie natürlich ist Geschlecht? Gender und die Konstruktion von Natur und Technik [How natural is gender? Gender and the construction of nature and technology] (pp. 215–227). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S. (2006). Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action: recent German empirical contributions. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S., Bittner, A., & Knolle, F. (2006). Der Nationalpark Harz als Bildungsort—Vom Naturerleben zur Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung [Education in Harz National Park—from nature experience to education for sustainable development]. GAIA, 15(2), 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowd, A. (1982). Young children’s beliefs about animals. Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brämer, R. (2010). Natur: Vergessen? Erste Befunde des Jugendreports Natur 2010 [Forgotten nature? First results of the youth report nature 2010]. Bonn: Deutscher Jagdschutz-Verband. http://www.wanderforschung.de/files/jrn10farbig1299054240.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2013.

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakmakci, G., Sevindik, H., Pektas, M., Uysal, A., Kole, F., & Kavak, G. (2012). Investigating Turkish primary school students’ interest in science by using their self-generated questions. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. C.-H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment & Behaviour, 44(1), 31–49.

  • Cochrane, W. (1981). The development of American agriculture: a historical analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, G. (2006). The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’ based model for Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Sanders, D., & Teamey, K. (2005). On food, farming and land management: towards a research agenda to reconnect urban and rural lives. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1359–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dräger, M., & Vogt, H. (2007). Von Angst und Ekel zu Interesse [From fear and disgust towards interest]. Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik [Realizing Biology Education], 6, 133–149.

  • Finke, E. (1999). Faktoren der Entwicklung von Biologieinteressen in der Sekundarstufe I [Factors of the development of biology interests in lower secondary school]. In R. Duit & J. Mayer (Eds.), Studien zur naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Lern- und Interessenforschung [Studies on learning and interest in science education] (pp. 103–117). Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.

  • Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G., Fernández-Celemín, L., Wills, J. M., Bonsmann, S., & Nureeva, L. (2010). Use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels in six European countries. Journal of Public Health, 18(3), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstermann, N., & Bögeholz, S. (2007). Interesse von Jungen und Mädchen an naturwissenschaftlichen Themen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I [Interest of boys and girls in science topics at the end of lower secondary school]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften [Journal of Science Instruction], 13, 71–86.

  • Holstermann, N., Ainley, M., Grube, D., Roick, T., & Bögeholz, S. (2012). The specific relationship between disgust and interest: relevance during biology class dissections and gender differences. Learning and Instruction, 22, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubert, D., Frank, A., & Igo, C. (2000). Environmental and agricultural literacy education. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 123(1–4), 525–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W., & Pell, R. G. (2006). The relevance of science education project (ROSE) in England: a summary of findings. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds. http://roseproject.no/network/countries/uk-england/rose-report-eng.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2013.

  • Jidesjö, A. (2008). Different content orientations in science and technology among primary and secondary boys and girls in Sweden: implications for the transition from primary to secondary school? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 4(2), 192–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kier, M., Blanchard, M., Osborne, J., & Albert, J. (2013). The development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • KMK. (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [(German) educational standards in biology for middle school graduation]. München: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: an educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: an educational-psychological perspective. BJEP Monograph Series II, 2, 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(1), 5–21.

  • Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P., & von Rhöneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leske, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2008). Biologische Vielfalt regional und weltweit erhalten—Zur Bedeutung von Naturerfahrung, Interesse an der Natur, Bewusstsein über deren Gefährdung und Verantwortung [Impact of nature experiences, interest in nature, awareness of endangered biodiversity and responsibility on global and local biodiversity conservation]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften [Journal of Science Instruction], 14, 167–184.

  • Liefländer, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J., Menon, P., & Quisumbing, A. (2012). Gender: a key dimension linking agricultural programs to improved nutrition and health. In S. Fan & R. Pandya-Lorch (Eds.), Reshaping agriculture for nutrition and health (pp. 135–144). Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (2007). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children’s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 23(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chudá, J. (2007). Slovakian students’ attitudes toward biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randler, C., Khambari, M. N., Moses, P., Luan, W. S., & Simsek, A. (2009). Association between emotional variables and school achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 2(2), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. A., & Sutherland, W. J. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(1), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, J. (2010). The cultural landscape: an introduction to human geography (10th ed.). Miami: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(2), 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schienle, A., Walter, B., Stark, R., & Vaitl, D. (2002). Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Ekelempfindlichkeit (FEE) [A questionnaire to assess disgust sensitivity]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie [Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy], 31(2), 110–120.

  • Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden, Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science—seen as signs of late modern identities. Oslo: Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K. (2010). Improving the interpretability of the variances of latent variables by uniform and factor-specific standardizations of loadings. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6, 152–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K., Altmeyer, M., Reiß, S., & Schreiner, M. (2010). The c-bifactor model as a tool for the construction of semi-homogeneous upper-level measures. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 298–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., et al. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292(5515), 281–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNS Emnid. (2012). Das Image der deutschen Landwirtschaft: Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativbefragung in Deutschland [The image of the German agriculture: Results of a representative survey in Germany]. information.medien.agrar e.V. Retrieved from http://media.repro-mayr.de/34/544134.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2014.

  • Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2012). The Millenium Development Goals—Report 2012 (p. 72). New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/mdg-report-2012.html. Accessed 27 July 2013.

  • Von Alvensleben, R. (1998). Strategien zur Verbesserung des Image der Landwirtschaft [Strategies to improve the image of agriculture]. Presented at the 48. Hochschultagung der Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel [Conference of the agricultural faculty at University Kiel]. http://www.uni-kiel.de/agrarmarketing/Lehrstuhl/HT.htm. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  • Vonderach, G. (2004). Land-Leben gestern und heute: Studien zum sozialen Wandel ländlicher Arbeits-und Lebenswelten [Country life in past and present: studies of the social change of rural working and living environments]. Münster: Lit.

Download references

Funding

This research was financially supported by grants from the Ministry for Science and Culture of the federal state of Lower Saxony in Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology Education, University of Göttingen, Waldweg 26, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Malte Bickel & Susanne Bögeholz

  2. Georg-Elias-Müller-Institute of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Micha Strack

Authors
  1. Malte Bickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Micha Strack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Bögeholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malte Bickel.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: Individual Interest in Agricultural Content Areas

The agricultural content areas were explained using the following examples:

  • Animal husbandry (e.g., milking cows, feeding pigs, collecting eggs)

  • Arable farming (e.g., sowing grain, harvesting potatoes, uprooting turnips)

  • Vegetable and fruit cropping (e.g., preparing a vegetable bed, weeding, harvesting fruits)

  • Primary food processing (e.g., baking bread, making cream cheese, making jam)

  • Agricultural engineering (e.g., operating modes and application of machines, such as tractors, milking machines, and combine harvesters)

The interest of the agricultural content areas was measured with four items, using a four-point rating scale. The adjectives marked the poles of the scale:

  1. 1.

    When I am engaged in (animal husbandry/arable farming/vegetable and fruit cropping/primary food processing/agricultural engineering), I am bored/interested.

  2. 2.

    When I am engaged in (animal husbandry/arable farming/vegetable and fruit cropping/primary food processing/agricultural engineering), I am impassive/stimulated.

  3. 3.

    When I am engaged in (animal husbandry/arable farming/vegetable and fruit cropping/primary food processing/agricultural engineering), I am inattentive/attentive.

  4. 4.

    For me, (animal husbandry/arable farming/vegetable and fruit cropping/primary food processing/agricultural engineering) is unimportant/meaningful.

Appendix 2: Prior Knowledge of Agriculture

Three items were presented with a five-point response format ranging from 1 = “disagree” to 5 = “agree.” The items were prefaced as follows:

Agriculture …

  1. 1.

    … is a topic I have read or heard about before.

  2. 2.

    … contains many topics I am familiar with.

  3. 3.

    … is a topic I know a lot about.

Appendix 3: Agriculture-Related Disgust Sensitivity

Seven items measured disgust sensitivity on a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = “not disgusting” to 4 = “very disgusting.”

  1. 1.

    You remove a hairy spider from your home.

  2. 2.

    In a barn, you touch a spider web with your face.

  3. 3.

    You step in cow droppings.

  4. 4.

    You step on an earthworm while barefoot.

  5. 5.

    You fall asleep on the meadow and wake up because a millipede crawls over your arm.

  6. 6.

    You smell something unpleasant. Looking at your feet, you see that you have stepped in dog droppings.

  7. 7.

    You collect slugs from the vegetable bed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bickel, M., Strack, M. & Bögeholz, S. Measuring the Interest of German Students in Agriculture: the Role of Knowledge, Nature Experience, Disgust, and Gender. Res Sci Educ 45, 325–344 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9425-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9425-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation