MICHIGAN SCHOOL BASED AGRICULTURE EDUCATORS: DETERMINING
ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM, AGRICULTURAL PARADIGM, KNOWLEDGE OF
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, AND PRIORITIZING INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
By
Rebecca Wittman

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies - Master of Science
2015

ABSTRACT
MICHIGAN SCHOOL BASED AGRICULTURE EDUCATORS: DETERMINING
ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM, AGRICULTURAL PARADIGM, KNOWLEDGE OF
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, AND PRIORITIZING INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS OF
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
By
Rebecca Wittman
The necessary skill-sets and knowledges are changing for those entering these food, fiber,
and energy industries to include an understanding of sustainable agriculture (SA). Little research
exists on Michigan school based agricultural educators’: 1) beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of
SA; 2) instruction of SA; or 3) instructional needs on sustainable agricultural practices (SAP).
The purpose of this exploratory study was to: 1) determine the demographic composition
of Michigan SBAE educators; 2) establish a baseline of their attitudes, beliefs, definitions of SA,
and knowledge of SA; and 3) identify and prioritize their in-service needs on SAP instruction
using a Borich Needs Assessment Model.
This was a descriptive/correlational research study. SBAE educators overall held a
slightly eco-centric worldview, believed moderately in an alternative agricultural paradigm, and
demonstrated a strong understanding of SA as defined by the USDA. Their definitions lacked a
greater understanding of a complete SA system; they generally conceived of SA as having
mostly ecological value. SBAE educators thought the 12 agricultural competencies were
important, but considered themselves as lacking full understanding of a majority of them. SBAE
educators prioritized the following competencies: 1) Integrated Pest Management, 2)
Management Intensive Grazing, and 3) Water Quality. The findings of this exploratory study
will inform future research. With further empirical support, the findings can be used to shape
secondary agriscience curricula and in-service programming regarding SA and SAP instruction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have been incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by an abundantly supportive
community while completing my thesis. Most importantly, I’d like to thank my advisor, Dr. Matt
Raven, for his patience, perspective, and encouragement; he continued to seek ways to reach out
to me. In addition, Dr. Matt Raven and Dr. Jeno Rivera offered me graduate assistantships,
which funded my program; I am extremely lucky and grateful for the extensive financial support.
Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Mike Everett and Dr. Kimberly Chung, for their
critical feedback, encouragement, and support throughout the process! Thank you as well to the
GACC and to Department Chair Dr. Michael Kaplowitz for their exceedingly generous Graduate
Office Fellowships! Finally, a thank you to Dr. Kaplowitz for his patience while I was finalizing
my thesis.
I’d like to acknowledge the subjects who took the time to participate and provide their
insight. With such limited research on this topic, their participation was incredibly valuable to
providing both baseline data upon which additional studies can build and by informing in-service
how to better support them.
There are not enough words to express my deep gratitude to my family and friends in
CARRS and across the country for their invaluable support and patience. You all have been my
rock over the course of this process!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

vii

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Limitations
Definition of Terms

1
1
6
8
9
10
11
11

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)
SARE’s “Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” Cognitive
Test
Defining SA
Borich Needs Assessment Model
Selection of SAP competencies.
Summary

14
14
14
17

CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
Population and Sample
Instrumentation
New Ecological Paradim (NEP).
Alternative Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP).
Sustainable agriculture: principles and concept overview.
Reliability and validity.
Borich Needs Assessment Model.
Selection of competencies.
Research Design
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Analysis of first research question.
Analysis of second research question.
Analysis of third research question.

26
26
26
27
28
28
29
30
30
31
31
33
33
35
36
36
38

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis
Introduction

40
40
40

iv

20
21
22
24
25

Findings for RQ 1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
Findings for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators' ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP.
Reality of limits to growth.
Antianthropocentrism.
Fragility of nature's balance.
Rejection of exemptionalism.
Possibility of eco-crisis.
RQ 2b: Educators' agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP.
RQ 2c: Educators' knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s "Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test.
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA.
Emphasis on the ecological dimension.
Emphasis on responsible resource management.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores.
RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
Findings for RQ 3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding
their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured
by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
CHAPTER V
Conclusions, Discussion and Recommendations
Summary of the study: Purpose and Research Questions
Methodology
Conclusions for RQ1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
Conlusions for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators' ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP.
Reality of limits to growth.
Antianthropocentrism.
Fragility of nature's balance.
Rejection of exemptionalism.
Possibility of eco-crisis.
RQ 2b: Educators' agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP.
RQ 2c: Educators' knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s "Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test.
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA.
Emphasis on the ecological dimension.
Emphasis on responsible resource management.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores.

v

41
43
43
47
48
49
50
51
51
57
59
60
60
61
62
63
63
67
68
68
68
69
70
71
71
73
73
74
75
76
76
78
80
81
82
84

RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
Conclusions for RQ 3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding
their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured
by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
Discussion for RQ1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
Discussion for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators' ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP.
RQ 2b: Educators' agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP.
RQ 2c: Educators' knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s "Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test.
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA.
SBAE educators' self-definitions compared to knowledge of SA.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores.
RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
Discussion for RQ3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding
their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured
by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
Importance of competencies to instruction.
Knowledge of competencies.
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Further Study

85
86
86
88
89
91
91
95
98
99
101
102
102
103
103
104
106
108
110
111

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM
APPENDIX B: ONLINE SURVEY
APPENDIX C: SURVEY INVITATION
APPENDIX D: ONLINE SURVEY REMINDERS
APPENDIX E: ONLINE SURVEY THANK YOU
APPENDIX F: PHONE DATA COLLECTION CONSENT FORM
APPENDIX G: PHONE DATA COLLECTION
APPENDIX H: PHONE DATA PARTICIPATION INVITATION
APPENDIX I: PHONE DATA COLLECTION FOLLOW UP

113
114
115
121
122
125
126
127
130
131

REFERENCES

132

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Literature Supporting Competency Selection

32

Table 2 Frequencies and Percentages of SBAE Educators by Demographic

42

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Composite NEP Score (n=47)

44

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions for NEP Scale Items
(n=47)

45

Table 5 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Composite ACAP Score (n=48) 52
Table 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions for ACAP Scale Items
(n=48)

53

Table 7 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Cognitive Test Scores (n=47)

57

Table 8 Frequency Distributions for Cognitive Test by Scale Item (n=47)

58

Table 9 Pearson’s Correlation of Relationships Between Ecological Paradigm,
Agricultural Paradigm, and Knowledge of SA

61

Table 10 Correlations of Relationships Between Ecological Paradigm and
Demographics Measure of Association

62

Table 11 Frequency Distributions for the Importance of Competencies in Instruction
and Knowledge of Competencies (n=47)

64

Table 12 Ranked Competencies by Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores (MWDS) and
Means, Modes, and Standard Deviations for Importance of Competencies in Instruction
and Knowledge of Competencies Related to Agricultural Practices (n=47)

65

vii

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Michigan’s agriculture and natural resource based sectors celebrated economic vigor
following the 2008 national and state recessions while the remainder of the state’s economy,
particularly in manufacturing, suffered significant losses. An economic impact study illustrated
that Michigan’s production of food, fiber, and energy underwent an impressive economic
increase of 45.9% from 2004 to 2010 (Knudson & Peterson, 2012). In response to the report,
Michigan Farm Bureau President Wayne H. Wood argued, "This is… solid proof that Michigan's
farmers are a vital component to the long-term stability of our state's economy (Nagel, 2012, p.
30).” Interestingly, the scope of the state economic impact study did not include direct sales such
as community supported agriculture (CSA) or farm markets (Knudson & Peterson, 2012). These
forms of direct sale are manifestations of local food systems and in and of themselves are also
“known to be popular and rapidly growing segments of the industry” particularly within
Michigan (Nagel, 2012, p. 30). These examples demonstrate how Michigan’s abundant resource
base and solid reputation as a national leader in regional and local food systems thinking has
driven the state’s economic recovery and how they can potentially lead its economic future. This
also positions Michigan to fill a powerful leadership role at the national level since agriculture is
the most valuable sector to the national economy (NRC, 2009).
One manifestation of Michigan’s leadership in regional and local food systems thinking
is the Michigan Good Food Charter (2010); its mission is to create an integrated, localized, food
system. Its charter represents the view of a collection of businesses, organizations, and policymakers working together to bring about a cohesive transformation toward localized food
systems. Within this collective vision are means to achieve their goals in ways that are

1

sustainable, just, and economically viable for Michigan’s economy. Since 59% of Michiganders
statewide are food insecure, one goal expects a doubling of Michiganders’ access to healthy,
fresh, and local food across the state. An additional goal establishes that by 2020, twenty percent
of food products purchased by state institutions will be sourced within the state. Two specific
priorities in the Charter’s agenda are: 1) providing school-based and informal educational
opportunities for youth to develop entrepreneurial skills, specifically around good food and
supporting the economy of the local community; and 2) “incorporate good food education in the
pre-K through 12th curriculum for all Michigan students (Michigan Good Food Charter, 2010).”
The Michigan Good Food Charter is a manifestation of how the state’s agriculture and
the natural resources sectors are addressing timely concerns around sustainable food and fiber
production. “Sustainable agriculture (SA) is both a philosophy and a system of farming. It is
rooted in a set of values that reflects an awareness of both ecological and social realities, and a
commitment to respond appropriately to that awareness (MacRae, Henning, & Hill, 1993, p.
22).” Beus and Dunlap (1991) contrast this with the concept of conventional agricultural which
promotes economic efficiency through concentration, specialization, mechanized agriculture, and
biotechnology; it has been the dominate system of agricultural production for decades.
Our national agricultural and natural resource sectors have the opportunity to be at the
forefront in addressing the sustainable food and fiber production problems domestically and
internationally (NRC, 2009). “The search for solutions to meet urgent food, fiber, and fuel needs
is complicated by issues that are beyond the control of a single nation or even one economic
sector (NRC, 2009, p. 2).” This includes managing to feed the world population, negotiating
production with climate change, and managing resources for food and biofuel. For agriculture to
sustain itself, it must adapt (NCAE, 2009). Agricultural education - at the post-secondary level

2

and secondary level - must in turn adapt to meet the demands of the 21st century and strengthen
the vitality of the agricultural sector (NRC, 2009).
There are numerous examples of how societal changes are directly altering the
expectations of students in school based agricultural education (SBAE) programs. Funded by the
National FFA Foundation, the National Council for Agricultural Education (The Council)
developed the National AFNR Career Cluster Content Standards. These standards direct SBAE
nationally from grade 9 to grade 14 (NCAE, 2009). SBAE educators have been certified to
instruct formal agricultural education at the secondary level. The Council promotes itself as the
leading advocate for “shaping and strengthening” national SBAE; the standards reflect its
mission to identify and resolve contemporary national issues. As representatives of SBAE, the
Council provided a set of national standards, measures, performance elements, and performance
indicators to support SBAE instruction in a way that is relevant to its needs. The standards align
with national academic standards and provide a usable reference to them (NCAE, 2009).
The Council’s National AFNR Career Cluster Content Standards provide eight career
pathways opportunities, technical skills, and relevant knowledge to support success in that
industry. Embedded throughout the standards are the principles of sustainability. For example, in
Plant Systems instruction, one performance indicator is “Apply principles and practices of SA to
plant production” (NCAE, 2009, p. 53). Students advance from having the ability to describe SA
and its respective goals, to comparing and contrasting the ecologic effects of different sustainable
agricultural practices (SAP) to traditional practices, to drafting and implementing a production
plan using SAP. SAP are the technical processes that are associated with the production cycle
which are possible methods to help mitigate social, economic, and environmental impacts.

3

The expectations of agricultural students participating in career and technical education
are also changing, one example being the national program Career Technical Education (CTE)
(Evolution of Career Clusters Knowledge and Skills and the Common Career Technical Core,
n.d.). CTE consists of 16 Career Clusters and the associated knowledge and skill statements
crucial for success as identified by industry representatives; one Career Cluster focuses on
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (Evolution of Career Clusters Knowledge and Skills
and the Common Career Technical Core, n.d.). “All states… rely on this [federal] funding to
support secondary, postsecondary, and adult CTE programs (“CTE At a Glance,” n.d., para. 6).”
The CTE framework targets three areas: 1) knowledge and skill statements; 2) Common Career
Technical Core Standards (CCTC); and 3) Green/Sustainability Standards; the latter two were
introduced mid-2012.
The newly introduced CCTC standards, created by a collection of ANFR personnel,
educators, and businesses, are a set of voluntary standards which explicitly list the identified
knowledge and skills needed for success in each Career Clusters (National Association of State
Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium/National Career Technical Education
Foundation, 2012). There are six CCTC standards for the Career Cluster AFNR. One standard
calls for students to be able to “analyze the interaction among AFNR systems in the production,
processing, and management of food, fiber and fuel and the sustainable use of natural resources”
in order to succeed in a global economy (National Association of State Directors of Career
Technical Education Consortium/National Career Technical Education Foundation, 2012, p. 4).
The Natural Resources Systems Career Pathway under this Career Cluster specifically expects
that students can process and produce natural resources sustainably (National Association of
State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium/National Career Technical Education

4

Foundation, 2012). Even among the Career Ready Practices included in the CTCC is a set of
universal, soft skills that instructors are expected to instill in their students. One of the soft skills
is the ability to make decisions weighing environment, social, and economic impacts (National
Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium/National Career
Technical Education Foundation, 2012).
Funded by the Department of Education, the Green and Sustainability standards were
created to assist CTE students to remain competitive in response to increasing global green
related economic activity (Evolution of Career Clusters Knowledge and Skills and the Common
Career Technical Core, n.d.).The new standards complement the existing 16 Career Clusters of
the National Career Cluster Framework by introducing new Knowledges and Skill Statements
needed for that career (Evolution of Career Clusters Knowledge and Skills and the Common
Career Technical Core, n.d.).These standards encourage skills such as: 1) decision-making
regarding social, economic, and environmental impacts; 2) thinking globally and locally; 3)
managing natural resources; and 4) reflecting on how the agricultural sector is changing in
response to the need for “green” (Evolution of Career Clusters Knowledge and Skills and the
Common Career Technical Core, n.d.). In addition, specific areas that are expected to have a
higher or more diverse need of “green workers,” such as agriculture and natural resources, have
their own set of standards. Again, the inclusion of these new standards as of mid-2012, reflect
agriculture’s need for professionals with these skills sets, knowledge, values and beliefs.
The pressure to adapt is also felt at the undergraduate agricultural level within Colleges
of Agriculture, particularly at land-grant universities. Questions exist about the preparation of
agricultural students for careers that consider sustainability in regards to the food, fiber, and
energy sectors. In response to criticisms since the 1990’s that agricultural programs need to

5

modernize their conceptions of food systems and become more interdisciplinary, land-grant
universities are looking to integrate SA principles. Even still, these existing programs continue to
perpetuate a production system that is challenged by economic, social, and ecological
consequences. Enrollment in undergraduate agricultural programs has declined over the past
several decades (McCallister, Lee, & Mason, 2005; Myers, Breja, & Dyer, 2004; Russell, 1993),
which has universities reducing departmental faculty (Esters, 2007). Borsari, Vidrine, and
Doherty (2002) argue that to incorporate a SA approach into the curriculum, content changes are
not sufficient; systemic changes are necessary.
Theoretical Framework
Beus and Dunlap (1991) theorized that a separate and disparate paradigm had emerged
from the dominant paradigm of conventional agriculture. A paradigm can be defined as “a
prominent worldview, model or frame of reference through which individuals, or collectively, a
society interprets the meaning of the external world (Beus & Dunlap, 1994a; Pirages & Ehrlick,
1974, p. 43).” Beus and Dunlap (1991) suggested that proponents of SA subscribe to a
fundamentally different paradigm than that of conventional agriculture. The researchers
constructed a body of research which argued that: 1) these concepts did in fact represent two
greater paradigms; 2) that the emerging paradigm (alternative agriculture) did reflect a greater
worldview among the population; and 3) that there is a fundamental difference between these
two paradigms (Beus & Dunlap, 1991; Beus & Dunlap,1994a).
Within both the agricultural and psychological literature, division exists concerning
whether worldview impacts behavior. Gamon, Harrold, and Creswell (1994) found no significant
differences in agricultural practices among farmers based on their agricultural paradigms;
Salamon, Farnsworth, Bullock, and Yusuf (1997) found slight differences. However, many

6

suggest that attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions do in fact relate to behavior and those behaviors
can be predicted by constructs such as their environmental attitudes (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009).
Beus and Dunlap (1994b) suggested that there is a relationship between agricultural paradigm
and behavior. For example, among Washington State farmers, their paradigm influenced their
production practices. Comer, Ekanem, Muhammad, Singh, and Tegegne (1999) found that those
who self-label as sustainable agriculturalists utilize twice as many sustainable production
practices, a significant difference from the conventional agriculturalists (Comer et al., 1999).
Udoto and Flowers (2001) argued that agricultural educators teaching SA must value it to
effectively transform student behavior and convey new knowledge. However, minimal research
has been conducted on school based agriculture educators’ (SBAE) perceptions, beliefs, or
attitudes of SA and SAP and how they relate to the instruction of both. The limited research
available indicates that secondary agricultural educators have neutral (Agbaje et al., 2001) to
somewhat positive perceptions of SA (Muma et al., 2010; Williams & Wise, 1997). Okeafor
(2002) did find that SBAE educators perceive that SA inclusion in classroom instruction “would
add balance to the curriculum (p. 83).”
Also, largely absent from the existing literature is a current and quality inventory of
SBAE educators’ self-reported needs regarding their instruction of SA and SAP. The existing
research on educator knowledge of SA is somewhat dated, but indicates that both teachers’ and
their students perceive that they have limited knowledge of SAP (Williams, 2000; Williams &
Wise, 1997). In a more recent study aimed at determining teachers’ knowledge of SAP, teachers
self-reported feeling moderately knowledgeable of the SAP (Udoto & Flowers, 2001). Research
also indicates that educators appear to teach SAP to only a moderate extent in their classrooms
(Agbaje et al., 2001; Muma et al., 2010; Okeafor, 2002).

7

The Borich Needs Assessment Model (Borich, 1980) is an accessible, adaptable
methodological model drawn from education literature that can be used to identify educator
instructional needs. According to Borich, “a training need can be defined as a discrepancy
between an educational goal and trainee performance in relation to this goal,” (Borich, 1980, p.
3). This model assumes that subjects can evaluate these two objectively (Borich, 1980). Using
the Borich Needs Assessment Model can help determine educator need by identifying SBAE
educators’ competency of SAP and their perceived importance of them.
Statement of the Problem
Michigan is a recognized leader in regional food systems thinking and has demonstrated
the economic vitality of its agricultural and natural resources sectors. Nationally and
internationally, agriculture is changing and Michigan has the potential to be powerful party to
both. Changes in the form of funding and new standards are currently taking place at the
national, state, and industry level, which mean that students are increasingly expected to have
knowledge of SA and SAP. In addition, Land-grant universities are increasingly considering
incorporating SA curriculum into their undergraduate agricultural programming. SBAE
educators have the significant task of educating a workforce to have the skill sets, knowledge,
values, and experiences that are being required of the modern agricultural student.
However, minimal research exists on instruction of SAP in the classroom and very little
of it pertains to Michigan SBAE. SBAE educators from the North Central Region (which
includes Michigan) appear to teach SAP to a “moderate” extent in their classrooms (Agbaje et
al., 2001; Muma et al., 2010). The lack of a coherent picture of SAP instruction in SBAE is
startling given the significant pressure that secondary agricultural educators currently face from
the federal government to the agricultural sector to incorporate this into their instruction.

8

Also lacking is research on whether educator attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions impact
their instructional practices of SAP. If perceptions of SA are related to behavior, such as
instruction, this will require serious examination (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). Currently, studies
have indicated that educators tend to have neutral (Agbaje et al., 2001) to somewhat positive
perceptions of SA in general (Muma et al., 2010). If moderate perceptions of SA and SAP do
relate to the limited instruction, there is a need for in-service training to offer support to better
prepare SBAE educators.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is threefold: 1) determine the demographic composition of
Michigan SBAE educators; 2) establish a baseline of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA among Michigan SBAE educators; and 3) determine and prioritize educator inservice needs regarding their instruction of SAP. Attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SA among
educators will be obtained using existing scales within the literature: the New Ecological
Paradigm, the Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm, and the SARE’s “Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive exam. Perceptions will be obtained by
having educators define SA in their own words. The Borich Needs Assessment Model (Borich,
1980) will be used to determine educator needs regarding their SAP knowledge and current
instruction. Educators will self-identify their knowledge of SAP among a list of practices and the
importance of each in their classroom instruction. By obtaining a baseline of these constructs and
identifying educator instructional needs of SAP, this study can inform in-service opportunities to
support Michigan’s SBAE educators. With further validation, these findings can shape SA and
SAP curriculum development for Michigan SBAE.

9

Research Questions
1. What is the demographic composition of Michigan school based agriculture, food, and
natural resource educators?
2. What are the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA among Michigan
school based agriculture, food, and natural resource educators?
a. What is the ecological paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP)?
b. What is the agricultural paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the AlternativeConventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)?
c. What knowledge do SBAE educators possess of SA as measured by the SARE’s
“Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test?
d. How do SBAE educators self-define SA?
e. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ scores on the
following:
i. The NEP and the ACAP
ii. The NEP and the cognitive test
iii. The ACAP and the cognitive test
f. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ demographics and
NEP score:
i. Age
ii. Gender
iii. Primary Teaching Setting
iv. Region

10

v. Years teaching SBAE
vi. Highest Education Completed
3. What are Michigan school based agriculture, food, and natural resource educators’ inservice needs regarding their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
a. What are SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
b. What are the priorities of SBAE educator in-service need regarding their instruction
of SAP as measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
Limitations
The study is limited by its population frame, which targeted only Michigan SBAE ANFR
educators. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to SBAE educators nationwide or to nonschool based agriculture, food and natural resource instructors. The descriptive and correlational
nature of the results prevents causation from being drawn among the variables. A final limitation
is that the scope of the needs assessment involved only a subset of SAP commonly cited in the
literature.
Definition of Terms
Career and Technical Education (CTE).A national program that provides “Organized
educational activities that:
1. Offer a sequence of courses that
a. Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with
challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and
skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or
emerging professions;

11

b. Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a
certificate, or an associate degree; and
c. May include prerequisite courses (other than a remedial course) that meet
the requirements of this subparagraph; and
2. Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic
knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes,
general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and
knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an
individual (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act,
2006, p.4).”
In-service. Educational programs for employed school based educators.
Environmental attitude. “A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating
perceptions of or beliefs regarding the natural environment, including factors affecting its
quality, with some degree of favor or disfavor (Milfont, 2007, p. 12).
Paradigm. A “prominent worldview, model or frame of reference through which
individuals, or collectively, a society interpret the meaning of the external world (Pirages &
Ehrlich, 1974, p. 43).
School based agricultural education (SBAE).The National Council for Agricultural
Education at https://www.ffa.org/thecouncil/Pages/aboutus.html defines SBAE as “the formal
agricultural education instructional programs offered in grades seven through adult.”
Sustainable agriculture. The 1990 Farm Bill defines it as:
An integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific
application that will, over the long-term: satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance

12

environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy
depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and integrate where
appropriate, natural biological cycles and control; sustain the economic viability of farm
operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (U.S.
Congress, 1990, Code Title 7, Section 3103, n.p.)
Sustainable agricultural practice (SAP). Sustainable agriculture “can take a range of
meanings and agricultural practices, depending on the goal, location, means, and time scale,
among others that fits an individual (Muma et al., 2010, p. 442).”
Training need. “A discrepancy between an educational goal and trainee performance in
relation to this goal, (Borich, 1980, p. 3).”

13

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
Udoto and Flowers (2001) argued that it is necessary for SBAE educators who teach SA
to value it to effectively transform student behavior and convey new knowledge. Even the 1990
Farm Bill stated that Extension agents must be trained in SA to "develop their understanding,
competence, and ability to teach and communicate the concepts" to farmers and others (Agunda,
1995, p. 172). Very few studies have measured the student impact from educators’ attitudes
toward or knowledge of SA (Muma et al., 2010; Udoto & Flowers, 2001). The chapter presented
the body of literature concerning SBAE educators’ ecological paradigm, agricultural paradigm,
conceptual knowledge of SA, definitions of SA, and their instructional needs regarding SAP. The
chapter has been organized by the study’s progression of research questions into the following
sections:
1. New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
2. Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)
3. SARE’s “Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test
4. Defining SA
5. Borich Needs Assessment Model
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) has widely been recognized as a reliable measure
of environmental attitudes (EA) on the relationship between humans and the environment; it
measured the degree that one viewed the world “ecologically” (Dunlap, 2008). EA have been
defined as the “psychological tendency[ies] that [were] expressed by evaluating perceptions of or
beliefs regarding the natural environment, including factors affecting its quality, with some

14

degree of favor or disfavor (Milfont, 2007, p. 12). The scale has been widely used both
nationally and internationally. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) argued that a separate
environmental paradigm had emerged several decades ago that was separate from the existing
so-called Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP). They argued that the new paradigm was
fundamentally different in how humans thought about their relationship to and their value of the
environment (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). They recognized three central concepts around which
the paradigms were in opposition: limits to growth, balance of nature, and antianthropocentrism
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Dunlap et al. (2000) defined anthropocentrism as “the belief that
nature existed primarily for human use and has no inherent value of its own (p. 431).” The 12item scale they constructed to measure adherence towards DSP or NEP was originally termed the
New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978).
Numerous scales measure EA, the three most commonly used are the NEP (Dunlap, et
al., 2000), the Ecology Scale (Maloney et al., 1975), and the Environmental Concern Scale
(Weigel &Weigel, 1978; Milfont &Duckitt, 2010). A significant asset of the NEP was its
uniqueness that it measured worldview rather than specific environmental problems or concerns
(e.g. towards pollution) unlike many EA scales (Dunlap et al. 2000).
In Dunlap et al. (2000), the researchers rounded out the scale with two additional
concepts: “rejection of exemptionalism” and the “possibility of eco-crisis” (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Renamed the New Ecological Paradigm, the updated 15-item scale maintained the strong
reliability and validity of its predecessors which were the original 12-item scale and a 6-item one
(Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). The revision responded to criticisms which included the removal of
gender-discriminating language and the inclusion of an “unsure” category as a midpoint to cut
down on item non-response. NEP scores existed on a continuum which ranged from 15 to 75.

15

Scores on the lower end of the spectrum indicated support of the DSP in which one viewed the
human relationship with the environment more anthropocentrically. Scores on the higher end of
the spectrum indicated support of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) and an eco-centric
worldview meaning that conceptions of the relationship between humans and the environment
were viewed are more ecological and balanced.
In 2009, Hawcroft and Milfont conducted a meta-analysis of studies using the NEP; their
sample consisted of 139 samples, which represented 58, 279 subjects. Continuing criticisms of
the NEP included dimensionality issues and the scales ability to predict behavior (Hawcroft &
Milfont, 2009). However, Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) articulated the complexity in predicting
behavior with the introduction of the scale. Dunlap et al. (2000) recommended the use of the
updated 15-point scale for multiple reasons including to minimize dimensionality issues.
Hawcroft and Milfont’s (2009) meta-analysis also explored how use of the NEP may have
impacted results of individual studies. They strongly cautioned of possible inability of the NEP
to detect nuances at the scale’s poles.
While the NEP has been used with numerous samples, SBAE educators and other
agricultural professionals have rarely been studied. Since researchers have used multiple versions
of the scale, to simplify comparisons all mean NEP scores from the literature will be reported as
a mean composite score between 1 and 5. The only study on agricultural professionals was an
international study focused on pre-service which targeted student teachers in Australia,
Indonesia, and the Republic of Maldives. Each group of student teachers held eco-centric
worldviews and each were significantly different from every other group: 1) Australians
(M=3.99); 2) Indonesians (M=3.71); and 3) Maldivians (M=3.44; Watson & Halse, 2005). Even

16

though females made up of 80% of the sample, there were no significant differences in the
worldviews between male and female.
Outside of surveying agricultural professionals, there have been studies which researched
environmentally oriented behavior. Residents in Boulder were surveyed to determine whether
those participated in environmentally focused civic discussions held different ecological
worldviews than their neighbors (Hunter & Rinner, 2004). A random sample of residents in
Boulder, Colorado reported a mean NEP of 3.81(Hunter & Rinner, 2004). Hunter and Rinner
(2004) acknowledged that the actual sample was less diverse than the 2000 city Census data;
subjects were more often: middle-age, female, possessing higher education, non-Latino, and
homeowners. The results were presented unweighted as weighing them didn’t significantly alter
them (Hunter & Rinner, 2004). Clark, Kotchen, and Moore (2003) attempted to understand the
internal and external factors influencing Edison customers who had voluntarily participated in a
green electricity program. Edison customers in Detroit, Michigan who participated in the
program reported a mean NEP of 3.78 compared to that of typical Edison customers (M=3.39;
Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003).
Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)
The Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP) measured the degree that
one generally viewed agriculture ecologically. Similarly to the NEP, the researchers who
constructed the ACAP observed that a fundamentally disparate paradigm regarding agriculture
had emerged from the existing one (Beus& Dunlap, 1990). The scale was created to understand
the values and beliefs that differed between them in regards to the controversies that existed
around agricultural (Beus & Dunlap, 1990).The existing paradigm, termed conventional
agricultural, involved a "capital-intensive, large-scale, highly mechanized agriculture with

17

monocultures of crops and extensive use of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, with
intensive animal husbandry" (Knorr & Watkins, 1984, p. 37). In contrast, Beus and Dunlap
(1990) suggested that alternative agriculture, based on their observations, included a
philosophical component and an array of alternative goals such as: 1) as organic practices as
possible, 2) reduced chemical inputs, 3) reduced energy use, and 4) greater farm self-sufficiency.
The six defining elements differentiating the agricultural paradigms were 1)
centralization versus decentralization, 2) competition versus community, 3) dependence versus
independence, 4) domination of nature versus harmony with nature, 5) specialization versus
diversity, and 6) exploitation versus restraint (Beus & Dunlap, 1990). The construction of the 24item ACAP measured favor towards either alternative or conventional paradigm. The scale
demonstrated both known-group validity and internal consistency (Beus & Dunlap, 1991).
ACAP scores existed on a continuum which usually ranged from 14 to 70. Scores on the
lower end of the spectrum indicated support for the conventional agricultural paradigm, in which
one viewed relationships between humans and nature as more anthropocentric. Scores higher on
the spectrum indicated support for the alternative agricultural paradigm and value fundamentally
different relationships between humans and the environment. Beus and Dunlap (1992) surveyed
the following using the ACAP:1) Washington State farmers; 2) faculty of Washington State
University’s College of Agriculture and Home Economics; 3) known groups of conventional
agriculturalists; and 4) known groups of alternative agriculturalists. Since many researchers
modify the number of scale items, all the ACAP means were reported as a mean composite score
from 1 to 5 with 5 representing the greatest adherence to the alternative agricultural paradigm.
Faculty scored statistically significantly more conventional (M= 3.22) than the farmers (M=3.38)
at the 0.001 level (Beus & Dunlap, 1992). Alternative agriculturalists adhered to the alternative

18

paradigm (M=4.25) more than the conventional agriculturalists by a statistically significantly
difference (M=3.05); both groups scored significantly different from the faculty at the 0.001
level (Beus & Dunlap, 1992).
Similarly to the NEP, critiques of the ACAP included concerns of gender bias, the bipolar
structure of the scale, its unidimensionality, and its ability to predict behavior. Chiappe and
Flora’s (1998) small study with farmwomen associated with SA organizations demonstrated that
the paradigm might need to be further nuanced. They contended that the ACAP may be
neglecting two additional and important ways women conceive of sustainable agriculture 1)
“quality family life through balanced production,” and 2) spirituality (Chiappe & Flora, 1998, p.
391). Jackson-Smith and Buttel (2003) argued that the scale’s structure of a forced-choice
between the two paradigms is a limitation that resulted in high levels of item non-response
among Wisconsin dairy farmers. The researchers questioned the scale’s unidimensionality and
whether the scale can effectively predict behavior as they argue that an attitudinal scale should
(Jackson-Smith, 2003).
Very few studies have used the ACAP with agricultural educators. Muma et al. (2010)
surveyed SBAE educators using a modified ACAP to measure their beliefs about SA. After
language alterations, the removal of the bipolar item-statements, and the removal of 4-items, the
modified scale had a Cronbach’s alpha value of more than .82 (Muma et al., 2010). On a scale
from one to five with five being strongly agree with the alternative agricultural paradigm,
educators indicated that they slightly agreed (M=3.66; SD=.43) with the beliefs statements about
SA (Muma et al., 2010). Their beliefs in the social and environmental components of SA were
stronger than their beliefs in the economic ones (Muma et al., 2010). Aside from a low-response

19

rate of 30% for which response error was accounted for, the study is fairly strong and provided
suggestions for future research (Muma et al., 2010).
Researchers often used the ACAP to explore possible relationships between EA and
behavior. Allen and Bernhard (1995) helped to legitimize the ACAP by linking Nebraskan
producers’ paradigm to their use of conventional or alternative production practices. Comer et al.
(1999) suggested that those who self-label as sustainable agriculturalists utilized twice as many
sustainable production practices, a statistically significant difference from their conventional
agriculturalist counterparts. Finally, the scale has been used to explore farmers’ policy positions
within a larger continuum of alternative and conventional agriculturalists in Washington State
(Beus & Dunlap, 1993).
SARE’s “Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” Cognitive Test
Scales measuring knowledge of SA are limited and tended to consist of Likert-scales in
which subjects reported their perceived knowledge of specific SAP (Udoto & Flowers, 2001;
Williams, 2000; Williams & Wise, 1997). A scale measuring conceptual knowledge of SA has
been missing from the literature. The USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
(SARE) program has offered grants and educational outreach nationwide to promote
sustainability in agriculture. The eXtension online campus, which has been part of the
Cooperative Extension System (CES) through the USDA, has supported extension agents and
agricultural professionals. SARE and extension online collaborated to construct The Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview course. The course included a cognitive exam
which measured the fundamentals of SA knowledge, that SA valued the importance of social,
economic, and ecological components. SARE has operated based on the USDA’s definition of
SA from the 1990 Food Bill:

20

An integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific
application that will, over the long-term: satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance
environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy
depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and integrate where
appropriate, natural biological cycles and control; sustain the economic viability of farm
operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (U.S.
Congress, 1990, Code Title 7, Section 3103, n.p.)
SARE’s cognitive exam has demonstrated high reliability and validity (J. Sexton,
personal communication, June 21, 2011). As of 2011, 914 out of over 3,000 students completed
the Basic Principles course exam and with a score eligible for certification (J. Sexton, personal
communication, January 15, 2013).
Defining SA
The literature has also lacked a common scale to obtain one’s definition of SA. Dunlap et
al. (1992) attempted to extract definitions of SA from diverse populations while constructing a
tool to measure definitions of SA. The study included thoughtful survey design and strong
methodology with the creation of the Definition of Sustainable Agricultural Scale; however, the
scale has not appeared in other researchers work (Dunlap et al., 1992). Paulson (1995) conducted
qualitative research involving interviews with extension agents to obtain their definitions.
Common definitions among the Minnesota Extension Agents were: “maintaining farm profits in
the long and short run and using environmentally sound or resource-conserving practices
(Paulson, 1995, p. 123).” She (1995) also noticed only about 20% of the extension agents
specified that SA needed to be “socially acceptable.” Extension agents also commonly referred
to SA as involving “resource conserving practices (Paulson, 1995, p. 123).”

21

Borich Needs Assessment Model
The Borich Needs Assessment Model was constructed to inform teacher pre-service and
in-service (1980). Borich (1980) argued that the justification for conducting a needs assessment
was to obtain clear, usable data that easily directed what action should take place next. As an
evaluation tool it has been very easy to use, adaptable and has allowed investigators to determine
prior to data collection the type and quality of data that will be obtained (Borich, 1980).
Designed to yield formative and summative data, the model has allowed investigators to design
additional training as needed or to draw comparisons to other programs (Borich, 1980). A
strength of the model has been that it allowed the investigator and the participant to have a
similar vocabulary. It allowed for clarity about what was in question and for the respondent to
provide results that that the investigator was expecting and could make sense of.
The Borich model has commonly been used in agricultural education research (Duncan &
Ricketts, 2008; Garton & Chung 1997; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Sorenson et. al., 2010) and
extension (Waters & Haskell, 1989). Numerous researchers have cited Barrick et al. (1983) in
their justification of selecting the Borich model to conduct a needs assessment (Garton & Chung,
1996; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Newman & Johnson, 1994; Sorenson et al., 2010). Barrick
Ladewig, and Hedges (1983) tested the Borich model’s ability to design an in-service program.
The researchers legitimized the model’s evaluative ability by the fact that it has obtained both
self-reported importance and knowledge ratings (Barrick et al., 1983). The investigators
concluded that the model “provided defensible data in identifying important topics in which
teachers need further knowledge (Barrick et al., 1983, p. 19).”
Although commonly used to assess the in-service needs of beginning instructors (Garton
& Chung, 1996; 1997; Joerger, 2002), Layton and Dobbins (2002) tested the model’s

22

effectiveness at assessing in-service need among experienced secondary educators. The
investigators had similarity findings to Garton and Chung (1996) and demonstrated the
effectiveness of the model and advocated for further use with that population (Layton &
Dobbins, 2002). Sorenson, Tarpley, and Warnick (2010) conducted a needs assessment among
secondary agricultural educators in Utah. The investigators drew from the Utah Applied
Technology Skill Certificate Program and existing literature in their selection of competencies;
they determined that the model was “an appropriate tool for assessing in-service needs of
educators” (Sorenson et al., 2010, p. 9).” The competency rated highest in need of in-service
regarded the ability to draw from the surrounding community in establishing opportunities for
students (Sorenson et al., 2010). The overall evaluation by Sorenson et al. (2010) revealed
similarities with the findings of earlier studies and the researchers called for additional research
to determine the level of consistency among other states and nationwide (Garton & Chung, 1997;
Joerger, 2002; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002). Duncan and Ricketts (2008) used the model to
compare both traditionally and alternatively certified agricultural educators’ management of their
instruction. Both groups of educators rated their greatest in-service need as technical agricultural
content (Duncan & Ricketts, 2008).
Gable, Pecheone, and Gillung’s (1981) quadrant analysis model was an additional way of
identifying in-service priorities. Using beginning agricultural educators from Missouri, Garton
and Chung (1997), used both the Borich model and the quadrant analysis model to identify and
prioritize in-service needs. Using a set of competencies established from the literature, Garton
and Chung found that regarding the two models, in “identifying in-service needs… [both were]
acceptable approaches that yield similar results (1997, p. 58).”

23

Likert scales have also been used to measure knowledge or competency of SAP such as
rotational grazing, row banding of herbicides, filterstrips, and narrow strip intercropping (Udoto
& Flowers, 2001; Williams & Wise, 1997). Williams and Wise (1997) examined SBAE
educators’ and their students’ knowledge of SAP. Williams (2000) examined students’
knowledge of SAP. Both studies used the same four point Likert-scale from one to four, with
2.50 as the midpoint and four being “I know a Lot.” Williams and Wise (1997) reported teachers
“know some” about SAP (composite teacher mean=2.87; SD=.74). Both student subject groups
reported overall “knowing a little” about SAP and Williams and Wise (1997) reported a
composite student mean of 2.16 (SD =0.89). Williams (2000) did not calculate a composite
mean, but only three SAP means were rated higher than the midpoint (of 2.50): no-till, rotational
grazing, and livestock manure management.
Boone Jr., Hersman, Boone, and Gartin (2007) surveyed Midwestern extension agents
about their SA training. On a scale of one to six, with one being strongly disagree and six being
strongly agree, agents reported an overwhelming need for SA training, indicating “economics of
sustainable agriculture” (M=4.75; SD=.96) and “innovative farming systems” (M=4.64; SD=.96)
as their greatest needs (Boone Jr. et al., 2007).
Selection of SAP competencies. Researchers have drawn from the existing literature in
selecting and constructing the competencies they included in their needs assessment (Garton &
Chung, 1996; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Sorenson et al., 2010). There has not been any use of
the Borich model to determine SAP instructional need. Further, the literature has lacked a
cohesive and exhaustive list of SAP. SA has a “range of meanings and agricultural practices,
depending on the goal, location, means, and time scale, among others, that fits an individual
(Muma et al., 2010, p. 442).” Cover Cropping, Crop Rotation, Integrated Pest Management,

24

Management Intensive Grazing, and Reduced Tillage are frequently identified as SAP (Alonge
& Martin, 1995; Comer et al., 1999; Muma et al., 2010; Udoto & Flowers, 2001; Williams;
2000; Williams & Wise, 1997). Chapter three has further details regarding the selection of the
competencies for the present study.
Summary
The NEP, ACAP, and the SARE were existing scales which measured ecological
paradigm, agricultural paradigm, and conceptual knowledge of SA respectively. No studies have
measured NEP or knowledge of SA or collected personal definitions of SA among SBAE
educators. The single study which measured agricultural paradigm using ACAP among SBAE
educators indicated that they had moderately alternative agricultural beliefs, with particular
emphasis on environmental and social beliefs (Muma et al., 2010). Researchers have validated
the evaluative properties of the Borich Needs Assessment Model. The model has been highly
effective at allowing novice and experienced agricultural educators to identify and prioritize inservice need. The model has not been used regarding SAP instruction.

25

CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
The quality of the workforce entering the food, fiber and energy sectors in large part is
dependent on the quality of their education in secondary and post-secondary institutions.
However, very little research has been conducted on to understand instruction of SAP in
Michigan SBAE programs. Little research exists about SBAE educators’ perceptions, beliefs,
attitudes, and knowledge of SA. In an effort to obtain a better analysis of the Michigan SBAE
instruction regarding SA and SAP, the purpose of this study is threefold: 1) determine the
demographic composition of Michigan SBAE educators; 2) establish a baseline of attitudes,
beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA among Michigan SBAE educators; and 3) determine
and prioritize educator in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP.
The following questions were used to guide this research:
1. What is the demographic composition of Michigan school based agriculture, food, and
natural resource educators?
2. What are the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA among Michigan
school based agriculture, food, and natural resource educators?
a. What is the ecological paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP)?
b. What is the agricultural paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the AlternativeConventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)?
c. What knowledge do SBAE educators possess of SA as measured by the SARE’s
“Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test?

26

d. How do SBAE educators self-define SA?
e. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ scores on the
following:
i. The NEP and the ACAP
ii. The NEP and the cognitive test
iii. The ACAP and the cognitive test
f. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ demographics and
their NEP score:
i. Age
ii. Gender
iii. Primary Teaching Setting
iv. Region
v. Years teaching SBAE
vi. Highest Education Completed
3. What are Michigan school based agriculture, food, and natural resource educators’ inservice needs regarding their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
a. What are SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
b. What are the priorities of SBAE educator in-service need regarding their instruction
of SAP as measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
Population and Sample
Research targeted Michigan SBAE educators teaching during the 2011-2012 school year.
The population frame was compiled using the 2011-2012 Agriculture, Food, and Natural

27

Resource Directory obtained from the Michigan FFA Association; the population frame
consisted of 104 educators. The entire population was surveyed.
Instrumentation
The survey consisted of the following existing scales: 1) the NEP (Dunlap et al., 2000);
2) the ACAP (Beus & Dunlap, 1991); and 3) the Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept
Overview (SARE). A single qualitative scale item solicited participants’ definitions of SA. The
survey included a needs assessment based on Borich’s model to evaluate educator competency of
and importance of teaching a selection of SAP (Borich, 1980). The following demographics were
collected: 1) age; 2) gender; 3) highest degree completed; 4) years teaching SBAE; 5) primary
teaching setting (CTC or high school); and 6) current teaching region.
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). The NEP has been used to measure environmental
attitudes (EA) concerning the relationship between humans and the environment; in essence how
“ecologically” one might view the world (Dunlap, 2008). Specifically, the scale measured
ecological worldview in terms of: 1) limits to growth; 2) the balance of nature; 3)
antianthropocentrism; 4) rejection of exemptionalism; and 5) the possibility of ecocrisis (Dunlap,
Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). NEP scores existed on a continuum which ranged from a
highly anthropocentric worldview to a highly eco-centric one. Dunlap et al. (2000) defined
anthropocentrism as “the belief that nature exists primarily for human use and has no inherent
value of its own (p. 431);” the most anthropocentric score was at the lower end of the spectrum
and indicated support of the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP). Scores on the higher end of the
spectrum indicated support for the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) in which conceptions of the
human relationship with the environment are more eco-centric.

28

The NEP was selected for the present study for several reasons. It has been the most
commonly used EA measure with research conducted among domestic and international
populations (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). The NEP’s focus on general EA has been one of its
strengths; it has allowed researchers to understand a population’s worldview, whereas other EA
scales have tended to be more specific in scope (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). Iterations of the
scale have repeated demonstrated strong construct and content validity (Dunlap et al., 2000;
Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). The present study used the full 15-item scale which had addressed
earlier critiques of gender discriminating language, balanced scale items, and an established
internal reliability with a Cronbach alpha of 0.83 (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Alternative Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP). The original ACAP scale
measured attitudes specifically about agriculture; in essence how ecologically one viewed
agriculture. Two agricultural worldviews exist at either ends on a spectrum and have been
differentiated by six elements: 1) centralization versus decentralization, 2) competition versus
community, 3) dependence versus independence, 4) domination of nature versus harmony with
nature, 5) specialization versus diversity, and 6) exploitation versus restraint (Beus & Dunlap,
1990). Scores on the lower end of the spectrum indicated support for the Conventional
Agricultural Paradigm, in which relationships between humans and nature were viewed as more
anthropocentric. Scores higher on the spectrum indicated support for the Alternative Agricultural
Paradigm and valued agricultural systems in which the relationships between humans and the
environment are more balanced.
The ACAP was selected for the present study for several reasons. Beus & Dunlap (1991)
constructed the ACAP and established a body of research suggesting that there exist two separate
and fundamentally disparate worldviews of agriculture among the general population (1991,

29

1994a). Muma et al. (2010) modified the scale to measure beliefs, rather than EA; their 20-point
scale’s reliability ranged between .82 and .95. There have been very few studies that specifically
measured the psychological construct of beliefs about SA and those that do tend to conflate the
construct with other constructs – usually perceptions or attitudes toward SA. For the present
study, agricultural paradigm was measured using the modified ACAP from Muma et al. (2010)
and the construct it measures will be labeled as beliefs as Muma et al. did as well.
Sustainable agriculture: principles and concept overview. For the present study,
respondents’ knowledge of SA fundamentals was measured using a cognitive test created by
SARE of the USDA. The SARE’s Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview
was available on the eXtension online campus, which was part of the Cooperative Extension
System through the USDA and intended to support extension agents and other agricultural staff.
The cognitive test was selected as a measure of SA knowledge because SARE’s
conceptualization of SA has shaped their outreach and grant funding programs in working with
agricultural professionals and extension. Also, the test has demonstrated high reliability (J.
Sexton, personal communication, June 21, 2011). Ten true/false questions were selected from the
test’s complete bank of 48 questions which addressed the fundamental importance of the
economic, social, and environmental components of SA.
Reliability and validity. The reliability, face validity, and content validity of the three
scales were established through a piloting by experts within Michigan State University’s
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies. Internal reliability
was determined using Cronbach alpha for the NEP (.719) and the ACAP (.817). Kuder
Richardson 20 (K-R20) was used to determine the internal reliability of the cognitive test
(SARE). The single false statement was removed which increased the scale’s internal reliability

30

considerably (K-R20 = .702). Bivariate Correlations using Pearson were used to obtain test-retest
reliability for the ACAP; concerns about internal consistency resulted in the removal of 6
subscale items.
The survey initially consisted of additional scales, one of which was modified during
piloting to raise its internal reliability. Ultimately, the Perceptions of Outcomes of SA scale and
the Barriers to Teaching scale were eliminated to address lengthy pilot survey times.
Borich Needs Assessment Model. The present study conducted a needs assessment
using the Borich model to target competency of certain SAP and the importance they had in
instruction. Borich provided a flexible model to ascertain training need which could be
incorporated into preservice and in-service programming. Borich argued that training needs
could be determined by examining “what is” in comparison to “what should be” (1980). One
justification for use of the model in the present study was that it allowed participants to evaluate
themselves. Use of this model required the assumption that respondents can objectively evaluate
their knowledge of certain competencies and their instruction of it. Twelve agricultural practices,
which were labeled competencies, were selected for the study. Respondents were asked to rate
the importance the competency in their classroom instruction and how knowledgeable they were
of that competency.
Selection of competencies. It was not the researchers’ role to adequately and responsibly
indicate which SAP were the most significant for Michigan SBAE educators to demonstrate
mastery over. The researcher dictated the parameters of the needs assessment by choosing 12
agricultural practices that have been heavily discussed in the respective literature.
Ten SAP were selected from the literature (see Table 1). Cover Cropping, Crop Rotation,
Integrated Pest Management, Management Intensive Grazing, and Reduced Tillage were selected

31

Table 1
Literature Supporting Competency Selection
Competencies
SAP

Conventional Practices

Composting b

Genetically Engineered Crops e
a, b, c, f

Cover Cropping
Crop Rotation

Pest Resistant Crops

e

a, b, c, d

Integrated Pest Management b, c, d, e, f
Management Intensive Grazing b, c, e, f
Mixed Farming

c, e, f

Nitrogen Cycle a, d
Reduced Tillage

c, d, e

Soil Conservation d, e
Water Quality c, d, e
Note. a = Alonge & Martin (1995); b = Comer et al. (1999); c = Muma et al. (2010); d= Udoto &
e
f
Flowers (2001); = Williams (2000); = Williams & Wise (1997).

based on literature’s frequent identification as SAP (Alonge & Martin, 1995; Comer et al., 1999;
Muma et al., 2010; Udoto & Flowers, 2001; Williams; 2000; Williams & Wise, 1997). A Mixed
Farming competency was created to include those practices in which animals and crops were
considered in the same system; it was an umbrella for practices from the literature such as “use
of animal manure” or “livestock manure management” (Muma et al, 2000; Williams, 2000)
recycling agricultural wastes, use of green manure” and “use of low input livestock facilities”
(Muma et al., 2010; Williams 2000; Williams & Wise, 1997). Similarly, a Nitrogen Cycle
competency was created to incorporate practices such as “crop rotations that increase soil
nitrogen and reduce the need for purchased fertilizers” (Udoto & Flowers, 2001), “reduced
nitrogen fertilizer rates, soil nitrogen testing, spring and summer nitrogen application” (Alonge
& Martin, 1995), and “reduced nitrogen fertilizer rates” (Muma et al., 2010). A Compost
competency was created based on its current popularity.
32

Two agricultural practices typically associated with conventional agriculture were
included: Genetically Engineered Crops and Pest Resistant Crops. The inclusion allowed the
researcher to compare the SAP and conventional agricultural practices in terms of: 1) educator
knowledge; 2) importance of these competencies to their instruction; and 3) how educators’
prioritize their needs. Including that comparison provided a more comprehensive picture of
Michigan SBAE educator need for curriculum developers and in-service programming.
Research Design
The survey methodology: 1) obtained demographic information; 2) measured Michigan
SBAE educators’ agricultural paradigm, ecological paradigm, and their knowledge of SA; 3)
obtained educators’ definition of SA; and 4) determined and prioritized needs of educators’
classroom SAP instruction. A census of the population frame was invited to participate in the
survey. The online software Qualtrics was used to construct the survey and collect and store the
data. Instrument construction and correspondence with subjects followed Dillman’s Tailored
Design Method to maximize response rates (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). All educators
were informed that survey participants would be entered into a randomized raffle to receive one
of three Amazon gift cards of $50 each. Interested participants were instructed of their rights and
their role as a research participant prior to beginning the survey (Appendix A).
Data Collection
The week of March 19, 2012, Michigan State University Professor and Agricultural
Educator Dr. Matt R. Raven notified a census of the population frame of the research study via
mass email. Educators were informed of the study, told that they would receive an invitation via
email, and invited to participate. Dillman et al. (2009) argued that type of initial contact
improved response rates. All remaining electronic correspondence was personalized to maximize

33

response rates (Dillman et al., 2009). On March 27, 2012, the researcher emailed the same
census information regarding the research and an invitation to participate in a survey via a web
link (Appendix C). Dillman et al. (2009) argued that reminders heighten response rates; those
individuals with incomplete surveys were sent up to three reminders following the initial
invitation (Appendix D). The first reminder was emailed on April 9, 2012 from Dr. Randy
Showerman of Michigan Department of Education. The researcher emailed all the remaining
correspondence with the educators which included a second reminder sent April 25, 2012; a third
reminder sent May 10, 2012; and a thank you sent July 22, 2012 (Appendix E). A total of 47
completed surveys and 3 incomplete surveys were collected for a response rating of 45%.
Non-response error was addressed by contacting a small subset of non-respondents from
the population frame to obtain data for a select number of scale items (Bethlehem, Cobben, &
Schouten, 2011). A combination of the call back approach (Hansen & Hurwitz, 1946) and basic
question approach was used (Bethlehem et al., 2011). They were asked to provide responses to
the NEP and ACAP to determine whether non-respondents exhibited any significant differences
in their agricultural and ecological worldview from survey respondents. The researcher
acknowledged the likelihood of error which could have resulted by doing the shortened survey
with the non-respondents over the phone rather than online like the survey respondents did.
Thirty non-respondents were initially selected at random and contacted by the researcher
via phone at their place of employment (Appendix H). These individuals were reminded about
the survey and its significance and invited to participate in a shortened survey over the phone. If
the individual was not available, messages were left on voice mail or with an individual (e.g.
staff). Fourteen non-respondents participated between June 6, 2012 to June 8, 2012. Three
additional participants demonstrated interest in the survey after non-response data collection had

34

been finished. A thank-you and contact information was emailed to the 14 non-respondents on
November 9, 2012 (Appendix I).
Non-response error was addressed in two ways. First, independent t-tests compared the
summed NEP and ACAP means of survey respondents (n = 50) to those contacted by phone (n =
14) to determine whether there were any differences in worldviews of non-respondents. No
significant differences existed between groups regarding their worldviews (ACAP p= 0.55; NEP
p= 0.67).Known demographic traits were also compared between non-respondents and survey
respondents as a way to determine the homogeny between the two. A Pearson Chi-square was
selected to determine whether the responses was the result of chance in terms of demographics.
Females were more likely to respond to the survey than males (Chi-square=4.81; p=0.03) and
educators who taught primarily in CTC settings were more likely to respond than their high
school counterparts (Chi-square=4.90; p=0.03). Teaching region was not associated with higher
response rates (Chi-square=1.48; p=0.92). Despite the study’s low response rate, the homogeny
in worldviews between respondents’ and non-respondents’ NEP and ACAP scores meant the
respondents’ agricultural and ecological paradigms reflected those of the Michigan SBAE
educators. Data collection among teaching regions was representative of Michigan SBAE
educators, however, not in terms of gender and primary teaching setting. The results could not be
generalized to that population and conclusions of the study took that into consideration.
Data Analysis
The study was an exploratory descriptive/correlational research study. Using Statistical
Packaging for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.0, quantitative data analysis obtained:
descriptive statistics, frequencies, crosstabs, and correlations. Where descriptive statistics were
used, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores were reported. Frequencies

35

were reported using valid percentages unless specified. Where correlations were reported, effect
size was estimated as follows: 1) a strong correlation for Pearson (r) values between ± 0.50 and ±
1.00; 2) a moderate correlation for (r) values between ± 0.30 and ± 0.50; and 3) a weak
correlation for (r) values between 0 and ± 0.30 (Cohen, 1992). The qualitative data were
analyzed with NVivo version 9.0 using thematic coding.
Analysis of first research question. The first research question determined who
Michigan SBAE educators were in terms of their demographic traits. Analyses of educator
demographics were as follows: 1) descriptive statistics determined age; and 2) frequencies
determined gender, primary teaching setting, region, years teaching SBAE, and highest degree
completed.
Analysis of second research question. The second research question determined who
Michigan’s SBAE educators’ were in terms of their ecological paradigm, agricultural paradigm,
knowledge of and definitions of SA. Descriptive statistics were obtained for summed NEP and
ACAP scores. Frequency distributions were generated for ACAP scale items. Descriptive
statistics were produced for summed SARE scores and frequencies were calculated for each
scale item.
The NEP and the ACAP measured quantitative, ordinal data on a five-point Likert scale
which measured agreement. A response of Strongly Disagree was assigned a one, a response of
Disagree was assigned a two, a response of Neutral was assigned a three, a response of 4 was
assigned Agree, and a response of Strongly Agree was assigned a 5. Agreement with the seven
even NEP scale items favored the Dominant Social Paradigm; scores for these seven scale items
were reversed. NEP responses were summated. Scores could range from 15 to 75 with higher

36

scores reflecting deeper adherence to the New Ecological Paradigm. One mostly incomplete
NEP response was dropped.
Agreements with two ACAP scale items favor the Conventional Agricultural Paradigm:
1) Innovations in agricultural technology determine the success of SA; and 2) SA promotes
specialized crop and livestock enterprises. Scores for these two scale items were reversed. ACAP
responses were summated. Scores could range from 14 to 70 with higher scores reflecting deeper
adherence to the Alternative Agricultural Paradigm. For responses with missing data, a mean of
the existing values was obtained for the number of responses completed.
The cognitive test (SARE) provided 4 possible responses to each SA statement and
obtained a correct response (value of 1) or incorrect response (value of 0). The responses were
summated with a possible range of scores from 0 to 9. A reliability analysis among survey
respondents revealed a K-R20 of .625. As a cognitive test with a set of correct responses,
missing data was treated as incorrect (value of 0).
One scale item, the respondents’ definitions of SA, was analyzed qualitatively.
Qualitative analysis has been conceptualized as the process of recognizing concepts or themes,
clarifying their meaning, creating codes for the themes, reorganizing themes, and refining them
(Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Qualitative analysis was selected to provide an insider or “emic”
account of the Michigan SBAE educators understanding of SA. Obtaining an insider account
allowed for a comparison between SBAE educators’ own conceptions of SA and the concepts
drawn from the literature such as the cognitive test. Thematic coding was selected to provide an
interpretative analysis of the respondents’ definitions of SA, which would determine some initial
themes on a topic not widely researched. The data were analyzed in NVivo 9 and codes were
identified inductively. After reading the data initially for codes, the codes were defined and

37

refined. Data was reviewed twice more to further refine codes. Finally, all the data under each
code were reviewed and summaries were written for each.
Pearson’s Correlational Coefficient tested the possibility of relationships between
educator worldviews and their knowledge of SA: 1) NEP and ACAP; 2) NEP and SARE; and 3)
ACAP and SARE. Pearson’s Chi-square tested the independence of an association between
ecological paradigm and nominal data demographics. Pearson’s Chi-square tested the association
between NEP score and gender, region, and primary teaching setting. Cramer’s V measured the
magnitude of possible associations. Pearson’s tested the relationship between NEP with age and
years teaching SBAE. Kendall’s Tau tested the relationship between NEP and highest level of
education.
Analysis of third research question. The third research question sought to identify and
prioritize the in-service needs regarding SAP instruction among educators. Using the Borich
Model, Knowledge and Importance were measured using four-point, ordinal Likert scales.
Importance ranged from Very Unimportant to Very Important with Very Unimportant being
assigned a value of 1, Unimportant being assigned a value of 2 and so on. Knowledge ranged
from Very Knowledgeable to Very Unknowledgeable with Very Unknowledgeable being
assigned a value of 1, Unknowledgeable being assigned a value of 2 and so on.
Four values were obtained in the process to determine educator “need” (Borich, 1980).
For each competency, the following were obtained: 1) Individual Discrepancy Scores; 2) a Mean
Importance Rating; 3) Individual Weighted Discrepancy Scores; and 4) a Mean Weighted
Discrepancy Score. Discrepancy Scores were calculated for each participant, for each
competency. Each discrepancy score was obtained by subtracting an individual’s reported
Knowledge of a competency from their reported Importance of the competency. A mean of the

38

Importance ratings of each competency was calculated. An Individual Weighted Discrepancy
Score was obtained by multiplying the Individual Discrepancy Score by that competency’s Mean
Importance Rating. A Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score was calculated for each competency
by dividing the summed Weighted Discrepancy Scores by number of respondents. The
competencies were ranked according by their Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score. Mean
Weighted Discrepancy Scores are directly proportional to the educator need.

39

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis
Introduction
The data presented in the present chapter were collected from a survey determining
Michigan SBAE educators’ ecological paradigm, agricultural paradigm, definition of and
knowledge of SA. Additionally, a needs assessment was conducted among the educators to
determine need of SAP instructional support. The following research questions guided the
analysis of the data and reporting of results:
1. What is the demographic composition of Michigan SBAE educators?
2. What are the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA among Michigan
SBAE educators?
a. What is the ecological paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP)?
b. What is the agricultural paradigm of SBAE educators as measured by the AlternativeConventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP)?
c. What knowledge do SBAE educators possess of SA as measured by the SARE’s
“Sustainable Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test?
d. How do SBAE educators self-define SA?
e. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ scores on the
following:
i. The NEP and the ACAP
ii. The NEP and the cognitive test
iii. The ACAP and the cognitive test

40

f. To what extent do relationships exist between SBAE educators’ demographics and
NEP score?
3. What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP
and what are their priorities?
a. What are SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
b. What are the priorities of SBAE educator in-service need regarding their instruction
of SAP as measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
Findings for RQ 1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
Descriptive statistics were calculated for age. Frequencies were calculated for: 1) age; 2)
gender; 3) primary teaching setting; 4) teaching region; 5) highest level of education; and 6)
years teaching SBAE. Respondents (n=47) ages ranged from 25 to 61 and the mean age was 38.9
years (SD=10.43). Further description of respondents’ age was provided in Table 2 along with
frequency counts of all the demographic data collected.
Nearly half (44%) of respondents were between ages 31 and 40 and almost a quarter of
the respondents (24%) were between ages 25 and 30. Those between ages of 41 and 50 were the
least represented (11%). Females (n=28) made up over 60% of the response rate, with males
(n=18) consisting of less than 40 percent as indicated in Table 2. Two-thirds of the respondents
(67%) reported that their primary teaching setting was a comprehensive four-year high school
(n=30); the remaining one-third (33%) taught at a career tech center (CTC). Each of the six
teaching regions was almost equally represented; region 5 was an exception, 21% of all
respondents were from this region (n=10). In terms of years teaching SBAE, respondents

41

Table 2
Frequencies and Percentages of SBAE Educators by Demographic
Demographic
n
%
Age
46
25-30
11
23.9
31-40
20
43.5
41-50
5
10.9
51-61
10
21.7
Years Teaching SBAE
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26 or more

46
11
10
12
3
3
7

23.9
21.7
26.1
6.5
6.5
15.2

Female
Male

46
28
18

60.9
39.1

Primary Teaching Setting
Four-Year High School
Career Tech Center

45
30
15

66.7
33.3

Teaching Region
1
2
3
4
5
6

45
8
7
7
6
10
7

17.8
15.6
15.6
13.3
22.2
15.6

Highest Level of Education
Bachelors
Masters
Doctorate
Other

46
12
32
1
1

25.5
68.1
2.1
2.1

Gender

reported: 1) 11-15 years of experience (26%); 2) 0-5 years (24%); and 3) 6-10 years (22%).
According to Table 3, over two-thirds of respondents (68%) completed a Masters degree and one

42

respondent completed a doctorate degree (2%). One respondent selected the Other option and
wrote in the response completion of a “Bachelors + 30.”
Findings for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators’ ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP. The NEP was
established as a measure of environmental attitudes (EA) in terms of the relationship between
humans and the environment. In other words, it measured how “ecologically” one generally
viewed the world (Dunlap, 2008). The scale measured environmental worldview in terms of: 1)
limits to growth; 2) the balance of nature; 3) antianthropocentrism; 4) rejection of
exemptionalism; and 5) the possibility of ecocrisis (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000).
NEP scores existed on a continuum which ranged from 15 (highly anthropocentric
worldview) to 75 (highly eco-centric worldview). Scores on the lower end of the spectrum
indicated support of the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) in which one viewed the human
relationship with the environment more anthropocentrically. Dunlap et al. (2000) defined
anthropocentrism as “the belief that nature exists primarily for human use and has no inherent
value of its own (p. 431).” Scores on the higher end of the spectrum indicated support for the
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) in which that relationship was viewed as more ecological and
balanced. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) designed the scale so that agreement with even scale
items supported an anthropocentric worldview; those scores were reverse coded to obtain the
NEP mean. The present study followed the same procedure to obtain the NEP mean. Table 3
indicated that the respondents’ (n=47) mean composite score was 49.6 (SD = 8.70), which
indicated that SBAE educators generally held a slightly eco-centric worldview. That meant, to a

43

Table 3
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Composite NEP Score (n=47)
Ecological Paradigm
Mean
SD
Min
Max
NEP Score
49.6
8.70
22
71

slight degree, educators’ EA revolved around an ecological relationship between humans and the
environment.
NEP scale item data was presented in Table 4 in terms of means and frequency
distributions in accordance with Dunlap and Van Leire’s (1978) data presentation. An overall
examination of the data and an examination of the data by subscale were included below.
Overall, respondents were not unanimous in the beliefs about the relationship between
human and environment. Almost all respondents (96%) agreed with item 9 that “humans were
subject to the laws of nature” and two-thirds (66%) agreed that “the balance of nature was very
delicate and easily upset.” Over 60% disagreed that “the balance of nature was strong enough to
cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.” Only two other scale items garnered
frequencies higher than half of the sample (53% and 51%), both of which were under the
subscale reality of limits to growth. Over and over again, the SBAE educators were not
homogeneous in their ecological worldview. The exceptions were that most thought: 1) we as
humans were operating within the confines of nature’s laws (almost all SBAE educators thought
that); 2) that nature’s workings could be easily disrupted; and 3) that nature cannot overcome the
consequences of our highly industrialized world.
A large frequency of educators didn’t respond one way or another regarding their
attitudes about the environment; on seven out of fifteen items, approximately a third of responses
were neutral. Six additional items had neutral responses 20-25% of the time. The two most
common neutral items were “plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist” (34%)

44

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions for NEP Scale Items (n=47)
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE
with the following statements:

M

SD

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Responses
Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1 We are approaching the limit of the number
3.4
1.23
3 (6%)
10 (21%) 10 (21%) 14 (30%) 10 (21%)
of people that the earth can support.
2 Humans have the right to modify the natural
2.9
1.06
3 (6%)
18 (38%) 10 (21%) 14 (30%)
2 (4%)
environment to suit their needs.
3 When humans interfere with nature, it often
3.5
1.02
1 (2%)
7 (15%)
16 (34%) 15 (32%)
8 (17%)
produces disastrous consequences.
4 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not
3.3
0.90
0 (0%)
11 (23%) 15 (32%) 18 (38%)
3 (6%)
make the earth unlivable.
5 Humans are severely abusing the
3.3
1.22
4 (9%)
8 (17%)
12 (26%) 14 (30%)
9 (19%)
environment.
6 The earth has plenty of natural resources if
3.4
1.07
1 (2%)
11 (23%) 12 (26%) 16 (34%)
7 (15%)
we just learn how to develop them.
7 Plants and animals have as much right as
3.3
1.11
2 (4%)
9 (19%)
16 (34%) 12 (26%)
8 (17%)
humans to exist.
2.5
1.04
5 (11%)
24 (51%)
8 (17%)
8 (17%)
2 (4%)
8 The balance of nature is strong enough to
cope with the impacts of modern industrial
nations.
9 Despite our special abilities, humans are still
4.2
0.48
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (4%)
35 (75%) 10 (21%)
subject to the laws of nature.
2.9
1.10
4 (9%)
16 (34%) 12 (26%) 12 (26%)
3 (6%)
10 The so-called "ecological crisis" facing
humankind has been greatly exaggerated.
Note. Full Prompt: Based on your own ATTITUDES, please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements;
Agreement with the seven odd items indicate a more ecological worldview; Agreement with eight even items indicate a more
anthropocentric worldview; Values: Strongly Agree = 5; Strongly Disagree = 1; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; Percentages may
not add up to 100% due to rounding.

45

Table 4 (cont’d)
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE
with the following statements:

M

SD

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Responses
Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

11 The earth is like a spaceship with very
3.5
1.04
1 (2%)
9 (19%)
12 (26%) 18 (38%)
7 (15%)
limited room and resources.
12 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of
3.0
1.13
6 (13%)
9 (19%)
15 (32%) 14 (30%)
3 (6%)
nature.
13 The balance of nature is very delicate and
3.7
0.80
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
14 (30%) 25 (53%)
6 (13%)
easily upset.
14 Humans will eventually learn enough about
2.6
0.82
2 (4%)
22 (47%) 15 (32%)
8 (17%)
0 (0%)
how nature works to be able to control it.
15 If things continue on their present course, we
3.3
1.04
2 (4%)
9 (19%)
15 (32%) 16 (34%)
5 (11%)
will soon experience a major ecological
catastrophe.
Note. Full Prompt: Based on your own ATTITUDES, please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements;
Agreement with the seven odd items indicate a more ecological worldview; Agreement with eight even items indicate a more
anthropocentric worldview; Values: Strongly Agree = 5; Strongly Disagree = 1; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; Percentages may
not add up to 100% due to rounding.

46

and "when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences (34%).” In
other words, a third of SBAE educators did not feel compelled one way or another regarding
whether plants and animals have a place alongside humans in the world or whether human
interference with nature has devastating effects. The high levels of neutrality on the later
subscale item seemed disconnected from earlier discussed frequencies. For instance, 60% of
respondents did not agree that nature can withstand the impacts of our industrialized world, 66%
thought that the balance of nature was delicate, and almost all of them thought that we as humans
were operating within the confines of nature’s laws. The neutral data could be the result of high
indecision among SBAE educators regarding their attitudes toward the environment and humans’
relationship within it, perhaps an unwillingness to commit to their attitudes on a survey sourced
from a colleague, and/or that the language could have appeared biased on some scale items.
Reality of limits to growth. Dunlap (2008) conceived of this subscale as the existence of
“limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand (p. 7).” The subscale
consisted of items 1, 6, and 11. Half of the respondents thought that there were population and
resource limits: 51% agreed with item 1 that “we were approaching the limit of the number of
people the earth can support,” and 53% agreed with item 11 that the “earth was like a spaceship
with limited room and resources.” That meant that half of the respondents thought that there
were real limits to growth in terms of the human population and natural resources and that we
were nearing our population limit. However, equal percentages (49%) of respondents thought
that we have “plenty of natural resources if we learn how to develop them (item 6).” In other
words, a near majority of respondents believed that human ingenuity was sufficient to prevent an
exhaustion of resources, almost as many as those that thought there were limits to the population,
natural resources and available space.

47

A sizeable contingency of respondents consistently disagreed with additional scale items.
Frequencies of disagreement and neutrality were similar over each subscale item; the pattern also
occurred between items. A quarter (25%) disagreed with and felt neutrally (26%) towards item 6
that we had “plenty of natural resources.” A quarter (27%) disagreed with and one-fifth (21%)
felt neutrally about item 1 that “we are approaching the limit of the number of people.” One-fifth
(21%) disagreed with and a quarter (26%) felt neutrally about item 11 that the “earth had limited
room and resources.” Overall, there were consistently large percentages of respondents who
thought that limits did not exist in terms of the human population, available space, or natural
resources, and that society was not nearing a human limit. However, a similar contingency of
respondents thought that natural resources were limited.
Antianthropocentrism. Dunlap et al. (2000) conceived of antianthropocentrism the
rejection of “the belief that nature exists primarily for human use and has no inherent value of its
own (p. 431).” The subscale consisted of items 2, 7, and 12. Overall, respondents were highly
divided in terms of their attitudes toward antianthropocentrism. While two-fifths of respondents
(38%) disagreed with item 2 that “humans have the right to modify the natural environment to
suit their needs,” a third (30%) agreed. A third agreed with (36%), disagreed with (32%), and felt
neutrally toward (32%) item 12 that “humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.”
Respondents agreed with item 7 two-thirds of the time (43%) that “plants and animals have as
much right to exist as humans.” In addition, the same percentage of respondents disagreed (34%)
with the item 7 as were neutral (32%) about it. The data indicated that respondents’ attitudes
were mixed in how they viewed man’s place in the environment and the worth of the
environment to man. That included division over the EA that man could bend the environment to
his will, that man’s rightful place was as a ruler over nature, and whether plants and animals

48

were entitled to life. The high percentages of neutral responses suggested that many respondents
had difficulty selecting a response that fit their attitudes for the subscale.
Fragility of nature’s balance. Dunlap (2008) conceptualized this subscale as the idea
that “humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive (p. 7).” Items 3, 8, and 13
made up the subscale. Overall, a majority of respondents thought that they must operate within
nature’s laws to survive. Half of them (49%) agreed with item 3 that "when humans interfere
with nature, it has produced disastrous consequences.” Almost two thirds (62%) disagreed with
item 8 that nature can “cope with the impacts of our modern industrialized world.” Another twothirds agreed with item 13 (66%) that the “balance of nature was very delicate and easily upset”
and hardly anyone disagreed (4%). The data indicated that respondents thought that nature was
fragile and that our modern, industrialized world carried a heavy toll on the balance of nature;
the frequencies were among the highest for all the subscales. In addition, half of them thought
that severe consequences result when humans disrupt nature. A small contingency of respondents
existed who agreed with item 8 (21%) that nature could cope with the effects of our
industrialized world and disagreed with item 3 (17%) that humans interference in nature has
usually had devastating effects.
A third of respondents rated items 3 (34%) and 13 that the balance of nature was delicate
neutrally (30%). In other words, a third of SBAE educators did not feel compelled one way or
another whether human interference with nature has incredibly severe consequences. The high
levels of neutrality for item 13 about whether nature’s balance was easily disrupted seemed
disconnected from the strong numbers of respondents who thought the balance of nature was
fragile.

49

Rejection of exemptionalism. Dunlap et al. (2000) conceived of this subscale as a
rejection of the idea “that humans—unlike other species—are exempt from the constraints of
nature” (p. 432). The subscale consisted of items 4, 9, and 14. Overall, respondents’ responses
varied widely between subscale items. Almost all respondents (96%) agreed with item 9 that
“humans are subject to the laws of nature.” Half (51%) disagreed with item 14 that “humans will
eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.” Over two-fifths (44%)
agreed with item 4 that “human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable.”
Overall, the data indicated that respondents held divided and inconsistent attitudes about
exemptionalism. Almost universally, respondents thought that humans were limited to the
confines of nature. Half of respondents thought that humankind will never be able to exert
control over nature but almost half thought that human ingenuity was the key to preserving earth
as a viable place to live.
A more detailed examination of the data showed further inconsistencies regarding
respondents’ attitudes about humans’ place within nature. Almost a fifth (17%) of them thought
that the ability for humankind to eventually control nature was feasible (Item 4). Less than a
quarter (23%) thought that human ingenuity was insufficient (at least in and of itself) to protect
the earth from becoming unlivable (Item 14). A third of respondents (32%) held neutral attitudes
about both items. The fact that two of the items elicited neutral responses from a third of the
sample could have resulted from the items being written in a biased language. Despite holding a
near universal attitude that humans were subject to the laws of nature, only a small subset of
educators thought that the sustainability of a habitable earth cannot be guaranteed by human
ingenuity. Additionally, a small subset of educators thought that humankind has the potential to
gain enough knowledge to dominate nature.

50

Possibility of eco-crisis. Dunlap et al. (2000) conceptualized this subscale as the
“likelihood of potentially catastrophic environmental changes or ‘ecocrises’ besetting
humankind” (p. 432). Items 5, 10, and 15 made up the subscale. As displayed in Table 4,
respondents agreed with item 5 that “humans are severely abusing the environment” half of the
time (50%) and less than half (45%) agreed with item 15 that “we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.” Over two-fifths (43%) of respondents disagreed with item 10 that the
“‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.” Overall, the data indicated
that a large subset of respondents thought that certain human interactions with the world could be
labeled abusive, that our current means of living will lead to an eco-crisis, and that the idea ecocrisis was reasonable and valid.
The data revealed that a smaller but sizable number of educators disagreed. A quarter
(26%) of respondents disagreed with the EA that “humans were severely abusing the
environment” and that “we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe (24%)” A third
(32%) agreed that the “‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.” This
smaller subset of educators thought that human impact on the world was not abusive, that we are
not threatened by an imminent eco-crisis, and that the eco-crisis concept has been grossly
inflated. A third (32%) of responders was neutral regarding the possibility of an eco-crisis, which
could be the result of the loaded language the item was written in.
RQ 2b: Educators’ agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP. The ACAP
was used in the present study to measure beliefs around agricultural. The scale measured the
degree that respondents generally viewed agriculture ecologically. Two agricultural worldviews
were at either ends of the spectrum and were differentiated by six elements: 1) centralization
versus decentralization, 2) competition versus community, 3) dependence versus independence,

51

4) domination of nature versus harmony with nature, 5) specialization versus diversity, and 6)
exploitation versus restraint (Beus & Dunlap, 1990). ACAP scores were on a continuum which
ranged from 14 (highly conventional agricultural paradigm) to 70 (highly-alternative agricultural
paradigm). Scores on the lower end of the spectrum indicated support for the conventional
agricultural paradigm, in which relationships between humans and nature were viewed more
anthropocentrically. Higher scores on the spectrum indicated support for the alternative
agricultural paradigm and valued fundamentally different relationships between humans and the
environment, relationships that were ecological. Agreement with scale items 13 and 14 supported
a conventional worldview of agriculture and were reverse coded to obtain the ACAP mean.
According to Table 5, respondents’ (n=48) mean composite ACAP score was 53.1 (SD = 5.24),
which suggested that SBAE educators viewed agriculture with a moderately ecological lens. In
other words, overall, respondents’ beliefs about agriculture were based around an ecological
relationship between humans and the environment.
Table 5
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Composite ACAP Score (n = 48)
Agricultural Paradigm
Mean
SD
Min
Max
ACAP Score
53.1
5.24
34
62

ACAP scale item data was presented in Table 6 in terms of means and frequency
distributions; the presentation of item means was in accordance with data presentation from the
literature (Jackson-Smith & Buttel, 2003; Muma et al., 2010). Respondents consistently held a
moderate alternative agricultural worldview across individual scale items. There was almost
universal agreement on five of the 14 scale items and over 70% agreement on five others.
Disagreement with scale items occurred less than 5% of time for 11 out of 14 items. Only 2 out

52

Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions for ACAP Scale Items (n = 48)
M

SD

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Responses
Neutral

1 Development of healthy soils is important for
SA
2 SA conserves natural resources for the
benefit of future generations
3 Crop rotation is important to achieving SA

4.7

0.45

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

13 (27%)

35 (73%)

4.7

0.47

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

15 (31%)

33 (69%)

4.4

0.61

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 (6%)

24 (50%)

21 (44%)

4 SA promotes recycling of renewable natural
resources
5 Exchange of knowledge about locally
designed technologies among producers
promotes SAP
6 Integrating diverse crops with livestock
enterprises promotes SA
7 Local farming practice impacts success of
SA
8 The size of a community impacts
development of SA
9 SA promotes local processing of agricultural
production
10 Local knowledge of farming in a community
is an indication of sustainability in
agriculture
11 SA reduces need for external sources of
inputs

4.5

0.55

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

21 (44%)

26 (54%)

4.1

0.80

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

6 (13%)

25 (52%)

16 (33%)

4.0

0.81

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

10 (21%)

25 (52%)

12 (25%)

4.4

0.62

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

24 (50%)

23 (48%)

3.3

1.26

4 (8%)

10 (21%)

11 (23%)

13 (27%)

10 (21%)

3.9

0.80

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

13 (27%)

25 (52%)

9 (19%)

3.7

0.98

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

10 (21%)

21 (44%)

9 (19%)

3.4

1.08

3 (6%)

6 (13%)

16 (33%)

16 (33%)

7 (15%)

Please indicate to what extent to you agree
with the following belief statements about
sustainable agriculture:

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Note. aAgreement with these statements support a more conventional worldview of agriculture; Values: Strongly Agree=5; Strongly
Disagree = 1; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

53

Table 6 (cont’d)
Please indicate to what extent to you agree
with the following belief statements about
sustainable agriculture:
12 SA promotes local marketing of agricultural
production
13 SA promotes specialized crop and livestock
enterprisesa
14 Innovations in agricultural technology
determine the success of SAa

M

SD

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Responses
Neutral

3.7

0.89

1 (2%)

1 (2%)

18 (38%)

18 (38%)

10 (21%)

3.8

0.69

0 (0%)

2 (4%)

12 (25%)

29 (60%)

5 (10%)

3.9

0.92

0 (0%)

4 (8%)

10 (21%)

20 (42%)

14 (29%)

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Note. aAgreement with these statements support a more conventional worldview of agriculture; Values: Strongly Agree=5; Strongly
Disagree = 1; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

54

of 14 scale items received less than a majority of agreement and frequencies of agreement were
still almost half of the sample (48%).
Among the 5 scales that received almost universal agreement, all respondents agreed that
the “development of healthy soils is important” for SA and that it “conserves natural resources
for the benefit of future generations.” Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed “SA promotes
recycling of renewable natural resources” and that “local farming practice impacts success of
SA.” Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed “crop rotation was important to achieving SA.”
In other words, SBAE educators firmly and consistently believed the following about SA: 1) that
building up healthy soil was fundamental; 2) that conserving natural resources and recycling
renewable ones was important for the future; 3) that crop rotation was significant; and 4) that
agriculture was successful when it used and valued practices generated from local farmer.
Respondents displayed further belief in the alternative agriculture worldview in that there
were three scale items that garnered a strong majority of agreement and were disagreed with only
2% of the time. Seven-eighths of respondents (85%) agreed they believed that SA benefited from
the “exchange of knowledge about locally designed technologies among producers.” Over threequarters (77%) of respondents agreed that “integra[ting]diverse crops with livestock promotes
SA.” Seven-tenths (71%) of respondents agreed that “SA promotes local processing of
agricultural production.” In other words, most SBAE educators believed the following about SA:
1) that it was important to allow for producers to disseminate information about locally designed
technology amongst themselves; 2) that it was important to have production systems that
integrated livestock and crops; and 3) it was important to have local processing centers for
agricultural goods.

55

Belief in the alternative agricultural paradigm was mixed in terms of two scale items
which received a majority of agreement but high frequencies of disagreement or neutrality. Over
three-fifths (63%) agreed that “local knowledge of farming in a community was an indication of
sustainability in agriculture.” However, it also received one of the highest frequencies of
disagreement at 17%. Almost two-fifths of respondents (38%) responded neutrally that “SA
promotes local marketing of agricultural production;” yet three-fifths (59%) agreed with the
statement. In other words, a majority of SBAE educators believed the following about SA: 1) the
presence of knowledge of production at the local level was important to agriculture; and 2) that
agriculture should encourage local marketing of production. A large group of educators did not
believe one way or the other regarding the relationship between local marketing and SA. A small
group believed that the presence of local knowledge of production does not promote SA.
Respondents displayed support for the conventional agricultural paradigm on two scale
items; however both received almost a majority of agreement. Respondents agreed less than half
the time (48%) that “the size of a community impacts development of SA.” Less than a third
(29%) disagreed. Respondents agreed less than half the time (48%) that “SA reduces need for
external sources of inputs (48%).” Less than one-fifth (19%) disagreed. In other words, a very
strong minority of SBAE educators believed the following about SA: 1) that community size was
a factor that affected how agriculture developed; and 2) that implementing SA decreased the
need for external inputs. However, a small group of educators did not believe either.
There were two items on which most respondents held a more convention agricultural
worldview. Seven-tenths of respondents agreed with the two scale items that supported the
conventional agricultural paradigm: 1) “SA promotes specialized crop and livestock enterprises
(70%);” and 2) “innovations in agricultural technology determine the success of SA (71%).”

56

Disagreement with both occurred less than 10% of the time. In other words, most SBAE
educators’ conception of SA included the ideas that new technology determined how successful
agriculture would be and that crop and livestock ventures should be specialized. Those were the
only two items in which SBAE educators consistently held a strong conventional agricultural
paradigm. These results appeared to contradict the 77% of respondents that agreed with item 6
that “integrating diverse crops with livestock promotes SA.”
RQ 2c: Educators’ knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s “Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test. Table 7 displayed the mean
cognitive test score, 7.3 out of 9 (SD =1.67), which meant that respondents were correct on about
80% of the test. One respondent left eight items unanswered; however, that was not the norm.
SBAE educators’ generally high scores indicated that they were fairly knowledgeable about SA
fundamentals, meaning they understood that SA values the balance of social, economic, and
ecological components on multiple levels. Their overall high scores on the cognitive test meant
that respondents were familiar with the USDA’s (and by default SARE) conception of SA.
Table 7
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores for Cognitive Test Scores (n=47)
Knowledge of SA
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Cognitive Test
7.3
1.67
1
9

Table 8 provided the frequencies and percentages of correct and incorrect responses for
individual scale items. For each item, four statements regarding SA were presented; respondents
were asked to select the one true statement. Respondents were somewhat consistent in their item
accuracy; correct responses ranged from 72 to 94 percent.
Individual scale responses indicated that across the board educators recognized SA
necessitated protecting farm and natural resources. Fewer educators recognized that economic

57

Table 8
Frequency Distribution for Cognitive Test by Scale Item (n=47)
Which of the following is true?
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Farms and ranches need to be profitable to be
sustainable
The site specific nature of SA makes farmer
knowledge and experience critical to long term
success
SA involves developing new methods that protect
farm resources while maintaining economic viability
Many different kinds of farms can be sustainable
Stewardship of natural resources is critical to SA
The different components of the agricultural system,
like production and marketing, affect each other
The transition to SA is a long-term, dynamic process
Farms and ranches need to be both profitable and
environmentally sound
SA is producer-centered, but it encompasses issues
related to the whole food system

Correct
N
%
34
72

Incorrect
n
%
13
28

37

79

10

21

34

72

13

28

36
44
39

77
94
83

11
3
8

23
6
17

38
43

81
92

9
4

19
8

36

77

11

23

viability is actually essential to SA as well. That analysis was drawn from the fact that almost all
respondents correctly answered item 5 (94%) that “stewardship of natural resources is critical to
SA;” they recognized that SA involved a consideration for the ecological component, in this case
natural resources. However, one of the items most frequently incorrect responses was about
profitability’s place in sustainability; almost a third of respondents (28%) did not recognize that
“farms and ranches need to be profitable to be sustainable (Item 1).”
Respondents were inconsistent in their understanding that SA requires both maintaining
the environment and economic profitability. Almost all respondents agreed with item 8 (92%)
that “farms and ranches need to be both profitable and environmentally sound.” However, four
educators (8%) answered incorrectly. In addition, a third answered item 3 incorrectly that “SA
involves… protect[ing] farm resources while maintaining economic viability;”that was one of
the most commonly missed scale items.

58

Respondents struggled with identifying SA within a greater context and the importance of
producer centered knowledge within the larger system. A quarter of educators (23%) didn’t
recognize that SA involved making decisions about social, environmental, and economic factors
at multiple levels as shown by item 9 “SA is producer-centered, but it encompassed issues
related to the whole food system.” About a fifth of respondents (17%) answered item 6
incorrectly that “different components of the agricultural system, like production and marketing,
affected each other. About a fifth of respondents (21%) answered item 2 incorrectly that “farmer
knowledge and experience were critical to long term success.”
Some respondents also were not clear on what the process of SA consisted of or suitable
places where the process could be used. A fifth (19%) of respondents incorrectly answered item
7 that “the transition to SA was a long-term, dynamic process.” The data indicated that some
educators did not know that SA involves applying varying solutions over a long period of time.
Some educators struggled to understand the versatility of SA in terms of production scale and
systems or the vastness of the systems involved. Almost a quarter of responders (23%) did not
recognize that SA was adaptable and flexible to varying production scales and systems as
indicated by item 4 that “many different kinds of farms can be sustainable.”
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA. Qualitative analysis was selected to provide an
insider or “emic” account of the Michigan SBAE educators’ conceptions of SA. That allowed for
a comparison between SBAE educators’ own conceptions and the concepts drawn from the
literature such as the cognitive test. Thematic coding was selected to provide an interpretative
analysis of the respondents’ definitions of SA, which would determine some initial themes on a
topic not widely researched. The data were analyzed in NVivo 9 and codes were identified
inductively. After reading the data initially for codes, the codes were defined and refined. Data

59

was reviewed twice more to further refine codes. Finally, individual summaries were written for
the most salient codes, which have been labeled themes.
Two common themes emerged in how respondents defined SA: 1) Emphasis on the
Ecological Dimension; and 2) Emphasis on Responsible Resource Management. While diversity
existed among definitions, common responses included: “The process of producing agricultural
products such as crops and livestock in ways that have the least impact on the environment and
ensure that they will be able to be produced in the future.”
Emphasis on the ecological dimension. Respondents consistently discussed that the
importance of considering the environment in decision making was significant to SA, although
variance existed in magnitude and nature of that consideration. Conceptions were often vague,
such as SA being an “environmentally responsible enterprise.” Specific examples listed as means
to provide sustainability, included examples such as “by trying to reduce pollution as well as our
carbon footprint.” SA was commonly discussed as a practice-based solution, which would assist
in maintaining environmental integrity. Very few respondents addressed the consideration of the
social aspects in SA; concepts that were introduced included: worker health, fair wages,
consumer health, supporting rural communities, and making “socially acceptable decisions.”
About 10% of respondents discussed the significance of an interrelationship between social,
economic, and ecological factors in their definition.
Emphasis on responsible resource management. Careful decision making in managing
resources appeared crucial in how respondents’ conceptualized SA. Respondents differed to
some extent in how responsible resource management manifested. To some it meant maintaining
natural resources, to others, not “significantly depleting” them, and to many, being “efficient”
with these resources. Conservation and protection of both renewable and nonrenewable natural

60

resources were discussed as important to maintaining sustainable production. To some
respondents, being a good steward or using best practices was important to managing resources.
Soil and water were the only resources specifically addressed repeatedly as important to manage.
Renewable and non-renewable natural resources as broad categories were also mentioned
repeatedly as needing proper management.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores. Pearson’s Correlational Coefficient was used to test for the presence of relationships
between NEP, ACAP, and cognitive test scores; the results were presented in Table 9. A weak,
positive relationship emerged between NEP and ACAP (r=.21) and a very weak, inverse
relationship emerged between NEP and the cognitive test (r=-.11).No relationship existed
between the ACAP and the cognitive test. Educators who tended to value a more eco-centric
relationship with nature, tended to also held more eco-centric beliefs about agriculture as well. A
more eco-centric relationship with nature was also slightly associated with less of an
understanding of SA. Agricultural worldview was not associated with respondents’ knowledge of
SA. None of the results were significant; perhaps survey results weren’t representative of the
population.
Table 9
Pearson’s Correlation of Relationships Between Ecological Paradigm, Agricultural Paradigm,
and Knowledge of SA
NEP
ACAP
ACAP
.21
Cognitive Test
-.11
.04
Note. Not sig at .05 level.
RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
Demographic data were also collected to run correlations to determine whether relationships
existed between demographics and NEP score. Point Biserial tested the relationship between the

61

NEP score and dichotomous data: gender and primary teaching setting. Cramer’s V measured the
association between the NEP score and the nominal data teaching region. Kendall’s Tau tested
the relationship between the NEP score and ordinal data: highest level of education and years
teaching SBAE. Pearson’s tested the relationship between the NEP score and the interval data
age.
Table 10
Correlations of Relationships Between Ecological Paradigm and Demographics Measure of
Association
NEP
Demographic
Point
Kendall’s Cramer’s Pearson’s
Biserial
Tau b
V
Gender
.02
Primary Teaching Setting
-.12
Highest Level of Education
-.17
Years Teaching SBAE
-.07
Teaching Region
.24
Age
-.04
Note. Not sig at .05 level.
Correlations between NEP and demographic traits were presented in Table 10. No
relationships emerged between NEP score and gender (.02), age (-.04), or years teaching SBAE
(-.07). Very weak, negative relationships existed between NEP and primary teaching setting
(-.12) and highest level of education (-.17). In other words, educators were slightly more likely to
view the world ecologically with less higher education completed or if they were teaching at a
CTC. A weak, positive relationship emerged between NEP and teaching region (.24), which
indicated that ecological worldview was slightly different between teaching regions among the
educators surveyed, but further analysis would need to be done to determine what the
relationship looked like. None of the results were significant; again, perhaps survey results
weren’t representative of the population.

62

Findings for RQ 3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their
instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured
by the Borich Needs Assessment Model. The needs assessment asked respondents to: 1) rate
how important teaching each agricultural practice, or competency, was to their classroom
instruction; and 2) then rate their knowledge of each competency. Frequency distributions for the
responses to each competency were presented in Table 11. Means, modes, and standard
deviations for importance and knowledge of competencies were shown in Table 12.
Respondents valued each competency as important to instruction; means for the
importance of teaching the competencies in the classroom were between 3.0 and 3.6, as
demonstrated in Table 12. Overall, SBAE educators thought that all of the competencies, which
included ten SAP and two conventional agricultural practices, were equally important to their
students’ agricultural education. Respondents rated Water Quality as the most important
competency (M=3.6); 100% of respondents rated it important or very important as shown in
Table 11.Six additional competencies received ratings of at least important by almost all survey
respondents: 1) Composting (96%); 2) Crop Rotation (96%); 3) Integrated Pest Management
(96%); 4) Nitrogen Cycle (97%); 5) Pest Resistant Crops (93%); and 6) Soil Conservation
(96%). High numbers of SBAE educators felt that a majority of the competencies were important
to their agricultural educational curriculum. Teaching about Water Quality was universally
deemed important.
Knowledge means for six of the twelve competencies were less than 3.0 and the
remaining had means no higher than 3.2 as illustrated in Table 12. SBAE educators considered
themselves no more than slightly knowledgeable on half the competencies and not much more on

63

Table 11
Frequency Distributions for the Importance of Competencies in Instruction and Knowledge of Competencies (n=47)
Rate how IMPORTANT teaching the
Rate how KNOWLEDGEABLE you are in the
competency is to you in your classroom
competency:
instruction:
Very
Unimpor- Important
Very
Competency
UnSlightly
KnowledgeVery
Unimportant
Important
knowledge- Knowledgeable
Knowledgetant
able
able
able
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
33 (70%) 12 (26%) Composting
0 (0%)
5 (11%)
35 (74%)
6 (13%)
0 (0%)
5 (11%) 36 (77%) 6 (13%) Cover Cropping
1 (2%)
22 (47%)
18 (38%)
6 (13%)
0 (0%)
2 (4%)
29 (62%) 16 (34%) Crop Rotation
0 (0%)
6 (13%)
29 (62%)
12 (26%)
1 (2%)
4 (9%)
30 (64%) 11 (23%) Genetically
0 (0%)
9 (19%)
33 (70%)
5 (11%)
Engineered Crops
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
23 (49%) 22 (47%) Integrated Pest
0 (0%)
9 (19%)
30 (64%)
8 (17%)
Management
1 (2%)
6 (13%) 32 (68%) 7 (15%) Management
5 (11%)
22 (47%)
14 (30%)
6 (13%)
Intensive Grazing
0 (0%)
7 (15%) 31 (66%) 8 (17%) Mixed Farming
3 (6%)
11 (23%)
26 (55%)
7 (15%)
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
27 (57%) 19 (40%) Nitrogen Cycle
0 (0%)
7 (15%)
28 (60%)
12 (26%)
1 (2%)
2 (4%)
33 (70%) 11 (23%) Pest Resistant Crops
1 (2%)
13 (28%)
25 (53%)
8 (17%)
1 (2%)
4 (9%)
34 (72%) 7 (15%) Reduced Tillage
3 (6%)
13 (28%)
26 (55%)
5 (11%)
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
22 (47%) 23 (49%) Soil Conservation
0 (0%)
6 (13%)
31 (66%)
10 (21%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
19 (40%) 28 (60%) Water Quality
0 (0%)
5 (11%)
28 (60%)
14 (30%)
Note. Importance Values: Very Unimportant=1; Very Important=4; Knowledge Values: Unknowledgeable=1; Very
Knowledgeable=4; Not all frequency counts add up to (n=47) due to missing data; Percentages may not add up to 100% due to
rounding.

64

Table 12
Ranked Competencies by Mean Weighted Discrepancy Scores (MWDS) and Means, Modes, and Standard Deviations for Importance
of Competencies in Instruction and Knowledge of Competencies Related to Agricultural Practices (n=47)
Importance
Knowledge
Rank Competency
MWDS
M
SD
Mo
M
SD
Mo
1
Integrated Pest Management
1.65
3.5
0.55
3
3.0
0.61
3
2
Management Intensive Grazing
1.49
3.0
0.61
3
2.5
0.86
2
3
Water Quality
1.46
3.6
0.50
4
3.2
0.61
3
4
Soil Conservation
1.36
3.5
0.55
4
3.1
0.58
3
5
Cover Cropping
1.22
3.0
0.49
3
2.6
0.74
2
6
Reduced Tillage
0.99
3.0
0.58
3
2.7
0.75
3
7
Nitrogen Cycle
0.94
3.4
0.53
3
3.1
0.63
3
7
Pest Resistant Crops
0.94
3.2
0.59
3
2.9
0.72
3
9
Composting
0.70
3.2
0.48
3
3.0
0.49
3
10
Genetically Engineered Crops
0.61
3.1
0.64
3
2.9
0.55
3
11
Mixed Farming
0.59
3.0
0.58
3
2.8
0.78
3
12
Crop Rotation
0.56
3.3
0.55
3
3.1
0.61
3
Note. MWDS = Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score; Importance Values: 1=Very Unimportant; 4=Very Important; Knowledge
Values: 1= Unknowledgeable; 4=Very Knowledgeable; Mo = Mode.

65

the remainder. Despite SBAE educators feeling that each of the competencies were important for
their students to learn, as a group they did not have a strong command of many of them.
Respondents rated themselves as the most knowledgeable about Water Quality (M=3.2) and the
least knowledgeable of Management Intensive Grazing (M=2.5). At least one fifth of
respondents felt very knowledgeable about four competencies: 1) Crop Rotation (26%); 2)
Nitrogen Cycle (26%); 3) Soil Conservation (21%); and 4) Water Quality (30%).
Table 12 showed that respondents considered four competencies equally the least
important to instruction (M=3.0): 1) Management Intensive Grazing; 2) Mixed Farming; 3)
Cover Cropping; and 4) Reduced Tillage. Management Intensive Grazing and Mixed Farming
were the two competencies most frequently rated unimportant; one seventh (15%) of respondents
considered both unimportant to their instruction. In addition, the two competencies were among
those that respondents felt the least competent. Almost two-thirds (58%) and over a quarter
(29%) of respondents considered themselves no more than slightly knowledge of Management
Intensive Grazing and Mixed Farming, respectively. Around 90% of respondents considered
Cover Cropping important, but half (49%) were no more than slightly knowledgeable of the
competency. Approximately 90% of respondents rated Reduced Tillage as important, however, a
third (34%) considered themselves no more than slightly knowledgeable of it.
Respondents rated the two typically conventional agriculture practices – Genetically
Engineered Crops and Pest Resistant Crops – nearly identically. Overall, they felt that both were
important to their instruction (M=3.1; M=3.2) and felt slightly unknowledgeable about both
(M=2.9). Ratings for the conventional practices were very consistent with ratings for the
competencies that were SAP. The consistencies suggested that SBAE educators’ valued
instruction of a range of skills that included both Genetically Engineered Crops and Pest

66

Resistant Crops and the listed SAP. Overall, SBAE educators felt they lacked proficiency of the
two conventional practices and SAP alike.
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service need regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model. The Mean Weighted Discrepancy Score
(MWDS) was calculated for each competency. The higher a competency’s MWDS, the higher a
demonstrated need for instructional support for that competency; competencies were ranked by
MWDS as shown in Table 12. Respondents’ top five competencies were: 1) Integrated Pest
Management (MWDS=1.66); 2) Management Intensive Grazing (MWDS=1.49); 3) Water
Quality (MWDS=1.46); 4) Soil Conservation (MWDS=1.36); and 5) Cover Cropping
(MWDS=1.22). The competencies Pest Resistant Crops and Genetically Engineered Crops, the
two more conventional agricultural practices, ranked seventh (MWDS=0.94) and tenth
(MWDS=0.61) respectively. Respondents reported identical in-service need for the two
competencies Pest Resistance Crops and Nitrogen Cycle (MWDS=0.94).

67

CHAPTER V
Conclusions, Discussion, Recommendations, and Recommendations for Further Study
Summary of the Study: Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to: 1) determine the demographic composition of Michigan
SBAE educators; 2) establish a baseline of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA
among Michigan SBAE educators; and 3) determine and prioritize educator in-service needs
regarding their instruction of SAP. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What is the demographic composition of Michigan SBAE?
2. What are the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge of SA among Michigan
SBAE?
a. What is their ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP?
b. What is their agricultural paradigm as measured by ACAP?
c. What knowledge do they possess of SA as measured by the SARE “Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test?
d. How do they self-define SA?
e. To what extent do relationships exist between their scores on the following:
i. The NEP and the ACAP
ii. The NEP and the cognitive test
iii. The ACAP and the cognitive test
f. To what extent do relationships exist between their demographics and NEP score:
i. Age
ii. Gender
iii. Primary Teaching Setting

68

iv. Region
v. Years teaching SBAE
vi. Highest Education Completed
3. What are Michigan SBAE in-service need regarding their instruction of SAP and what
are their priorities?
a. What are their in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured by the
Borich Needs Assessment Model?
b. What are the priorities of SBAE educator in-service need regarding their instruction
of SAP as measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model?
Methodology
The descriptive, exploratory research study surveyed Michigan SBAE about their
ecological paradigm, agricultural paradigm, knowledge of and conceptualization of SA, and their
in-service needs regarding their SAP instruction. Teachers teaching during the 2011-2012 school
year were targeted and the population frame was drawn using the 2011-2012 Agriculture, Food,
and Natural Resource Directory obtained from the Michigan FFA Association. A census (n=104)
of the population received the survey. The survey was constructed using and data managed with
the online software Qualtrics. The survey consisted of the following existing scales: 1) the NEP;
2) the ACAP; and 3) the SARE cognitive test. A single, original qualitative scale item solicited
participants’ definitions of SA. The survey included a needs assessment based on Borich’s
Model to evaluate the SBAE educators’ competency of and the reported importance of teaching a
selection of agricultural practices. The agricultural practices were selected from the literature and
included 10 SAP and 2 conventional agricultural practices. Demographics were also collected.
The reliability, face validity, and content validity of the three existing scales were established

69

through a piloting by experts. Internal reliability was determined for the NEP and the ACAP
using Cronbachs alpha and for the cognitive test using Kuder Richardsons 20. Bivariate
Correlations using Pearson were used to obtain test-retest reliability for the ACAP; concerns
about internal consistency resulted in the removal of 6 subscale items.
An initial notification was emailed prior to data collection. An invitation to the survey
was emailed to each member of the sample, followed by up to three email reminders. A total of
47 completed surveys and 3 incomplete surveys were collected for a response rating of 45%.
Independent t-tests and a Pearson Chi-square were utilized to test for non-response error. Despite
the low response rate, there were no significant differences between the ecological worldview or
agricultural worldview of the survey respondents and the greater population. However, females
(Chi-square=4.81; p=0.03) and SBAE educators who taught at CTC’s (Chi-square=4.90; p=0.03)
were significantly more likely to respond to the survey than males and high school educators.
Therefore, only the NEP and the ACAP results can be generalized to the Michigan SBAE
educator population.
Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 19.0 and qualitative data
was analyzed using Nvivo 9. The research questions were answered using descriptive statistics,
frequencies, crosstabs, and correlations. Where correlations were tested, the following
coefficients were used: Pearsons, Point Biserial, Kendall’s Tau, and Cramer’s V. The qualitative
data were analyzed using thematic coding to provide an interpretative analysis of the responses.
Conclusions for RQ 1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
Survey respondents were primarily female, were in their late 20’s or 30’s, had a Master’s
degree, and worked at a CTC. Female Michigan SBAE educators were twice as likely to
participate in the survey as their male counterparts, despite that there were nearly equal

70

population frequencies of each gender. Of the CTC based educations surveyed, over two-thirds
(66%) participated, compared to two-fifths (42%) of high school based ones. Respondents were
slightly more likely to teach in Regions 5 or 6, while the remaining regions were less so but
similarly represented; it was not clear why. As was earlier determined with non-response error,
females and educators who worked in CTC’s were significantly more likely to respond to the
survey. That meant survey results could not be generalized to the population of Michigan SBAE
educators. It was not clear why more females and educators from CTC participated.
Due to a lack of population data, comparisons between survey respondents and Michigan
SBAE educator population could not be made concerning age, years teaching SBAE, or highest
degree obtained. The majority of respondents were between the ages of 25-40.They were just as
likely to be in their late 20’s as their 50’s. The age data paralleled the data about how many years
educators had been teaching. Respondents were fairly equal in their experience from 0 to 15
years of teaching; a strong minority had been teaching AFNR for more than 26 years. Again,
perhaps these particular age groups of educators found the topic of survey particularly relevant to
their career.
Conclusions for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators’ ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP. Michigan SBAE
educators’ held a slightly eco-centric paradigm, which meant that overall they viewed their
relationship with the environment as somewhat of an ecological one, one that was somewhat
mutually beneficial. However, when frequencies were examined at the subscale level and at the
individual scale item level, SBAE educators were actually very heterogeneous in their EA. Most
individual scale items did not garner a majority of agreement or disagreement and bimodal

71

populations of varying magnitudes emerged. Two exceptions to the inconsistencies were visible:
1) almost every respondent thought that humans were subject to nature’s laws; and 2) a strong
majority of respondents thought that the balance of nature was fragile. These inconsistencies
were discussed under their respective subscales below.
It was not clear why the educators were so diverse in their responses or why these two
trends emerged from their generally heterogeneous EA. However, it can be assumed that the
NEP results represent the Michigan SBAE educator population because the independent t-test
which determined non-response error indicated there were no significant differences between
respondents and non-responders NEP scores. The overall lack of homogeny on most of the
subscales indicated that the population had bimodal tendencies in terms of their EA. The results
of the correlations that were run and the implications of the existence of a bimodal population
will be discussed further in the chapter. No significant relationships (or even moderate in
strength) were found between the NEP scale and demographics, the ACAP scale, or the cognitive
exam on SA. In terms of demographics, NEP results did not significantly correlate with the
participant’s gender, age, number of years teaching SBAE, the region or setting they taught in, or
their highest level of education.
Large frequencies of SBAE educators didn’t respond one way or another regarding their
environmental attitudes. On seven out of fifteen items, approximately a third of responses were
neutral; six additional items had neutral responses 20-25% of the time. The two most common
neutral items were “plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist” (34%) and "when
humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences (34%).” One possible
reason for the neutral data could be that educators were an unwilling to document their attitudes
on a survey sourced from a colleague. An alternative is that despite the reliability of the scale,

72

the language of some of the sub-scales could have appeared loaded and biased such as the
concept of the “ecological crisis.”
Reality of limits to growth. Respondents held consistently contrasting attitudes regarding
the existence of (and the current proximity to) a finite boundary to the growth of the human
population, available space, and natural resources. The responses were slightly bimodal. For each
subscale, responses were somewhat consistent, with approximately half of respondents agreeing,
a quarter of respondents disagreeing, and a fifth to a quarter answering neutrally. Over half of the
respondents thought that there were real limits to growth in terms of the human population,
resources, and available space; they also thought that humans were nearing that boundary limit.
Approximately half of respondents thought that the earth had an abundance of natural resources
waiting for proper human development; however, a quarter thought natural resources did have
limitations. A quarter of respondents did not think that there were limits to the human
population, or space available and therefore, that society was not nearing a population limit. As
with the above items, no significant (or even moderate) relationships were found between the
NEP scale and demographics, the ACAP scale, or the cognitive exam on SA.
Antianthropocentrism. Respondents’ attitudes were bimodal in how they viewed nature’s
purpose and value. That included division over each subscale: 1) the attitude that man could
submit the environment to his will; 2) that man’s rightful place was dominating nature; and 3)
the idea that plants and animals were due an entitlement to life. Respondents were nearly evenly
divided about whether mankind is meant to hold dominion over the natural world. Some
similarities did exist; over two-fifths of respondents thought that humans do not have a right to
alter the natural world to fulfill their own purposes and that plants, animals, and humankind have
equal rights to exist. However, over a third of respondents thought that humans do have the right

73

to alter the natural environment to suit their needs. A quarter thought that nature does not have
the same right to exist as humankind.
The high percentages of neutral responses suggested that many respondents had difficulty
selecting a response that fit their attitudes on the subscale. A third of respondents, a large
amount, did not indicate one way or another their attitudes regarding whether mankind holds
more claim to exist than plants and animals or whether mankind is meant to rule over those
plants and animals. One possibility could be that the language the subscale was written in was
not entirely neutral.
Fragility of nature’s balance. A strong majority of respondents generally thought that
they must operate in harmony with nature laws to maintain the existence of humankind; this
scale was one of two where a strong majority of respondents agreed about their EA. The subscale
concerning the fragility of the nature’s balance had two individual scale items that received
uncommon majorities of agreement and it was the only subscale in which respondents were
somewhat consistent in their worldviews. The two items that two thirds of respondents agreed
with were that 1) nature’s workings could be easily disrupted (66%); and 2) that nature cannot
overcome the consequences of our highly industrialized world (62%). So while, overall, the
SBAE educators did not agree as a strong majority on almost all of the individual scale items
across the entire NEP, the majority did share a worldview in which nature was fragile and unable
to withstand the effects of our current industrial world.
However, there still existed a small selection of respondents who thought, somewhat
contradictorily, that nature is resilient enough to handle the effects of the modern, industrial
world and that humankind’s actions in the world would not spell disaster for nature. In addition,
a third of respondents did not agree or disagree with the attitudes about whether human

74

interference with nature has incredibly severe consequences or whether the balance of nature is
delicate. The levels of neutrality about both seemed disconnected from the strong numbers of
respondents who thought the balance of nature was fragile.
Rejection of exemptionalism. The subscale was the second instance where respondents
strongly agreed on an individual scale item, however, the overall subscale results indicated that
there was still a bimodal population. It was impressive that nearly all respondents thought that
humans did not operate outside of the laws of nature. Though the concept resonated with SBAE
educators, the strong support was somewhat misleading since there were varying degrees of
disagreement within the subscale. Half of respondents did think that humankind will never
possess enough knowledge to exert control over nature. However, a fifth of educators disagreed
and over two fifths thought that human ingenuity will aid in preventing the earth from being
unlivable. The support for the former EA about eventually learning how to control nature was
outright contradictory to the near unanimous agreement that humans were bound by the laws of
nature. As with the other subscales, less than half as many respondents believed in the opposite
of each. Overall, many respondents thought that while human ingenuity could assist man in
preserving the earth, human knowledge would never be enough to control it.
Two scale items elicited neutral responses from a third of the sample, which could have
resulted from the items being written in a language that is not entirely neutral. There were also
EA from other subscales that educators held which contradicted their en mass support for the EA
about being bound to nature’s laws. Over a third of respondents thought that they could modify
the natural world for their own gain and the same number thought that humans are meant to rule
over the rest of nature. Respondents clearly held both eco-centric worldviews and
anthropocentric worldviews about whether or not humans were exempt from nature’s constraints.

75

Possibility of eco-crisis. Respondents held clearly distinct and opposing attitudes
regarding the probability that an ecological catastrophe would affect humankind. Just less than
half of respondents thought that certain human interactions with the world could be labeled
abusive, that our current means of living will lead to an eco-crisis, and that the idea eco-crisis
was reasonable and valid. In contrast, a third of respondents thought that the eco-crisis concept
was an exaggeration of reality. Also, about a quarter of respondents thought that the human
impact on the world was not abusive and that humankind faces no threat of an eco-catastrophe.
The clear division in EA between respondents indicated that educators form a bimodal
population in terms of their attitudes regarding the existence of and likelihood of an ecological
catastrophe. A third of respondents felt neutrally about the impending ecological disaster scale
item; the language in the scale item may be biased and should be examined.
RQ 2b: Educators’ agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP. Michigan
SBAE educators’ overall moderate beliefs about SA meant that they held a moderately
alternative agricultural worldview (M=3.79). In other words, in general, SBAE educators’
conception of agriculture considered a relationship between nature and humankind. Interestingly,
respondents as a whole consistently believed in an alternative agricultural paradigm on the
majority of the scale items. However, division did exist among the remaining scale items, and the
reasons why were unclear. There was almost universal belief in the alternative agricultural
paradigm on five of the 14 scale items. In addition, between 70-85% respondents believed in the
alternative agricultural paradigm on 3 more scale items, each of which also garnered less than
3% disagreement. In particular, SBAE educators very strongly believed in a SA paradigm where:
1) developing healthy soils was vital and crop rotation was key that to that process; 2) it was
important to conserve natural resources and recycle renewable ones for the next generations; 3)

76

valuing and using local, farmer generated practices led to successful farming; 4) it was important
to allow for producers to disseminate information about locally designed technology amongst
themselves; 5) production systems should integrate a diversity of livestock and crops; and 6) it
was important to have local processing centers for agricultural goods.
There were four scale items where respondents displayed mixed agricultural beliefs about
SA, they concerned: 1) the importance of local production knowledge; 2) whether SA fosters
local production marketing; 3) the role of community size in the development of agriculture; and
4) whether SA reduces the need for external inputs. While a majority of SBAE educators
believed that in SA knowledge of production at the local level was important to production;
almost one-fifth did not believe that producer centric knowledge was valuable. Perhaps their
agricultural paradigm placed a greater value on the institutional knowledge that has been
disseminated to producers. A slight majority of SBAE educators also believed agriculture
encouraged local marketing of agricultural goods. Almost two-fifths were unsure; that was quite
a large minority of educators that are skeptical that SA could be a viable approach to promote
local marketing for producers. The role of community size and external inputs in SA were even
more contentious among respondents. Not quite half of SBAE educators believed the following
about SA: 1) community size affected the development of agriculture (while 30% disagreed);
and 2) that implementing SA decreased the need for external inputs (while 20% disagreed).
The majority of respondents believed in both conventional agricultural scale items which
meant for those two beliefs they favored the conventional agricultural paradigm. The majority of
SBAE educators’ believed that in SA, new technology determined how successful agriculture
would become (71%) and that SA promoted specialized crop and livestock systems (70%).
Interestingly, out of all the scale items, those were the only two practices in which the majority

77

of SBAE educators believed in the conventional agricultural paradigm. It could have been a
coincidence that the majority of educators believed in all the other scale items, all of which
favored the alternative agricultural paradigm. However, the results did contradict another belief,
over three quarters of respondents believed that integrating diverse crops with livestock
promoted SA. It is unclear why the SBAE educators believed in the two conventional practices
included in the survey or why they simultaneously believed in two contradictory beliefs
regarding specialization versus the diversification of livestock and crops. The SBAE educators
appeared to hold somewhat complex beliefs about agriculture.
RQ 2c: Educators’ knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s “Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test. Michigan SBAE educators
overall had a strong grasp of the fundamental concepts of SA. However, a subset did have
difficulty identifying that SA: 1) was an integrated food system that addressed issues throughout
a larger system; 2) that its scope was not just environmental factors but that it considering and
balancing social and economic factors too; and 3) that SA was an approach rather than a set of
practices and where the approach could be implemented. Somehow the information that has been
disseminated to SBAE educators about SA over time has either been somewhat inaccurate or
incomplete. However, SBAE educators continually expand their education throughout their
career, whether that’s formally through CE, or informally through their relationships with
institutions like MSU. Especially with the changes in curriculum discussed in Chapter 1, it
seemed strange that a sizeable chunk had missed the mark when SA has been a common topic of
discussion in their profession. A correlation was not run between the cognitive exam scores and
demographics to clarify whether there may be certain demographic factors that were more likely
to be associated with lower scores on the cognitive exam. The percentage of those who have

78

been teaching longer than 15 years made up about 25% of the sample, which seemed similar in
frequencies to some of the incorrect answers on the cognitive exam. While the truth was
probably more complicated than this, perhaps the older educators that have been teaching more
than 15 years were more likely to be less aware of the larger system of SA.
Almost universally respondents understood that SA included systems that protected
natural resources; that was consistent with their near universal belief that SA conserves natural
resources for future generations from the ACAP. However, nearly a third did not understand that
SA existed within an integrated system, one which must also be economically viable. That was
the first time any of the scales in the overall survey specifically asked about economic viability
and no other question on the cognitive exam was missed more often than the two about
profitability. Again, this suggested there had been inaccurate or incomplete information being
disseminated about SA to SBAE educators since approximately a third of them did not recognize
the importance of profitability within SA.
Also missing from their understanding of SA was that these were systems that must be
socially sustainable as well; nearly a fifth of educators struggled with the social factors. About a
fifth of educators did not understand that local producer knowledge and experience were vital to
a successful SA system. That misunderstanding overlapped with SBAE educators’ agricultural
belief from the ACAP about local producer knowledge and SA; almost a fifth didn’t believe
local knowledge of farming in a community was an indication of sustainability in agriculture.
Respondents also struggled with the idea that SA was an approach that existed within a
greater, interrelated system. A sizeable subset of respondents struggled with the idea that SA
addressed not just the producer, but the larger, interrelated food system the producer was a part
of. Almost a quarter of educators didn’t understand that SA “encompasse[d] issues related to the

79

whole food system” and almost a fifth of educators did not know that “components like
marketing and production affect[ed] one another.” In other words, about 20% of educators
seemed to have a very limited and incomplete scope of what SA addressed. Almost a fifth didn’t
know that SA was not a single process but rather an approach that was adaptable to many types
of production systems. That was the first time in the scales that a question asked about whether
SA was a process versus an approach and where SA would be applicable; that 20% of SBAE
educators were incorrect that SA was an approach was surprising.
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA. Overall, Michigan SBAE educators most
frequently conceptualized SA as a practice-based process that involved making environmentally
acceptable decisions to maintain the supply of food and fiber. Only 10% of educators specifically
stated that it involved a balanced system of relationships between social, economic, and
ecological factors. Two common themes emerged in how respondents defined SA: 1) Emphasis
on the Ecological Dimension; and 2) Emphasis on Responsible Resource Management.
There seemed to be inconsistencies between the quantitative and the qualitative data.
When the results from the cognitive exam and the ACAP were examined on an individual scale
item basis, there was strong support for the two themes that emerged from the qualitative data,
especially from the former. However, when the means of the two scales were compared to the
qualitative findings, the parallel in the data disappeared. Only 10% of educators specifically
stated in their definitions that SA involved a balanced system of relationships between social,
economic, and ecological factors. However, in the cognitive exam, the mean was 7.3 (out of 9),
which meant that educators had about an 80% accuracy rate about the fundamentals of SA. The
same disconnect occurred with the ACAP, the mean was 53.1 (out of 70). The majority of the
scale items received a strong majority of support for the alternative agricultural paradigm and

80

indicating an understanding of SA. It’s not clear why the when educators were prompted to write
about SA in their own words, they were not as comprehensive in their answers as they had been
with the ACAP and the cognitive exam.
Emphasis on the ecological dimension. Many educators saw SA as the running of an
“environmentally responsible enterprise” that could maintain agricultural production levels. One
respondent’s definition of SA was common: “The process of producing agricultural products
such as crops and livestock in ways that have the least impact on the environment and ensure that
they will be able to be produced in the future.” In general, SBAE educators envisioned SA a
process that involved consideration of the environment when making decisions about crop and/or
livestock production. However, many educators were vague in how SA could be environmentally
responsible or the types of outcomes that were important to be environmentally conscious. One
educator did specify an example of how the environment was considered during production
suggesting “trying to reduce pollution as well as our carbon footprint.”
Most notably absent from their definitions were economic or social factors. A tenth of
educators specifically included the social, ecological, and economic components of SA; they
tended to provide specific examples of social factors to consider. Within that subset of
respondents was the only discussion of social sustainability at all. The social factors that were
discussed by that small subset were: worker health, fair wages, consumer health, and supporting
rural communities. Maintaining, and sometimes enhancing the food and fiber supply, was
discussed frequently in educator definitions. However, the idea of SA being economically
profitable was only discussed by a handful of educators outside of the 10% that conceived of SA
as a complete, interrelated system. Unfortunately, the discussion of the economic factors in SA

81

was fairly vague. One common example of the inclusion of the economic consideration was
“continued profitability without jeopardizing the environment.”
The emphasis of SA being “environmentally friendly” in the educators’ definitions and
the limited discussion of the social and economic factors was reflected in the quantitative data as
well. In the cognitive exam, a third of educators did not understand that SA systems must be
economically viable and about a fifth did not recognize the value that SA places on social
considerations. It appeared that only a small subset have a clear and complete understanding of
SA as an interrelated system of economic, social, and environmental factors. Unfortunately, no
analysis was run to determine whether patterns existed between that subset and the demographics
collected. Amongst the remaining SBAE educators, they tended to equate SA with some vague
notions of environmental protection and lacked a clear understanding of the fundamental roles of
the social and economic factors. When economic factors were discussed, it was in vague terms
although social factors were specific, addressing the production workers, the consumer, and the
surrounding communities. The lack of specifics could have resulted from the prompt not asking
the respondents to provide specifics.
Emphasis on responsible resource management. Michigan SBAE educators also
consistently conceived of SA as a process of careful decision-making in managing resources.
However, they were not very specific regarding what resources were important manage and were
varied in the extent resources should be managed. Respondents felt that it was important to
preserve and maintain agriculture for generations to come and their definitions often specifically
listed managing resources as means to do so. Protecting and recycling renewable resources and
conserving non-renewable natural resources were included; however, soil and water were the
only two resources mentioned as important to properly manage. Soil was mentioned about 10%

82

of the time and water approximately 5% of the time. Educators were also vague and inconsistent
regarding what management should look like. Some thought of management of resources as not
“significantly depleting,” them while others thought that it meant being “efficient” with them.
Even the idea of not “significantly depleting” a resource highlighted the struggle some
experienced defining SA since depletion of a resource to any degree was not sustainable. The
lack of specifics regarding resources and the extent they should be managed could have been the
result of the question not asking them to be specific in their responses. Another possibility could
be that some respondents didn’t know how to conserve or protect resources in a sustainable way.
The qualitative data regarding their beliefs that SA involved managing natural resources
(both renewable and non-renewable) in a responsible manner was supported by the quantitative
data from the ACAP and the cognitive exam. In the cognitive exam, almost all the educators
correctly answered that SA included the stewardship of natural resources. On the ACAP, there
was near universal belief that 1) SA conserves natural resources for future generations; and 2)
SA promotes the recycling of renewable natural resources. Interestingly, while only 10%
specifically discussed soil conservation in their definition of SA, in the ACAP almost every
respondent believed that SA valued the development of healthy soil. Again, the lack of specifics
could have been a result of the prompt not requesting specifics in their responses.
The overlap in qualitative and quantitative in terms of resource management meant that
generally SBAE educators understand SA to revolve around the proper management of
renewable and non-renewable resources to maintain production of agriculture. The varied degree
and somewhat vague way resources should be protected and managed indicated that either some
didn’t know how SA does this or they didn’t get specific because they question didn’t prompt
them too. It was not clear why SBAE educators’ conceptions of SA so consistently included

83

proper resource management; no relationships were analyzed to examine patterns with
demographics for example.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores. Michigan SBAE educators did not have any significant relationships between their
beliefs about agriculture, their environmental attitudes, or their conceptual knowledge of SA.
Normally that would indicate that there were not any significant relationships between these
variables among the greater Michigan SBAE educator population as well, however, that was
difficult to determine. Independent t-tests revealed that the NEP and ACAP scores of the sample
did represent the population; however, a Pearson Chi-square indicated that the remainder of the
results, such as their knowledge of SA, could not be generalized to the population since
significantly more females and CTC instructors participated.
There was a very slight, weak correlation (.21) between respondents’ EA and their
agricultural beliefs. In other words, those who viewed their relationship with the environment as
more ecological were more likely to view agriculture through an ecological lens as well. It was
somewhat surprising that the relationship wasn’t stronger between the ecological paradigm and
the agricultural paradigm, but the lack of a stronger relationship was about the difference
between scales and not about the respondents themselves. An even smaller, but strange inverse
relationship (-.11) developed between environmental attitudes and conceptual knowledge of SA.
Interestingly, the more respondents’ had an ecological relationship with the natural world, the
more likely they were to misunderstand what the fundamentals of SA were. However, it was
possible that one could hold general environmental attitudes without actually being completely
knowledgeable of SA. There was no relationship (.04) between respondents’ agricultural
worldview and their knowledge of SA.

84

RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
Michigan SBAE educators couldn’t be differentiated by their environmental attitudes based on
their demographics since none of the results were significant. No relationships emerged between
respondents’ environmental attitudes and their gender, age, or the length of time they’ve taught
SBAE. Normally, that would again indicate that these relationships also did not actually exist
amongst the Michigan SBAE educator population as well. However, because the independent ttest determined that the NEP scores of the sample did represent the population but the Pearson
Chi-square revealed that the remainder of the results could not be generalized to the population
because of gender and teacher setting, it was difficult to determine.
Very weak, negative relationships existed between their environmental attitudes and
primary teaching setting and highest level of education. In other words, there was a slight
association (Point Biserial -.12) between viewing the world more ecologically and teaching at a
CTC. Perhaps the types of educators that have been drawn to teaching at a CTC already had a
slightly more ecological worldview and/or the culture within CTCs themselves was more
ecologically oriented. In addition, a slight probability existed that those with a more ecological
worldview had obtained less higher education (Kendall Tau b -.17). Since there was no
relationship between NEP and age, perhaps the reason has something to do with the educational
experience at the Bachelor’s level in comparison to that at a Master’s and Doctorate level.
Perhaps the agricultural instruction and/or culture of the programs at the Bachelor’s level
included more discussion of SA. A weak, positive relationship emerged between NEP and
teaching region (Cramer’s V .24), which indicated that there was a slight association between
environmental attitudes and teaching region. Additional tests would need to be run to determine
what regions were associated with higher NEP scores.

85

Conclusions for RQ 3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding
their instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured
by the Borich Needs Assessment Model. Respondents indicated that each of the 12
competencies selected from the literature were important to their classroom instruction. Based on
a scale from 1 (very unimportant) to 4 (very important), importance means ranged between 3.0
and 3.6; in other words, educators deemed each of the SAP and the two conventional agricultural
practices as important topics to discuss with their students. In addition, the majority of the
competencies (7 out of 12) were actually almost universally rated important (either a 3 or 4) by
all survey respondents. Those included: 1) Water Quality (100%); 2) Composting (96%); 3) Crop
Rotation (96%); 4) Integrated Pest Management (96%); 5) Nitrogen Cycle (97%); 6) Pest
Resistant Crops (93%); and 7) Soil Conservation (96%). Interestingly, the Pest Resistant Crops
topic was one of two conventional practices and was favored by almost everyone. Five
competencies that were the least important (between M=3.0 and M=3.1) to instruction were: 1)
Genetically Modified Crops; 2) Mixed Farming; 3) Cover Cropping; 4) Management Intensive
Grazing; and 5) Reduced Tillage. Despite ranking as least important among the list of 12
practices, these SAP were still considered important by at least 85% of instructors.
Despite that some SBAE educators had incomplete pictures of SA, as indicated by the
results of the cognitive exam and their own definitions of SA, educators deemed each of the
practices important to include in their classroom instruction. Although no analysis was run, it
appeared that despite the educators mixed EAs, the majority of the practices were still
overwhelmingly important to the agricultural education they were providing their students. The
fact that they also considered the two conventional agricultural practices- Genetically Modified

86

Crops and Pest Resistant Crops - important meant that probably still think that a range of
practices important. Again it was unclear why educators overwhelmingly found these topics
important to classroom instruction; no analysis was run to determine whether relationships might
exist with other variables like demographic traits.
SBAE educators were right on the cusp between slightly knowledgeable and
knowledgeable of the competencies (M=2.91). The analysis was based on a scale from 1
(unknowledgeable) to 4 (very knowledgeable), where their competency knowledge means
ranged between 2.5 and 3.2. Respondents rated themselves as the most knowledgeable about
Water Quality (M=3.2). Over 65% of respondents considered themselves knowledgeable or very
knowledgeable on five-sixths of the competencies: 1) Water Quality (90%); 2) Crop Rotation
(88%); 3) Composting (87%); 4) Soil Conservation (87%); 5) Nitrogen Cycle (86%); 6)
Genetically Engineered Crops (81%); 7) Integrated Pest Management (81%); 8) Mixed Farming
Cycle (70%); 9) Pest Resistant Crops (70%); and 10) Reduced Tillage (66%). What the
frequencies demonstrated was that while some SBAE educators were unclear about what SA
meant, the vast majority claimed a huge existing knowledge base for almost all the SAP. Again,
it is unclear what to attribute the strong knowledge base to, further research would need to be
conducted to run an analysis.
Very few educators claimed they were completely unknowledgeable about a competency.
Educators felt the least knowledgeable of Management Intensive Grazing (M=2.5) which
received the highest frequency of those who stated they were unknowledgeable about it (11%).
However, many educators felt no more than “slightly knowledgeable” on many competencies: 1)
Management Intensive Grazing (58%); 2) Cover Cropping (49%); 3) Reduced Tillage (34%); 4)
Pest Resistant Crops (30%); 5) Mixed Farming (29%); 7) Genetically Engineered Crops (19%);

87

and 7) Integrated Pest Management (19%). Clearly Management Intensive Grazing and Cover
Cropping were the two practices where there was the largest knowledge deficit. Interestingly,
respondents rated Genetically Engineered Crops and Pest Resistant Crops important to their
instruction (M=3.1; M=3.2) yet felt equally slightly unknowledgeable about both (M=2.9).
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service need regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model. A list of ranked priorities was created
through the use of the model which considered the perceived significance specific SAP
instruction played in Michigan SBAE educators’ classroom and their perceived knowledge of
those SAPs. The following 5 competencies were indicated by SBAE educators as their highest
priorities for in-service: 1) Integrated Pest Management (1.65 MWDS); 2) Management
Intensive Grazing (1.49 MWDS); 3) Water Quality (1.46 MWDS); 4) Soil Conservation (1.36
MWDS); and 5) Cover Cropping (1.22 MWDS).
Strategies to manage pests were among the most prevalent areas of need that emerged.
Integrated Pest Management was the first priority and while the Pest Resistant Crops
competency was not ranked among the top 5, it was almost universally important to instruction
among the respondents. Pest Resistant Crops can be used in combination with other strategies
under an Integrated Pest Management approach. In addition, Cover Cropping was the fifth
ranked priority, and it too has been used as an Integrated Pest Management strategy.
Management Intensive Grazing was the second priority. That Water Quality was the third highest
priority was not surprising since the educators lived in a state surrounded by the Great Lakes.
Soil development and conservation were areas of need that spanned multiple competencies, for
instance the Soil Conservation competency was almost unanimously agreed as important to
classroom instruction. SBAE educators ranked Soil Conservation as the fourth priority and

88

Cover Cropping fifth; one of the main goals in using Cover Cropping has been to protect soil
from erosion and pests. With the exception of Water Quality, it’s not clear why educators
prioritized these needs for in-service over the other competencies.
While the model takes into consideration importance to instruction and perceived
knowledge of the competencies, two points of concern arose with the ranked priorities.
Management Intensive Grazing (Importance M=3.0; Knowledge M=2.5) and Cover Cropping
(Importance M=3.0; Knowledge M=2.6), were the two competencies in which educators overall
had indicated the largest deficit in knowledge and in which educators felt were the least
important to classroom instruction. The standard deviation for knowledge of Management
Intensive Grazing (SD=.86) and Cover Cropping (SD=.74) were much higher than any other of
the top 5 priorities. The standard deviation for importance of Management Intensive Grazing to
instruction was also much higher too than other top 4 (SD=.61). In terms of frequencies, the
range of responses included over a tenth of respondents who didn’t think that the competencies
were important to classroom instruction (Management Intensive Grazing 15%; Cover Cropping
11%). Perhaps the reason that a portion of the tenth of educators who were unknowledgeable
about Management Intensive Grazing and nearly half had only a little knowledge about it (47%)
and Cover Cropping (47%) was because they didn’t find them important. The implications were
that in-service may need to be tailored differently for these two competencies, perhaps including
how valuable each competency could be in production systems. Those implications will be
discussed under recommendations.
Discussion for RQ 1: What is the demographic composition of SBAE educators?
This research question was asked to understand who the SBAE educators were and later
to determine if their demographic traits correlated with their EA. Interestingly, gender has been

89

skewed in several studies. Female student teachers made up at least 80% of survey respondents
in the international study on preservice; however, Watson and Halse (2005) reported that the
results were generalizable. The researchers stated that the results were not uncommon since
internationally students in teacher education tended to be female. A highly skewed sample was
also present in Muma et al. (2010), Okeafor (2002), and Williams and Wise (1997); however, it
was males who made up over 80% of respondents in all three. It appeared that they were all
generalizable to their populations as well. Williams and Wise (1997) drew their sample from
Iowa and the other two samples were drawn from the 12 states that made up the Northwest
Region, which included Michigan. It was not surprising there was such a strong male
representation in those studies since agricultural education in the US has been a male dominated
field. It was not clear why the present study’s sample was skewed with females, however, it
allowed for an understanding of how the sample of mostly female educators, from CTC’s, with a
Master’s degree compared to the male dominated populations of other studies.
Educators under the age of 40 made up the largest groups of educators in the present
study (67%), Agbaje et al. (49%; 2001), and Williams and Wise (64%; 1997). Not surprisingly,
the mean ages of the student teachers (Watson & Halse, 2005) were younger than the educators
in the literature: 1) Australia 22.2 years; 2) Indonesia 20.9 years; and 3) Maldives 20.6 years. No
other studies asked whether educators taught in a high school or CTC or what region they taught
in; the comparison about CTC would have been helpful to determine why more CTC educators
participated in the current study.
Compared to the respondents in Agbaje et al. (2001) and Muma et al. (2010), those that
made up the current sample tended to have completed more education and had taught agricultural
education a fewer number of years. Seventy percent completed a Masters or Doctorate compared

90

to 50% in Muma et al. (2010), 54% in Williams and Wise (1997), and 40% in Okeafor (2002). In
addition, the respondents of the current study overall had been teaching fewer years than in
Muma et al. (2010) and Agbaje et al. (2001). Perhaps a generation ago, teachers didn’t need a
Master’s Degree to teach, hence respondents had been teaching a longer time and had less
education. In comparison, in the current study, the largely younger sample needed the Master’s
to teach, hence the shorter teaching periods and higher levels of education.
Discussion for RQ 2: What are SBAE educators attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and
knowledge of SA?
RQ 2a: Educators’ ecological paradigm as measured by the NEP. The justification
for this research question was to determine what were educators’ attitudes towards the
environment, which was part of a larger question of whether EA affected instruction of SA and
SAP. In the literature there has been division over whether or not one’s attitudes and beliefs
affect and could even predict their behavior, particularly in terms of SA (Beus & Dunlap, 1994b;
Comer et al., 1999; Gamon et al., 1994; Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009; Salamon et al., 1997). No
research had been conducted on SBAE educators’ EA and how they relate to the instruction of
SA and SAP in classroom teaching. The present study found that Michigan SBAE educators
have mixed EA and hold a slightly eco-centric worldview (M=3.31); however, their EA did not
appear to impact the self-reported importance of SAP to their instruction.
The respondents’ worldview could be generalized to the Michigan SBAE educator
population. Their slightly eco-centric NEP scores were anthropocentric to varying degrees
compared to all three populations of international pre-service student teachers targeted by
Watson and Halse (2005): 1) Australians (M=3.99); 2) Indonesians (M=3.71); and 3) Maldivians
(M=3.44). Each country’s group of student teachers scored significantly differently from those of

91

the other countries (Watson & Halse, 2005). The study didn’t include discussion of subscales or
individual scale items, it was focused on categorizing the preservice students into categories of
biospheric, egoistic, and altruistic values according to the Model of Environmental Concern. As
a result, it was difficult to compare the findings of the current study to determine why the
Michigan educators were more anthropocentric than all three preservice students. The
researchers were attempting to determine the appropriateness of the NEP in determining EA
among non-western cultures (Watson & Halse, 2005). Both the Indonesians and the Maldivian
preservice students were exhibiting EA that were from an anthropomorphic and an eco-centric
paradigm. Although there have been numerous studies that have used the NEP on international
populations (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009), Watson and Halse (2005) argued that the NEP may be
cultural specific since it was not gathering a wide enough range of EA for those two populations.
Michigan SBAE educators also held slightly more anthropocentric worldview of the
environment in comparison to the other populations in the literature. The educators held a more
anthropocentric worldview than a random sample of residents in Boulder, Colorado (M=3.81;
Hunter & Rinner, 2004). Hunter and Rinner (2004) residents had a range of scores, like the
heterogeneity of the present study, even though overall, the mean composite score was possibly
higher than other urban areas nationwide. The educators held a more anthropocentric worldview
than both typical Edison customers in Detroit, Michigan and those who were voluntarily enrolled
in their green-electricity program (Clark et al., 2003). Edison customers reported a mean NEP
(M=3.78) compared to typical Edison customers (M=3.39). Again, despite that the Michigan
SBAE educators held more anthropocentric EA than some populations of residents across the
nation, they still had indicated that the SAP in the needs assessment were important to include in
their instruction.

92

Despite holding more anthropomorphic EA on the NEP scale than the preservice student
teachers, the Michigan SBAE educators still thought the SAP from the needs assessment were
important to instruction. That should mean that hopefully their students have been receiving SAP
instruction, at least in terms of the SAP discussed in the needs assessment. A slightly eco-centric
worldview did not appear to translate into only finding SAP instruction slightly important. Muma
et al. (2010) had similar findings in terms of the ACAP and instruction of SAP. Further research
should be conducted to determine how the ecological paradigms of other SBAE educator
populations compare to the Michigan educators. In addition, they should determine if there is a
relationship between ecological paradigm and instruction of SA or SAP.
On four of the five subscales, SBAE educators formed a bimodal population, meaning
they held both anthropocentric and eco-centric attitudes within the same subscale (and often
within a single scale item). However, it didn’t appear to matters in terms of whether educators
consider SAP important for instruction. The four subscales with bimodal populations were: 1)
whether a finite boundary existed to the growth of the human population, available space, and
natural resources; 2) the purpose and value of nature; 3) whether humans operated outside of and
were therefore exempt from the constraints of nature; and 4) the probability of the earth
undergoing an ecological catastrophe. Since it was not clear why the bimodal populations
emerged and they were not correlated with demographic factors, the ACAP, or the cognitive
exam, further research would need to determine possible causes. In addition, in-service support
for SAP instruction should take into consideration that are different EA which may require
different training needs. The significant factor was that despite the bimodal populations,
educators still found the SAP in the needs assessment important to include in their classroom

93

instruction. The subscale frequencies or means cannot be compared to those of the international
pres-service student teachers since Watson and Halse (2005) conducted a qualitative study.
It’s not clear about the kinds of values that are being transferred to the students either, or
how much that matters. While as a group educators mostly had mixed EA, overall they thought
that nature was fragile. Almost all respondents shared the EA that humans must operate within
the laws of nature, however, that EA was part of a subscale that had a bimodal population.
Hunter and Rinner (2004) experienced similarly high results among their Boulder, Colorado
residents and threw out that scale item, which raised the scale’s internal reliability. That would
help make sense because the other EA in the sub-scale and EA’s from other sub-scales conflicted
with the universal agreement to the EA that humans must operate within the laws of nature.
There were a few reasons that many of the scale items garnered up to a third of neutral
responses; but most importantly was despite the neutral responses, educators still thought that all
the SAP were important to instruction. Dunlap’s et al. (2000) research with Washington state
residents had much smaller levels of neutrality than the present study. The language could have
been biased and/or perhaps educators were hesitant to commit to one worldview or another on a
survey which was sourced from a respected colleague. If it was a matter of the researcher’s
presence, future research should address the issue to determine if a more nuanced series of
responses emerges. Most importantly, even though SBAE educators were occasionally
responding neutrally, they still indicated in the needs assessment that all of the SAP were
important to instruction. That suggested that educator instruction of SAP did not require that
educators hold a strong eco-centric worldview.
What this all meant for students was that, in terms of EA, teachers are hopefully
providing SAP instruction despite the only slightly eco-cetric NEP scores, the levels of

94

neutrality, or the bimodal populations. That bodes well for students since, at least with the
Michigan educators, there was quite a lot of contention in their EA. There or may or may not be
a relationships with instruction, additional research would need to be conducted to determine the
ecological paradigm of other educator populations and run correlations with their EA and how
important SAP are to their instruction.
RQ 2b: Educators’ agricultural paradigm as measured by the ACAP. Just as with the
previous research question, the justification for this one was to determine what were the
educators’ agricultural paradigm; which was part of a larger question of whether agricultural
beliefs affected instruction of SA and SAP. In the literature there has been division over whether
or not one’s attitudes and beliefs affect and could even predict their behavior, particularly in
terms of SA (Beus & Dunlap, 1994b; Comer et al., 1999; Gamon et al., 1994; Hawcroft &
Milfont, 2009; Muma et al., 2010; Salamon et al., 1997). Udoto and Flowers (2001) argued that
it was necessary for agricultural educators instructing SA to value to effectively transform
student behavior and convey new knowledge. The present study was one of a few that research
the agricultural beliefs of agricultural professionals.
The present study’s respondents moderate alternative agricultural paradigm (M=3.79)
was generalizable to the Michigan SBAE educators. The SBAE educators of the current study
held a slightly more alternative agricultural worldview compared to the high school agriculture
educators surveyed throughout the NCR (North Central Region), which also included Michigan
educators (M=3.66; Muma et al., 2010). Michigan SBAE educators also held a more alternative
worldview of agriculture than: 1) Washington State faculty (M=3.22); 2) groups of identified
Washington conventional agriculturalists (M=3.05); and 3) Washington State farmers (M=3.38;
(Beus & Dunlap, 1992). Not surprisingly, the self-identified Washington alternative

95

agriculturalists held a more ecological worldview of agriculture than (M=4.25) the Michigan
SBAE educators (Beus & Dunlap, 1992).
Overall, the findings in the present study were largely consistent with those from Muma
et al. (2010). Of those beliefs that were included in both scales, the educators from Muma et al.
(2010) believed in the following the most: 1) development of healthy soil (M=4.24); 2) that SA
conserves natural resources (4.14); 3) the importance of crop rotation in SA (M=4.14); 4) SA
promotes recycling of renewable resources (M=3.93); and 5) exchange of knowledge about
locally designed technologies among producers promotes SAP (M=3.88). Of the beliefs that
were included on both scales, those that were believed in the least were: 1) the importance of
local production knowledge; 2) whether SA fosters local production marketing; 3) the role of
community size in the development of agriculture; and 4) whether SA reduces the need for
external inputs (Muma et al., 2010).
Interestingly, Muma et al. (2010) found the following: 1) neither educators’ moderately
alternative agricultural paradigm nor their moderate perceptions of SAP affected the extent they
taught SAP; 2) women were significantly more likely to have higher beliefs about SA and to
teach SAP to a greater extent; and 3) that there was a possible relationship between beliefs and
teaching that required more research to determine what that relationship looked like.
There was very clear consistency in how the educators of the present study and those of
Muma et al. (2010) rated the belief scale items; even though the means of the present study were
generally higher, each competency tended to be ranked about the same for both populations.
Since Michigan SBAE educators were included in the Muma et al. (2010) sample as well, what
that meant was that in general SBAE educators, and those from Michigan in particular, had a
consistent agricultural paradigm. They believed in an agricultural paradigm where: 1) developing

96

healthy soils was vital and crop rotation was key that to that process; 2) it was important to
conserve natural resources and recycle renewable ones for the next generations; and 3) it was
important to allow for producers to disseminate information about locally designed technology
amongst themselves.
In addition, they were consistent in their division about their beliefs regarding: 1) the
importance of local production knowledge; 2) whether SA fosters local production marketing; 3)
the role of community size in the development of agriculture; and 4) whether SA reduces the
need for external inputs (Muma et al., 2010). The latter two were particularly contentious for the
educators. Not only were the educators consistent in their agricultural belief, but they were also
consistent across gender as well since Muma et al. (2010) consisted of mostly males. Clearly
SBAE agricultural educators were consistent in not in the beliefs that they share but also
consistently contentious in those that they don’t.
Since Muma et al. (2010) found that women held a more alternative agricultural
paradigm than men, that could be the reason why the mean composite score and the means of the
individual beliefs of the present study were consistently higher than theirs, even though the belief
statements were similarly rated between studies. That may also be why all of the SAP were
considered important to instruction to the educators of the present study. The present study
echoes the same recommendation that additional research was warranted to determine the
relationship between agricultural beliefs (Muma et al., 2010).
A strong majority from the present study believed in the 2 conventional beliefs about
specialized crops and livestock (M=3.54; SD=.92) and innovations in agricultural technology
(M=3.62; SD=.99). Muma et al. (2010) also included these; however, they were not considered
conventional beliefs. The present study’s means were similar to those of Muma’s et al. (2010): 1)

97

Innovations in agricultural technology (M=3.62), and 2) SA promoted specialized crop and
livestock enterprises (M=3.54). The similarity in moderate belief in both from both studies
indicated that SBAE educators have a complex agricultural paradigm. Again, despite that their
agricultural paradigm included beliefs from both the alternative and the conventional worldview,
SBAE educators still indicated that all of the SAP were important to their instruction.
RQ 2c: Educators’ knowledge of SA as measured by the SARE’s “Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles and Concept Overview” cognitive test. With the pressures of
changing industry needs, new standards, societal changes, and changes at the university level, it
was imperative to understand whether educators were prepared to instruct students about SA and
SAP. The purpose of this research question was to determine what conceptual knowledge SBAE
educators had of SA. The SBAE educators’ overall solid grasp on the fundamental concepts of
SA in the present study cannot be compared to similar populations since the existing literature
has only measured knowledge of SAP rather than SA fundamentals (Udoto & Flowers, 2001;
Williams, 2000; Williams & Wise, 1997). Even so, the present study provided for analysis to
determine whether there were relationships between educator attitudes, beliefs, and conceptual
knowledge of SA, which will be addressed later in the discussions.
In general, the educators had a fairly complete understanding of SA. However, some
demonstrated sufficient gaps in their conceptual understanding, particularly regarding the
economic viability of SA, which will impact their dissemination of their instruction. Educators
indicated that all the SAP from the needs assessment were important to their instruction, but no
correlation was run to determine if a relationship existed between that and their conceptual
knowledge. However, if some educators are struggling with the bigger picture, they will be
unable to provide the context in which these SAP practices exist for their students.

98

The students will be the ones who reap the consequences from the findings that between
20 - 30% of educators misunderstood that SA: 1) was an integrated food system that addressed
issues throughout a larger system; 2) that its scope considers and balances, environmental, social,
and economic factors; and 3) that SA was an approach with innumerable methods and sites
where it could be implemented. Without gaining an understanding that SA operates within a
greater system, agricultural students will have a narrow scope of SA and will experience
difficulty implementing SA within their professions. Without recognizing that the approach
involves the crucial balancing of social, economic, and environmental factors, students’
professional work will gravitate toward the environmental factors like their instructors. Their
actions won’t be sustainable because their decision-making won’t be as thoughtful as it needs to
be. Without the understanding that SA was an approach that has unlimited means and places to
use it, students will not know that they should or how to adapt their decision-making to multiple
sites and scales. Future research should analyze the data for relationships between conceptual
knowledge and the importance of SAP instruction.
RQ 2d: Educators’ definitions of SA. The purpose of the research question was to
determine how educators conceived of SA in their own words. Their definitions could be
compared to how the literature defined their understanding of SA as captured by the conceptual
cognitive exam. Again, with all the present changes, teachers need to be instructing their students
in SA and SAP and we have very little information about how much they know.
The only other study to gather agricultural professionals’ conceptions of SA was an
outdated qualitative study that targeted Minnesota Extension Agents; however, there were some
parallels with the current study (Paulson, 1995). Paulson (1995) had numerous research
questions, so there wasn’t extensive detail in her article about SA definitions, but a common

99

definition was: “maintaining farm profits in the long and short run and using environmentally
sound or resource-conserving practices (Paulson, 1995, p. 123).” Extension agents commonly
referred to SA as involving “resource conserving practices” and half of them included reducing
chemical inputs (Paulson, 1995, p. 123). Paulson’s (1995) noticed only about 20% of the
extension agents specified that SA needed to be “socially acceptable.” Paulson (1995) seemed to
think that the agents had a sufficient understanding of the role of the economic component; she
commented that when prompted, the agents agreed with the larger economic and environmental
goals of SA.
Paulson’s (1995) definitions sounded very similar to definitions from the current study in
terms of the environmental component. A common definition of SA in the present study echoed
Paulson’s (1995): “The ability to maintain agricultural production without degradation of
resources while maintaining production levels,” (Respondent Four). In both studies, many SBAE
educators and extension agents saw SA as a balance between maintaining profits or production
levels as well and running an “environmentally responsible enterprise.” In the present study
though, many educators had vague targets or means to obtain ecological consideration; one
educator specified “by trying to reduce pollution as well as our carbon footprint.” Also, inputs
were hardly discussed.
Paulson’s (1995) extension agents did a better job of including the social component;
however, there were some discrepancies about the analyzing of the economic component.
Paulson’s (1995) extension agents included the social component of SA twice as often that those
of the present study did, where only 10% conceived of SA as a larger system of social,
economic, and environmental considerations. Paulson’s only example of the economic
considerations in the definitions (without prompting the agents) was the idea of “maintaining

100

profits or production levels.” The same language was used by many SBAE educators in the
present study as well; however, that language has been interpreted as the educator seeing SA as
something that you could “make do” using versus envisioning SA as a strong economically
viable approach. No matter what, the SBAE educators had difficulty defining SA as a complete
system with interrelated environmental, social, and economic prongs.
Interestingly, SBAE educators still thought all of the SAP were important to instruction,
even though their definitions heavily focused on one facet of SA - the economic component and
responsible resource management. Perhaps educators valued the SAP for their environmental
significance, rather than the importance of their social and economic ramifications as well. The
importance of stewardship over resources was apparent in their definitions, which could be how
they are viewing the SAP, as ways to manage resources. In addition, they were still
knowledgeable about many of the competencies from the needs assessment, but again instruction
may lack a greater context of SA. Despite that the educators could recognize SA as a broader
system, their ability to perhaps produce instruction that was so could be limited; students need
SA instruction that is comprehensive.
SBAE educators’ self-definitions compared to knowledge of SA. When the “emic”
accounts of the SBAE educators’ definitions were compared to the literature, the conceptual
cognitive exam, a strange pattern emerged. For the most part, educators recognized a complex
and inter-related SA in the cognitive exam, but when they were asked to generate their own
definitions, their definitions tended to focus on just one prong of SA, the environmental
component. However, the gaps in their definitions were also where a large subset of educators
misunderstood SA in the exam: 1) that SA was an integrated food system that addressed issues
throughout a larger system; 2) that its scope included the balancing of environmental, social, and

101

economic factors; and 3) that SA was an approach and where the approach could be
implemented. It was not clear why the unusual pattern emerged; however, it was somewhat
troubling since only about 10% of educators wrote out comprehensive definitions of SA. Perhaps
future use of the scale could request respondents to be more specific since their responses were
vague overall.
RQ 2e: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP, ACAP, and cognitive
test scores. This research question attempted to understand whether a relationship existed
between the educators EA, agricultural beliefs, and conceptual understanding of SA. Many have
suggested that attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions relate to behavior and those behaviors can be
predicted by constructs such as EA (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2009). Regarding perceptions of SA,
secondary agricultural educators have neutral (Agbaje et al., 2001) to somewhat positive
perceptions of SA (Muma et al., 2010; Williams & Wise, 1997). In addition, the instruction of
SAP appears to have had limited inclusion in classroom (Agbaje, Martin, & Williams, 2001;
Muma, Martin, Shelley, & Holmes, 2010; Udoto & Flowers, 2001).
Only two very weak relationships developed between the variables, the strongest of
which was between EA and agricultural beliefs (.21), but neither were significant. It was not
clear why stronger relationships did not emerge, however, it did not appear that the results could
be generalized to the Michigan SBAE educators anyway. Further research should be conducted
with the same population and others to determine if the same and/or stronger relationship emerge
between EA, agricultural paradigm, and conceptual knowledge of SA.
RQ 2f: Extent relationships exist between educators’ NEP score and demographics.
The significance of this research question was to recognize whether any patterns existed between
Michigan SBAE educators’ backgrounds and their EA. Relationships between EA and

102

demographics could help illuminate why educators hold the attitudes they do and whether those
attitudes impact what they are instructing about SA. At present, correlations between NEP score
and demographics among SBAE educators or others within the agricultural profession haven’t
been run in the literature. Watson and Halse’s (2005) examination of preservice agricultural
students gathered demographics as qualitative data and didn’t report in their article whether they
ran a qualitative analysis between NEP and demographics.
It was difficult to determine if the results could be generalized to the population, but,
either way Michigan SBAE educators couldn’t be differentiated by their environmental attitudes
based on their demographics. A weak, positive relationship emerged between NEP and teaching
region (.24), which indicated that ecological worldview was slightly different between teaching
regions among the respondents, but the results were not significant. Further analysis would need
to be done to determine what the NEP scores of each teaching region looked like to understand
why the weak relationship emerged. It was not clear why stronger relationships did not emerge.
Future research should continue to find correlations within the Michigan SBAE educator
population and similar populations.
Discussion for RQ 3: What are Michigan SBAE educators’ in-service needs regarding their
instruction of SAP and what are their priorities?
RQ 3a: Educators’ in-service needs regarding their instruction of SAP as measured by
the Borich Needs Assessment Model. This research question was the first step of using the
Borich Needs Assessment model to identify the gaps between Michigan SBAE educators’ selfreported knowledge of certain SAP and the importance of the practices to their instruction. That
allowed the researcher to rank their needs which could be addressed through avenues like inservice; that will be addressed under the next research question. The purpose of the first research

103

question was to determine how important each competency was and how important each were to
instruction since there has been very little research. The researcher dictated the parameters of the
needs assessment by choosing 12 agricultural practices that have been heavily discussed in the
literature, 10 of which were SAP. The two conventional agricultural practices were included to
allow the researcher to compare how educators rank these needs in comparison to the SAP
competencies. Including that comparison provided a more comprehensive picture of Michigan
SBAE educator need for curriculum developers and in-service programmers.
Importance of competencies to instruction. Other research has found that SBAE
educators teach SAP to a moderate extent in their classrooms; however the findings did not come
from needs assessments (Agbaje et al., 2001; Muma et al., 2010; Okeafor, 2002). Based on a
scale that ranged from 1 to 5 with 5 being to very high extent, Muma et al. (2010) determined
that SBAE educators taught SAP topics to a moderate extent (M=3.16). They ran a one sample
paired t-test and determined that educators were significantly more likely (at the .05 level) to
have positive perceptions of the SA practices than to teach them; there was one exception which
was a nitrogen application practice. In other words, educators’ had slightly positive perceptions
of SA, but that was not the reason that they taught SAP. The 5 topics that educators taught to the
highest extent were: 1) Soil Testing (M=4.10); 2) Wildlife Conservation (M=3.77); 3) Crop
Rotation (M=3.70); 4) Food Safety (M=3.64); and 5) Water Quality (M=3.57).The researchers
suggested that since on 18 out of 19 practices there was only one significance difference among
the means, it meant that educators conceived of the practices as similar and would probably
consider other SAP not included in their study similarly. Muma et al. (2010) had the widest
spread in SAP, the range in means was from 2.39 to 4.10. Their findings also supported those of

104

Agunda (1995) and Conner and Kolodinsky (1997) that the extent an educator reports they teach
an SAP does not automatically mean they teach to that extent.
Agbaje et al. (1995) also surveyed SBAE educators in the North Central Region about the
extent that they taught certain SAP; using a scale that ranged from 1 to 5 with 5 being to a Very
High Extent, the mean composite NEP score was 3.59. The majority of the practices (5 out of the
8) were taught to a moderate extent. SBAE educators taught these SAP to the highest extent: 1)
Soil Testing (M=4.32); 2) Soil Erosion Control (M=4.31); 3) Crop Rotation (M=3.58); and 4)
Insect Resistant Crops (M=3.41; Agbaje et al., 1995). Agbaje (2001) noticed that educators were
teaching topics that dealt with systems to a moderate degree and argued that the educators were
not providing instruction of SAP within the context of a larger system.
Using the same 5 point scale as Agbaje (2001), Okeafor’s (2002) educators had a mean
composite NEP score of 3.30. The top 5 SAP taught by educators were: 1) Soil Erosion Control
(M=4.06); 2) Soil Testing (M=3.89); 3) Soil Conservation (M=3.87); 4) Management of Soil
Fertility (M=3.75); and 5) Water Management (M=3.55). All of the respondents indicated that
they taught these SAP at least to some extent, however, Okeafor suggested that certain topics
were taught more often than reduce the use of chemicals or fertilizers which had high standard
deviations (SD=1.10 and SD=1.14 respectively). Okeafor (2002) also had a wide spread of mean
scores ranging from 2.54 to 4.06; the lowest mean was for monocropping.
When converted to a 5 point scale, the mean composite score from the current study was
M=4.04 (actual M=3.23) and considerably higher than each of the three previous studies; it was
drawn from a scale from 1 to 4 with 4 being Very Important to instruction (Agbaje et al., 1995;
Muma et al., 2010; Okeafor, 2002). The range in means was the smallest compared to the other
studies ranging from 3.0-3.6. Of the SAP included in the present study and by the other 3

105

researchers, those SAP that were in at ranked the highest at least twice were: Water Quality,
Crop Rotation, Soil Testing, and Soil Erosion Control. The following practices appeared at least
twice as the least taught or least important to instruction: Mixed Farming, Reduced Used of
Fertilizers, Use of Green Manure, and Reduced Use of Chemicals.
Muma’s et al. (2010) findings about the relationship between educator importance of a
SAP does not necessarily mean instruction happens in the classroom was an important point to
consider (Agunda, 1995; Conner & Kolodinsky, 1997). The present study was not designed to
gather data about what instructors were actually teaching in their classroom, additional research
would need to find ways to do so. The present study also did not run any actual relationships
between EA, agricultural paradigm, or perceptions of SA with the educators rated importance of
the SAP to instruction.
That the two conventional practices were considered important too indicated that SBAE
educators valued a range of agricultural practices. Muma et al. (2010) and Agbaje et al. (2001)
both included insect resistant crops and herbicide resistant crops in their survey as well; although
they considered them SAP. SBAE educators from Agbaje et al. (2001) taught insect resistant
crops (M=3.41) and herbicide resistant crops (M=3.37) to a moderate extent and Muma et al.
(2010) taught insect resistant crops (M=3.27) and herbicide resistant crops (M=3.25) to a
moderate extent as well. The slight importance that SBAE educators from the present study place
on their instruction of Genetically Engineered Crops (M=3.1; on a four point scale) and Pest
Resistant Crops (3.2) overlapped the findings from both studies.
Knowledge of competencies. SBAE educators’ knowledge of SAP ranges from limited
(Williams & Wise, 1997) to moderate (Udoto & Flowers, 2001). Williams and Wise (1997) used
a four point Likert-scale to measure subjects’ perceived knowledge of SAP, from one to four,

106

with 1 “I know nothing” to four being “I know a Lot.” Williams and Wise (1997) reported that
educators “know some” about SAP (composite teacher mean=2.87; SD=.74). Educators knew
the most about: 1) Rotational Grazing (M=3.51); 2) Row Banding of Herbicides (M=3.37); 3)
Filmstrips (M=3.15); 4) Narrow Strip Intercropping (M=3.10); and 5) Fall Seeded Cover Crop
(M=3.05). The two SAP that educators were the least knowledgeable about were also the only
SAP that they knew only a little about: 1) Allelopathy (Cover Crop) (M=1.85) and 2)
Agroforestry (M=1.90). Similar to Agbaje et al. (2001), Williams and Wise (1997) were
concerned that the educators needed to have the larger picture of SA as a greater system as a
context for the practices.
Udoto and Flowers (2001) asked educators to indicate their knowledge on a list of
practices that included both an SAP and its goal; they obtained a composite mean score of 3.95.
On a 5 point scale with 5 being Highly Informed, SBAE educators knew the most about: 1)
Conservation Tillage (to reduce soil erosion and conserve water; M=4.00); 2) Crop Rotation (to
reduce soil erosion; M=3.95); 3) Crop Rotation (to increase soil nitrogen; M=3.71); and 4)
Scouting the field for possible weed and insect control issues (M=3.70). For 7 of the SAP,
educators’ means indicated they were moderately informed; on one, they were well informed.
The two that educators knew the least about were: 1) Nutrient management plan (for improving
water quality; M=3.34) and 2) Animal Production Systems That Emphasize Disease Prevention
(M=3.43).
The knowledge base of the present study fell closer to that of Udoto and Flowers (2001)
findings since educators were on the cusp of slightly knowledgeable and knowledgeable
(M=2.91). The mean was slightly misleading because on 7 out of the 12 competencies, at least
80% of educators considered themselves either knowledgeable or very knowledgeable and very

107

few people felt they were completely unknowledgeable about a competency. It was concerning
that these other studies were from 10-15 years ago and yet educators have raised their SAP
knowledge only a little. Clearly in-service has a valuable role to play in supporting SBAE
educator need.
The only SAP that was included across literature in which educators ranked themselves
as very knowledgeable was crop rotation; the present study’s mean was 3.64 when converted to a
5 point scale (actual 3.1) which was lower than Udoto and Flowers (M=3.95; 2001). Cover
cropping was the only SAP in which at least 2 studies educators’ rated themselves as among the
least knowledgeable on; the present study’s mean of 2.6 was higher than that of Williams and
Wise (M=1.85; 1997).
A difference between this study and past studies is that neither Williams and Wise (1997)
nor Udoto and Flowers (2001) included conventional practices in their lists. Interestingly, SBAE
educators of the present study rated themselves as slightly unknowledgeable about the two
conventional practices and felt that they were both important to their instruction. It should seem
that educators felt much more competent teaching these competencies since they have been a
part of the conventional agricultural system for some time and educators found them important to
their instruction, but that wasn’t the case.
RQ 3b: Prioritize educators’ in-service need regarding their instruction of SAP as
measured by the Borich Needs Assessment Model. The purpose of this research question was
to identify from SBAE educators themselves where they needed the most support for SAP
instruction. It was difficult to draw comparisons between the priorities that emerged with what
existed in the literature since need assessments have not been used to for that purpose with
SBAE educators. That gap in the literature was part of the justification for the present study.

108

Okeafor (2002) asked SBAE educators to rank their needs for in-service regarding SAP
without using a needs assessment model using a 5 point Likert scale with 5 being Much Training
Needed. The educators ranked the following as their highest need: 1) Insect Resistant Crops
(M=3.79); 2) Herbicide Resistant Crops (M=3.77); 3) Environmental Protection (M=3.73); 4)
Farming Profitability (M=3.72); and 5) Rural Culture and Preservation (M=3.38).
Boone Jr., Hersman, Boone, and Gartin (2007) conducted a needs assessment among
Midwestern Extension Agents regarding SA training. The assessment was one-dimensional; it
did not separate what is based on importance to profession and what is based on knowledge like
the Borich Model does. On a scale of one to six, with one being strongly disagree and six being
strongly agree, agents indicated their greatest needs for SA training were: 1) Economic of SA
(M=4.75); 2) Innovative Farming Systems (M=4.64); 3) Marketing of SA Products (M=4.55); 4)
Grazing/Forage Management (M=4.42); and 5) Farm Management Practices (M=4.37) (Boone
Jr. et al., 2007).
The extension agents and SBAE educators from the present study overlapped in need
regarding grazing and forage management. Extension agents and the educators from Okeafor
(2002) overlapped in need for training regarding the economics of SA farming.
Since the study collected data on both knowledge and the importance of the competency
to instruction, there were some nuances that in-service will want to consider for programming to
maximize resources. Even though Integrated Pest Management was ranked the highest in terms
of need, offering instructional support would mean that 20% of the population would be gaining
a lot of knowledge on the topic while the majority (60%) would be fine-tuning their existing
knowledge. Decisions would need to be made about how to account for the differing knowledge
gaps without wasting resources on instructing those who already have working knowledge of the

109

competency. That same pattern existed for Water Quality where only 11% of the respondents
were slightly knowledgeable and the majority (60%) of the population’s were knowledgeable
and for Soil Conservation, only 13% feel slightly knowledgeable, and 66% were knowledgeable.
There was a different pattern for Management Intensive Grazing and Cover Cropping.
Over 10% of educators had no knowledge of Management Intensive Grazing, almost one half
(47%) were only slightly knowledgeable, and 30% were knowledgeable. However, 15% did not
think it was important to classroom instruction. So in-service support should consider that while
there is a lot of ground to cover in terms of training, instructional support should also include the
value Management Intensive Grazing provides socially, economically, and environmentally. For
Cover Cropping, 2% of SBAE educators had no knowledge, 47% had some knowledge, and 38%
would be fine-tuning their knowledge. However, a tenth (11%) of the educators didn’t think it
was important to their classroom instruction, which could be the reason that there were such high
frequencies of those who were only slightly knowledgeable. Again, part of the instructional
support would need to be a demonstration on the value of Cover Cropping.
Recommendations
1. In-service and curriculum development specialists in Michigan may want to wait for
additional research to be conducted on state SBAE educators’ needs since the results
were not generalizable.
2. Since the NEP results did represent the Michigan SBAE educators, any support in-service
provides for SBAE educators in the future should consider how to better serve an
educator population with mostly heterogeneous EA.

110

3. Muma suggested that since women significantly are more likely to have higher ACAP
beliefs and teach SAP to a greater extent, in-service should also consider again how to
account for supporting differing needs.
4. If additional research indicates a similar list of prioritized needs for in-service, those
designing the programming should consider how to best utilize limited time and
resources by determining which of the top 5 to instruct and how. Some of the SAP, like
Management Intensive Grazing, a majority of educators have working knowledge of and
only small percentage have minimal knowledge.
5. If and when in-service addresses Michigan SBAE educators prioritized list of needs,
training should provide context for the SAP instruction: that SA is an approach, that SA
operates within a larger system, and value and importance of the social and economic
components of the system.
Recommendations for Further Study
1. Researchers should conduct the survey again with Michigan SBAE educators.
2. Conduct the survey with other SBAE educator populations to draw comparisons
concerning their EA, agricultural beliefs, perceptions, conceptual knowledge of SA, and
their prioritized needs.
3. Modify the scale to remove the neutral response option in the NEP to obtain a more
nuanced NEP score and throw out the NEP scale item “Despite our special abilities,
humans are still subject to the laws of nature.”
4. Consider additional quantitative scale items: to what extent do I teach SAP and to what
extent do I teach SA. Run correlations with EA, agricultural beliefs, and conceptual
knowledge of SA.

111

5. See if correlations between EA, agricultural beliefs, and conceptual knowledge emerge
with new samples. Run correlations between the importance of SAP to instruction and all
of these.
6. It’s hard to know which is a more accurate picture of the educators’ conceptual
knowledge of SA – the definition or the cognitive exam. Use both again, but make the
qualitative prompt very specific: “What is SA? What are its goals? What are ways it can
achieve them? Please be specific.”
7. Target Michigan agricultural students to determine their EA, agricultural beliefs, and
conceptual knowledge of SA. Perhaps target recent high school graduates with
agricultural backgrounds and include a needs assessment to determine how prepared they
feel for college or their profession. The results could be useful for in-service as well.
8. As Muma et al. (2010) recommended, conduct additional research to determine the exact
relationship between attitudes and behavior in terms of SA and SAP instruction.

112

APPENDICES

113

APPENDIX A
ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM
This is an invitation to participate in a voluntary research survey, which you are receiving as an
agriscience, food, and natural resources teacher (AFNR) in Michigan. Again, this needs
assessment is being conducted by Rebecca Wittman through Michigan State University under the
supervision of Matt Raven. Your input is important to help us determine in-service needs
regarding sustainable agriculture and related topics. The survey will take between 10-20 minutes
to complete. All participants who complete the survey will be entered into a random raffle to
receive one of THREE $50 Amazon.com gift cards. Since participation in this research is
completely voluntary, you have the right to say no, choose not to answer specific questions or
opt out at any time during the survey; there will be no consequences for any of these actions. All
responses are confidential and solely for research purposes of the Michigan State University
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resources Studies. All survey
responses will be analyzed collectively. Consequently, the presentation of these collective results
prevents responses from being attributed to individuals. If you have any questions or concerns
about any part of this study, please contact Rebecca Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu or by
mail:
Rebecca Wittman
Natural Resources
480 Wilson Road Room 310
East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would
like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study,
you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research
Protection Program at 517-432-4503 or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at:
207 Olds Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
If you would like to receive a summary of the survey results, please contact Rebecca Wittman at
wittmanr@msu.edu. Submission of the on-line survey means that you voluntarily agree to
participate in this research study.

114

APPENDIX B
ONLINE SURVEY
1) How do you define sustainability in AGRICULTURE (Please be as specific as possible)?

For the following series of questions, please select one choice for each statement.
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following BELIEF statements about sustainable agriculture (Please select one
response for each question):
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following
statements:
1 Development of healthy soils is important for SA
2 SA conserves natural resources for the benefit of future generations
3 Crop rotation is important to achieving SA

SD

4 SA promotes recycling of renewable natural resources
5 Exchange of knowledge about locally designed technologies among
producers promotes SAP
6 Integrating diverse crops with livestock enterprises promotes SA
7 Local farming practice impacts success of SA
8 The size of a community impacts development of SA
9 SA promotes local processing of agricultural production
10 Local knowledge of farming in a community is an indication of
sustainability in agriculture
11 SA reduces need for external sources of inputs
12 SA promotes local marketing of agricultural production
13 SA promotes specialized crop and livestock enterprises
14 Innovations in agricultural technology determine the success of SA
SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree

115

D

N

A

SA

For the following series of questions, please select one choice for each statement.
Based on your own ATTITUDES, please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements (Please select one
response for each question):
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements:
1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people that the earth can
support.
2 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
3 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous
consequences.
4 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable.
5 Humans are severely abusing the environment.
6 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop
them.
7 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
8 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations.
9 Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
10 The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly
exaggerated.
11 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
12 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
13 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
14 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to
control it.
15 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.
SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree

116

SD

D

N

A

SA

In the CENTER column below is a list of agricultural concepts and skills. For each item listed in this column, please indicate TWO
things:
First, rate how IMPORTANT teaching that concept or skill is to you in your classroom instruction (Select an answer from the LEFT
column). Second, rate how KNOWLEDGEABLE you are in that concept or skill (Select an answer from the RIGHT column).
Very
Unimportant

Unimportant

Important

Very
Competency
Important

Unknowledgeable

Composting
Cover Cropping
Crop Rotation
Genetically
Engineered Crops
Integrated Pest
Management
Management
Intensive Grazing
Mixed Farming
Nitrogen Cycle
Pest Resistant Crops
Reduced Tillage
Soil Conservation
Water Quality

117

Slightly
Knowledgeable

Knowledgeable

Very
Knowledgeable

The following few questions seek your knowledge of sustainability in agriculture.
43 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Sustainable agriculture is the same thing as organic farming
Farmers should focus primarily on taking care of the environment
Farms and ranches need to be profitable to be sustainable
Farmers should all try to direct market their products
44 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Science based information is more valuable than the local, experience-based information
from farmers and ranchers
The site specific nature of sustainable agriculture makes farmer knowledge and experience
critical to long term success
Farmers should NOT rely on scientific information to help achieve sustainability
Extension providers should talk to farmers about sustainability, but their real source of
information is the land grant university
45 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Sustainable agriculture involves developing new methods that protect farm resources while
maintaining economic viability
Diversification of crops and livestock can reduce the negative environmental impacts of
agriculture, but will reduce profitability
Using a set of prescribed practices over time can reduce the negative environmental impacts
of agriculture
Few skills are needed for the successful interaction of Extension personnel with local farmers
46 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Many different kinds of farms can be sustainable
The main role of farmers and ranchers is as environmental stewards
Sustainable agriculture requires that NO agricultural chemicals be used in the production of
food crops
The main goal of sustainable agriculture is to eliminate the use of pesticides
47 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Stewardship of natural resources is critical to sustainable agriculture
Only small farms can be sustainable
Profitability is the main indicator of sustainability
The only sustainable farms are organic farms
48 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Sustainable agriculture focuses almost completely on production problems
For a farm to be sustainable, the farmer has to be willing to accept reduced profitability
The different components of the agricultural system, like production and marketing, affect
each other
A focus on marketing is the best way to achieve sustainability

118

49 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
The application of science outweighs the value of experiential knowledge in creating
sustainable farming systems
The transition to sustainable agriculture can be implemented quickly and easily
The transition to sustainable agriculture is a long-term, dynamic process
Sustainable agriculture depends largely on more government programs
50 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Improving the quality of life of farmers and ranchers is of minor importance
Sustainable agriculture is the same thing as organic farming
Farms and ranches need to be both profitable and environmentally sound
Farmers should focus primarily on taking care of the environment
51 Which of the following is TRUE (Please select one)?
Sustainable agriculture is producer-centered, but it encompasses issues related to the whole
food system
The single most important goal of a community based food system is to improve the living
conditions of the farm laborer
Community based food systems play a minor role in sustainable agriculture
Sustainable agriculture is mostly environmentally oriented
For the following series of questions, please select one answer for each question.
52 What is your GENDER?
Female
Male
53 What year were you BORN?
54 What is your HIGHEST degree completed?
Bachelor's
Master's
Doctorate
Other (Please Specify): ____________________
55 How many YEARS have you taught school based agriscience, food, and natural resource
education?
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
16 - 20 years
21 - 25 years
26 years or more

119

56 What REGION are you currently an agriscience, food, and natural resources educator in?
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
57 What SETTING do you primary teach in?
Comprehensive 4-year high school
Career Tech Center
If you have any further feedback to contribute that wasn't addressed earlier in this survey, please
use the space below to do so.

Thank you for your time and feedback! Again, if you have any questions, please contact Rebecca
Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu.

120

APPENDIX C
SURVEY INVITATION
Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name,
You are invited to participate in a research study about your views regarding sustainable
agriculture. Your input as a Michigan Agriculture, Food and Natural Resource (AFNR) teacher
is important to help us determine in-service needs regarding sustainable agriculture and related
topics. This needs assessment is being conducted by Rebecca Wittman through Michigan State
University under the supervision of Matt Raven.
There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study, neither are there any
costs for participating in this study. The information you provide will help us determine how
educators perceive sustainable agriculture to provide better in-service regarding sustainability
instruction. Your participation in this study is voluntary and will directly impact future
curriculum development and in-service.
Participants who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle from which 3 individuals will
be randomly selected to receive a $50 Amazon.com gift card. The responses of this survey will
remain completely confidential and all responses will be aggregated for analysis. If you have
questions, please email Rebecca Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu.
Follow this link to the Survey:
Or copy and paste the URL below into your Internet browser:

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Wittman, Graduate Student
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
Matt R. Raven
Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Education

121

APPENDIX D
ONLINE SURVEY REMINDERS
Reminder 1
Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name,
Recently you were invited to participate in a survey about sustainable agriculture. The survey
seeks your views as a Michigan Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource (AFNR) teacher about
sustainable agriculture and related topics. Obtaining your input is incredibly important to ensure
that the results portray an adequate and authentic picture of the state. These results will be used
to help develop in-service and curriculum to benefit you and your program. This needs
assessment is being conducted by Rebecca Wittman as her master’s thesis in the Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan State University.
Your participation in the study is voluntary. The responses of this survey will remain completely
confidential and all responses will be aggregated for analysis.
Those who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle from which 3 individuals will be
randomly selected to receive a $50 Amazon.com gift card. Your chances of being selected are
better than 1 in 30, much better odds than for those of you who recently purchased lottery
tickets! If you have questions, please email Rebecca Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu.
Follow this link to the Survey:
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

Thank you for your time,
Randy Showerman
Michigan Department of Education
Director of Institute of Agricultural Technology
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Michigan State University
Advisor of Michigan FFA Association

122

Reminder 2
Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name,
Last month, I emailed you an invitation to participate in a survey about your views on
sustainable agriculture and other topics. I am conducting a teacher-reported needs assessment of
Michigan agriscience instruction for my master’s thesis in the Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan State University. To the best of my
knowledge, your survey has not yet been completed.
I am writing again because of the importance that your survey response will have in helping
communicate your OWN NEEDS regarding your classroom instruction. It is only by receiving
input from each Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource teacher in Michigan that I can be sure
these results provide an accurate picture of agriscience instruction in Michigan. These results
will be used to help develop in-service and curriculum to benefit you and your program.
Participation in the survey is completely voluntary and completion will take between 11-15
minutes.
Participants who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle from which THREE
individuals will be randomly selected to receive a $50 Amazon.com gift card.
The responses of this survey will remain completely confidential. All identifiers to your response
will be removed before the data is analyzed.
I hope that you find this survey allows you to adequately communicate your current needs
regarding your instruction. If you have questions, please email Rebecca Wittman at
wittmanr@msu.edu.
Follow this link to the Survey:
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Wittman, Graduate Student
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
Matt R. Raven
Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Education

123

Reminder 3
Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name,
Several weeks ago, I emailed you an invitation to participate in a survey about your views on
sustainable agriculture and other topics. I am conducting a teacher-reported needs assessment of
Michigan agriscience instruction for my master’s thesis in the Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan State University. I am writing again
because, to the best of my knowledge, your survey has not yet been completed.
Your participation is extremely significant. This survey is very timely with secondary
Agriscience, Food, and Natural Resource education being impacted by both the National AFNR
Career Cluster Content Standards and the Common Career Technical Standards. Both sets of
standards identify sustainable agricultural and/or green standards as an existing need within the
Agriculture and Natural Resource industry. I’m attempting to understand that in response to
these changes, what your thoughts are.
Participation in the survey is completely voluntary and completion will take between 10-20
minutes.
Participants who complete the survey will be entered into a raffle from which THREE
individuals will be randomly selected to receive a $50 Amazon.com gift card.
The responses of this survey will remain completely confidential. All identifiers to your response
will be removed before the data is analyzed.
I hope that you find this survey allows you to adequately communicate your current needs
regarding your instruction. If you have questions, please email Rebecca Wittman at
wittmanr@msu.edu.
Follow this link to the Survey:
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Wittman, Graduate Student
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
Matt R. Raven
Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Education

124

APPENDIX E
ONLINE SURVEY THANK YOU
Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name,
A few months ago, you generously participated in the research I'm conducting for my master's
thesis at MSU in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies.
I appreciate your time and support in taking the survey, which was a self-reported needs
assessment among Michigan school based agriscience, food, and natural resource educators.
Your timely input will directly benefit you and your program by informing curriculum
development and in-service regarding sustainability instruction.
As a participant of the survey, you have been entered into a raffle from which 3 names will be
selected randomly to receive a $50 Amazon.com gift card. I will contact those who will receive
the gift cards via email.
If you have any questions about the study, please email to wittmanr@msu.edu.
Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Wittman, Graduate Student
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
Matt R. Raven
Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Education

125

APPENDIX F
PHONE DATA COLLECTION CONSENT FORM
Since participation in this research is completely voluntary, you have the right to say no, choose
not to answer specific questions or opt out at any time during the survey; there will be no
consequences for any of these actions.
All responses are confidential and solely for research purposes of the Michigan State University
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resources Studies. All survey
responses will be analyzed collectively.
If you have any questions or concerns about any part of this study, please contact Rebecca
Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu or by mail:
Rebecca Wittman
Natural Resources
480 Wilson Road Room 310
East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would
like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study,
you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research
Protection Program at 517-432-4503 or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at:
207 Olds Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
If you would like to receive a summary of the survey results, please contact Rebecca Wittman at
wittmanr@msu.edu.

126

APPENDIX G
PHONE DATA COLLECTION
For the following series of questions, please select one choice for each statement.
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following BELIEF statements about sustainable agriculture (Please select one
response for each question):
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following
statements:
1 Development of healthy soils is important for SA
2 SA conserves natural resources for the benefit of future generations
3 Crop rotation is important to achieving SA

SD

4 SA promotes recycling of renewable natural resources
5 Exchange of knowledge about locally designed technologies among
producers promotes SAP
6 Integrating diverse crops with livestock enterprises promotes SA
7 Local farming practice impacts success of SA
8 The size of a community impacts development of SA
9 SA promotes local processing of agricultural production
10 Local knowledge of farming in a community is an indication of
sustainability in agriculture
11 SA reduces need for external sources of inputs
12 SA promotes local marketing of agricultural production
13 SA promotes specialized crop and livestock enterprises
14 Innovations in agricultural technology determine the success of SA
SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree

127

D

N

A

SA

For the following series of questions, please select one choice for each statement.
Based on your own ATTITUDES, please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements (Please select one
response for each question):
Please indicate to what extent you AGREE with the following statements:
1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people that the earth can
support.
2 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
3 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous
consequences.
4 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable.
5 Humans are severely abusing the environment.
6 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop
them.
7 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
8 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations.
9 Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
10 The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly
exaggerated.
11 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
12 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
13 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
14 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to
control it.
15 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.
SD=Strongly Disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neutral; A=Agree; SA=Strongly Agree

128

SD

D

N

A

SA

If you have any further feedback to contribute that wasn't addressed earlier in this survey, please
use the space below to do so.

Thank you for your time and feedback! Again, if you have any questions, please contact Rebecca
Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu.

129

APPENDIX H
PHONE DATA PARTICIPATION INVITATION
Hi Dr./Mr./Ms. Respondent’s Last Name, I’m Rebecca Wittman, I’m a Master’s student enrolled
in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies at Michigan
State University. How are you doing today? I have a question for you and I was wondering if I
could have a couple minutes of your time?
If no: That’s just fine. I’d still love the chance to speak with you, is there a more convenient
time this week that I can reach you? Should I use the same number?
I am calling you about my master’s thesis, which I am carrying outunder the supervision of Matt
Raven. For my thesis, I’m conducting a teacher-reported needs assessment of Michigan’s schoolbased agriscience instruction. You might remember seeing emails from me over the past few
months inviting you to participate in a survey about your views on sustainable agriculture and
other topics. At this point, the survey has been closed and the data been collected.
However, since the results of this study will inform in-service, it’s vital to identify the extent that
the responses I’ve received accurately represent the views of agriscience educators throughout
Michigan. So I am contacting you and other educators who didn’t respond to the original survey
to invite you to participate in a brief 4-6 minute survey over the phone.The responses of this
shortened survey are simply to help me gauge if there is a difference between those who
responded to the original survey and those who did not. Does this make sense?
If you choose to participate, I would ask you a few questions over the phone from the original
survey. Your responses would be kept confidential and again, your responses would not be
reported as part of the results. Do you have any questions?
Would you like to participate, and if so, is this a good time?

130

APPENDIX I
PHONE DATA COLLECTION FOLLOW UP
Dear Ms./Dr./Mr. Respondent’s Last Name,
A few months ago, you generously participated in the research I'm conducting for my master's
thesis at MSU in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies.
I am emailing you for two reasons. I absolutely appreciate your time and support in speaking
with me over the phone and answering a few survey questions! I’m also providing you with
contact information in case you have any questions or concerns about my research or about your
role as a research participant.
The research I’m conducting is a self-reported needs assessment among Michigan school based
agriscience, food, and natural resource educators. Earlier in the year, I invited all Michigan
school based agriscience, food, and natural resource educators to participate in this survey on
sustainable agriculture and other topics.
Your participation over the phone in a shortened survey assisted me in identifying the extent that
the responses I had received to the full survey accurately represented the views of all agriscience
educators throughout Michigan. With that information, the study’s results will directly benefit
you and your program by informing curriculum development and in-service regarding
sustainability instruction.
If you have any questions or concerns about any part of this study, or would like to receive a
summary of the survey results, please contact Rebecca Wittman at wittmanr@msu.edu or by
mail:
Rebecca Wittman
Natural Resources
480 Wilson Road Room 310
East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would
like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study,
you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research
Protection Program at 517-432-4503 or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at:
207 Olds Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Thank you again for your participation!
Rebecca Wittman, Graduate Student
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
Matt R. Raven
Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Education

131

REFERENCES

132

REFERENCES
Agbaje, K., Martin, R., & Williams, D. (2001). Impact of sustainable agriculture on
secondary school agricultural education teachers and programs in the North Central
region. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2), 38-45.
Agunda, R. (1995). What Ohio extension agents say about sustainable agriculture. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture, 5(3), 169-187.
Allen, J. C., & Bernhardt, K. (1995).Farming practices and adherence to an alternativeconventional agricultural paradigm. Rural Sociology, 60(2), 297-309.
Alonge, A. J., & Martin, R. A. (1995). Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture
practices: Implications for agriculture education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 3(3),
34-42.
Barrick, R. K., Ladewig, H. W., & Hedges, L. E. (1983). Development of a systematic approach
to identify technical in-service needs of teachers. Journal of the American Association of
Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24(1), 13–19.
Bethlehem, J., Cobben, F., & Schouten, B. (2011).Handbook of nonresponse in household
surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The
paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, 55(4), 590-616.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional
agricultural paradigms: A proposed scale. Rural Sociology, 56(3), 432-460.
Beus, C. E., and Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The alternative-conventional agriculture debate: Where
do agricultural faculty stand? Rural Sociology, 57(3), 363-380.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1993). Agricultural policy debates: examining the alternative and
conventional perspectives. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 58(3), 98106.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1994a).Agricultural paradigms and the practice of agriculture.
Rural Sociology, 59(4), 620-635.
Beus, C. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1994b).Endorsement of agrarian ideology and adherence to
agricultural paradigms. Rural Sociology, 59(3), 462-484.
Boone Jr., H. N., Hersman, E. M., Boone, D. A., & Gartin, S. A. (2007). Knowledge of
sustainable agricultural practices by extension agents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia. The Journal of Extension, 45(5), 5RIB2.

133

Borich, G. D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. The Journal
of Teacher Education, 31(3), 39-42.
Borsari, B., Vidrine, M. F., & Doherty, S. (2002). Assessing students’ preparedness towards
sustainability in US and European undergraduate agricultural curricula. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 17(4), 188-194.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act, 120 U.S.C. § 683 (2006).
Chiappe, M. B., & Flora, C. B. (1998). Gendered elements of the alternative agriculture
paradigm. Rural Sociology, 63(3), 372-393.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro–
environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Colasanti, K., Cantrell, P., Cocciarelli, S., Collier, A., Edison, T., Doss, J., George, V., Hamm,
M., Lewis, R., Matts, C., McClendon, B., Rabaut, C., Schmidt, S., Satchell, I., Scott, A.,
& Smalley, S. (2010). Michigan Good Food Charter. East Lansing, MI: C.S. Mott Group
for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University, Food Bank Council of
Michigan, Michigan Food Policy Council.
Comer, S., Ekanem, E., Muhammad, S., Singh, S. P., & Tegegne, F. (1999). Sustainable and
conventional farmers: A comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude, and
beliefs. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 15(1), 29-45.
Conner, D., and Kolodinsky, J. (1997). Can you teach an old dog new tricks? An evaluation of
extension training in sustainable agriculture, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 10(4),
5-20.
CTE At-a-Glance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2013, from: http://www.careertech.org/careertechnical-education/
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Duncan, D. W., & Ricketts, J. C. (2008). Total program efficacy: A comparison of traditional
and alternatively certified agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education 49(4),
38–46.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide
use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3-18.

134

Dunlap, R. E., Beus, C. E., Howell, R. E., & Waud, J. (1992). What is sustainable agriculture?
An empirical examination of faculty and farmer definitions. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 3(1), 5-39.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement
of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
425-442.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New environmental paradigm.” Journal of
Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Esters, L. (2007).Factors influencing postsecondary education enrollment behaviors of urban
agricultural education students. Career and Technical Education Research, 32(2), 79-98.
Evolution of Career Clusters knowledge and skills and the Common Career Technical Core
[PowerPoint slides]. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Career Technical Education(CTE)
website: http://www.careertech.org/resources/webinars.html
Gable, R. K., Pecheone, R. L., & Gillung, T. B. (1981). A needs assessment model for
establishing personnel training priorities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 4(4),
8-14.
Gamon, J., Harrold, N., & Creswell, J. (1994). Educational delivery methods to encourage
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(1),
38–42.
Garton, B. L. & Chung, N. (1996). The in-service needs of beginning teachers of agriculture as
perceived by beginning teachers, teacher educators, and state supervisors. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 37(3), 52-58.
Garton, B. L., & Chung, N. (1997). An assessment of the in-service needs of beginning teachers
of agriculture using two assessment models. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(3),
51–58.
Hansen, M. H., & Hurwitz, W.H. (1946). The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 41, 517–529.
Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2009). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental
paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(1), 143-158.
Hunter, L. M., & Rinner, L. (2004). The association between environmental perspective and
knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society & Natural Resources, 17(1), 517–
532.

135

Jackson-Smith, D. B., & Buttel, F. H. (2003). Social and ecological dimensions of the
alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm scale. Rural Sociology, 68(4), 513- 530.
Joerger, R. M. (2002). A comparison of the in-service education needs of two cohorts of
beginning Minnesota agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education,
43(3), 11–24.
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in
decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(5), 603–615.
Knorr, D., & Watkins, T. R. (Eds.). (1984). Alterations in Food Production. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Knudson, W. A., & Peterson, H. C. (2012).The strategic marketing institute working paper: The
economic impact of Michigan’s food and agriculture system (Report No. 01-0312). East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Product Center.
Layfield, K. D., & Dobbins, T. R. (2002). In-service needs and perceived competencies of South
Carolina agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4), 46–55.
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psychology in action: A revised scale for
the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(7),
787–790.
MacRae, J. R., Henning, J., & Hill, S. B. (1993). Strategies to overcome barriers to the
development of sustainable agriculture in Canada: The role of agri-business. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Education Ethics 6(1), 21–51.
Marshall, T. A., & Herring, D. R. (1991). Sustainable agriculture: An essential part of the inagriculture curriculum. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 64(1), 10-21.
McCallister, D. L., Lee, D. J., & Mason, S. C. (2005). Student numbers in agronomy and crop
science in the United States: History, current status, and possible actions. NACTA
Journal, 49(3), 24-29.
Milfont, T. L. (2007).Psychology of environmental attitudes: A cross-cultural study of their
content and structure. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable
measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(1), 80-94.
Muma, M., Martin, R., Shelley, M., & Holmes Jr., L. (2010). Sustainable agriculture:
Teacher beliefs and topics taught. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 34(4), 439-459.

136

Myers, B. E., Breja, L. M., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Recruitment issues of high school agricultural
education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(4), 12-21.
Nagel, J. C. (2012, April 13). Michigan agricultural powers through recession unfazed.
AgriNotes & News. Retrieved from http://www.michfb.com/agrinotes/index/284/2464
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium/National
Career Technical Education Foundation. (2012). Common Career Technical Core. Silver
Spring, MD.
National Council for Agricultural Education (NCAE) (2009).National Agriculture, Food and
Natural Resources (AFNR) Career Cluster Content Standards. Alexandria, VA: National
FFA Foundation.
National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Transforming agricultural education for a changing
world. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newman, M. E., & Johnson, D. M. (1994). In-service education needs of teachers of pilot
agriscience courses in Mississippi. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(1), 54–60.
Okeafor, E. C. (2002).Secondary school teachers’ perceptions regarding the process of
teaching sustainable agriculture in the agriculture education curriculum. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames.
Paulson, D. (1995). Minnesota extension agents’ knowledge and views of alternative agriculture.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10(3), 122-128.
Pirages, D. C., & Ehrlich, R. R. (1974).Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives.
San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Rideout, B. E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins, S., & Tate, J. (2005). Endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm in systematic and email samples of college students. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 36(2), 15-23.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Russell, E. B. (1993). Attracting youth to agriculture: How colleges of agriculture can expand
their role. Journal of Extension, 31(4), 13-14.
S.Res. 624, 101st Cong., 104 Stat. 3359 (1990) (enacted).
Salamon, S., Farnsworth, R. L., Bullock, D. G., & Yusuf, R. (1997).Family factors affecting
adoption of sustainable farming systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(4),
265–277.

137

Sorensen, T., Tarpley, R. S., & Warnick, B. K. (2010). In-service needs of Utah agriculture
teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 1–11.
Udoto, M., & Flowers, J. (2001, December).Perceptions of agricultural education teachers
toward sustainable agriculture practices. Paper presented at the 28th Annual National
Education Research Conference, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://eric.edu.gov
(ED472753)
Vehoviak, G. R., Adams, P. F., & Bruening, T. H. (1994). A sustainable farm plan activity. The
Agricultural Education Magazine.67(l), 8-10, 13.
Waters, R. G., & Haskell, L. J. (1989). Identifying staff development needs of cooperative
extension faculty using a modified Borich needs assessment model. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 30(2), 26–32.
Watson, K., & Halse, C. M. (2005). Environmental attitudes of pre–service teachers: A
conceptual and methodological dilemma in cross–cultural data collection. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 6(1), 59–71.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure.
Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3–15.
Williams, D. L. (2000).Student knowledge of and expected impact from sustainable
agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 19-24.
Williams, D., & Wise, K. (1997). Perceptions of Iowa secondary school agricultural
education teachers and students regarding sustainable agriculture. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 38(2), 15-20.

138