.
1

. v-..

 

 

:1 Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

it??? 31293 01834 5854

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ELEMENTARY STUDENT AND PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS'
AGRI-FOOD SYSTEM LITERACY:UNDERSTANDINGS OF

AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION'S GOALS
FOR LEARNING

presented by
Cary Jay Trexler

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in

 

Agricultural and Extension Education

X7?”

 

Major professo

Date August 2, 1999

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

APR 1 :g; 2003 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCJDateDuopes-p. 15

ELEMENTARY STUDENT AND PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ AGRI-FOOD
SYSTEM LITERACY: UNDERSTANDINGS OF AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENCE
EDUCATION’S GOALS FOR LEARNING

By

Cary Jay Trexler

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources
Education and Communications Systems

1999

 

ABSTRACT

ELEMENTARY STUDENT AND PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ AGRI—FOOD
SYSTEM LITERACY: UNDERSTANDINGS OF AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION’S GOALS FOR LEARNING

By

Cary Jay Trexler

Although rhetoric abounds in the agricultural education literature regarding the
public’s dearth of agri-food system literacy, problems arise when establishing educational
interventions to help ameliorate illiteracy. Researchers do not fully know what
individuals understand about the complex agri-food system. Hence, educational programs
and curricula may focus on areas where students already possess well developed and
scientifically accurate schemata, while ignoring other areas where incompatible or naive
understandings persist. Democratic decisions about complex societal and environmental
issues, such as trade-offs of our industrial agri-food system, require individuals to possess
understandings of complex interrelationships. This exploratory qualitative study
determines what two groups--elementary students and prospective elementary school

teachers-understand about selected concepts foundational to agri-food system literacy.

To ground the study in current national education curricular standards, a synthesis
of both agricultural and science education benchmarks was developed This helped
structure interviews with the study’s informants: nine elementary students and nine
prospective elementary teachers. Analysis of discourse was based upon a conceptual
change methodology.

Findings showed that informant background and non-school experiences were
linked to agri-food system literacy, while formal, in-school learning was not. For
elementary students, high socio-economic status, gardening and not living in urban areas
were correlates with literacy; the prospective teacher group exhibited similar trends.

Informants understood that food came from farms where plants and animals were
raised For the majority, however, farms were described as large gardens. Additionally,
informants lacked a clear understanding of the roles soil and fertilizers play in crop
production. Further, few spoke of weeds as competitors with crops for growth
requirements. Informants understood that agricultural technologies saved time and
reduced labor and were concerned with the immediate impact of agricultural pollution.
They, however, did not link their food and fiber consumption with resources use or
environmental impact. Additionally, half of the prospective teachers did not understand
genetics well enough to discuss how humans engineer life.

Notable differences were found between teachers and students in 17% of the
elementary benchmarks. Differences between the two groups were found in the
elementary students’ lack of ability to proffer cause-effect relationships, especially in

regard to the use of agricultural technologies.

Copyright by
CARY JAY TREXLER
1999

To Thomas who has helped me learn how to live life a little closer to one day at a time
and to Erika, Jordan and Kieran for letting me be a part of their lives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I guess I should start at the beginning. I’m always asked how I got into
agricultural education since I grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles. I answer tlmt I owe
my love of earth and its creatures to my grandma and grandpa Trexler. They were the
first to link me to the land, and I am indebted to them. In my formative years, my Uncle
Denny-although I don’t think he is aware of it--played an important role in getting me
interested in science; I still remember my box of rock specimens. I thank him for helping
to spark an interest that has remained with me to this day. From my parents, I gained
high standards for quality and an ethic of doing things “ri t” the first time. Thanks for
bringing me into this world, loving me, and for showing me the way.

As I reflect back, I also need to thank Jim Bailey for his help and encouragement
when I was considering going into agricultural education as a career. My work in agri-
food system literacy springs from Jim’s insight as a Missouri farm boy living and
teaching in Fullerton, Califomia. Jim you are an excellent teacher and mentor-thanks for
sending me down the path with the ideas that most urban people know little about the
plants and animals that feed them, but that they are keenly interested to learn.

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and befriending two extraordinary people while at
Michigan State University-Tony and Jen--both of whom have been instrumental in
keeping me physically and mentally fit Thanks Jen for your encouragement and

support. Tony, thanks for listening to me as I intellectualize the most trivial matters,

traveling with me to “educational” conferences, and for helping me see how others react to
me.

Annette and Catherine, thank you for bringing such beautiful kids into my
life. They are truly special to me and are a reflection of your love and respect for them as
individuals. You are wonderful parents to my children.

Now onto the formal thanks. As a learner, I’d like to thank the two most
influential teachers in my doctoral program- Andy Anderson and Larry Busch Andy
thanks for your help with planning my dissertation and for providing deep and well
reasoned feedback to my findings. Larry thanks for challenging me intellectually and for
helping to ground me in theory I will use throughout my academic career. As to what I
really wanted to learn while in graduate school--the ability to write clearly—I owe much to
Kirk Heinze. Kirk thanks for “tinkering” with my writing. Also thanks for being a model
dissertation advisor. 1, throughout the writing process, felt supported and was given the
latitude that I needed to complete the task.

There are two more friends that I must thanku-Murari Suvedi and Him
Hikawa Murari, thanks for your stellar example as a scholar and researcher. I appreciate
your constant encouragement and kind works. Hiro, thank you so much for your help
with transcribing and with formatting. I would not have made the “drop dead” for the

submission of this dissertation without your help. Good luck on your journey, Hiro.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xiii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ................................................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 5
Limitations ............................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER H
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Need for Agri-food System Literacy ...................................................................... 11
Importance of a societal understanding of the agri-food system ................ 12
Risk in complex systems ............................................................................ l3
Unconsciousness and its afl‘ects on democratic participation .................... 14
Society, Science and Technology ........................................................................... 15
Evolving view of democracy ...................................................................... l6
Consequences of blind acceptance of science and technology ................... 19
Unconsciousness and its effects on democratic participation ................... 20
Public discourse: A modifier of science and technology in society ........... 22
Choice and Education from an Economic Perspective ........................................... 24
Choice and education. ................................................................................. 24
Rational or irrational choice? ...................................................................... 28
Interdependence and power ....................................................................... 30
Public policy and the agri—food system ...................................................... 32
Implications of behavioral economics and choice for education. ................ 35
Education and Learning Theory ............................................................................. 36
Promoting democratic choice through agricultural and science education ..36
Agricultural education ................................................................................ 37
Pursuit of agriculture literacy ......................................................... 37
Agri-food system literacy: Redefining the literacy goal ................. 40
Science education. ....................................................................................... 43
Science education’s benchmarks for the agri-food system ............. 43

VIII

Critique of science education’s benchmarks for

agriculture literacy .......................................................................... 44
Learning is change: educational psychology ............................................... 46
Learning theories ............................................................................ 46
Understanding the agri-food system: lessons from
science research .............................................................................. 49
Implications for science conceptual change and sociocultural
research for agri-food system literacy ............................................ 50
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction to Method ......................................................................................... 56
Rationale for Selection of Method ......................................................................... 57
Benchmarks for Study ............................................................................................ 60
Model Concept Map-A Tool for Comparison ...................................................... 63
Elementary Student Expert Benchmark Conceptions ............................................ 66
Prospective Elementary Teacher Benchmark Conceptions ................................... 76
Population .............................................................................................................. 80
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 82
Interview Questions and Protocol .......................................................................... 82
Analysis of Data .................................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Research Objective 1. Informants’ backgrounds and experiences ............... 90
Background Demographics of Informants .............................................................. 90
Elementary students ................................................................................... 91
Prospective teachers ................................................................................... 93
Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences ........................................................ 97
Elementary students ................................................................................... 98
Prospective teachers ................................................................................... 99
Research Objective 2. Elementary students’ understandings of the agri-
food system goal conceptions ............................................................................ 10]
Elementary Benchmarks and Sub-components .................................................... 102
Agri-food System ................................................................................................. 102
Concept of Agriculture ......................................................................................... 102
Food and fiber products come from plants and animals .......................... 103
Variety of farms and their products ......................................................... 103
Jom'ney of a food or fiber product as it travels from the farm to the
consumer .................................................................................................. 105
Agriculture uses natural resources to provide peoples’ basic needs ........ 109

1X

Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence ......................................... 110

Ecosystem Management ...................................................................................... 11 l
Crops depend on climate and soil ............................................................ 111
Climate ......................................................................................... 111
Soil ................................................................................................ 112
Cr0p Management to Promote Growth ............................................................... 114
Basic growth requirements for plants and animals ................................... 115
Crops may be lost to pests ...................................................................... 116
Crops are protected from weeds and pests .............................................. 117
Positive and negative impacts of using poisons to protect crops ............ 120
Role of Science and Technology in the Agri-food System ................................... 124
Irrigation and fertilizers ............................................................................ 125
Irrigation ....................................................................................... 125
Fertilizers ..................................................................................... 127
Obtaining common foods eaten by Americans ......................................... 129
Origin of lettuce ............................................................................ 129
Origin of beef. ............................................................................... 131
People obtain food from places with more suitable climates ................... 133
Cultural-Historical ................................................................................................ 135
Social Change by Agriculture ............................................................................... 135
Effects of modern technology on farms, farmers and rural and
urban communities ................................................................................... 135
Farms ............................................................................................ 136
Farmers ......................................................................................... 137
Communities ................................................................................ 143
Research Objective 3. Prospective elementary teachers’
understandings of the agri-food system goal conceptions ............................ 146
Elementary (K-S) Benchmarks ............................................................................. 147
Agri-food System ................................................................................................. 147
Concept of Agriculture ......................................................................................... 147
Food and fiber products come from plants and animals .......................... 148
Variety of farms and their products ......................................................... 148
Food or fiber product’s journey from farm to consumer ......................... 150
Agriculture uses natural resources to provide people’s basic needs ........ 152
Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence ......................................... 154
Ecosystem Management ...................................................................................... 154
Crops depend on climate and soil ............................................................ 155
Climate ......................................................................................... 155
Soil ............................................................................................... 156
Crop Management to Promote Growth ............................................................... 157
Basic growth requirements for plants and animals ................................... 158
Describe how crops may be lost to pests ................................................ 161
Explain how crops are protected from weeds and pests .......................... 162

X

Positive and negative impacts of using poisons to protect crops ............ 164

Role of Science and Technology in the Agri-food System ................................... 172

Irrigation and fertilizers ............................................................................ 172

Inigation ....................................................................................... 173

Fertilizers ..................................................................................... 174

Obtaining common foods eaten by Americans ........................................ 177

Origin of lettuce ............................................................................ 177

Origin of beef. ............................................................................... 179

People obtain food fi'om places with more suitable climates ................... 179

Cultural-Historical ................................................................................................ 181

Social Change by Agriculture ............................................................................... 181
Effects of modern technology on farms, farmers and rural and

urban connmmities ................................................................................... 182

Farms ............................................................................................ 183

Farmers ......................................................................................... 183

Communities ................................................................................ 184

Prospective Elementary Teacher Benchmarks ..................................................... 188

Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence ......................................... 188

Role of Science and Technology in the Food and Fiber ....................................... 188

Engineering of new varieties of farm plants and animals .......................... 188

Historical-Cultural ................................................................................................ 193

Impact of the Modern Agri-food System on Society .......................................... 194

Agricultural technology has changed the way people live and work ....... 194

Live ............................................................................................... 195

Work ............................................................................................ 196

Trade-offs of agricultural technology ....................................................... 198

Environment ................................................................................. 198

Human culture .............................................................................. 200

Research Objective 4. Commonalties among informants within
groups with regard to their backgrounds and experiences and to their

understandings of the agri-food system .......................................................... 204
Elementary Student Informants ........................................................................... 204
Prospective Teachers ........................................................................................... 208
Research Objective 5. Differences between prospective teachers and
students relative to their understandings of the agri-food system .............. 212
Agriculture Uses Natural Resources .................................................................... 213
Irrigation and Fertilizers ....................................................................................... 214
Irrigation ................................................................................................... 214
Fertilizers ................................................................................................. 214
Effects of Modern Technology on Farms, Farmers, and Rural and Urban
Communities ........................................................................................................ 215
Farms ........................................................................................................ 216

xi

Farmers ..................................................................................................... 216

Communities ............................................................................................ 217
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of Findings
Research Objective 1 ................................................................................ 220
Research Objective 2 ................................................................................ 221
Research Objective 3 ................................................................................ 223
Research Objective 4 ................................................................................ 225
Research Objective 5 ................................................................................ 226
Conclusions/Discussion
Conclusion from a Teaching and Learning Perspective ............................ 227
Conclusions fiom a Societal Perspective .................................................. 231
Implications of Study
Research ................................................................................................... 233
Curriculum Development ......................................................................... 234
Developmental Ideas and Collaboration between Agricultural and Science
Education ................................................................................................. 236
Teacher Preparation ................................................................................. 238
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 240
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... 284

Table 1 -

Table 2 -

Table 3 -

Table 3 -

Table 5 -

Table 6 -

Table 7 -

Table 8 -

Table 9 -

Table 10 -

LIST OF TABLES

Agri-food System Key Concepts, Benchmarks and Language for
Elementary Students .................................................................................. 61

Synthesis of Prospective Teacher Benchmarks of Benchmarks for Science
Literacy and the California Agriculture Literacy Framework .................... 63

Benchmarks for II. Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence:
A. How are parts of the ecosystem managed by humans, and how do they
interact? Benchmark 1 ............................................................................... 67

Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science, Technology
and Environment-B. How so humans manage crops do promote growth ?
Benchmark 1 ............................................................................................... 68

Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science, Technology
and Environment-«B. How do hmnans manage crops to promote growth?
Benchmark 2, 3, and 4 ................................................................................ 69

Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science, Technology
and Environment—C) What is the role of science and technology in the
food and fiber system? Benchmark 1 ........................................................ 71

Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: H. Science, Technology
and Environment—C. What is the role of science and technology in the
food and fiber system? Benchmark 2 and 3 .............................................. 73

Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: IH. Historical—
Cultural-C. How has agriculture changed society? Benchmark 1 ............ 74

Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers Benchmarks:
II. Science, Technology and Environment-.A. What is the role of science
and technology in the food and fiber system? Benchmark 1 ..................... 76

Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers Benchmarks:
III. Historical and CultrualuA. How has the modern agri-food system
impacted society? Benchmark 1 ................................................................ 77

Table 11 - Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers Benchmarks:
III. Historical and Cultural-A. How has the modern agri-food system

impacted society? Benchmark 2 ................................................................ 78
Table 12 - Coding Scheme to Compare Propositions with Experts ............................ 85
Table 13 - Elementary Student Backgrormd Data ....................................................... 91
Table 14 - Background of Prospective Teacher Informants ........................................ 94

Table 15 - Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences of Prospective Teacher
Informants .................................................................................................... 98

Table 16 - Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences of Prospective Teacher
Informants .................................................................................................... 99

Table 17 - Elementary Student Understanding of: LA. What Is agriculture? ............ 103

Table 18 - Elementary Student Understanding of: II.A. How are parts of the
ecosystem managed by humans, and how do they interact .................... 111

Table 19 - Elementary Student Understanding of: DB. How do humans manage

crops to promote growth? ........................................................................ 114
Table 20 - Elementary Student Understanding of: BC. What is the role of science and

technology in the agri-food system? ........................................................ 124
Table 21 - Elementary Student Understanding of: III.A. How has agriculture changed

society? .................................................................................................... 136
Table 22 - Prospective Teacher Understanding of: LA. What Is agriculture? ........... 148

Table 23 - Prospective Teacher Understanding of: ILA. How are parts of the
ecosystem managed by humans, and how do they interact ? ................... 154

Table 24 - Prospective Teacher Understanding of: 11.8. How do Humans manage
crops to promote growth? ........................................................................ 158

Table 25 - Prospective Teacher Understanding of: 11C. What is the role of science
and technology in the agri-food system? .................................................. 173

Table 26 - Prospective Teacher Understanding of: III. C. How has agriculture
changed society? ....................................................................................... 182

xiv

Table 27 -

Table 28 -

Table 29

Table 30.

Table 31.

Prospective Teacher Understanding of: IA. What is the role of science and

technology in the agri-food system? ........................................................ 189
Prospective Teacher Understanding of: ILA. How has the modern

agri—food system impacted society? ......................................................... 194
Elementary Student Codes for Goal Benchmarks .................................... 222
Prospective Teacher Coding for Elementary Benchmarks ....................... 224
Prospective Teacher Codings for Teacher Benchmarks ........................... 225

XV

Figure 1 -

Figure2-

Figure3 -

Figme4-

FigureS-

Figure 6 -

Figure7-

Figure 8 -

Figure9-

Figure 10 -

Figurell-

Figure 12 -

LIST OF FIGURES

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: LA. What is
agriculture? Benchmarks 1-4. .................................................................... 65

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: ILA. How are
parts of the ecosystem managed by humans related and how do they
interact? Benchmark 1 ............................................................................. 252

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: ILB. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth? Benchmark 1 ....................... 253

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: ILB. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3. ............. 254

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: ILB. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth? Benchmark 4 ....................... 255

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: ILC. What is the
role of science and technology in the agri-food system?
Benchmark 1 ............................................................................................. 256

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: 11.0 What is the
role of science and technology in the agri-food system?
Benchmark 2 & 3 ...................................................................................... 257

Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: III.A. How has
agriculture changed society? Benchmark 1. ............................................. 258

Concept Map for the Elementary Teacher Key Concept: ILA. What is
the role of science and technology in the agri-food system?
Benchmark 1 ............................................................................................. 259

Concept Map for the Elementary Teacher Key Concept: ILA. How has the
modern agri-food system impacted society? Benchmark 2 ..................... 260

Concept Map for the Elementary School Teachers Key Concept: ILA. How
has the modern agri-food system impacted society? Benchmark 1. ....... 261

Jay's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 263
xvi

Figure 13 -

Figure 14 -

Figure 15 -

Figure 16 -

Figure 17 -

Figure 18 -

Figure 19 -

Figm'e 20 -

Jill’s Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 264

Tom's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 265

Jim's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 266

Mona's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 267

Sara's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 268

Tim's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do hmnans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 269

Ema's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do hmnans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 270

Liz’ Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmarks 2 & 3 ........................................ 271

xvii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

California Agricultural Lite_ra_cy F ramewor - (CALF) (California Agricultural Literacy
Taskforce, 1994)

American Association for the Advancements of Science (AAAS)

Benchmarks for Science Litem— (Benchmarks) (AAAS, 1994)

xviii

I. INTRODUCTION

Overview

The past decade brought an increased awareness of and concern for environmental
issues. Industrial agriculture production has come under increasing scrutiny by select
agricultural producers and researchers (Schwarzweller and Lyons, 1995). Sustainable
agricultural practices that focus on regenerating such natural resources as soil or water
while maintaining or improving farm productivity are increasingly being adapted by
farmers. Wilkins (1995) describes these production-based moves as being at the micro-
lcvel. Increasingly, there is an awareness that for sustainable practices to take hold at the
macro-level, consumers-who drive production practices through their consumption of
food and fiber products-must possess a basic understanding of their role in the human
agri-food system (Berry, 1977; Wilkins, 1995). Consumers, however, are not conscious
of how their eating habits affect the way the planet’s natural resources are used (Berry,
1990). Gussow (1983) argues that:

On a worldwide scale, the [agri-food] system is functioning so as to

threaten our future food supply. But because the problem is difficult to

see and because the connections between an imported winter fruit and soil

erosion 2,000 miles away are difficult to make, consumers have not

understood how to act in their own self-interest (p . 12).

Consumers of food and fiber products are unaware of the social, technological, and

scientific trade-offs that the current system requires; the agri-food system is a “black box”

to most Americans. Black boxes store the technological underpinnings of systems and are
concealed and unquestioned by most of society.

Latour (1987) asserts that black boxes emerge when networks of technology users
accept the benefits of a technology without deference to their construction. These black
boxes are no longer questioned, but accepted as part and parcel of life. Rouse (1987)
cautions that society needs to critically question the use of scientific knowledge and
technologies in order to determine what it values. To do this, people need to possess an
understanding of scientific and technological principles to assess their implications for the
environment and culture. Without this understanding, people are unlikely to move
beyond consideration of their immediate self-interest (AAAS, 1989).

Acquiring such understanding is a cumulative process that begins when people are
very young. If consumers are to move beyond their unconsciousness of the current
system, US public schools must integrate human agri-food system concepts and
examples into curricula Education policy makers in both agricultural and science
education shared this concern in the late 1980s. The National Research Council (1988), in
its seminal report, Understanding Am'culture: New Directions for Education, coined the
term “agriculture literacy” and suggested that the science of agriculture was too important
to be taught to only those in vocational education. Concomitant to agricultural
education’s move toward redefining its audience, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) called out for increased scientific literacy in the
landmark publication: Science for All Americans. The association argued that “the

boundaries between traditional subjects should be softened and more emphasis placed on

the connections among science, technology, and society” (AAAS, 1989, p.5). It also
identified agriculture as one of the eight basic technology areas for study by our nation’s
students. As a result of these two policy documents, curricular goals for the agri-food
system were written independently by agricultural and science educators.

Although these policy documents were developed with little or no communication
between agricultural and science educators, some commonalties exist. As a component of
previous scholarship, I analyzed the content of both agricultural and science education’s
cruricular goals for agriculture to determine what each group believed important for
people to understand about the agri-food system. Based upon this analysis, I deveIOped
a synthesis of the two disciplines’ cm'ricular goals as outlined in the documents above. In
the synthesis, I included the language that would most likely be used by someone who
understood the curricular objective outlined in the goal. In addition, I listed real-world
contexts that might be used to illustrate understanding of the objective. Cognitive
psychologists (Piaget, 1957; Resnick, 1987) argue that vocabulary and knowledge of
specific contexts are essential in developing mental structures , called schemata
(Anderson, Spire, and Anderson, 1978), that link together requisite language and
experiences into an tmderstandable form. Michaels and O’Connor (1990) and Gee (1991)
suggest that literacy is marked by one’s ability to talk about a given topic using accepted
language; verbal discomse, then, can be used as a measure of one’s literacy.

Considering this notion of literacy, this study seeks to describe agri-food system
literacy among two groups: elementary school students and prospective teachers who

will teach elementary students. The synthesis of curricular goals for agri-food system

literacy described above will serve as ideal benchmarks to structure one-on—one interviews
as well as to clarify the ideas and understandings of selected individuals from these two
groups.

This study seeks to fill a gap that exists in both agricultural and science education.
Although rhetoric abounds regarding the public’s agri-food system literacy, problems
arise in regard to teaching about the agri-food system. Researchers do not know what
individuals understand about this complex system Hence, educational programs and
curricula may focus on areas where students already possess well developed and
scientifically accurate schemata, while ignoring other areas where incompatible or naive
understandings persist. Decisions about complex societal and environmental issues, such
as trade-offs of our industrial agri-food system, require understandings of complex
interrelationships. These understandings can lead to an appreciation of how one’s actions
contribute to how resources are used and of how humans restructure the world to meet
their demands. Because it is designed by human hand, the organization of the agri-food

system tells us much about what we value as a society.

A. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this exploratory qualitative study is to determine elementary
student and prospective elementary school teachers’ understandings of concepts
foundational to an understanding of a sustainable agri-food system. The study has five

objectives:

B. Objectives

1. To determine informants’ backgrounds and experiences.

2. To describe how student understandings of the agri-food system compare
to goal conceptions based upon a synthesis of Project 2061 ’s Benchmarks
for Science Um (1994) and the California Agjcultural Litegcy
Framework (1994).

3. To describe how prospective elementary teacher understandings of the
agri-food system compare to goal conceptions based upon a synthesis of
Benchmarks and the QA_L_F_.

4. To ascertain if commonalties exist among informants with regard to their
backgrounds and experiences and to their understandings of the agri-food
system.

5. To ascertain if differences exist between the two groups relative to their

understandings of the agri-food system.

C. Definition of Terms

agriculna-al literacy: “possessing knowledge and understanding of our food and fiber

system. An individual possessing such knowledge would be able to synthesize, analyze,

and commrmicate basic information about agriculture” (Frick, 1991).

agri-food system: a complex and interrelated assemblage of human-made networks that
researches, produces, processes, distributes, markets, sells and reuses food and fiber

products.

agri—food system literacy: an rmderstanding of the natural and human-designed
components of the system that produces food and an ability to hold discomse that

explains and analyzes the system’s effects on people and the environment.

benchmark: statement identifying expected or anticipated skill or understanding various
developmental levels (Leising et al., 1998). Specifically in this study, benchmarks are
taken from both the California Agriculture Literacy Framework (Leising and Zilbert,

1994) and Project 2061: Science for all Americans (1989).

experiences: experiences, both in-school and out-of-school (non-formal), contribute to
the development of one’s schema. In this paper, objectives one (1) and six (6) both seek
to determine the experiences in which informants have engaged that may contribute to
agri-food system literacy. Dewey (1916) suggests that experiences are more vital and

meaningful to the individual than formal, in-school leaming

literacy: discourse which comes from learning that allows one to reason and solve

problems in social and cultural contexts (Gee, 1991; Michals and O’Connor, 1990).

schema: a sub-unit of mental structures forming a cognitive system developed through
interaction with and assimilation of other pre-existing sub-structures. Schemata form
through repetition and help people to make generalizations, because a variety of objects
are capable of satisfying the repetitive process. They then help people to differentiate as
a result of the variety. Piaget (1957) suggests that “. . . schemas, being instruments for
adaptation to ever varying situations, are systems of relationships susceptible of
progressive abstraction and generalization” (p. 99). In this study, schema are thought of
as being loosely constructed and interchangeable slots or place holders that represent

general knowledge structures.

science literacy: AAAS (1989) defines science literacy as relating to “education in
science, mathematics, and technology - (that) should help students to develop
understandings and habits of mind they need to become compassionate human beings . . .
and to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society

that is open, decent, and vital” (p. xiii).

sustainability Redclift (1987) defines sustainability in an agricultru'al context as the

“system’s ability to maintain productivity in the face of a major disturbance, such as that
caused by soil erosion, farmer indebtedness, an unanticipated drought or a new pest. The
loss of sustainability is then expressed through declining productivity or sudden collapse

in the system” (p. 18). It is important to note that this definition includes, but is not

limited to: biologic, social, economic, and atmospheric parts of the system. The
development of sustainable ”stems calls for a break from the linear model of growth and

accumulation that serves to extract short term, unsustainable profits from the planet.

understanding: the faculty by which one understands, i.e., his/her intelligence, suggests
full and clear knowledge, a mastery of, being conversant or familiar with a meaning or
explanation This includes being capable of judging with knowledge. This meaning

suggests that which is understood is factual, scientific and truthful.

D. Limitations

This study will propose, not test, theory about what elementary students and
their prospective teachers understand about the agri-food system. The goal, then, will be
the development of concrete universals. Concrete rmiversals (Erickson, 1986) are derived
by studying a specific case in detail and then comparing it to others studied in equally
great detail -a method appropriate to studying the schemata of individuals. Conclusions
from this study are not meant to be abstract universals built by generalizing from a
sample to a population, but rather are illustrative of what these informants understand in
this specific context Results are limited to this group and are not to be extrapolated to an
another group.

Because I will employ cognitive anthropological techniques (F rake, 1980) to

interpret the discourse of informants, the conclusions drawn will be constrained by

informants’ words and by my ability to draw patterns of meaning from them.
Understanding of student thinking will be limited by my reliance on language as a primary
source of data Frake (1980) asserts that probing an informant’s ideas through dialogue
allows for the exploration and charting of idiosyncratic cognitive maps. It will be difficult
keeping dialogue running, while, at the same time, pushing informants to the edges of their
cognitive maps where their mental schemata (Anderson, Spiro, and Anderson, 197 8) are
hazy and their discourse limited To chart informant maps, representation of an
informant’s ideas will be dependent upon the phrasing of interview questions and upon
my interpretation and reporting of the content and organization of informants’ words
(Anderson and Demetrius, 1993). While amlyzing informants’ verbalizations, raw data
will be changed into a synthesis of my thinking combined with evidence of the
informant’s thinking. Throughout my analysis I will strive to represent informants’ ideas
as accurately as possible by using their own words.

The ideas of both elementary students and prospective teachers will be compared
to conceptions based primarily on educational standards outlined in Benchmarks and the
CALF. To operationalize these standards, I will use a synthesis of these curricular guides
which I previously developed Therefore, this study is limited by four assumptions: 1)
the Benchmarks are an accurate assessment of what people need to understand for science
literacy, 2) the CALF accurately portrays what needs to be understood for agri-food
system literacy, 3) the synthesis I developed accurately represents a merging of what

both science and agricultural education deem essential for literacy and fills in any gaps

found in the two perspectives, and 4) the benchmarks selected from the synthesis are
those needed to develop a sequential understanding of agri-food system sustainability.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my bias toward the development of a more
sustainable agri-food system. This bias, my own reflexivity, will most likely influence
my interpretation of data and the conclusions and recommendations that I draw from the
study. I agree with Saunders (1995); sustainability involves the belief that “present
generation should leave to its children a legacy of natural and humanly-produced assets
which is no more depleted than the one it received from its parents” (p. 56). I am deeply
influenced by the arguments of academics and philosophers from the non-agricultural
disciplines (Beck, 1992; Berry, 1977; Gussow, 1983; Goodman and Redclift, 1991;
Thompson, 1995; Wilkins, 1995) who call attention to the agri-food system’s corporate
hegemony, its short and long-term social and environmental costs, and the consumer’s
role in the perpetuation of this system. I hope this research can contribute to developing
an rmderstanding of what people comprehend about the agri-food system. Without this
knowledge, educators will be hard pressed to design effective programs to raise consumer
consciousness relative to how their consumptive habits affect world-wide resource use

and the ultimate sustainability of the planet.

10

IIREVIEWOFLITERATURE

Overview

This review of the literature serves to set the theoretical and conceptual
framework for this study. It blurs the line between traditional academic disciplinary
boundaries and calls upon the fields of the philosophy and sociology of science and
technology, behavioral and institutional economics, and both agricultural and science
education The study builds upon a theoretical fiame that uses the philosophy and
sociology of science for the overarching goal of fostering democratic participation in the
agri-food system. Behavioral economics provides a lens to examine choice behaviors and
the ways in which individuals make decisions. Additionally, institutional economics
lends a ratiomle for the banding together of individuals to act collectively. To
operationalize the study, agricultural and science education provide the context for
analysis through agri-food system curricular benchmarks. More broadly, educational
theory (often employed in science education-but seldom in agricultural education) is

reviewed to provide a conceptual framework for the study of agri-food system literacy.

A. Need for Agri-food System Literacy

The first section of this review of the literature briefly establishes the framework

for this study. In the first portion, the need for societal understanding of the agri-food

11

system is present. Next, the risks associated with large and complex technological
systems are examined in reference to society. Finally, unconsciousness of individuals in
society about the agri-food system and their illiteracy are examined in terms of limitations

on democratic participation.

1. Importance of a societal understanding the agri-food system.

Many parts of our world are designed-«shaped and controlled, largely
through the use of technology-«in light of what we take our interests to
be. We have brought the earth to the point where our future well-being
will depend heavily on how we develop and use and restrict technology.
In turn, that will depend heavily on how well we understand the workings
of technology and the social, cultural, economic, and ecological systems
within which we live (AAAS, 1989, p. 89).

In modern society, consumers of food have, for the most part, abdicated the
responsibility of supplying their sustenance to multi-national corporations. By doing so,
consumers have also placed their trust and very lives in the hands of corporations that are
driven more by profit motives than by concern for human health (Gussow, 1991). They

become unquestioning and accept blindly a system they don’t comprehend.

12

2. Risk in complex systems.

Risk is inherent in the pursuit of power and profit. Beck (1992) argues "the gain
in power from techno-economic 'progress’ is being increasingly overshadowed by the
production of risks" (p. 13). For example, as chemical agriculture fieed farmers from the
fields with the use of fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides, risk of competition from
pests for human food decreased. With this use of technology, however, risk shifted to the
poisoning of the environment through the chemicals designed to reduce the risk of
predation As agriculture moves into the age of biotechnology, chemical corporations,
such as Monsanto, buy seed companies and patent “life” such as, Round-up Readym
soybeans. Risk shifis from poisoning of the earth to the creation of new life forms which
have unknown long-term consequences.

Just as humans create new life forms through technology, they also transform and
restructure rural landscapes around the world. Busch, Lacy, Burkhardt, Hemken, Moraga-
Rojel, Koponen, & de Souza Silva (1995) in very simple, but powerful terms suggest that
”the way we change nature reveals the kind of people we are" (p. 11). With these
changes, the world and what technology can create become increasingly complex and
risky. Beck (1992) argues that industrial society has been transformed into a society
band on risk, or rather, the avoidance thereof. As society adopts increasingly complex
technologies, whether they be aqueducts in California, Roundup Ready” soybeans,
automated beef de-boning machines, or systems for the shipment of winter grapes from

Chile, risk is compounded and must be more vehemently controlled to avoid what

13

economists (Pigou, 1932; Eggertsson, 1990) call “extemalities or spillovers.” As
extemalities surface, winners and losers - in the social arena - are soon identified, and the

un-sustainability of the current agri-food system is revealed.

3. Unconsciousness and its affects on democratic participation.

What is missing in the current agri-food system is a free flowing dialogue
between those involved with research, production, processing, distribution, marketing,
and preparation, and those who ultimately consume the products of the system.
Scholars speculate that this is a result of an unconsciousness that has developed as
citizens in industrialized countries have moved further from their connection to the
land (Berry, 1977; Levenstein, 1988; Gussow, 1991; Thompson, 1995).

Berry (1990) effectively argues that food consumers have become passive,
uncritical and dependent upon the industrialized food economy. He suggests that
consumers suffer from “cultural amnesia” and know little of how food is produced,
transported, prepared and assembled in today’s modern society. For the past 10,000
years the overwhelming majority of people were directly involved in the production of
their own food, people today have, either consciously or not, become disconnected
from the food they eat and the fiber they use. With this disconnection comes what
Berry terms as amnesia and a dependence on the industrial food complex and its
farming methods that yield high volume and low price while precariously balancing risk

to the environment and to human health and safety. Consumers--because they are not

14

educated about the origins of their food-«are unaware of the risks and trade-offs

inherent in modem agri-food system. Bird (1987) argues that:

environmental problems represent situations in which some segment of
society engages in practices that adversely affect other members of society
and have the potential to injure the future quality and survivability of the
planet. Moreover, those problems usually arise without a Democratic
participation in choices that may drastically affect our lives (p. 264).

In Democracy and Education, Dewey (1916) states that democratic society
relies upon the participation of its members to readjust institutions to meet the values
of the majority. He suggests that education (and access to information) undergirds the
democratic system by providing the individual with interest in social relations, control
over his/her destiny, and an understanding of the need for social change without
disorder. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of citizens capable of intelligently

participating in democratic discourse that critically evaluates the agri-food system.

B. Society, Science and Technology

The second section of this literature review examines the interplay among society,
and the science and technology it constructs. First, democracy is examined in terms of its
evolving definition. Next, the consequences of society’s unquestioning acceptance of

science and technology is explored After this exploration, mrconsciousness and its

15

effects on democratic participation are examined in terms of who presently governs
science and technology. This section closes by ascertaining the effects of public discourse

on the application of science and the use of technology in society.

1. Evolving view of democracy.

To comprehend what democratic discourse and participation in the agri-food
system might entail, it is necessary to first review the evolving definition of democracy.
The application of power in society lays at the heart of democratic rule. In the case of
extemalities arising fiom the use of agricultural technologies, some person or person’s
rights are impinged upon. In the last quarter of the twentieth century a growing tension
over the public’s role in science and technology has emerged This tension has been most
apparent in the field of the biological sciences (Stemerding, 1995), because of an increased
ability to use biotechnology to manipulate life and its potential for power and profit
(Busch et al., 1991). Jennings (1986) describes the tension between the public and

private succinctly:

Private interests call for governance by accountable and responsive elites;
fulfilling these interests primarily requires protection fi'om the destructive
or disruptive consequence of science. Democratic interests, on the other
hand, call for active citizen participation; they require not so much
protection from, as shared involvement in, science and technology. For
democratic interests to be served, elite accountability and responsiveness
are necessary but not sufficient; democratic interests require the further
conditions of representative and perhaps participatory governance as well

(p. 227).

16

In order to understand how democratic interests are championed in the realm of
science and technology, it is important to review the evolving definition of this political
ideal. Jennings (1986) describes three distinct streams of democratic thought that have
emerged in contemporary political theory: liberal democracy, democratic revisionism and
participatory democracy. Both revisionism and participatory forms evolved from the
foundation of liberal democracy. As such, it is useful to review liberal democracy’s major
tenets. Liberal democratic theory holds that legitimate authority of the government rest in
the hands of the governed Individuals, then, have a right to engage in decision making
that affects them and the society as a whole. When government acts, it acts at the will of
the people, thereby achieving self-rule.

The self-rule can take two forms: direct rule or representative rule. Direct rule
works extremely well when the number of people involved in government is small.
Everyone can participate directly in the decision making. On the other hand, when the
efficacy of rule becomes encumbered by the sheer number of citizens (as is the case in
state and federal systems in the US), representative democracy is evoked With
representative democracy comes a loss of direct control and the possibility of subversion
of the will of the governed, in other words, oligarchy. To guard against this danger,
mechanisms are established to maintain the integrity of the representatives in light of
what the represented value. This requires: 1) a free flow of information between the
representative and the represented, 2) a citizen’s capacity to understand and evaluate the

work of the representative, and 3) elections to renew consent of the represented.

17

Along with the aforementioned procedural ideals comes the substantive ideal of
democracy, the promotion of individual development by protecting individual rights,
while at the same time promoting the public good It is possible to have the procedures in
place for a democracy, but not meet the substantive ideal. To foster this higher ideal,
society creates institutions to “assure that democratic citizens have adequate intelligence,
judgment, and quality of civic virtue, a moral commitment to justice and the good of
community as a whole” (Jennings, 1986, p. 231). Most of these institutions serve to help
society to structure its members to obtain an ideal that is difficult to obtain. For example,
schools are institutions where shared beliefs, morals, ideals and knowledge are inculcated
in society’s young.

Some theorists argue that it is nearly impossible to develop citizens of such high
moral standards and intellectual development, and strong commitment to others. These
revisionists believe democracy has evolved into a different form—this new form is known
as democratic revisionism. This refined notion of democracy places greater emphasis on
the role of professional experts and elites who govern in a highly complex, technocratic
system. Revisionist believe that citizens have not the ability to make the right decisions
to maintain and promote a democracy that fulfills the procedmal and substantive ideals of

liberal democratic theory. Jennings (1986) argues that:

revisionism believe that citizens “live in a condition of general political apathy punctuated
only by discrete interests, preferences, and fears” and that “democratic institutions . . .
are a means to achieve the values of political order and liberty by protecting against the
permanent monopolization of political power by any single elite, and by protecting
citizens against the unjust or exploitative exercise of private power in society (p. 234).

18

On the opposite end of the democratic theoretical continuum lays participatory
democracy. Theorists advocating it believe that the ideals of liberal democracy have not
been attained They argue that an eroding of individual political action and an over
dependence on elites has led to a decease in the efficacy of liberal democracies. The
answer for them, then, is to empower citizens by promoting involvement in decisions that
directly efl‘ect the lives of the governed By doing so, democratic participation itself
enhances the political reasonableness, judgment, and civic sensibilities of the participants.
Jennings (1986) suggests that “achieving government for the people requires the creation
of a certain kind of ‘people,’ a political community composed of genuine citizens” (p.

234)

2. Consequences of blind acceptance of science and technology.

The nurturance of political community necessitates some shared values.
Sociologists argue that the society in which one lives influences the beliefs, values and
belnviors of the individual. With respect to the use of science and technology in the
modern epoch, society has increasing sought to rationalize all aspects of the world
(Weber, 1958; Feyerabend, 1978). In capitalistic societies, Feenburg (1995) suggests
that technological rationalization is defined as a means to the goals of profit and power.
Feenburg persuasively argues that common people have a decreasing role in shaping
technology in society. Masters of the technology system (corporate and military

leaders and professional associations) wield enormous power in the public sphere as

19

they pursue profit and power. As citizens accept the “legitimacy” of technology, it
leads to hegemony. Feenburg (1995) defines hegemony as a “form [of] domination so
deeply rooted in social life that it seems natural to those it dominates” (p. 12). This
hegemony, like Weber’s Protestant Ethic, arises within a time-specific context
Technologies, too, arise during specific time horizons. A horizon refers to culturally
general assumptions that form the unquestioned background to every aspect of life.
Feenburg (1995) argues that “rationalization and technological design is the key to
its effectiveness as the basis of modern hegemonies. Technological development is
constrained by cultural norms originating in economics, i®ology, religion, and

tradition” (p. 11).

3. Unconsciousness and its effects on democratic participation.

The hegemony described by Feenburg is the result of acceptance exacerbated by
an tmconscious citizenry. Science and technology have become so specialized and
complex that many ordinary citizens cannot comprehend it without a knowledge of how
it works. Without that knowledge and understanding, it is exceedingly difficult to govern
the use of science and technology democratically. Winner (1995) suggested that
technology is isolated from public life and citizens are encouraged to shape technology
only in the market or other highly privatized settings. As a result, “there is no moral
community or public space in which technological issues are topics for deliberation,

debate, and shared action” (Winner 1995, p. 73).

20

Just as theorists argue that democracy has changed, so do those studying the
origin of scientific and teclmological decisions. Stemerding (1995) argues that democracy

no longer exists for science and technology:

the image of a democratic society that is properly exercising choices on the
application of scientific knowledge, should be replaced by another innge:
a society in which the introduction of new technical options is
predetermined by existing networks and regimens (p. 150).

Green (199 ) echoes the notion of decisions made by networks of actors:

public decisions making does not take place centrally in the government,
but in networks of social actors extending widely into the society,
networks which have emerged and developed especially in areas of high
technology (p. 152).

If networks of elite actors in government, science and industry control the decisions made
in science and industry, how can the hegemony described by Feenburg be challenged?
Typically change in the current system emerges as technological control systems
fail. The extemalities of science and technology spill over to endanger human health and
safety, and environmental viability. As a result, democratic participation and public

discourse are brought to the fore.

21

4. Public discourse: A modifier of science and technology in society.

Public debate often arises out of concern for that over which society has little or
limited knowledge. Typically these are expressed as social issues in the realm of
unknown risks to health, safety and the environment Beck (1992) argues that
modernization and its underlying rationality lead to the growth of mechanisms to control
and contain the possible damages caused by the use of technologies themselves. Hennen

(1995) suggests that:

the shape of the future is increasingly dependent on decisions which are

made now, without being able to grasp their consequences in their entirety.

These “unknowns” leave many with concerns for the future and feeling of

distrust in technologies and their promise of a better life (p. 93).
This is compounded by the fact that as technological systems become more complex,
they also become more difficult for lay people to understand As technological systems
become increasingly rationalized, they become “anonymous,” (Hennen, 1992) or “black
box ” (Latour, 1987). People’s decisions and actions are removed from the temporal
and spatial limits to spheres of action. In other words, they can no longer understand or
see the technology in their lives; they simply use it unquestioningly. Further, people no
longer have direct control, their actions are mediated through socially constructed
interactions. Ofien these complex interactions are mediated through expert systems

because of their complexity. Consumers of the fruits of these expert systems abdicate

22

much control over their lives to these very systems. As the everyday use of these

systems becomes commonplace, Hennen (1995) suggests that:

security of action no longer lies within the competence of the individual,
but has to be guaranteed socially (including scientifically and
mchnologically), making it a political element. With growing everyday
practical dependence on expert systems (or in the broader sense on
technology provided by expert knowledge), trust in “expert systems”
becomes a central resource of social integration. The trust in anonymous
“expert systems” needed in modern society to ensure security of action is
inevitably precarious (p. 94).

If the expert systems perform with few mishaps, people develop confidence in the
technology. If, however, the system itself is confronted with problems of its own
creation, and has no means of ameliorating the problem, trust in the expert system breaks
down (e.g., insecticide residues in food, bacterial contamination in meat, environmental
degradation in agricultm’al production). In other words, as science and technology
become more complex, they are matched by the growth in complexity of the possible side
effects of scientific or wchnological action Hennen (1995) suggest that:

to the extent that expert systems overreach themselves in handling the

consequences of their creations, as a result of their increasing complexity

(knowledge proves to be uncertain/provisional, consequences as

unperfected and socially produced major risks which cannot be secured

against), lay people are forced to expand their outlook (p. 95).

Often little debate occurs over the adoption of a new technology in the public realm.

Debate may occur among the “networks of users and experts” but seldom trickles down

23

to the masses. If scientific discovery or technological innovation does surface in the
public sphere, it is most often a response to the cognitive and pragmatic unclarities or

uncertainties typical of modern societies.

C. Choice and Education from an Economic Perspective

The third section of this literature review examines how individuals go about
making choice decisions. This review provides insight into how educational
interventions might be designed to help individuals weigh risk and make well-reasoned
decisions. First, decision making strategies are examined at the personal level. Next,
the notion of a rational human is challenged by research from behavioral economics.
This is followed by a look at interdependence of people and how they organize
themselves to make decisions valued by groups. Past public policy issues of the agri-
food system are reviewed and emerging trends are explored The section concludes
with implications of behavioral economics for establishing educational initiatives that

help people with evaluating choice decisions.

1. Choice and education.

Society, as users of science, is dependent upon and accepting of technologies. It,
however, is oftentimes unquestioning of the long term effects of these innovations in

terms of human health and safety and impact on the environment. To achieve the

2A

substantive ideal of democratic theory, it is incumbent upon society to help its members
learn to make informed choices, choices which, in the realm of science and technology,
impact the individual and society at their cores.

Education, helping people gain the ability to make informed choices, is diflicult.
Humans are much less rational than most classical economists would lead us to believe
(Sen, 1982; Simon, 1957). Behavioral scientists and those concerned with cognition and
choice provide insight into how people go about making decisions on a practical level.
These insights have direct bearing on goals for educational programming.

There are four powerful ideas that, if understood by those seeking to understand
human behavior, can help them in their work: 1) choice behaviors are not always based
on a rational choice model (Gazzaniga, 1985; Sen, 1982; and Arrow, 1987) ; 2) people
often do not look to the long term when making decisions (Frank, 1987); 3) people use
heuristics when making choices (Margolis, 1987); and 4) choice decisions (behaviors)
depend on knowledge structures held in the long term memories of the brain’s cognitive
inventory (Piaget, 1950; Margolis, 1987). The following review of literature will shed
more light on these ideas and speak to their implications for helping people become
conscious of how their actions can influence the environment

The difficulties in helping people comprehend and then take action upon long term

consequences of their short-term behaviors are troublesome. Christofl' (1996) points out

in Ecological Citizens and Democm that:

(r

environmental degradation - such as pollution of the groundwater aquifer -

may take decades to reveal itself and may also persist for hundreds or

thousands of years, affecting many generations of humans and other

species and altering the time-frame over which consequences of decisions

must be assessed. We decide not only for ourselves and our children, but

often for our children’s children. Yet information required for ecologically

sustainable decisions about production, consumption and environmental

protection increase in complexity as the intensity or scale of human

intervention increases (p. 158) .
As eloquently stated above, as systems become more complex, they become more
diffith to understand. Douherty and de Geus (1996) echo this notion, while also
relating it to democratic participation, “the impact of contemporary ecological degradation
may be most keenly felt by those living in the future at a time well beyond the point
when the degradation was caused. This suggests the need to think about how obligations
to future generations might be related to democracy” (p. 7). Long term consequences, as
detemiined by societal action or inaction, are obscured by the short term gains that
modern technology so efficiently produces. As society makes a decision to pursue a
certain course, one might compare it to a cigarette smoker, who, if he takes the time to
reflect upon his actions, rationally understands the long term consequences of his actions,
but sees the time horizon as being too far in the future to worry about the possible risk of
cancer.

Kunreutner and Slovic (1978) argue that inability to understand and weigh risk is
based on several factors. First, borrowing from Simon (1959) and Frank (1987), they
argue that people possess a limited capacity to handle the multitude of events happening

arotmd them on a daily basis. Kunreutner and Slovic discuss “bounded rationality” or

“limited attentional capacity” and its effects on decisions. People, in order to cope with
an increasingly high volume of information, tend to bind what they allow into their
thinking mind Ktmreutner and Slovic (1978) argue that even intelligent citizens cut off
much information that enters their world so that they can fimction in the complexity
around them.

A second idea having bearing on how people make decisions is the notion of an
individual’s reaction to risk Kunreutner and Slovic (1978) suggest that ‘people are not
inclined to worry about low-probability hazards" (p. 67). This has a direct effect on the
ability to bring the “big” issues of environmental degradation to the fore, issues that will
have low probability of coming to a head in a short time horizon, but that will in the long
run have a high probability of coming to fruition. Considering this, it would be very
difiicult to help people understand that their decision to purchase large, unblemished
heads of lettuce during January in Michigan, for example, may contribute to fertilizer and
pesticide contamination of the groundwater in Califomia’s Salinas valley and to the
decline in fossil fuel reserves. From this insight, it becomes evident that consumers are
more concerned about risk when there is a high probability of a low loss affecting them
directly. They are less willing to spend money, or modify their behavior for that matter,
on low probability and high loss risks such as groundwater degradation. This has direct
implications on how educational programs directed at helping people learn how to
analyze their choice decisions should be designed

Kunreuther and Slovic (1978) suggest that people have difiiculty conceptualizing

the probability of risk over time. People are better able to deal with and sort out issues

27

 

and events that have occurred in the short term. They have a limited capacity to make
utility maximizing choices if they are difficult to understand (Kahneman and Tversky
cited in Frank, 1987). To help them understand the long term consequences of
groundwater contamination, educators can look to increasing the perceived probability of
disaster by lengthening an individual’s conception of a time horizon for decisions. For
example, educational programs can focus on the probability in the long term (25 years
down the road of a 100 year catastrophe verses a one-year time span). Ultimately,
Kunreuther and Slovic (1978) argue "policymakers ...[and educators] must find ways to
communicate the risks and arouse concerns for the hazards” (p. 67) among people so they
are able to make informed choices.

The positive effects of public education can be measured by an understanding of
risk and the ability to make informed choices. Frank (1987) suggests that "people do
often want to alter...behaviors once their consequences become clear to them” (p. 227).
Therefore, people need help in awakening into consciousness. Relative to consciousness
of risk, then, educators can strengthen interventions by incorporating the ideas and

theories relative to limits in cognition and how these influence consumer behavior.

2. Rational or irrational choice?

Frank (1987) argues that behavior often contradicts the rational choice model and
is based on an asymmetrical value function which frames consequences in numerous ways

and influences decisions. In other words, people don’t always think the same about all

28

things -they place more value on the consequences of certain decisions when compared
to others (they are not always utility maximizing). When making decisions, people place
more weight on losses than gains (intuitively it would seem the opposite). They value
losses more greatly than they do gains. This is helpful to consider when designing an
education program highlighting the risks inherent in the production of lettuce using
modern production practices. If one really wants to “sell” this risk, it seems that the
possible negative consequences of this practice should be highlighted If people are truly
satisfiers and not maximizers, as Simon (1957) argues, they would be more pursued by
short term, immediate threats to their health, rather than long term, sustained morbidity to
a distant ecosystem and its people.

Another idea related to choice is that people hold common decision heuristics or
“rules of thumb” (Frank, 1987). A heuristic is typically thought of as a way to come to
understanding In this case, people weigh decisions on the perceived frequency of events
occurring To make these decisions, they call upon the recollection of relevant examples
and compare these to preexisting mental schemata (Piaget, 1957) or patterns ( Margolis,
1987) or knowledge structures (Kunreuther and Slovic, 1978). To save time and energy
related to information processing, people tend to fit new information into preexisting
mental frameworks. The choices people make, then, are dependent upon the
representativeness of a given person, idea, or event relative to similarities with which they
are already accustomed Again, this idea points out that a person’s schema is called upon
to help make choices. Choice behaviors are also affected by the anchors people choose

and the adjustments they make to easily knowable (simplistic anchors) conceptions

29

(Frank, 1987). As they evaluate consequences of possible outcomes, people often
underestimate the ramifications of decisions by adjusting them to a simplistic, and
inaccurate, anchor. Rather than looking deeply and critically at choices to be made,
people select flames of reference (anchors) that quickly and simplisticly help them make
sense of their decisions. Ofien, if the anchors are not well suited to the decision to be
made, the choice made does not result in the anticipated outcome.

In sum, choices are based upon an individual’s mental maps or schemata These
idiosyncratic maps evolve as a result of social interaction and experience (Arrow, 1987).
Educators wanting to help people make conscious decisions can benefit from designing
interventions that reach people on a visceral, affective level, and once this connection is
made, provide information for assimilation into the more logical portions of the brain By
constructing messages that conform to the way people make decisions, educators can
capitalize on theoretical constructs that maximize the efficacy of educational

interventions.

3. Interdependence and power.

People are interdependent; their welfare is affected by the acts of others (Schmid,
1998). People perceive people, places, ideas, and things differently and hold different
values. When values differ measmably, conflict often arises. Even though conflict is
probable to carry out interdependent functions, people work together to maximize what

each party seeks, in other words to achieve a desired joint impact.

30

Institutions are formed by people to achieve joint action, the realization and
acquisitions of tastes and preferences. These tastes and preferences are influenced by
what a given group of people value within a context-specific period of time (as
preferences are a moving target that change based upon a given social milieu). In turn,
these values influence a choice process determining and limiting specific opportunity sets
within a finite set of alternative possibilities. When choices are made, power is exercised
(Samuels, Medema, and Schmid, 1997). Power, as it is acquired and exercised, tells
society “whose voice prevails and whose choice matters” (Schmid, 1987, p. 228).

Power, as a ftmction of whose rights count and whose choices prevail, is typically
socially constructed in the marketplace and through politics. Ultimately, rights, or the
lack thereof, are defined in the legal system, what Warren (1989) terms the legal-
economic-nexus. At this nexus, the legal and economic systems intersect to determine
whose preferences institutions value as they valorize and register interests and
opportunity costs (Samuels, Medema and Schmid, 1997). Those who prevail in getting
their rights carved in institutional stone are protected by a socially constructed wall; those
who don’t may sufi’er costs as the wall crumbles under the forces of those it protects.
Most ofien, this protection serves to maintain the hegemony perpetuated by those whose
interests and preferences are embodied within governmental laws and institutions. In
sum, institutions serve to structure, constrain, and liberate individual behavior. They set
paths for the distributions of income, wealth, costs and benefits materializing from

opportunity sets (Schmid, 1998).

31

Public policy decisions are the result of shared images for the future. These
images are oftentimes conjured up in an individual’s consciousness through personal
experience, messages delivered through the modern media, educational programming,
popular culture, etc. For an image to be shared, it must be brought into the collective
conscious of society; it requires a critical mass (Schmid, 1998). Once an image is brought
into the consciousness of a group, it enters into the realm of the public. Groups of
people sharing the same, similar, or complementary images may choose to band together
collectively to achieve a desired result. The primary reason for this coupling is that

individuals can’t get their needs met by other means.
4. Public policy and the agri-food system.

Relative to the agri-food system, public policies have historically dealt with
uncertainty relative to insuring a stable, high quality and inexpensive food supply.
Farmers are protected through price supports that limit their exposure to risk from abrupt
changes in market conditions and competition from foreign competitors (AAAS, 1993).
Recently, consumers of food products banded together to push through legislation that
shifted the burden of acquiring information about food products. Food producers are now
required to meet a uniform labeling code that provides information on the nutritional value
of food, its ingredients, etc. This information was simply too costly for individual
consumers to ferret out on an individual level. Through joint action, however, the cost of

gathering this information shifted from consumers to the producers of food This change

32

in public policy was fought out at the legal economic nexus (Samuels, 1989). In the case
of food labeling, the status quo and the hegemony of the US food conglomerates did not
prevail—a testament to joint action within the agri-food system. In the future, if current
events in Europe are any indication (and social trends oftentimes happen in Europe before
springing up in the US), people in the US will become increasingly concerned about the
health and safety of foods. They will be more concerned with its wholesomeness and the
effect biotechnology plays in bringing food to their plate.

Many food products purchased by consumers at grocery stores have no
information available relative to their origins or method of production. This is
increasingly a concern for a growing number of consumers, because they are conscious of
how selected production techniques negatively affect the environment and, as a result,
seek to purchase products that are produced in ways that are less harmful to the earth. A
problem, however, arises when consumers seek to make informed pmchasing decisions;
information costs are too high for most to pay. Some consumers are willing to pay this
higher price by ferreting out information through research, contacting local producers at
farmers markets, or buying seasonal food fi'om roadside stands. Most, however, don’t
have the time, skill or tenacity.

Many agricultural producers and firms prefer the status quo of limited disclosure
of information about the origin of food products. Schmid (1998) suggests that “existence
of transaction costs protects the utility of those interested in the status quo . . .” (p. 2).
In the agri-food system, transaction costs, in the form of information, arise for consruners,

for example, when they desire knowledge about production techniques for agricultural

33

products or about the genetic structure of the plants and animals themselves (e.g.,
Roundup Readym soybeans and livestock with manipulated genetics).

As the agri-food system becomes increasingly dependent upon science and
technology, the system becomes more complex and agricultural products become harder
to trace to their origin and the opportunity for some part of the system malfunctioning
increases. Consumers lose control of that which they place into their bodies.

In the US, Schmid (1987) suggests that “one way for consumers to save
information costs is to have the right to expect that only goods that meet certain
standards may be sold” (p. 4). Will consumers in the future have a right to know if their
food comes from transgenic sources? It will be interesting to see if the same scenario, as
has occurred in Europe recently, plays itself out in the US markets in the future.

The quest for knowledge on the part of some consumers poses problems for the
agri-food conglomerates. As Schmid (1998) points out, if consumers gain access to “new
knowledge” of products, demand may change. The crurent hegemony--the status quo--is
preferable to those with power. If, for example, people in the US became more
conscious of the way in which poultry or swine are raised (in intense confinement on an
astronomical scale and in an unsustainable fashion), some might choose to disseminate
this knowledge to others. As a result of these information expenditures, it is conceivable
that large, vertically integrated firms involved in production of livestock through the
marketing of prepackaged consumers goods, might suffer. Demand for these products

could decline domestically. Therefore, many agri-food system stakeholders may believe

34

that education about the way plants and animals are raised in “modern” farms could be

detrimental for their market share.

5. Implications of behavioral economics and choice for education.

Although most classically trained economists believe the rational choice model
describes how people make decisions, behavioral economists call this assertion into
question. People oftentimes behave in ways that are not in accord with the values
they hold and do so with incomplete information. They simply act, and then
sometimes, try to rationalize their actions ex post facto. At other times, they follow
decision heuristics that help them make their way through the astronomical number of
choices required on a daily basis. These decision heuristics are often grounded on false
assumptions about the way the world actually works and are used to satisfy wants
and desires, rather than to maximize them. By understanding how people regularly
behave, those seeking to educate about a given issue can leverage resources to capitalize
upon how people go about making choices. Educational interventions can be designed
to meet optimal benefits. Realizing that people have a definite modularity to the way
they think helps to explain why people behave in ways that are contrary to the values
they profess. Considering this, it is no wonder that they often seek to establish
institutions to help them meet their higher aspirations. It is an intriguing concept that
in order to establish such structures, they need to find others who share the same or

similar concerns for the future. The images must be conjured up in the minds of many

35

for joint action--this is where the need for an educated citizenryuwith the ability to

make informed and well reasoned choices-becomes most needed.

1). Education and Learning Theory

The final section of the literature review focuses on agricultural and science
education and learning theory. First agricultural and science education curriculum
documents for agriculture are discussed Then a focused review of agriculture
literacy’s evolving definition is reviewed. Next, the science education curricular
benchmarks are reviewed and critiqued for agriculture. Following this critique are
lessons from science education that have implications for the study of agriculture. The
final part of this section reviews conceptual change and sociocultural learning theory in
the broadest sense and then narrows to an examination of two science studies that are

templates for this investigation.

1. Promoting democratic choice through agricultural and science education.

Agricultural educators are increasingly concerned that the US citizenry is not
equipped to make intelligent decisions relative to trade-offs inherent in the agri-food
system During the 19903, many argued that more people needed to be educated about
agriculture and the human food system. Agricultural educators advocated the integration

of agricultural concepts into the school science curriculum (Trexler and Miller, 1992;

36

Leising and Zilbert, 1994; Birkenholz et al., 1994; Frick, Birkenholz, and Machtmes,
1995.)

Concomitant to agricultural education’s move toward redefining its audience,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Project 2061:
Science for All Americans (1989) stressed the need for increased scientific literacy.
The Association urged that learning of science and technology be connected to the lives
of people, so that they are equipped to make sound and reasonable judgments about
their use. Specifically the Association laid out curricular goals for the agri-food system
in Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Benchmarks) (1993). This section
of the literature review explores the salient findings in both agricultural and science
education and underscores how research in science education can serve as a basis for

determining the level of agri-food system literacy among children and adults.

2. Agricultural education.

a. Prusuit of agricultme literacy

The National Research Council, in its landmark study Understanding Agriculture:
New Direction for Education (1988), coined the term “agriculture literacy” and suggested
that a minimum level of understanding about agriculture was needed by US citizens. The
study spurred many academics to re-think the role agricultural education played in the

larger educational system. With this self-assessment came battles of rhetoric in the

37

agricultural education press. These battles were fought to win the crown of defining the
new goal for agricultural educators-agriculture literacy. Frick and Spotanski (1990)
suggested that agricultural literacy encompassed an understanding of the processes and
methods used by agriculture, basic agricultural terms, and the impact of agriculture on

society. Law (1990) posited that:

agricultural literacy may be defined as the development of the individual in

the principles and concepts underlying modern agricultural technology. It

applies to producing, processing, distributing, marketing, and consuming

the products of the food and fiber system. It also includes an awareness of

the impact agriculture has on the environment, on society, and on

everyday living of the individual. ( p. 5).
In a well reasoned position paper, Russell, McCracken, and Miller (1990) asserted
agricultural literacy would entail “historical understanding, social significance, economic
contributions, scientific understanding, and awareness and understanding of agricultural
careers” (p. 13).

After this initial war of words, Frick et al’s. (1991) conducted a Delphi study of
US agricultural leaders to define and determine the components of literacy in agriculture.
Agriculture literacy was defined as “possessing knowledge and understanding of our food
and fiber system. An individual possessing such knowledge would be able to synthesize,
analyze, and communicate basic information about agriculture” (p. 10). The study
suggested seven components of literacy: a) Societal and Global Significance of

Agriculture, b) Public Policy in Agriculture, c) Agriculture’s Relationship with the

38

Environment and Natural Resources, d) Plant Science, e) Animal Science, 0 Processing of
Agricultural Products, and g) Marketing and Distribution of Agricultural Products.

In a study building upon Frick et a1. (1991) Delphi work, Leising and Zilbert
(1994) described the development of the “The California Agriculture Literacy
Framework” (California Agricultural Literacy Taskforce, 1993). Thirty-nine people from
agricultural constituent groups were involved in an iterative process using the nominal
group technique to surface and refine content for the framework Six themes were
identified to serve as a foundation: 1) Food and Fiber Systems: Understanding
Agriculture, 2) Historical, Cultural and Geographic Significance, 3) Science: Agricultural-
environmental Interdependence, 4) Business and Economics, 5) Food, Nutrition and
Health, and 6) Career Pathways in Agriculture. Each of these themes were fleshed—out
with curricular goals and objectives and assigned grade-level content. The California
Agricultural Literacy Framework (CALF) is a reasonably well-designed curricular guide
and was adopted in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma for their agriculture literacy efforts.

To strengthen the CALF, directors of the project should have included diverse
opinions and ideas about how the agri-food system could be str'uctm'ed more sustainably.
The CALF document would be more balanced if alternative agriculture groups were more
involved, and if science and environmental education curricular goals were more fully
consulted in the development process. Only three of the fifty-five references cited in the

framework were from science or environmental education sources.

39

b. Agri-food system literacy: Redefining the literacy goal

Although the works of Frick et al. and Leising and Zilbert are laudable and serve to
promote education about agriculture, their work is also somewhat limited In the case of
Frick et al. (1991, 1995) and the other researchers following his work (Birkenholz et al.,
1994; Flood and Elliot, 1993; Terry et al., 1992), methods to determine literacy are
severely limited These studies proceed as if abrmdant knowledge and positive
perceptions gleaned through survey research equate to literacy. However, Frick and
Wilson (1996) suggested that agricultural literacy involves, not simply a cache of facts,
but “a basic understanding of agriculture, the agricultural industry, and its importance to
our country and citizens” (p. 59). To “understand” is a personal affair, one entailing a
struggle to grasp meaning (Dewey, 1933), and one not readily measured through
impersonal survey methods. Evaluating idiosyncratic understanding requires interpreting
a person’s ideas about the relationships between things, not simply facts known If
literacy is to be evaluated and understood by researchers, the discourse of individuals
must be made evident (Anderson, 1994; Rosebury, Warren, and Comnt, 1992). Hence,
survey findings of many agricultural education researchers do not lend themselves to an
accurate picture of what people understand about the agri-food system. This is
particularly troubling when considering that: 1) srn'vey research methodologies dominate
the agricultrnal education field, and 2) findings fi'orn these surveys guide cmriculum

development about the agri-food system.

To help rectify this deficiency, I developed a synthesis of curricular goals for my
science education comprehensive examination I included the language and real-world
contexts that would most likely be used in discourse about the agri-food system. In
addition, I modified the CALF to include greater emphasis on sustainability of the food
system and on disposing of excess food and other agricultural waste products. This
synthesis became the basis for this study and selected benchmarks are found in Table l.

Gussow (1991) argues that “the task of those of us who wish to save real food is
to reach the public through their existing environmental concerns. By doing so, educated
consumers can make food choices that not only enhance their own health but also
contribute to the protection of our natural resources” (p. 113). I hold a similar view and,
hinge my definition of literacy upon the concept of sustainability of the agri-food system.
Hence, my definition builds upon the “agriculture literacy” definition by including greater
emphasis on environmental concerns and including sustainability. Exempt from the
“agriculture literacy” definition, but included in the Table l, is the notion that consumers
demand the intentional transformation of the material world, for example, through their
desire for winter vegetables, their demand for tropical fruits, their preference for pre-
prepared foods, or their desire for a consistently tender steak.

Agri-food system literacy requires knowledge of the natural and human designed
parts of the system as well as an understanding of the relationships each part has to the
others. For example, consumer demand for prepared salads requires transformation of the
material world and mandates the use of new technologies. As such, farmers might be

required to plant new varieties of lettuce that, because of their genetics, has a longer shelf

41

life when shred than traditional varieties, while packers must implement new systems for
handling the “value added” product. The adoption of these technologies results in: a) a
consumer’s loss of control over food preparation, b) a greater centralization of the food
system profits, and c) the loss of family-centered meals. On the other hand, the example
of prepared salads also allows for: a) less spoilage of lettuce, b) more jobs in the food
sector, c) greater freedom from meal preparation and d) greater profit for the
packer/shipper. Obviously there are positive and negative trade-offs in paying for the
convenience of pre-prepared salads. A person who is agri-food system literate would be
able to have discourse with another person about a food product, such as the salad
example, and explain some of the trade-offs inherent in the network of transactions that
take place fi'om production to consumption.

In 1999, the National Council for Agricultural Education released “A New Era for
Agricultural Education: Reinventing Agricultural Education for the Year 2020” a W. K.
Kellogg Foundation funded study that set forth an expanded vision for agricultural
education The vision includes as its third goal that: “All students are conversationally
literate in agriculture, food, fiber and natural resource systems” (p. 4). This defining of
literacy through discourse is a progressive and insightful step forward by leaders in
agriculttual education They, however, have not defined the language or structure of this
discourse. They might be well advised to look to those from other disciplines who have
studied how literacy—as defined through oral and written discourse—can be promoted.

Linguists have joined science educators in trying to figure out how to foster

science literacy through oral discourse. Gee (1991) suggests that literacy involves

42

discourse which comes from learning. Michaels and O’Connor (1990) concur arguing
that literacy is defined as the ability to reason and solve problems in social and cultural
contexts.

In agriculture education it seems reasonable that communicative literacy would
involve discourse that would describe, explain, analyze and criticize the system.
Certainly, my definition of agri-food system literacy and expectation for discourse would
not be the same for elementary school children as it would be for elementary teachers.
Table 1. presents a partial synthesis of the Benchmarks (1993), the best thinking of
agricultural educators Frick et al (1991) and Leising and Zilbert (1994), and my own

concern for the need to understand sustainability issues inherent in the agri-food system.

3. Science education.

a. Science education’s benchmarks for the agri-food system

Of the two science education policy guidelines published in the first years of this
decade, Benchmarks (1993) and the National Science Standards (1995), only Benchmarks
explicitly suggests that agri-food system content be taught in the nation’s schools.
Benchmarks suggests students learn about the interface among science, technology and
society in relation to a world that is increasingly designed and controlled by humankind
To do this, AAAS argues that agri-food system examples and concepts be integrated into

science, mathematics, social studies, and history curricula

43

Benchmarks further suggests that in the early grades students should be exposed
to the basics of agricultural production “what grows where, what is required for growth,
how it gets to stores, and how modern agriculture compares to agriculture in other places
and other times” (p. 183 ). In the middle grades, Benchmarks urges educators to help
students learn by involving them in projects to trace food to its origin and to grow plants
for food In high school, once the basics are understood, students then learn of the
complexities of the food and fiber system by examining the interdependent elements of
the system: roads, telecommunication, weather, labor, prices, water availability and soil
fertility.

Benchmarks suggests students are to know specific subject matter at four grade
level groupings: K-2, 3-5, 6—8, and 9—12. Curricular expectations progress in complexity
through the grades, paralleling the sequence outlined in the CALF. Benchmarks’
treatment of the agri-food system is more critical than CALF and asks students at the
high school level to evaluate the risks involved in the system. Also laudable is its
continuous and progressive emphasis on the plant and animal pests and the problems

associated with food spoilage.

b. Critique of science education’s benchmarks for agriculture literacy

The curricular goals for education about the agri-food system made by science
educators are well reasoned and balanced However, we do not know if teachers in our

schools and aspiring teachers being educated in our colleges and universities today have

44

the requisite knowledge, understandings or experiences to facilitate the type of education
suggested by Benchmarks (Raizen and Michelson, 1994; Carlsen, 1991). Most
elementary teachers are uncomfortable setting up experiments and, for example, do not
understand how fertilizers promote plant growth It is not known if elementary teachers
can trace the path that a food has traveled on its way to a grocery store or, if they can
identify “hazards that food encounters from the time it is a seed until it reaches the
kitchen” (AAAS, 1993, p. 184). Similarly, it is not known, as suggested by Benchmarks,
if high school science, mathematics, social studies, and history teachers understand the
“interactions, among production, preservation, transportation, communication,
government regulations, subsides, world markets [and the] social side-effects and trade-
offs of agricultural strategies” (AAAS, 1993, p. 186).

The notion of teaching through agri-food system examples is commendable.
However, only a few teachers presently possess the agricultural knowledge,
understandings and experience needed to teach in the manner suggested by the Benchmark
curricular guide. Terry, Herring, and Larke (1992) found three-fourths of 5 10 Texas
forn'th grade teachers had low knowledge about agriculture. Humphrey, Stewart, and

Linhardt (1994) discovered and concluded that:

only 20 percent of University of Missouri-Columbia pre-service
elementary education majors were confident to teach agricultrn'al concepts.
And with agricultural experience significantly related to confidence to teach
concern as to the success rate of the presentation of the information about
agriculture in the classroom becomes an issue (p. 29).

45

To teach students about the agri-food system, teachers must experience and understand
its complexity. Based upon these findings, it appears that pre-service teachers do not
possess the requisite understandings and experiences in agriculture to render a true-to-life

portrait of the agri-food system.

4. Learning is change: educational psychology.

a. Learning theories

Learning is change. During change individuals are faced with altering the way they
perceive and understand phenomena and their relationships with people and the world.
Marris (1974) asserts that change is a very difficult process for most people, because
they are often quite content with the way things are; they’ve grown accustomed to the
way they see and understand He further suggests that people possess a “conservative
impulse” to maintain the status quo. Often it takes provocative situations to force
readjustment of their way of knowing the world. This is not a pleasurable experience for
most people.

For the first half of this century, the behaviorialist school of psychology ruled
supreme. This line of thought suggested that pe0ple learned in systematic steps that
could be reduced to incremental learning. The metaphor of the learning machine was used
to conceptualize behaviorialist ideas. Later in the century, researchers in computer

science, linguistics and cognitive psychology proffered a new way to conceptualize

46

learning. This new conceptualization involved two new notions of the way in which
individuals structure the perceptions taken in from their interactions with the
environment These theories are called the constructivist theory and the conceptual
change model. Eventually these related theories merged with the socio-cultural
psychological theory advocated by an early 20th-century Russian named Vygotski.

The first theory came primarily from the work of Piaget (1950), a French scholar
who emphasized the inherited processing complexes of the brain. He suggested that the
brain can be thought of as a container of perceptions that are organized into different
structures. These structures are modified as the person faces new and different sensory
input. The brain seeks what Piaget called “equilibrium.” Equilibrium is reached when
frmctions (biologically determined processors) are influenced by the sensory inputs, a
balance is achieved As more input comes in, discontinuity in the previously developed
structures occur forcing change. This change must be accommodated to form new
structures within the brain. These structures, Piaget asserted, have sub-units called
schemas (Moll 1990; Bereiter 1994). Schemas can be thought of as structures of
interactions which are constantly changing. As these changes occur, a person learns by
reconstructing his/her maps or schemas.

Related to Piaget’s contructivist theory is the notion of conceptual change. This
was first advanced by Kuhn (1963) in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. He argued tint the idea of a systematic development of a scientific body of
knowledge was wrong. Kuhn suggested that scientific knowledge development actually

followed a less linear and regimented process. That is, scientists follow theories,

47

paradigms as Kuhn called them, for as long as they are fruitful. If they no longer make
sense or if they became too cumbersome, they are dropped in favor of a new paradigm
with a promise of more bountiful prospects for solving the puzzles of scientific inquiry.
These ideas were adopted by Posner, Strike, and Gertzog (1982) and incorporated into
their theory of conceptual change in science learning. They suggested that students
abandoned their previously held conceptions only when they saw that their idea was no
longer fiuitful, became too cumbersome, and when the new idea offered the possibility of
being more fruitful for answering their questions than their previous conception.
Basically, the conceptual change model holds that people must be challenged to learn.
Through challenges to previous ideas, the learners reconstruct their internal explanation
for the world Science educators (Smith, 1990; Driver, Guesne, and Trherghien, 1985;
Novack, 1983) sought to promote learning by trying to help students construct, or at
times, reconstruct their cognitive structure through conceptual change.

Change in an individual’s cognitive structures, it was argued, could be facilitamd
by providing learners with situations or phenomena that challenged the previously held
conceptions-conceptual change theory. To do this, theorists advocated more social
interaction. Many added Vygotski’s ( 1962 ) theory to the constructivist model.
Vygotski’s theory brought notions of how people learned in non-school settings. He
asserted that learning was promoted through social activity between the learner and
others. His theory included the notion of the need for the use of language in learning and
suggested that one of the best ways to acquire this language was by a learner’s work with

a more skillful person Vygotski believed that all learners had a “zone of proximal

48

development” which could be enhanced by a more educated and skilled teacher. The net
result of adding Vygotski’s theory to Piaget’s was a hybrid theory known as social

constructivism.

b. Understanding the agri-food system: lessons fi'om science research

In science education, Anderson and Roth (1989): Vellom, Anderson and Palincsar
(1993) advocated social constructivism through research on student learning communities
that emulated the social processes that scientists traverse as they hammer out theory.
Driver et al. (1994) also advocates the use of social constructivism. They reiterate the
notion of combining Piaget’s theory of constructivism with Vygotski’s theory of the
social use of language as fiuitful for learners.

Vygotski’s theory is grounded in the use of oral language (Schifi‘rin, 1994; Cazden,
1988). Language, and its use in interaction, is a driving force behind learning, argued the
socicultm'alists. Rosebery, Warren and Conant (1992) describe learning science as a
process of “appropriating scientific discourse.” To become discursive in science, they
argue, involves collaborative inquiry in the doing of scientific work Together, conceptual
change and sociocultural theories comprise the two dominant lines of contemporary
research in science education. By infusing relevant findings from these theoretical
perspectives into teaching practices, curriculum designers and teachers can help students

understand the world in which they live.

49

c. Implications of conceptual clmnge and sociocultrual research for agri-food system
literacy

One might question: Wlurt do conceptual change and sociocultural research have
to do with agri-food system literacy? Previously, it was stated that F rick and Wilson
(1996) define agriculture literacy as “a basic understanding of agriculture...” (p. 59).
Science educators have long sought to determine understandings of the complex process in
the life sciences that are inextricably linked to agriculture—notably photosynthesis and
ecology. By analyzing studies in these two areas-the first by Anderson and Roth (1989)
and the second by Hogan and F isherkeller (1996)-c salient findings and methodologies can
be employed in teaching and learning of agri-food system literacy.

Anderson and Roth (1989) illustrate the findings of conceptual change research
These types of findings can assist educators as they seek to help learners modify
cognitive structures relative to the agri-food system. In the first study of middle school
student conceptions of photosynthesis, Anderson and Roth (1989) found that students
held naive conceptions or misconceptions about how plants acquire food. These
conceptions were based on their personal experience with food; the consumption of
something edible from the outside. Students, in turn, used this knowledge and applied it
to plants, a reasonable application. They believed that roots consumed what they needed
from the soil. In other words, plants ate soil to grow; food for plants comes from the
outside environment.

For students to learn and accept canonical knowledge of science, students must

grow through a process of conceptual change. They must be challenged by teachers to

50

reject inaccurate beliefs about food and plants, replacing them with ideas in accord with
communities of scientists who describe the world. Anderson and Roth (1989) suggested
“without this involved process of restructuring and integration of personal knowledge
with scientific knowledge, students cannot be successful in using knowledge about
photosynthesis to make reasonable predictions and explanations of real-world
phenomena” (p. 278).

What are the implications from the Anderson and Roth study for teaching and
learning in agri-food system literacy? Trexler (1997) found that elementary students with
limited exposure to agricultural production believed that farms were small (about 2
football fields), grew multiple varieties of crops in rows next to one another, and were
tended by one farmer. This conception of a farm does not match the realities of large-
scale, modern monocultural agriculture. From this embryonic study arises additional
questions about what conceptions and misconceptions students hold about the agri-food
system.

In a study that also explored understanding of the biological basis of food, Hogan
and Fisherkeller (1996) employed a bimodal coding scheme to represent fifth and sixth
grade student thinking about food chains in ecosystems. Student pairs were interviewed
and their ideas recorded The sophistication of student thinking about a given topic was
judged for subconcepts in ecology along two dimensions: quality (compatibility) and
depth (elaboration of response) by comparison with expert propositions. During these
interviews, students were asked questions related to major ecological components which

were broken down into three subconcepts: food chains, decomposition, and basic nutrient

51

 

cycling. This study found that when compared to experts, the majority of students, after
instruction, held compatible, but sketchy understandings about food chains. Those who
held no conceptions prior to the ecology teaching unit profited most from instruction,
perhaps because they held less developed mental schemas to hinder the construction of a
new understanding of food chains. Hogan and Fisherkeller (1996) pointed out that
specific ecological subconcepts undergird larger concepts and without this foundation
understanding cannot be built. For example, “students are unable to generalize that all
organisms depend on the green plants that are the producers at the base of food chains.
This relates to their lack of understanding of food as an energy-containing material, and of
how solar energy is transformed to chemical energy during photosynthesis” (Hogan and
F isherkeller, 1996, p. 959).

It is evident that conceptual change theory and the use of interviews to determine
what understanding people hold can be applied to agri-food system concepts. Currently
there is no research that looks at elementary students. Similarly, there is dearth of
knowledge about what prospective elementary educators understand about the concepts
they are expected to teach relative to accepted, scientific curricular guidelines for the agri-
food system. Curriculrlm materials then are developed that are based on what people
believe students and prospective teachers need to learn, rather than what has been
determined through a rigorous research protocol. Until researchers determine
commonalties among agri-food system conceptions, curriculum developers and teacher

educators in colleges and universities may concentrate their efforts on content that may be

52

 

 

already understood, while ignoring, or possibly not challenging, misconceptions that

impede the construction of a scientifically accurate schema for the agri-food system.

Summary

This summary review of the literature suggests that the majority of people in the
US are ignorant of how their eating habits affect the environment. They are unaware of
the unsustainable nature of the agri-food system, because so few are educated about the
trade-offs of the modern, industrially-based system which is predicated on extracting
short term profit from the earth.

Concerns arise as to the democracy’s role in the use of science and technology.
Some philosophers of science suggest that a hegemony exists in society that allows for
the blind use of technology. Others suggests that networks of elites govern science in a
fair and equitable manner that is in keeping with the evolved natrue of democracy, while
other social scientists question the private control of science. Ultimately though, society
through the election of elites, the decisions made in the market, or through direct
participation in politics, chooses the direction of scientific research or technological
application.

Understanding how people make choice decisions is important when designing
educational prograrrrs that are designed to help people weigh trade-offs among

technologies. Additionally, rmderstanding how and when people band together for joint

53

action is desirable for educators seeking to instill a sense of empowerment in students
with regard to agricultural and environmental issues.

Agricultural and science education policy makers are concerned about this lack of
understanding, but for different reasons. Agricultural educators, mainly affiliated with
colleges of agriculture in land-grant universities, seek to inform the public of the wonders
of the system’s productivity and reassure them of its wholesomeness. Science educators
are interested in helping people understand the technological, environmental, and cultural
trade-offs inherent in the modern system. Certainly there are merits in understanding
each of these viewpoints. However, picture-representative of both perspectives-and
inclusive of the concerns of sociologists, environmentalists, and philosophers, best serves
consumers in accurately evaluating the system .

To promote this understanding, educational efforts are needed at both the K-12
and post-secondary levels to: 1) determine what conceptions learners hold of the agri-
food system, 2) increase pre and inservice teachers’ understanding and comfort with the
topic, and 3) develop agri-food system educational materials, curriculum, and experiential
learning activities to build upon, enhance, and even counter conceptions held by learners.
Until researchers and curriculum developers understand what conceptions students and
prospective teachers hold, little progress can be made in improving the understanding of
the agri-food system. This dissertation begins to lay a foundation upon which to build a
bridge to connect those in agricultural and science education as they raise public

consciousness of the modern agri-food system. With this consciousness, individuals in

society can democratically construct the type of institutions within the agri-food system

that they most value

55

III. METHODOLOGY

A. Introduction to Method

This exploratory qualitative study’s purpose is to determine elementary students’
and prospective elementary school teachers’ understandings of concepts foundational to
an understanding of a sustainable agri-food system. Specifically, the study assessed
informant understandings of specific educational benchmarks created through a synthesis
of Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1989) and the California Agricultural
Litem Framework (Leising and Zilbert, 1994). Sixteen benchmarks were used to
structure the conversation between the researcher and the informants. Elementary
students were asked to discuss their ideas about thirteen benchmarks, while prospective
teachers were asked about these thirteen as well as three additional, higher-level
benchmarks. To frame the analysis, detailed concept maps that represented ideal, expert
conceptions of the benchmarks were devised Comparisons were then made between the
expert concept maps and those developed by the researcher that represented the
informants’ rmderstandings.

This chapter begins with a rationale for the selection of the methods used in this
study. This rationale is novel to the field of agricultural education, although it is
commonplace in other fields of education, most notably, science. Next, key concepts,
benchmarks, and related vocabulary that fiame the study are presented Benchmarks and

vocabulary are then integrated into a model expert conception represented through a

56

concept map in the body of the paper. This serves as an example of how they were used
as an analytic tool. The remainder of the concept maps are found Appendix C.
Narratives are then provided for all benchmarks which are grouped according to logical
associations of benchmark conceptions. The remainder of the chapter describes the
details of the research procedures for data collection and analysis. The chapter concludes

with a brief summary of the methods.

B. Rationale for Selection of Method

AAAS (1993) suggests that researchers have not assessed student knowledge and
understandings of technological systems, nor do they understand how students learn
about them. The association comments:

although extensive research has focused on survey evaluations of

technology programs or on student attitudes toward technology, there is

only a small body of research on what students know and how they learn

about concepts and systems on technology (p. 349).

This statement supports my argument regarding research in the agricultural education
field, particularly with respect to the impact of this technological system on the lives of
citizens. For the most part, agricultural literacy research has been limited by survey
research and has not focused on determining what people understand or how they learn
about the agri-food system. This narrow focus springs from both a historical research

emphasis on skill preparation for employment in the agricultural sector and an over-

reliance on quantitative methods. As a result, many questions related to teaching and
learning in agricultural education have not been addressed On a broad scale, these
questions include, but are not limited to: 1) How do people learn about the agri-food
system? 2) What impact does the formal educational system make in developing student
understanding of the agri-food system? 3) What do people understand about the agri-
food system? 4) How can the ability of the citizenry to critically evaluate the trade—offs
inherent in the modern agri-food system be enhanced?

On a practical level, the use of the qualitative methods can produce tools for
understanding. By this I mean teachers or curriculum designers can draw from cases
illuminated in this study to better understand students that are similar to those they teach
or to those for whom they design curriculum. This study’s indepth qualitative findings
may have more merit for these groups than generalizations about abstract and remote
populations.

The agri-food system is a complex assemblage of interrelated networks. To
develop theory on how people come to understand this system, and then to design
educational materials and programs to help people make well-reasoned decisions about it,
requires ferreting out idiosyncratic understandings of a few, well selected persons.
Representing such understandings can best be accomplished by the use of qualitative
methods, because they allow for a detailed examination of the cognitive structures of
individuals.

This quest for understanding calls upon insights from the fields of sociology of

knowledge, cognitive anthropology, and linguistics. Mannheim (1929) argues that “there

58

are modes of thought which cannot be adequately understood as long as their social
origins are obscured” (p. l). Humans, as social beings, use “language as the primary
shaper of meaning” (Fine, 1990, p. 129). Frake suggests, as did Piaget, that the way to
unearth mental constructs and schemata of individuals is to analyze speech. Frake (1980)
argues that “talk exemplifies a conceptual unit whereby we organize our strips of
experience in formulating accounts of what is happening, our memories of what has
happened, and our perceptions and plans for what will happen” (p. 57). Cazden echoes
and pares down this idea by stating that “smeh unites the cognitive and social” (p. 1).
These cognitive and social aspects of learning were discussed earlier in this study as two
dominant lines of research in learning theory.

These two theoretical lines of thought have not been well integrated into the field
of agricultural education, as evidenced by its almost exclusive reliance on quantitative
research techniques. The methodology used in this study included both cognitive
psychology and socio-linguistics as frames for analysis. As mentioned in chapter two,
agricultural educators argue that literacy requires one to possess an “understanding” of the
food and fiber system. However, their research methods do not allow for detailed
evaluation of idiosyncratic thought. Considering this limitation, I drew upon research
methodologies from outside my field and employed techniques that surfaced
understandings of the agri-food system. To interpret participant’s meaning, discourse
analysis was used as a lens for analysis of interviews.

Specifically, to gain the richest data from each exchange, I employed focused

interview techniques (also called clinical interviews by educational researchers and

S9

psychologists) (Merton, Fiske and Kendall,, 1952). Merton et al. suggest that a focused
interview differs from other interview techniques because the interviewer has previously

analyzed many aspects of the subject prior to the interview. As a result,

. . . the interviewer can readily distinguish the objective facts of the case
from the subjective definitions of the situation. He is thus alerted to the
patterns of selective response. Through his familiarity with the objective
situation, the interviewer is better prepared to recognize symbolic or
functional silences, distortions, avoidances, or blockings and is,
consequently, better prepared to explore their implications. The prior
analysis thus helps him detect and to explore private logics, symbolism
and spheres of tension . . . Finally, prior content analysis facilitates the
flow of concrete and detailed reporting of responses. Summary
generalizations by the interviewee mean that he is presenting, not the raw
data for interpretation, but the interpretation itself. . . . Furthermore,
when subjects are led to describe their reactions in great detail, there is less
prospect that they will, intentionally or unwittingly, conceal the actual
character of their responses (p. 4).

In the case of this study, selected benchmarks-formed by synthesizing
benchmarks from Benchmarks and CALF—are analyzed in detail. These benchmarks
come fi'om a framework developed as a component of my comprehensive examination in
science education (Appendix B). The following section of this paper articulates expert

understanding of this synthesis.

C. Benchmarks for Study

Selected benchmarks from the Synthesis of the Benchmarks for Science Literacy

and the California Agg'cultm‘e Litem Framework (Tables 1 and 2) were assessed in this

60

study. The key concepts are based upon the CALF and lay out general lines of questions

relative to the agri-food system. Benchmarks identify specific goals for learners, while

the language section lists vocabulary that would most likely be used during oral discourse

about the benchmarks. Listed within the Benchmarks section are the grade levels where

the AAAS Benchmarks and the CALF suggest that the subject be taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Agri-food System Key Concepts, Benchmarks and Language for
Elementary Students
Key concepts Benchmark ngggge
I. Agri-food System
A What is agriculture? 1) Identify food and fiber food, fiber, wood
products that come from
plants and animals. (K-l
CALF and K-2 AAAS)
2) Describe the variety of farms small, large, family,
and their products. (K-l corporate, farms,
CALF and K-2 AAAS) structure
3) Describe the journey of a research, production,
food or fiber product travels transportation,
from the farm to the processing, marketing,
consumer. (2-3 CALF) distribution,
consumption
4) Describe how agriculture uses soil, air, water , energy
natural resources to provide

peoples’ basic needs. (4-5
CALF)

 

II. Science: Agricultural

 

 

 

 

 

- Environmental
Interdependence
A) How are parts of the 1) Describe how crops depend temperature, dependent,
ecosystem managed on an area’s climate and soil habitat, soil,
by humans related, for growth. (3-5 AAAS and precipitation
and how do they CALF 4-5)
interact?
B) How do humans 1) Describe basic growth light, air, water, food,

 

61

 

 

manage crops to
promote growth?

requirements for plants and
animals. (K-2 AAAS and 4-5
CALF)

space, warmth, soil

 

 

2) Describe how crops may be pest, damage, loss
lost to pests. (K-2 AAAS)

3) Explain how crops are kill, poison, crop
protected from weeds and protection, chemicals,

pests. (3-5 AAAS and 4-5
CALF)

pesticides, poisons,
barrier

 

4) Describe the positive and

poisons, resistance,

 

negative impacts of using harmful, beneficial ,
poisons to protect crops. (3- costs, profit, positive,
5 AAAS) negative, labor,
resistance, disease,
increase, decrease
C) What is the role of 1) Explain why irrigation and nutrients, soil, water,
science and technology fertilizers are used to grow dry, increased
in the food and fiber crops. (3-5 AAAS and 4-5 production, arid, wilt
system? CALF)

 

2) Identify the places of origin
of common foods eaten by
Americans. (3-5 AAAS and 4-
5 CALF).

state, United States,
countries, world

 

3) Describe how places too cold
or too dry to grow certain
crops can obtain food from
places with more suitable
climates. (3-5 AAAS and 4—5
CALF)

trains, cargo planes,
trucks, transportation,
ships, climate, cold, dry,
food

 

1H. Culttu'al-historical

 

 

 

 

A. How has the 1) Explain the affects of modern machines, fewer farms,
agriculture changed technology on farms, farmers agriculture, farmers,
society. and rural and urban efficiency, pollution, loss

communities. 4-5 CALF and of jobs and culture,

3-5 AAAS) increase time,
inexpensive food,
dependence, complexity

 

62

 

Table 2. Synthesis of Prospective Teacher Benchmarks of Benchmakrs for
Science Literagy and the California Agriculture Literacy Framework

 

 

 

 

Key concepts Benchmark Lang;

II. Science: Agricultural

- Environmental

Interdependence

A. What is the role of 1) Describe how new varieties of genetic engineering,
science and farm plants and animals have cloning, natural selection,
technology in the been engineered to produce multiple births, gene
food and fiber new characteristics. (9-12 transfer, seedstock
system? AAAS)

 

III. Historical Cultural

 

 

 

 

 

B. How has the modern 1) Explain how agricultural farms, urban, rural,
agri-food system technology changed the way population, society,
impacted society people live and work in the shift, employment,

US over the last century. (9- increased production,

12 CALF and 9-12 AAAS) time, manual labor, food
variety

2) Describe trade-offs inherent increased production,

in the use of agricultural sustainability, land

technology in terms of degradation,

environment and human environmental harm,

culture. (9-12 CALF and 9-12 higher disposable income,

AAAS) pesticides, fertilizers,
employment, pollution ,
loss of culture,
preservation, erosion,
risk, petroleum use,
inexpensive food

 

D. Model Concept Map - A Tool for Comparison

To generate concept maps of benchmarks that would most logically link to

conversations carried out during the interviews-and also that represent concepts and

related subconcepts—multiple benchmarks are grouped on single concept maps. In one

63

 

case, because of the complexity of the topic (pesticides) cognitive associations, most
logically represented on one page, were placed on two pages because of paper size
limitations. Multiple colors are used in the maps to distinguish concepts that are
fundamental and those that form sub-concepts. The sub-concepts are represented on
multiple maps, hence the use of multiple colors. This helped to determine the
underpinning nature of select benchmarks with regard to other benchmark understandings.

It is important to note that, because the interviews were focused on the lettuce
and meat found in a McDonaldsW Big MacTM , the concept maps are related to these
specifics concepts. For example, in benchmark I.A.I. Identify food and fiber products that
comefi'om plants and animals (Figure 1)--the concept map reflects the origin of lettuce as
being fi'om a plant. In this way, the Big Mac’s” lettuce and meat were used to create a
context for discourse and a basis for concept maps. A definitive concept map for all
possible crops and their origins is not the intent of these maps. Rather, for the most part,
they, illustrate content that is specific to the context of the BigMacm.

To model the basis for comparative analysis, one example of a concept map is
presented (Figure 1.); the remainder can be found in Appendix B Figures 2-11. Following
the map is a narrative. Alter this narrative of the model, tables list key concepts,
benchmarks and language expected in discourse. These are grouped in logical relationships

based upon the key concept as they are found in the expert concept maps.

E. Elementary Student Expert Benchmark Conceptions

Figure 2. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Key Concept: What is
Acriculture?

 

Figure 1. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: LA. What is agriculture?
Bencmarks 1-4.

1A.] Identify food and fiber products that come from plants and
animals.

 

 

l I.A.2. Describe the variety of farms and their products. .
l.A.3 Describe the journey of a food or fiber product as it travels from
farm to consumer.

LA .4 Describe how agriculture uses natural resources to provide
peoples' basic needs.

 

     

marketed by a
are mosrry

   

@ shreds" refrigerated truck
distribute

consumption prepackaged to

f°r bags of
lettuce obtains restaurants

 

 

 

 

'1

s
.‘.u " ':

Hi.

'0

-».r,-.-.n
_ .
. .

- -~"‘."'I tit-DEN! ~Lv- .

 

r
5!.

l
a
\
u r
n
J" .

Cl

 

u ‘ I I ' .. ‘ .5
i - - ' I I. .: "-. ' .'
- . i l x”, u ' I” . '

' '— an fl‘ . sue-s.

hvl‘fl‘5 '

H1. ‘5, .11.:

-. ' O' y " ‘1 I: a” "if-119' s- ' a ‘k u. . -.'-\" 9

'.\. M a ‘t-I'"!{“ 'a‘."'-

v... .
. _.
)I .. -
' \
..-
4 ~- .
‘
‘ '-
r . . ’
l l.
_r
I ,‘J .
.. .
' . . . .
I ‘1'
. - 1 . .
‘r.
l' '
. "-
I I
. I
v .
I
I
D
.
. r fi'. '
. ' , '1'. ‘"
. Nih" ‘
" .I
-. ' ~‘ 0 -r
y .u
,1
’ l
. .
. t,. -
.
I - I
... ,n . ..

fi'l'

 

...I '.

~~
n. s
s
I
y
r
n
r
r

Narrative: What is agriculture?

Figure 2 graphically portrays the four benchmarks and their interrelationships
relative to answering the guiding question— “What is agriculture?” To understand these
benchmarks, one must understand that lettuce is a plant and that plants are food for
humans. In order to grow, plants require natural resources such as, soil, air, water and
energy in the form of sunlight for growth Humans typically grow lettuce in two
locations: farms and gardens. Gardens and farms are places where the lettuce acquires
needed natural resources. Gardens typically are thought of as small plots of land where,
oftentimes, a small amount, but a diverse group of crops is grown. On the other hand,
modern farms in the US are typically very large. Most lettuce farms are in excess of
hrmdreds of acres in size. These farms are highly specialized and employ monocultural
techniques and specialists for insect and weed control, irrigation, and fertilization.
Interestingly, lettuce for all the US McDonaldsm restaurants comes from only four to
five growers (F. G. Gonzales, personal communication, March 8, 1999).

The interconnected system that moves food from the fields to the consumer is
highly complex. In terms of fresh produce, it is complex, but nowhere near as complex as
a product, bread for example, that is combined with various other commodities to make
food with ingredients from multiple sources. Lettuce, then, is a simple, yet illustrative
example that can be used to show the journey that a food product travels fiom farm to

consumer.

The lettuce is picked and placed into large trucks and shipped to a centralized
processing plant where it is washed, shredded and placed into plastic bags. The bags of
lettuce are then transported via refrigerated trucks to geographically centralized
distribution centers throughout the US. When lettuce is needed, orders are placed by
local restaurants, and refrigerated trucks deliver the bags of lettuce to the restaurants
where it is later placed on a BigMacTM for consumption Benchmark I.A.4 is described

with the next benchmarks.

Table 3 Benchmarks for II. Science: Agricultural-Environmental
Interdependence: A. How are parts of the ecosystem managed by
humans, and how do they interact?

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmark Lang_u_age
1) Describe how crops depend on an area’s climate temperature, dependent,
and soil for growth. habitat, soil, precipitation,

 

Narrative: Climate and Soil

In order to understand the benchmark in Table 3, one must understand that
animals and plants are living things that require natural resources. These resources are
found within specific habitats for growth and maintenance such as, soil, air, energy (in the
form of carbon-based food for animals and in the form of sunlight for plants), and water.
This requirement for natural resources is found also in Benchmark I.A.4. and is
formdational to comprehending numerous other benchmarks (II.A.1., 11.3. 1, II.B.2.,

II.B.3., II.B.4, II.C.1., II.C.2., II.C.3.). It is noteworthy that the need for natural

67

resources, as a requirement for growth of living things, undergirds so many other
benchmarks because they are the foundation for plant and animal growth

To grasp this benchmark, one must also understand that humans grow crops--
animals and plants-40 meet their requirements for energy and that crops are dependent
upon climate (precipitation, seasonal temperatures, hours of daylight, and wind) and soil
(minerals, water holding capacity, substructure for support. etc.) for their growth
Table 4. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science,

Technology and Environment-B. How do humans manage crops
to nromote crowth?

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmark Law
1) Describe basic growth requirements for plants and light, air water, food, space,
animals. temperature, soil

 

 

Narrative: Basic Growth Requirements for Plants and Animals
To understand the benchmark in Table 4, in addition to grasping the role natural
resources play in relation to living things (see Benchmark I.A.6.), one must also know

that plants and animals require specific environmental conditions such as space and

temperature for growth.

 

Table 5. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science,
Technology and Environment—B. How do humans manage crops

to promote growth?

 

Benchmark

unease

 

2) Describe how crops may be lost to pests

pest, damage, loss, weeds,
insects, rodents

 

3) Explain how crops are protected from weeds and
pests.

kill, barriers, pesticides,
chemicals, barriers, organic,

inorganic

 

4) Describe the positive and negative impacts of using
poisons to protect cr0ps.

 

 

increased production,
sustainability, land
degradation, environmental
harm, higher disposable
income, pesticides,
employment, pollution, risk,
petroleum use, inexpensive
food

 

Narrative: Human Crop Management

The benchmarks in Table 5 are closely tied together. As a result, they are

dependent upon the understandings of interrelated sub—concepts. For example, as cited

previously, requirement for plant and animal growth and the need for natural resources

undergirds understandings of competition. Pests are competitors with crops that humans

selectively grow for these basic needs. Weed pests limit growth by limiting space for

growth and by taking up nutrients from the soil. Insects lay eggs in crops and feed upon

crops, while rodents may feed directly upon crops as a source of their food or may spoil

crops by nesting and excreting waste in them.

69

 

Humans protect crops by creating barriers to pests, killing them, or preventing
them from completing their life cycle. In the case of rodents, deer, or even weeds, hmnans
create barriers that prevent pests from eating crops directly or by preventing them from
obtaining the natural resources (water, soil, etc.) necessary for them to live. In addition to
barring them from obtaining natural resources, humans kill pests directly with pesticides.
They do so by poisoning them with organic materials such as pepper, Chrysanthemums
or with inorganic materials derived fiom various sources, but predominantly with
petroleum-based chemicals. Pests can also be reduced in a habitat by preventing them
from completing their life cycle. For example, humans can manage livestock grazing
habits so that the animals do not eat in areas were internal parasites eggs are present,
thereby preventing the parasites from entering the hosts. The eggs cannot survive
indefinitely, so they die from lack of a host.

As with all technologies there are trade-offs and risks associated with the use of
pesticides; they are poisons used by humans to ward off and kill animals and plants.
There are positive and negative impacts of using such materials. Some negative impacts
include, but are not limited to: 1) the economic costs to the farmer and the ultimate
consumer, because pesticides are expensive to purchase and equipment for their
application is costly, 2) pests ofien develop resistance to pesticides, thereby
necessitating the development of new—sometimes even more toxic-chemicals. In addition
humans may become dependent upon a particular pesticide to which pests later become
resistant, 3) the improper use of pesticides may lead to contamination of the

environment, most notably the soil, water, and airupossibly leading to morbidity and

70

death to living things, and finally, 4) an over-reliance on the use of pesticides may
decrease sustainable agricultural practices (crop rotation, for example) resulting in an
overall long term decrease in fertility of the land.

On the other hand, there are positives associated with the use of these poisons.
These include, but are not limited to: 1) a reduction of labor involved in the production of
food, thereby providing for a variety of employment opportunities and an increase in
producer time for other productive endeavors, 2) an increase in yield of food, resulting in
cheaper food for consumers, greater disposable income and increased profits by some
farmers, and 3) a decreased likelihood of food-home disease, contributing to higher levels

of human health

Table 6. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science,
Technology and Environment-C) What is the role of science
and technology in the food and fiber system?

 

 

 

 

Benchmark Langu_age
1) Explain why irrigation and fertilizers are used to nutrients, soil, water, dry,
grow crops. increased production, arid,
wilt, chemicals

 

 

 

Narrative: Irrigation and Fertilizers

Table 6 lists the benchmark for irrigation and fertilizers as well as language that a
person speaking about the topic would most likely use. In order to explain why irrigation
and fertilizers are used to grow crops, one first needs to understand the requirements for

growth in plants (Benchmark I.A.4 and HE. 1). One needs to understand that soil--

71

particularly in reference to its fertility and composition-4nd water are natural resources
required for plant growth From this basis, one can comprehend the reasons why
fertilizers and irrigation are used.

Hmnans increasingly grow crops on unsuitable or marginal land in areas where the
temperature is conducive to plant growth. This enables them to obtain crops throughout
the year, not simply when they are seasonally available local geographic regions.
Growing crops in these regions requires humans to manage and control environmental
factors such as water and soil fertility.

Water is a constant requirement for crops. To supply water, humans design
technological systems that deliver it to their crops. Irrigation becomes increasingly
important as humans use land in deserts to grow foods throughout the year, because the
precipitation in these areas is not adequate to maintain crop growth. This human made
system—composed of machinery, wells, dams, aqueducts, etc.--then supplies water on a
consistent basis, thereby allowing producers to increase production of the crops they
deem desirable.

Humans use other systems to deliver fertilizers to increase plant growth.
Fertilizers-organic or inorganic in origin—are applied to the soil or in water for delivery to
plants. Nutrients, primarily minerals, are then taken up by plants through roots. The use
of inorganic fertilizers has, for the most part, replaced organic and is of increasing
importance as more marginal land is used for crop production and as humans grow the
same crops year-afier-year on the same land By growing the same plants on land for

consecutive seasons, the soil becomes depleted of nutrients from lack of crop rotation.

72

 

—

As a result of these monocultural practices, soil fertility decreases and producers require

additional fertilizers to sustain crop yields.

Table 7. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: II. Science,
Technology and Environment—C. What is the role of science and
technoloav in the food and fiber system?

 

 

 

Benchmark Law
2) Identify the places of origin of common foods state, United States, countries,
eaten by Americans. world

 

 

3) Describe how places too cold or too dry to grow trains, cargo planes, trucks,
certain crops can obtain food from places with more transportation, ships, climate,
suitable climates. cold, dry, food

 

 

 

Narrative: Origin of Foods

Table 7 identifies the benchmarks related to identifying origins of foods eaten by
Americans and how people in inhospitable climates gain foods fiom more favorable
places. Humans have designed complex technologically-based systems that bring food
production to them from across the globe. Humans living in unsuitable climates (either
too cold or too dry) obtain food from places with more suitable climates where the crops
can be grown. Growing crops in warmer or dryer regions ofien necessitating the use of
irrigation and fertilizers (See Benchmark II.C.2. In addition, dry climates are often too hot
to grow crops that require temperate or cool growing conditions. To transport crops

from these distant locations to consumers who demand them, humans have designed

complex networks that move food and fiber products around the world The networks
include: roads, canals, and rivers, as well as vehicles like trucks, ships, trains and planes.
In addition, the networks are designed by human actors.

Specifically related to the context of the interview, winter lettuceu found on a Big
Mac” made in a restaurant in East Lansing, Michigan-4s transported from warmer, arid ,
climates (western US and Mexico) to the US Midwest. It makes its journey via
refrigerated trucks that slow spoilage. The other focus of interviews, beef, because it is
less perishable and has a higher value per pormd, can be shipped great distances. Beef is
often shipped to the US from places like Central and South America and Australia Beef
used in a McDonald’ s“M hamburger, however, comes fiom North America exclusively
(Gonzales, 1999), although its geographic origin is nearly impossible to pinpoint because

beef cattle are raised in all US states and all Canadian provinces.

Table 8. Expert Concept Map for Elementary Benchmarks: III. Historical-
Cultural—C. How has agriculture changed society?

 

Benchmark Langugg:

 

 

 

1) Explain the affects of modern technology on farms, machines, fewer farms,

farmers and rural and urban communities. agriculture, farmers,
efficiency, pollution, loss of
jobs and culture, increase time,
inexpensive food, dependence,
complexity

 

 

 

Narrative: Affect of Modern Technology of Farms, Farmers and Communities

74

Table 8 lists the benchmark related to the effects of modern technology on farms,
farmer and communities As humans employ technologies to produce food and fiber,
farms, farmers, and rural and urban communities are affected F arrners use machines and
other technologies that decrease the amount of labor required to produce crops. As a
result, farm size increases while their numbers decrease, as well as the number of farmers.
Farmers become increasingly dependent upon these technologies and tend to specialize in
the type of crops they produce. In turn, technology becomes increasingly specialized and
increases in its complexity. Farms generally are more complex than in the past. Laborers
require more training to operate increasingly complex technologies tint are pmchased at
higher prices by farmers, thereby increasing their need for capital.

Along with farms and farmers, rural communities change. Fewer people work on
farms, so more people move to urban centers for employment. Increased efficiency of
technology affects the structure and size of rural families—more women enter the work
force and the number of children born decreases; this change is also evident in urban
centers. Additionally, urban centers are affected by their reliance upon rural communities
for food. They, for the most part, are no longer connected directly to the production of
food This fleeing up of time nets those in both the rural and urban communities greater
opportunity for other productive endeavors; food becomes less costly to produce and
purchase. However, this reliance upon technology also decreases firsthand knowledge,

thereby mediating human relationships with and connections to their environment.

75

F. Prospective Elementary Teachers Benchmarks Conceptions

Additional interview questions for prospective teachers—beyond those designed
for elementary students—were based concepts, benchmarks and vocabulary found in
Table 2. These understandings are expected of high school students at graduation and are
seen by both the authors of Benchmarks for Science Literacy and CALF as defining one

who is agri-food system literate.

Table 9. Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers
Benchmarks: II. Science, Technology and Environment—A. What
is the role of science and technolorzv in the food and fiber

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmark Language
1) Describe how new varieties of farm plants and genetic engineering, cloning,
animals have been engineered to produce new natural selection, multiple
characteristics. births, gene transfer,
seedstock

 

Narrative: Engineering of Farm Plants and Animals

Table 9 lists the prospective elementary teacher benchmark and vocabulary related
to the engineering of farm plants and animals. Humans engineer plants and animals to
produce characteristics that they value. Most ofien this comes in the form of greater
productivity--yield per acre, disease or pest resistance in plants--or in livestock-~feed
efficiency or carcass yield, for example. The designing of plants and animals by humans

for specific characteristics is not new. Humans have selected plant and animal seedstock

76

with desired qualities for thousands of years. They then bred these superior animals to
other animals in an attempt to improve specific, desired characteristics. Today, however,
humans have—with the use complex technologies—begun to make quantum leaps in the
manipulation of genetic material. For instance, genetic engineering in farm animals and
plants now employs technologies such as cloning, embryo and the more complex, gene
transfer. The use of these technologies has the potential to increase output of both farm

plants and animals, but they also push the limits of acceptance by some in society.

Table 10. Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers
Benchmarks: III. Historical and Cultural-A. How has the
modern agri-food system impacted society?

 

Benchmark Langlage
1) Explain how agricultural technology changed the farms, urban, rural,

way people live and work in the US over the last population, society, shift,
century. employment, increased
production, time, manual
labor, food variety

 

 

 

 

 

Narrative: Agricultural Technology’s Influences on US Lives and Work

Table 10 provides the benchmark and vocabulary for agricultural technology’s
influence on the way people live and work over the last century. Over the last one
hrmdred years in the US, agricultural technology has increased crop production, increased
the variety of food choices to consumers and provided alternatives for food transport,

storage, distribution, processing and preparation. These changes are primarily the result

of technologies that reduced labor requirements within the entire agri-food system, netting
a reduction in time spent getting food to the table and fiber products to their end-user. As
a result, fewer people-approximately 50% at the turn of the century compared to 1.7%
today—produce the food and fiber for the rest of society. (It is true that currently nearly
20% of the US workforce is, in some way, employed within the agri-food system.) This
transition has resulted in a decline in rural and an increase in urban populations. In other
words, people have moved fiom the farms to the cities. With this move has come a
disconnection with the landua form of rmconsciousness—and a resulting fear of the
system’s inherent risks. Additionally, the reduction in time allowed society to devote
more resources to other productive endeavors and, at the same time, altered employment
opportunities throughout society. This shift has led to a decline in production-related
employment and an increase in service-related occupations within the agri-food system;

these changes mirror other sectors of society.

Table 11. Expert Concept Map for Prospective Elementary Teachers
Benchmarks: III. Historical and Cultural-A. How has the
modern agri-food system impacted society?

 

 

 

Benchmark Language

2) Describe trade-offs inherent in the use of increased production,
agricultural technology in terms of environment and sustainability, land
human culture. degradation, environmental

harm, higher disposable
income, pesticides,
fertilizers, employment,
pollution , loss of culture,
preservation, erosion, risk,
petroleum use, inexpensive
food

 

 

 

 

 

Narrative: Trade-offs of Agricultural Technologies

Table 11 provides a benchmark and vocabulary related to the trade-offs in the use
of agricultural technologies. Agricultural technology has trade-offs as do all human-
designed technologies. These technologies cause both positive and negative consequences
for the environment and for human culture. Agricultural technologies influence the
environment by altering the natural habitat, which in turn forces living things within it to
either adapt or die. Humans alter the diversity in the environment by, for example,
eliminating “pests” that inhibit the growth of certain valued crops, changing the
topography, creating systems for water delivery and food transport, or engineering plants
and animals to meet specific parameters. The goal of these technologies is to increase the
efficiency and reduce time and labor inputs in all aspects of the agri-food system. By
doing so, human culture is altered It becomes dissociated from the land as demographics
shift from rural to urban Food becomes cheaper to produce and less expensive to
purchase, thereby increasing disposable income for the purchase other consumer goods,
thereby altering employment opportunities as well as the overall economy.

With this technological revolution come additional trade-offs. First, there is an
increase in large scale societal risk As the system becomes increasingly centralized, there
is greater likelihood that one isolated event can result in catastrophic consequences for
many dependent upon the modern agri-food system. For example, with meat being
processed at fewer and fewer sites—to maximize economies of scale-there is greater

chance that the effects of microbial contamination would spread quickly throughout a

79

geographic region Similarly, if pesticide-laden lettuce—produced by only five to six
growers for McDonaldsTM-wwas distributed throughout the country, the effect could be
widespread, rather than a localized, isolated event. Finally, the industrialized agri-food
system is dependent upon petroleum for its operation--tractor operation, inorganic
fertilizers, pesticides, transport, storage, refrigeration, processing, etc.--consequently
humans often unwittingly contribute to the depletion of this finite resource and to the

pollution of the environment that its use produces.

G. Population

This study draws upon two distinct populations: upper grade level elementary
students and their prospective teachers. Nine1 (9) fifth grade students were purposefully
selected for study. Fifth grade students were selected as informants, because they: 1)
have reasonably well developed language skills, 2) are typically still classified as
elementary students, and 3) fall into a grade that is defined within the agri-food system
benchmarks. Their selection was based upon: type of school attended (private, public,
charter, middle, elementary), gender, socio-economic status, geographic location of
residence, and ethnicity. Once elementary students were selected, I mailed letters
(Appendix F) describing the study and release forms to administrators of the school and

the participating student (Appendix G). I emphasized to the administrator and teacher

 

‘ A sample of nine (9) students and nine (9) aspiring teachers were selected based upon Dr. Andy Anderson's
recommendation (my committee’s science education expert).

80

that typical students meeting certain parameters were sought. For example, I asked that
certain schools provide groups of informants meeting specific backgrounds. Those from
Detroit were selected based upon qualification for the Federal School Lunch program, a
measure of poverty. Students in the urban Lansing areas were selected based upon their
lower-middle-class status, while suburban Lansing students were from upper-middle-class
families. Both guardian and students signed the elementary school release forms, while
only the students did for prospective teachers. A $6.00 honorarium was provided for
participation in the study.

The second group-nine prospective elementary teachers-«was volunteer third and
fourth elementary education students. One of these informant’s video tape was
indecipherable, therefore only eight (8) people comprised the teacher group. Prospective
teacher selection was based upon educational background. Only one student participating
in this study minored in science, I sought students who had little or no science
background as they are representative of most elementary educators.

Letters describing the study were distributed to elementary education majors who
were enrolled in Michigan State University’s (MSU) Agricultural and Extension
Education’s (ABE) “Issues in Agricultural and Environmental Education” course; a
course I taught. These students were asked to solict participation of other elementary
education majors that they knew. No student enrolled in the class participated in the
study. In addition, I visited four (4) elementary education teaching methods courses to
seek participants. Participants in the teacher group came from both these sources--five

(5) from the ABE students and four (4) from the methods courses. I anticipated that a

81

$6.00/hour stipend would draw MSU students to the study--this was not the case. I
increased the stipend to $20.00 and had more than enough volunteers. All prospective
elementary teachers read a letter explaining the study and signed a consent form

(Appendix H).

H. Data collection

Clinical interviews were used to elicit informant understandings of the agri-food
system and to identify cognitive structures and the states of cognitive development
(Novack and Gowin, 1984; Posner and Gertzog, 1982). The interview is widely accepted
as a research tool to extemalize conceptual or structural knowledge (Jonassen, Beissner,
and Yaeci, 1993). Each interview took approximately 45 minutes. Dining this time,
approximately five minutes were spent determining demographic background; the
remainder probed agri-food system understandings and in-school learning about food
Interviews were videotaped and transcribed, because they served as the primary data
sources. Field notes and products created by the informants were consulted as secondary

data.

1. Interview Questions and Protocol

Interview protocols were designed to ferret out elementary student and

prospective elementary teacher conceptions relative to specific parts of the agri-food

82

system. Questions and protocol were reviewed by members of Michigan State
University’s (MSU) Departments of Teacher Education and Agricultural and Extension
Education To ground conversations in a familiar context, interviewees were provided a
BigMacTM cheeseburger. I hoped that by starting with this familiar basis, informants
could more easily express their ideas about the steps this familiar food goes through on its
way from production to consumption.

Interviewees were asked to separate the cheeseburger into its component parts so
that the complex food could be more easily analyzed I then asked the informants to
explain how the cheeseburger’s “parts” arrived at the fast food restaurant or, if they felt
more comfortable, to trace back the “parts” to their origin Questions required
interviewees to trace back only the lettuce and meat to their origin; these two foods are
the least processed of the Big Mac’sTM components and were easiest to trace. Further
questions probed informant rmderstandings of the structure of a farm; technologies used
in food production, transport and distribution and their affects on society. Interviews
concluded with questions addressing student memories of food and food production

promoted through formal instruction in school. A complete list of interview prompts is

found in Appendix E.

J. Analysis of Data

In this study, three different strategies were used to analyze data. First,

demographic information were reported descriptively. Second, to answer research

83

objectives two and three, agri-food system understandings were analyzed using Hogan
and Fisherkeller’s ( 1996) strategy for representing highly complex student thinking about
ecosystems. Lastly, strategies to ascertain general differences and comparisons were

employed for research objectives four and five.

Analysis of Research Objectives Two and Three

Analysis of this data understandings involved four phases. First, I developed
expert propositions related to the agri-food system and associated subconcepts. These
were validated by MSU’s Science Education and Agricultural and Extension Education
faculty. Anderson (1995) suggests clinical interviews be limited in terms of the
organization of academic knowledge, activities expected of students when they use that
knowledge, and the schemata for communication needed when they use their knowledge.
With this in mind, expert propositions and goal conceptions for fifth grade students and
prospective elementary teachers (high school graduates) were based upon a synthesis of
Benchmarks and the _C_A_L_F_ (T rexler, 1997).

In the second phase, raw data from student interview tapes were analyzed by
generating conceptual proposition maps. These maps served as summary portrayals of
student thinking for each learning objective (West, Fenham, and Garrard, 1985). To
assure accuracy of these maps, I viewed each videotape to translate student thinking into
a concept map. Finally, maps were verified for accuracy by comparing them repeatedly

to interview tapes of informants. At a minimum, each tape was viewed three times.

84

Phase three focused on coding student responses. The s0phistication of student

thinking about a given topic, as represented in the conceptual proposition map, was

judged for each subconcept along two dimensions: quality (compatibility) and depth

(elaboration of response) by comparison with expert propositions (Hogan and

Fisherkeller, 1996). Student understandings were assigned codes based upon this

comparison scheme (Table 12).

Table 12. Coding Scheme to Compare Propositions with Experts

 

Code

Description

 

 

CE (Compatible Elaborate)

CS (Compatible Sketchy)

CI (Compatible/Incompatible)

IS (Incompatible Sketchy)

IE (Incompatible Elaborate)

N (Nonexistent)

a (No evidence)

 

Statement concurs with the expert proposition and has

sufficient detail to show the thinking behind the
concepts articulated

Statement concurs with expert proposition, but lack
essential details. Pieces of facts are articulated but are
not synthesized into a coherent whole.

Sketchy statements are made that concur with the
proposition, but are not elaborated upon At other
times, statements contradict preposition.

Statements disagree with the proposition, but provide
few details, and are not recurring. Responses appear to
be guesses.

Statements disagree with proposition and students
provide details or coherent, personal logic supporting
them. Same or similar statements/explanations recur
throughout the conversation.

Students respond “I don’t know” or do not mention
the t0pic when asked a question calling for its use.

A topic is not directly addressed by a question and
students does not mention it within the context of
response to any question.

 

85

 

The final phase of analysis sought confirming and disconfinning evidence of
patterns among individuals (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This was accomplished by two
procedures. First, each subconcept was analyzed across individuals. And second,
holistic portraits of student thinking were analyzed to ascertain how understanding or
misunderstanding of subconcepts might influence understanding of another subconcept
and ultimately, their understanding of the agri-food system. Examples of elementary
student concept maps are provided in Appendix D. Elementary Concept Maps for Key
Concepts 11.8.2 and 11.3.3. These maps graphically show how students differed in the

understandings of two benchmarks pertaining to pests and crop protection.

Analysis of Research Objectives F our and Five

Research objective four sought commonalties among informants within groups
with regard to background and experiences and their understandings of the agri-food
system, while objective five sought differences tlmt existed between the elementary
student and prospective teacher informant groups.

To obtain a broad overview of the data for analysis in objective four (4), coding of
benchmarks for each individual was tallied and placed on a grid Next, I listed
demographic background and experiences under each individual’s tallied coding and looked
for patterns. Once these were identified, I examined the specific nature of each coding in
detail to determine commonalties relative to the understandings of individuals in both

elementary student and prospective teacher groups.

86

For objective five, I utilized the same grids as for objective four. As in
analysis of the previous objective, patterns were first identified. 1 did a side-by-side
comparison of group codings for each benchmark, for example, I looked for the number of
Compatible-Elaborate codes for a given benchmark X for the student group and compared
this for the prospective teacher group. A difference between the group of at least of
three (3) individuals in the Compatible-Elaborate group or three (3) in the Nonexistent
group was used as a decision criterion. Once these differences were identified, I further
examined the data to determine the specific differences in understanding that led to the

discrepancy in the scores.

Summary

The ultimate goal of the methods used in this study was designed to describe what
both elementary students and their prospective teachers understand about a complex
system that is traditionally taught in a disconnected fashion. Gardner ( 1991) suggests

that traditional quantitative methods of assessment can:

provide clues to student understanding, [but] it is generally necessary to
look more deeply if one desires firm evidence that tmderstandings of
significance have been obtained. For these purposes, . . . open-ended
clinical interviews or careful observations, provide the best way of
establishing the degree of understanding that students have obtained” (p.
145)

By employing the use of the clinical interview, idiosyncratic understandings were
surfaced to answer questions about what knowledge people have and how they learn
about technological concepts and systems. In the case of agri-food system technology,
neither agricultural nor science educators have researched the understandings of

elementary students or their prospective teachers.

IV. FINDINGS

Overview

This exploratory study was designed to determine elementary student and
prospective elementary teachers’ understandings of selective educational benchmarks for
agri-food system literacy. To ascertain literacy and possible contributors to it, five (5)
objectives were explored First, the study probed background and experiences of the two
informant groups to understand factors contributing to their understanding of the agri-
food system. The second research objective sought elementary student understandings of
five (5) clusters of educational benchmarks, while the third ascertained prOSpective
elementary teacher understanding of these five (5) as well as two (2) additional clusters of
benchmarks. The fourth objective sought commonalties in regard to understandings
among individual members within the two groups. The final research objective targeted
differences that existed between elementary teacher and prospective elementary teacher
groups with regard to their understanding of the agri-food system educational
benchmarks.

This chapter begins with the first research objective which is divided into its two
components. Backgrounds of students are first explored, followed by those of
prospective teachers. Next a summary/discussion section is presented that distills and
comments upon salient points of the question. This same pattern is repeated for each

section of all five research objectives. For example, in research objectives two (2) and

89

three (3) multiple benchmarks are assessed and a summary/discussion section follows
each benchmark. Research objectives four and five are not as detailed, so the

summary/discussion sections for each aspect of the objective are included at the end.

Research Objective 1. Informants’ backgrounds and experiences.

This section describes the demographic of elementary student and prospective
teacher informants. Descriptions are first provided for the backgrounds of informants.
After highlighting these attributes, food and agriculturally-related experiences are
described for individuals in each of the two groups. The elementary student information

is presented first, followed by that of the prospective teachers.

A. Background Demographics of Informants

In this section, informants were asked questions related to: 1) where they were
raised, 2) the type of schools they attended, and 3) their parents’ occupations. Along
with these questions, visual characteristics were noted by the interviewer, e. 3. gender and

race.

1. Elementary students.

Found in Table 13 are specifics relative to student informant background including,

gender, race, school, geographic location of where they were raised, parent occupation and

socio-economic-status (SE8).

Table 13. Elementary Student Background Data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Gender Race School Raised Parents’ Socio-
Occupation Economic
Status
Jay Male African Public Lansing Father- Janitor lower
American School Mother - State middle class
civil servant
Jill Female European Catholic Lansing Father- State lower
American School civil servant middle class
Tom Male European Public Idaho, Father- Science lower
American School Oregon, teacher middle class
and
Lansing
Jim Male African Lutheran Detroit Mother- Word lower class
American School processor
Mona Female Afiican Lutheran Detroit Father- lower class
American School Airport porter
Mother - pre-
school teacher
Sara Female African Public Detroit Stepfather- lower class
American and machinery
Lutheran repair
School Mother-
shippingclerk
Tim Male European Public Suburb Father- Mental upper
American School of health middle class
Lansigg administrator

 

91

 

 

Mother-
Secretary
Ema Female European Public Subm'b F ather- upper

American School of Pharmacist middle class
Lansing Mother- Pre-

 

 

school teacher
Liz Female European Public Suburb Father- Engine upper
American School of designer middle class
Lansing Mother-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers’ aide

 

The following is discussion of data found in Table 13. Four (4) of the nine (9)
informants were male. The racial background of the elementary student informants was
split between those from European and African ancestry: five (5) were European
American and four (4) were Afiican American. All but Tom were raised exclusively in
Michigan. He had lived previously in rural Idaho, Montana and Oregon. Five (5)
informants grew up in urban areas, three in the city of Detroit (Mona, Jim, and Sara) and
two in Lansing (Jill and Jay). The remaining three informants said they grew up in the
suburbs of Lansing (Tim, Ema, and Liz).

Students attended two types of schools: parochial and public. Jill, Jim, Mona
and Sara attended religiously-based schools. Only Sara had attended both public and
parochial schools. The remaining five (5) students attended Michigan public schools.

Elementary informants were selected specifically based upon the socio—economic
status (SES) of their parents. Of the nine (9), Mona, Jim, and Sara were labeled as lower

SES because they were eligible for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch program; three (3)

were considered lower middle class (Jay, Jill and Tom) as their parents made less than
$50,000 per year. The final three (3) informants (Tim, Ema, and Liz) were classified as
upper middle class because their family incomes exceeded $85,000 per year.

Obviously, parental employment determines SES level. Students were asked the
occupations of their parents. Jay lived with his mother who worked as a civil servant in
state government. His father lived a few blocks away, and he was employed as a janitor
and cook. Jill’s father was also employed in state government in the social services
department. Tom’s father was a science teacher in a suburban middle school.

As expected, the students’ parents from Detroit-«selected as representatives of
lower SES— held jobs that required less education. Jim’s mother worked as a word
processor, while his grandmother stayed at home. Mona’s father was a porter at the
Detroit Metro Airport, and her mother worked as a shipping clerk. Sara lived with her
stepfather and mother, he a mechanic and she a secretary.

The students from the highest SES all lived with both parents, and each of the
parents worked outside the home. Tim’s father was an administrator for a mental health
company and his mother was a secretary. Ema’s father was a pharmacist, while her
mother worked as a pre-school teacher. Finally, Liz’s father was an engine designer and

her mother a teacher’s aide.

2. Prospective teachers backgrounds.

Table 14 provides background information for the prospective teacher informants. The

same information is provided as was for the elementary student informants.

Table 14. Background of Prospective Teacher Informants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Gender Ethnicity School Raised Parents’
Occupation
Sid Male European Public School Suburban F ather-
American MSU, El Ed, Detroit Electrician
Social studies
Kat Female European Public School Suburban Mother- High
American MSU- E1 Ed, Detroit School Science
English teacher
Father-
Landscape
architect
Molli Female European Catholic Detroit Mother- Pre-
American School school teacher
MSU- El Ed, Father- Special
Special Education
Education teacher
Kara Female European Catholic Southern Father- Farmer
American School Rural
MSU- El Ed, Michigan
English
Di Female European Public School Detroit Father- Detroit
American MSU- El Ed, Civil Servant
English
Dan Male European Public School Southwestern Father-
American MSU- El Ed, Rural Hardware store
Agriscience Michigan owner
Guy Male European Public School Suburban F ather- Janitor
American MSU- El Ed, Detroit Mother- Sales
Social studies clerk
Meri Fanale European Public School Southeastern Mother- Real
American MSU- El Ed, Rural Estate Agent
Social studies Michigan

 

 

-.J.

Three of the eight informants were male. All prospective teacher informants were
European American They were all raised in Michigan, although in different the locations.
Three (3) informants grew up in areas that they described as rural (Kara, Dan and Meri),
while, on the other extreme, two (2) said they grew up in the city of Detroit (Molli and
Di). The remaining three (3) informants grew up in the Detroit suburbs (Sid, Kat and
Guy).

Differences were also noted in the types of schools that they attended before
college: two (Molli and Kara) had attended Catholic schools only, while the remainder had
exclusively attended public schools. All students attended Michigan State University,
were elementary education majors and were either Juniors or Seniors. They did differ,
however, in their areas of concentration. Three of the prospective teachers focused on
social studies (Sid, Guy, and Meri) and three (Kat, Kara, and Di) minored in English The
two remaining informants had special education and agriscience degrees as minors (Molli
and Dan, respectively).

The occupations of the informants’ parents varied greatly. Sid’s father was a
skilled electrician Kat stated that her mother was a high school science teacher and her
father was a landscape architect; they were divorced Molli’s parents were both teachers:
her mother of pre-school children and her father of children with special needs.
Interestingly, Kara said that her father was a full time cash-crop farmer. On the other
extreme, Di’s father worked within the bureaucracy of the city of Detroit as a civil
servant. Dan’s father owned and operated a hardware store in a small rural community,

while Guy’s father was a janitor for a suburban school district and his mother worked at a

95

record store. Meri’s mother sold real estate in a rural southeastern community of

Michigan.

Sum mary/Discussion

There were nine (9) elementary students in this study: five (5) were female and
four (4) were male. They were of European or African ancestry and came from urban and
suburban locations. Four (4) of the student informants attended parochial school, and the
remainder were in public schools. The parental occupations ran the gamut from janitor to
pharmacist. The informants were evenly divided by soci-economic status (SES) groups:
lower, lower-middle, and upper-middle.

One of the students who lived in a urban location had once lived in rural areas in
western states. The other informants had only lived in the locations where they were
interviewed The fact that one student lived in various places while growing up is of
some import to this study. He cannot be compared with the other urban students for
purposes of generalizations.

The prospective teacher backgrounds were less varied than the student
informants. There were eight (8) informants in this category; three (3) were male and five
(5) were female. All of them were of European ancestry- all were white. They did vary
in their schooling. Two (2) had attended Catholic school, and the remaining (7) attended
public school before college. All informants attended MSU and majored in elementary

education, although they had different minors. Although they were not purposefully

96

selected for variance in geographic locations where they were raised, three (3) students
came fi'om rural backgrounds, three (3) from the suburbs and two (2) fi'om the city of
Detroit Just as with the elementary student informants, occupations of the prospective
teachers’ parents varied—from janitor to landscape architect.

Although the prospective teacher informants are less varied than the other group,
they is representative of most of MSU’s teacher education students. There is, however, a
greater percentage of males in this prospective teacher group than is typical for
elementary education. This fact, I believed at the beginning of this study, might bias the
results. In the end, though, I was proven wrong. Gender was not play a factor in
understanding the agri-food system. On the other hand, over thirty percent (30%) of the
informants came from nnal backgrounds. This provided an interesting contrast to the
urban informants that is discussed later in this study. Also notable is that one
prospective teacher informants father was a farmer. On the whole, then, this group may
have been slanted toward a more rural orientation than most prospective elementary

teachers from Michigan State University.

B. Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences

Along with gathering demographic information that described elementary and
prospective teacher informants, questions were asked that focused on food and
agricultmally-related experiences. These questions were designed to determine in what

experiences informants had engaged relative to gardening and the purchase and preparation

97

of food Again, as with the previous section on background, elementary students are

described first, followed by prospective teachers.

1. Elementary students.

Table 15 summarizes experiences of elementary students.

Table 15. Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences of Elementary Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Informants

Name Shopping Cooking Gardening Farming

Jay Yes , Sometimes cooks Yes, with mother. No
mother steak.

Jill Yes, Doesn’t cook. No No
mother

Tom Yes, Sometimes macaroni Yes, with father. No
mother and cheese

Jim Yes, Mixes things for Yes, with grandma. No
mother drna

Mona Yes, Cooks cookies with Tried to grow No
mother mom and had plants, they died.

cooking class. No vegetables.

Sara Yes, Helps mother No No
mother sometimes.

Tim Yes, Cooks with canned Yes, with grandma. No
mother food.

Erm Yes, Cooks macaroni. No No
mother

Liz Yes, Cooks cookies, Yes, with mother No
mother never meals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No student had ever worked on a farm at any time in his/her life. Along the same
line, only three (3) students (Jill, Sara, and Ema) had ever helped grow a garden Mona

said that she had planted flowers in the past, but they had died. She had never grown

vegetables. The remaining elementary informants had all been involved in growing a
garden in some way. Jay, Tom, and Liz had grown gardens with their pments, while Jim
and Tim had experienced gardening with their grandmothers.

Students were asked their experiences relative to purchasing and preparing food
All informants stated that they had gone grocery shopping with their mothers at some
point in their lives. On the one hand, their experiences with cooking food varied Only
Jill had never cooked All others said they occasionally either helped a parent or
grandparent in the kitchen or prepared simple items such as macaroni and cheese, steak or

cookies. It is noteworthy that only Mona had taken a cooking class in school.

2. Prospective teachers.

Table 16 identifies food and agriculturally~related experiences of prospective

teachers.

Table 16. Food and Agriculturally-Related Experiences of Prospective Teacher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Informants

Name Shoprflg Cooking Gardening Farming ,
Sid Yes , Sometimes cooks Yes No

mother
Kat Yes, Doesn’t cook Yes, with father No

mother when young
Molli Yes, Now just beginning No No

mother to cook
Kara Yes, very little cooking Yes Sometimes

mother with father
Di Yes, One day a week No, but No

mother when yormg, now all Grandparents did

daily

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Yes, Yes, pasta anything Yes A little with
mother quick fiiends

Guy Yes, Cooks every night No No
mother

Meri Yes, Loves to cook Yes No
mother

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted in Table 16, only Kara and Dan had experiences working on farms. Kara, when
young, worked with her father on his cash-crop farm. She also described how her family
always raised their own beef cattle for meat. Similarly, Dan stated that he had helped out
at neighbors’ farms when young and that he currently had fiiends who owned large farms
he visited regularly.

In a similar vein, five (5) informants (Sid, Kat, Kara, Dan, and Meri) had home
gardens when they were yormg. Di stated that she did not have a garden at home, but that
her grandparents had one. Only Molli and Guy reported that they did not have a garden
while they were growing up. This is contrasted by the fact that all informants had gone
to grocery stores with their mothers to shop for food at some point in their lives.

The final area addressed in the interview was food preparation Informants were
divided into two categories with regard to cooking—those who cooked every night and
those who cooked seldom or never. Guy and Meri said that they enjoyed cooking very
much and did so every night for dinner, while the other informants fell into the category

of seldom to never cooking.

Summary/Discussion for Food-based Experiences

100

All elementary students had shopped with their mothers for food. Most had
helped out in the kitchen, but they did not play a major role in food preparation. Only
one (1) elementary student had had a cooking class in school. Relative to gardening, only
two (2) students had never been involved in growing food No elementary student
informant had ever worked on a farm, but one (1) had lived in areas near farms.

As with the previous group, all prospective teacher informants had shopped with
their mothers for food They ranged in their experiences with cooking from never
cooking to an impassioned love of cooking. For the most part, though, most prospective
teachers occasionally cooked for themselves. As for gardening, five (5) informants had
grown food with their parents, one (1) young woman’s grandparents had a garden, while
two (2) had no experience whatsoever. Interestingly, two (2) informants in this category
had experiences working on farms.

All informants had food-based experiences. The primary difference among them
was experience with gardening. Two (2) informants in each group had never grown food

Of these, three (3) were raised in Detroit and the other in one of its suburbs.

Research Objective 2. Elementary students’ understandings of the agri-food
system goal conceptions.

Research objective two (2) was addressed by analysis of elementary student

informant’s discourse generated during interviews. Specifically, students were prompted

101

to respond to questions aligned with the agri-food system literacy benchmarks found in
Table 1. Analysis is based upon five (5) clusters of benchmarks that correspond to key
concepts that are formulated into questions. A total of thirteen (13) benchmarks were
assessed in the elementary student informant section. Student responses were coded by
comparing discourse compatibility and extensiveness with the expert conceptions for each

benchmarks. These are found in Figure 1.

Elementary Benchmarks and Sub-components

The analysis of elementary students begins with four (4) benchmarks related to a

general understanding of: the Agri-food system, moves onto a detailed look at eight (8)

Science: Agricultmal-Environmental Interdependence oriented items, and concludes with

one (1) Cultural-Historical benchmark detailing technological affects on society.

I. Agri-food System

A. Concept of Agriculture

Table 17 lists codings of elementary informants’ understandings of a key concept

from section I. Agri-food System, What is agriculture? Four (4) benchmarks necessary to

answer the key concepts are found in the table. Analysis of the benchmarks follows.

102

Table 17. Elementary Student Understanding of: LA. What Is Agriculture?

 

Benchmarks
1) Identify food and fiber
products that come
from plants and
animals.

2) Describe the variety
of farms and their
products.

3) Describe the journey
of a food or fiber
product as it travels
from the farm to the
consumer.

4) Describe how
agriculture uses natural
resources to provide
peoples’ basic needs.

Jay Jill Tom

CECECE

CS CS CE

CECECE

CS CS CS

CECE

CS CS

CE CE

CS CE

er

Jim Mona Sara Tim Ema '

CECECECE

CS CE CS CE

CECECECE

CECSCECS

a—No evidence; N—-Nonexistent; IE--Incompatible Elaborate; ISuIncompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

1. Food and fiber products come from plants and animals.

As indicated in table 17, all elementary students were Compatible-Elaborate in

explaining their understanding of the expert conception. They explained that the lettuce

came fiom a plant and that meat came from an animal. Jill and Mona, however, did not

know from what animal the meat came.

2. Variety of farms and their products.

103

Tom, Tim, and Liz were coded as Compatible-Elaborate. They stated that lettuce

could come from either a farm or a garden Gardens were considered to be smaller and

included diverse crops, while the lettuce on the cheeseburger probably, they all said, came

from a large farm that grew few crops (specialization). Tom’s comments to interview

questions pointed out the distinction, found in the Compatible-Elaborate responses,

between farm and garden:

Interviewer- Where do you think the lettuce came from that is on this burger?

Tom- From maybe a field of it. Or maybe a kind of like an orchard.

I.

Tell me about the field What does it look like?
Probably, not probably, middle size, middle size field, like rows.

Ok, people usually think of acres maybe like a football field size. So how
many, um, one half of the football, one full, several football fields, how

big?

Probably half a football field

Ok, and then what was that, what does the plant look like? How are there,
you started talking about rows.

Like it would, it would be like rows, yeah or pretty much rows with it. So
the sprinklers can lay there too.

Ok. I know what you’re talking about, but those kind of metal pipes.

Yeah Probably like this far apart and it goes down on the ground like that.
It’s like up on a hill.

Right where the lettuce is.

Yeah

104

1- Ole Now was anything else growing near the lettuce?
T- No, just lettuce.

I- Just lettuce? Ok.

T- Except for it came from a garden that has lots of . . .
I- But where do you think this, this lettuce came from?

T- This, probably fiom a field that has all lettuce.

On the other hand, the remaining informants were coded Compatible-Sketchy as they
described a farm as being like a large garden that grew various crops in alternating rows. It
is noteworthy that even though Tom, Tim and Liz said farms were large, the largest farm
described by any informant was four (4) football fields in size. Of further interest is that

Liz never used the word farm in her interview, but instead used plantation.

3. Journey of a food or fiber product as it travels from the farm to the consumer.

All elementary students were coded Compatible-Elaborate in their rmderstanding
of lettuce’s journey from farm to consumer (Table 17). They understood that lettuce was
produced on farms and was shipped via trucks to restaurants for consumption. Only Liz
said that lettuce was shipped directly from a plantation (which had a factory behind the

fields that removed bugs from the lettuce) to the McDonald’s restaurants. All other

105

informants said that the lettuce was sent via truck to some type of a factory for cleaning.

From there, everyone but Sara said that it was transported by truck to the restaurants.

Sara believed that it was sent to a grocery store and that the manager of the restaurant

purchased it as needed. It is noteworthy that only Mona and Liz believed that the lettuce

could be shredded and placed into bags prior to shipment Mona also stated that the

factory where the lettuce was cleaned was the “head” McDonalds.

Tim describes his version of the journey that lettuce travels:

1-

Tell me about the process to get fiom the farm to a McDonalds.

Well, they probably have a big trucks that are like, like working for the
company that drive down there . . .

What company?

Any company like, a company who just does like plants, who makes
plants, like plants, like vegetables. Probably package em, wrap em up, so
a company is made...

Ok. So they got this company. Where does it wrap that up at?

It probably goes in this machine.

Where is the machine?

Probably in the factory.

How does it get to the factory?

Well probably have heads of lettuce are put up in a truck or something,
bring it to the factory where it gets washed and like kill the germs, bring
them to this machine in the factory. The factory where they package the

plants and send them to the truck.

And then this truck. . .

106

The truck drives down to Michigan and gives them to McDonalds.
So McDonalds gets the head of lettuce.

Probably there are McDonalds companies down there.

Who buys it?

McDonalds.

Liz provides a similar but more elaborate description of the journey:

Let’s focus in on the lettuce. Can you tell me, how did that, you can do
this one of two ways. Either think about it being at McDonalds and go
backwards and tell me where did it come from originally or, if it makes
more sense to you, go the other way.
OK, well I guess it starts like a seed And it grows into a big head of
cabbage, or letttrceuwhatever you call it. And then they like put it into a
factory and like make sure all the bugs and stuff are out of it. And ship it
to, like, and they use the food like at McDonalds.
OK, what was the place where the seeds grew, where they planted them?
I don’t know.
What would you call the place?
Um, a plantation
OK, and then where do you think that plantation was?
I don’t know.

So tell me then, how did it get from the plantation; where did you say it
went next?

Um, they ship it.

OK, how was it shipped? [overlapping speech]

107

Or, well they don't like ship. Well like some of the truck drivers
sometimes they usually, um like, bring it to the place. Like if you have a
can of Coke“, then they carry it into the trucks, like [to] the schools and
fill the machines with it. Well it’s like, lettuce comes in the truck and they
bring it like to McDonalds or Wendys.

OK, but you said something about a factory before.

Oh, well I meant plantation.

OK, can you tell me how it, tell me the steps, where it goes to get to
McDonalds. What are the, it goes from the plantation to where?

Well the trucks are, they load the lettuce into the trucks and they bring it
to like McDonalds. I don’t know.

Last time you talked about a factory and bugs.

I guess that they take, like make sure there’s like, no diseases in it or bugs.
Like clear that all out. Because it’s sort of like, you know with the cows,
they have machines that, um, make it so you can drink it. But the lettuce,
like they take all the bugs out of it and make sure it’s good to eat So it’s
not like bad, so you don’t get sick or anything. And then they probably
wrap it up, like so you can buy it and put it into the truck and take it to
McDonalds or the to stores.

So when it gets to McDonalds, what does it look like?

Like they may cut it up like that [pointing at the cheeseburger]

At McDonalds, at the restaurant?

Ya, or you can buy it, or they may cut it up at the thing, into little pieces
like that or you can get the big.

What’s the thing?
Cut it up at the plantation.
At the plantation, OK.

Or the factory.

108

4. Agriculture uses natural resources to provide peoples’ basic needs.

Table 17 indicates that Ema, Mona and Sara were coded Compatible-Elaborate for
their understanding of the need for natural resources for crop growth. They stated that
plants needed water, sun, air and soil for growth, while their contemporaries were
Compatible-Sketchy because they neglected to discuss the requirement for air (carbon-

dioxide and oxygen).

Sum mary/Diseussion

Elementary students had no trouble explaining that plants and animals were the
source of foods, in this case lettuce and meat.

They all—except one who said plantation-knew that food grew on farms. The
majority, however, believed that farms looked like large gardens where each row contained
separate crops. Three students spoke of specialized farms where lettuce would have been
the only crop grown. They distinguished these from gardens which were smaller and
more diverse. Students were unaware of the actual size of modern farms-the largest
described by any informant was four (4) football fields. This is an area of interest as
most farms producing lettuce exceed a hundred acres.

Informants were able to discuss the journey lettuce traveled from farm to
consumer at a fast food restaurant. They understood that it was harvested, transported,

processed, and delivered to restaurants. One (1) student believed that the restaurant

109

manager purchased the lettuce at a grocery store. The majority, though, said that it was
delivered to the restaurants. My impression is that many of the informants were
reasoning out the journey of lettuce as they spoke-many seemed to have never
considered it before. All did, however, come to a plausible story for the journey.
Educationally speaking, it is interesting to note that students drew upon examples they
were familiar with (e.g., Coke” delivery at their school) to explain the system that
brought them food

The final benchmark under this Key Concept dealt with natural resources
necessary for agriculture to meet the basic needs of people. Three (3) informants
accurately described natural resources necessary for plants and animals to grow. They
spoke of air as a natural resource, while their contemporaries only mentioned sun, water,
and soil for plants and water and food for animals. The plant growth requirements are
examined in detail in benchmark II.B.l. As to be expected, based upon studies by science
educators cited in the literature review, students simply parroted back the names of
natural resources and did not have a deep understanding of what they did for plants and

animals.

II. Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence

The Science: Agricultrnal-Environmental Interdependence section examines three

(3) key concepts and eight (8) benchmarks corresponding to the concepts. The key

110

concepts include: A. Ecosystem Management, B. Crop Management to Promote

Growth, and C. Role of Science and Technology in the Agri-food System.

A. Ecosystem Management

The first key concept deals with human management of ecosystems and its
benchmark focuses on how crops grown by humans depend upon climate and soil.
Student codes for understanding of this benchmark are displayed in Table 18.

Table 18 Elementary Student Understanding of: ILA. How Are Parts of the
Ecosystem Managed by Humans, and How Do They Interact?

 

Benchmarks Jay Jill Tom Jim Mon Sara Ti Ema Liz
1) Describe how crops

depend on an area’s N CS CE CE CS CS CE CE CE
a) climate and
b) soil for growth IS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS

 

a—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IEnlncompatible Elaborate; IS--Incompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

1. Crops depend on climate and soil.

aClimate

Tom, Jim, Tim, Ema, and Liz were Compatible-Elaborate in their description of

how crops depend on climate for grth (Table 18). Their descriptions included

111

elaboration on the impact of rainfall and temperature on crop growth, while Jill, Mona,
and Sara were Compatible-Sketchy because they did not directly allude to rainfall or other
forms of precipitation Jay’s understanding of clirnate’s impact on plant grth was
Nonexistent. Although he provided the response “water” previously in benchmark

1.A.4., he did not connect plant growth needs with climate.

b. Soil

All informants-except Jay-~were Compatible-Sketchy for their understanding of
soil’s role in plant growth. Jay explained that soil was food for plants and was coded
Incompatible-Sketchy. No informant listed all three functions of soil as found in the
expert conception They did not mention that soil provided plants with minerals needed
for plant growthna foundational concept of crop production.

All informants knew that soil was needed for plant growth, but they could not
articulate deep and elaborate reasons why it was needed Sara, Ema and Liz mentioned
that soil was needed for roots to grow and stretch out. Tom and Liz said that soil had to
be “good” Tom could not explain what made it “good,” while Liz said that good soil had
few rocks and weeds. Erna said that roots got the water from the soil. Sara’s response is

typical of her contemporaries:

1- Ok And then what else does it need? Did you say, what else did you say
it needs?

112

A majority of informants, five (5), understood that plants need specific climate for

conceptions.”

Soil was a topic where all students had incomplete understandings. Most knew

S- Probably it needs soil.

1- Ok, why?

S- So that the roots can grow.

1- Ok. Does it . . . does it get anything from the soil?

S- Probably fertile soil. I don’t know.

I- What does it mean? What is fertile?

S- Rich soil or something.

1- Rich in what?

S- [three second pause]

I- Fertile with what?

S- [four second pause, on to the next prompt]
Summary/Discussion

grth and said that climate included temperature and rainfall, while the remainder
mentioned temperature, but not precipitation. Overall the rmderstanding of climate’s role
was fairly well developed, with the exception of one informant. Rather than

misconceptions about climate, students that were not coded as CE held “non-

soil did something and it had to be good, but they did not say what made it good One

113

student offered a statement that it had to be rich and fertile, but she was unable to
support this proposition.

The murkiness of understanding of soil’s role in crop production is noteworthy.
The idea that plants acquire minerals from soil and that these are essential for growth
undergirds an understanding of why fertilizers are used and why they are beneficial to
crop production. It is evident that this group of elementary informants does not have the
requisite understanding that is foundational to a deeper understanding of crop growth and

management. The topic of soil is addressed in further detail in benchmark ILB. 1.

B. Crop Management to Promote Growth

The second key concept under the rubric of Science: Agricultural and
Environmental Interdependence involves the management of crops to promote growth.
There are four (4) benchmarks found in Table 19. They cover the requirements for plant
growth, crop protection, pest management, and the impacts of using poisons (pesticides)

to protect crops.

Table 19. Elementary Student Understanding of: ILB. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

 

 

Benchmarks Jay Jill Tom Jim Mona Sara Tim Ema Liz
1) Describe basic growth
requirements for CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CE CS
plants and animals.

2) Describe how crops
may be lost to pests. CS C8 C8 C8 N N CS CE CS
3) Explain how crops are

114

protected from weeds CS CS CS CS N N CS CS CS
and pests.

4) Describe the positive
and negative impacts
of using poisons to N N CS CS N N N CS CS
protect crops.

o—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IE--Incompatible Elaborate; IS--Incompatible Sketchy;
CI--Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

1. Basic growth requirements for plants and animals.

All elementary students, except Ema, were coded Compatible-Sketchy for
their understanding of the basic growth requirements of plants and animals (Table 19).
Although they knew bits and pieces of the requirements (See benchmark A. 1.4- natural
resources), they did not integrate this into a compatible and elaborate understanding.
New ideas that surfaced as a result of this prompt were proffered by Mona, Jim, and
Sara. They stated that air or atmosphere or CO; was needed for plants to grow, but they
didn’t know why.

Only Ema offered a Compatible-Elaborate description of the growth requirements
for crops. She added to benchmark 1A.4. by stating that air was needed by plants to
make food and that space was required She went on to say that weeds could compete
with plants for space which could limit the amount of sun that crops received. She said
sun was also needed by plants to make food.

All informants said that animals (the cattle that made the meat) need food and

water to live. Only Ema and Tom included the idea of protection fiom extremes of

115

temperatrne, while Ema also included the need for air and space. Ema’s canonical

knowledge of growth requirements was elaborate for an elementary student

2. Crops may be lost to pests.

In benchmark 2 “Describe how crops may be lost to pests” informants were
coded into three (3) classifications: Compatible-Elaborate, Compatible-Sketchy, and
Nonexistent (Table 19). Only Ema was Compatible-Elaborate in her description of the
two parts to this benchmark-«weeds and animal pests. Jay, Jill, Tom, Jim, and Tim were
Compatible-Sketchy; and Mona and Sara were Nonexistent. Erna, Liz and Tim said crops
needed to be protected from weeds. Tim explained in detail about how dandelions “stole”
water fi'om trees, while Liz’ response to why weeds were removed fiom her home garden
was based only on them being “tacky.” She lacks an understanding of how crops are lost

to pests. Liz describes her home garden:

L- Urn,ifithasrocksandstuffinit,likeinthedirt,andinit,orweedsor
something. Like in our garden, we always pick out the weeds and like old
roots and stuff.

I- Can you tell me, why do you think you pick out the weeds in your
garden?

L- So then, they don’t grow bigger and, I don’t know, so it looks better.
1- OK, what would be wrong if they grew bigger?
L- The garden would look really tacky.

1- OK, so it has to do with looks.

116

L- Ya, and um, because weeds aren’t the best things to have, because they
like, I don’t know. We usually pick them out in our garden because they’ll
look bad

Even though Tim and Liz held a much more developed schema relative to crop loss to
weed pests, they did not have a Compatible-Elaborate understanding of the goal
conception and were coded Compatible-Sketchy. Interestingly, their contemporaries did
not mention weeds at all during the interview.

Relative to animals as pests to human crops, only Ema and Liz stated that
these pests could be both rodents and insects. Jay, Jill, and Tim spoke only of rodents
and Tom and Jim only of insects. Additionally, Tom, Jim, Erna, and Liz knew that these
animals could afi‘ect crops by eating and nesting in them, while Jay, Jill and Tim only
mentioned animals eating plants-this may be logical as they viewed animals affecting
plants as large. Interestingly, no informant mentioned birds as pests to crops.

Neither Mona nor Sara spoke of pests at any time during the interview.

3. Crops are protected from weeds and pests.

All informants-with exception of Mona and Sara--were coded Compatible-
Sketchy. Mona and Sara did not mention pests in benchmark II.B.2. Therefore they did
not have the requisite background to understand that crops needed to be protected from

pests-they were coded Nonexistent. In the expert conception for this benchmark, three

117

(3) methods were listed to protect crops: 1) establishing of barriers to animals, 2) killing
of pests with poisons (pesticides), and 3) breaking the life cycle of pests through
management techniques. No informant spoke of all three methods, but one-Tim--added
the use of scarecrows and decoy snakes, which seemed plausible.

Elementary student understanding of this benchmark was dependent upon
their knowledge of pests. Because Tim, Ema and Liz knew that weeds could be a
problem to growing crops, they all discussed the need for their removal. However, they
did not mention using chemical compormdsnherbicidesnto rid gardens and fields of these
pests. Other explanations of how crops are protected from pests were equally based
upon student past understanding of what pests were. For example, Tim, Ema and Liz
stated that animal pests could be both rodents and insects, while Jay and Jill only
mentioned rodents. Both groups stated that fences could be used to prevent pests from
plaguing crops. On the other hand, Tom and Jim, because they viewed pests exclusively
as insects, stated that sprays (pesticides) could be used to protect crops by killing bugs.

The notion of using a spray to fend off insects was also shared by Tim, Ema
and Liz-they stated that insects were pests to cr0ps.

Ema explained crops were protected by pesticides:

I- Is there anything that the person who is growing this might need to protect
the lettuce from?

E- Um, bugs. . .

I- Tell me about that.

118

Um, the bugs, there are certain bugs that like lettuce and vegetables and
things and other things like rabbits that like to eat them. And they might
have to put up like cage or something around them to help them.

Can you tell me about the bugs? How would then, what would they do?
They eat the lettuce. They, I am not sure, they eat the lettuce.

Ok, urn, with these bugs eating the lettuce. Is there anything that the
farmer might do or the person who is growing has to be able to protect the
lettuce?

Yeah, they could um spray the lettuce.

With what?

With like bug spray or something.

What does that do?

It keeps bugs away from, . . . it kills the bugs.

Liz believed that “sprays” are like repellents that she has used for insects:

Anything else that they might protect the lettuce from?

Could put like spray stuff on it so like the rabbits, like I don’t know, if
they have any stuff for it But I know like, um, we put stuff on it, like for
bugs, you can put stuff on it, like for us we put, like OFFTM or something
on us, so the bugs don’t bite us, so you can

Oh, you spray stuff on plants for bugs, not rabbits?

I don’t know, both?

Both.

Ya,, we usually, for our, like we don’t have any rabbit stuff, but you can
use it for mostly bugs.

119

No informant mentioned the use of management techniques such as crop
rotation or pasture rotation as a means by which pests could be controlled It is
noteworthy that Jay, when asked about what cattle needed to be protected from,
explained that cattle needed to be protected from: 1) people with guns and 2) kids running

cattle into fences.

4. Positive and negative impacts of using poisons to protect crops.

The expert conception for the benchmark describing the positive and negative
impacts of using poisons (pesticides) to protect crops was very complex. On the
positive side of using pesticides (poisons) was the: 1) reduction of time and labor, 2)
increase in crop yield and its resultant decrease in price of food, and 3) decrease in human
disease capsized by pests. Conversely, negative impacts included the: 1) expense of
purchasing and using pesticides, 2) contamination of the environment resulting in
morbidity and mortality to living things, 3) resistance to pesticides by pests and resulting
in dependence on products that no longer serve their purpose, and 4) the move away from
sustainable practices because of a reliance on “quick fixes” such as pesticides. No
informant included more than one positive or negative impact of pesticides. In fact the
majority (Jay, Jill, Mona, Sara, and Tim) was coded Nonexistent for this benchmark. The

remaining Compatible-Sketchy informants (Tonr, Jim, Ema, and Liz) all stated that

120

pesticides would help plants by preventing their destruction, thereby leading to an

increased yield. Thomas also mentioned that this would increase profits for the farmer.

On the negative side, Tom, Jim and Liz mentioned that pesticides could result in

contamination of foods. Liz explained that people might be allergic and plants might not

tolerate the material:

OK, so let me asked you something about that. So if you sprayed this
stuff, you said like OFFTM right?

Ya [overlapping speech]

Like we spray ourselves. If you sprayed that on plants, so the good thing
about it is that it keeps the bugs off. Are there any bad things about it?

Um, I don’t know, some people may be allergic to it Maybe if the plants
can’t take it, they’ll die, like if they can’t [take] the stuff that you spray
on it.

Jim said that people would have to wash their produce and Tom commented that a

disadvantage would be harm to plants as well as to humans. Tom’s comments are

strikingly similar to Liz’:

You talked about, using those things that protect the plants from like bugs.
Can you think of, so what’s good about that?

Well, it kills the bugs and some of the bugs won’t eat the plant Bugs eat
plants.

Ok. Anything that disadvantage to that?

121

T- It could harm the plants, say they put too much on it and the people grind
it and eat it. It might harm the person who eat it. If it’s too much on it.

I- Do you ever think about that? Do you have . . .

T- Yeah. Sometimes. If it’s like on fruit, because they do spray on fruit.
And then you always have to wash it off before you eat it, ‘cuz it could
have, it’s, it’s poisonous to you probably. And it’s poisonous to bugs.

1- Ok. Um, so do you always wash off your fruit?

T- Yeah. Strawberries and apples, something like that.

It is noteworthy that no informant used the term pesticide at anytime during
the interviews. Bug spray and sprays were the terms most commonly used.
Additionally, Liz and Jim used the analogy of OFFTM, a repellent to discuss these

substances-they didn’t mention the killing of these insects.

Sum mary/Discussion

The cluster of benchmarks under the key concept of crop management to
promote growth were not well understood by most informants. In the first benchmark
related to basic growth requirements for plants and animals, eight (8) of the (9) informants
did not articulate a clear understanding. Only one (1) student described all plant growth
requirements. The remainder did not mention space as a requirement for growth and only
two (2) of the eight (8) spoke of air. The one (1) student who talked about both air and

space articulated a clear understanding of the sun’s role in the production of food for

122

plants and mentioned air as helping to produce food As mentioned in benchmark I.A.4
and ILA. 1, students parroted back memorized knowledge about plant and animal growth
requirements but had little understanding of what role they played in plant growth and
sustenance. This finding has been supported by science researchers for the past two
decades.

The one (1) female student mentioned above consistently demonstrated the
highest level of canonical knowledge of traditional science concepts. She spoke of how
weed pests compete with crops for sun, space and minerals from the soil. Only one (1)
other student spoke at length about competition fi'om weeds and only one (1) other, for a
total of three (3), mentioned weeds at all. Only three (3) informants spoke of insects and
rodents as pests, the other four (4) who talked of pests mentioned either rodents or
insects, not both Two (2) informants did not speak of pests at all. This lack of or
nonconception limited understanding of how one might protect crops from pests.

Protecting crops with poisons (pesticides) was mentioned by only those who
spoke of insects. Those who talked exclusively about animals (insects not included) did
not consider the “spraying” of plants. Of equal, maybe even greater, import is that the
majority did not mention pesticides as a way to protect plants and animals at all. In fact
the word pesticide was never mentioned by any informant. Without knowledge of pests
and how humans control them, there is no way to intelligently weigh the positive and
negative afi'ects of using pesticides. As such, this could be a reason why people are
willing to spray insect repellent on themselves for mosquitoes, but are frightened of

pesticide residue on their food.

123

C. Role of Science and Technology in the Agri-food System

The next Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence related key

question deals with understanding the role of science and technology in the agri-food

system There are three (3) benchmarks that are foundational to developing knowledge

and understanding to address the aforementioned question Table 20 lists the elementary

student informant codes for these benchmarks.

 

 

Table 20. Elementary Student Understanding of: II.C. What is the role of
science and technology in the agri—food system?
Benchmark Jay Jill Tom Jim Mona & Tim Em Liz
1) Explain why a)
irrigation and CS CS CE CS CS CS CS CS CS
b) firtilt‘zers are used to
grow crops. CS N N N N N N N CS
2) Identify the places of
origin of common
foods eaten by N N CE CE N N CE CE CS
Americans: lettuce
beef CSCSCECENNCECECE
3) Describe how places
too cold or too dry to
growcertaincropscan CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
obtain food from
places with more
suitable climates.

a—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; [Ii-Incompatible Elaborate; IS-Incompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

124

1. Irrigation and fertilizers.

a. Irrigation

Only Tom held Compatible-Elaborate understanding of why irrigation was
used to grow crops. His answer included acknowledgment that: 1) a constant supply of
water is necessary for crops to grow, and 2) humans grow crops in places that are
unsuitable for crops to grow. He discussed how in Idaho there were machines (center
pivot irrigation systems) that watered the crops because it never rained enough. His
contemporaries all stated that plants were watered because plants needed it, but neglected
to mention that humans grew crops in areas were they often times did not get much rain;
they were all coded Compatible-Sketchy. It is noteworthy that no student used the word
irrigation in their discourse about this topic.

Sara, one of the students who was labeled Compatible-Sketchy, had no idea of
water’s origin that might be given to crops. In fact she speculated men and women rode
chariots to deliver water in glass bottles. When asked if this was in the past or present,
she said in the past (although my impression was/is that she believed it to be the case
today). When asked about the origin of water today, her frame of reference was

obviously an urban one. Sara states:

1- Anything, any ideas about it? With, is there anything . . .

S- Make sure they get water.

125

Ok. And what would happen if they were not getting water?
They will probably die, ‘cuz they need the water to survive.

Is there any way that the farmer can get the water to the plant?
Probably if they, um, they probably use a hose to spray the water.
Do you think they ever do that?

No.

Ok. What you are saying is that they plant the seeds. If it rains, great. If
it doesn’t, then they might lose everything that they planted.

Yeah, sometimes rain can help the plants, if it rains enough
Well, how does it get water if it didn’t rain.

Um, people have to do it by themselves. They, if they decide a couple of
days or a couple of weeks that they . . .

Where would they get that water do you think?

Um, probably um, where did they get it from? Who did they get from?
Where?

Oh, like [in the] country? Like probably like, ok. Say it was back then.
You know how they, like they give milk out to people by glasses.
Probably they can do like that if they um had the water.

Ok I don’t understand what you are telling me right now.

I mean like, sometimes, um, you know, men or women can ride a horse like
a chariot and they could pass out water to people. And these glasses. If
there is enough, they will be able probably, be able to, probably able to
plant there. I mean water their plants.

So are you are saying that’s done now or that’s done in the past, or what?

That’s done in the past.

126

I-

b. Fertilizers

So what do they do now to be able to get water to the plants? Or do they
do that? Do they just plant them and hope the rain?

I don’t think so.

You don’t think they just plant them and hope the rain So how do they
get the water to the plants?

They probably have in order to get the water, probably they have to pay
for it or . . .

What is the source of that water?

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Ok. So where do they get the water from?

They probably get the water from, from, from, from, from . . .

Tell me what it is. Maybe you don’t know the word but tell me what it is.
It’s like, say we are renting a house. They’ve got to pay for it and if
people don’t pay for, they’re gonna to cut you off. And they’re probably
going to throw you out back onto the street, if you don’t pay for rent.
That’s what I’m, I’m talking about like . . .

Like a water company.

Yeah, yeah, you have, don’t you have to pay for it in order to get it? Or . .

But the question is where it has come from though.

The second portion of this benchmark dealt with reason why fertilizers were

used to grow crops. Only Jay and Liz mentioned fertilizers during their interview. They

127

also both knew that fertilizers provided “stuff" that plants needed; they were coded

Compatible-Sketchy. Jay said that farmers gave plants food through “little white pellets

and sticks.” When asked how he knew this, he said that his mother and he lurd used it in

their garden. Liz’ knowledge of fertilizers was also based upon her family experience.

Fertilizers came up in a roundabout-way. Liz was talking about what cows needed to be

protected from and stated that they needed to be protected from fertilizers. She stated

that fertilizers were used on lawns and that they helped plants grow and got rid of weeds.

When asked if lettuce could be grown with fertilizers, she wasn’t sure. She said:

They eat grass, um, maybe they wouldn’t let their cows to be poisoned or
anything like with fertilizers, so the cows would get sick and die.

You just talked about fertilizers, can you tell me what that is?

A, ha--its something you put on your grass, um, sometimes it’s so the
weeds don’t grow up, like the dandelions.

What does it do to the grass?

It helps it grow and makes it, um, I guess greener, so it doesn’t look all
burnt and dry. But other times, like if you use fertilizer and put it in a
bucket, and just spread it around, it’ll burn the grass because there’s like
too much in one spot. Like we have a spreader, so you put it in this big
thing that’s on wheels and it shoots it out of all the side, so where it goes
to difi'erent places instead of one spot.

So are there any other kinds of plants that use fertilizer, or is it mainly
grass?

No, we, at home, we use it on, sometimes on the rose bushes.
Would you ever use anything like that on lettuce?

I don’t know.

128

The other elementary students were coded Nonexistent in relation to fertilizers as they
did not mention them when asked about things farmers might provide plants to help them

grow.

2. Obtaining common foods eaten by Americans.

Table 20 displays codings for the benchmark: identify the places of origin of
common foods eaten by Americans. In this study, the two foods were lettuce and beef

and they were dealt with separately.

a Origin of lettuce

Tom, Jim, Tim and Ema held Compatible-Elaborate understandings of the origin of
winter lettuce. Tracing this commodity back to its origin was quite telling of an
informant’s understanding of the relationship between climate and plant growth The
aforementioned informants stated that lettuce needed a warm climate to grow. They then
went on to speculate as to where this climate might have been found Tom stated that the
lettuce was most likely grown in states like Georgia or Florida; or he reasoned, it could
have been grown in a Michigan greenhouse during the winter. Similarly, Jim and Tim

stated that the lettuce was probably grown in the southern US, while Ema reasoned that

129

the lettuce came fi'om California because of its climate. Liz was coded Compatible-

Sketchy because her description was in accord with the expert conception for the need for

warmth, but then she seemed to make a reasoned guess as to the origin of the lettuce—she

said South Africa because it has a different growing season than the US. Liz’ reasoning is

provided below:

I-

So, where do you think it [lettuce] comes from, where does it come from
dining January?

Maybe from a different country where there’s not the same seasons- I
guess.

thought about that before? What you just a, or

No.

think about it then.

Ya Well I guess because different countries, there’s not the same schedule
as us. Meaning they’re not like on the same season, or day time, or the
same, like um, like when it’s winter here, it would be like summer in Afiica
[laughs]-which I don’t know if that’s true.

It’s true, it’s true.

Um, maybe they grow the plants through the same process in Afiica--
they then would ship it over to the US.

The remainder of the informants were coded Nonexistent. Jill responded that she

did not know where the lettuce came from, while Jay, Jill and Mona stated the lettuce

came from “out in Michigan,” “in state” or “here [Lansing] or in Detroit” This was not

possible (other than in a greenhouse) as it was approximately 20'F when the interviews

130

were conducted Jay’s comments were representative of the Nonexistent informants on

this benchmark:

1: OK, now the lettuce and the pickles, where do you think they were

grown?
J: ...Probably grown, here.
I: So, what was the temperature like here in Michigan last month?
J: Cold

1: So, go ahead.

J: About in the...fifties.

1: OK, how do you think lettuce would grow in the fifties?
J: Not very good.

I: 1 So, you still think it was grown here in Michigan?

J: (Shakes head) No.

I: Where do you think it was grown then?

J: Probably out in Detroit.

b. Origin ofbeef

The second part of this benchmark dealt with the origin of a common food that
students, as a group, held more compatible rmderstanding ofucattle. Tom, Jim, and Ema

stated that cattle required large expanses of land and that these places could be in most

131

states or even in other countries; they were coded Compatible-Elaborate. Tom said the
cattle were most likely raised in the western US in states like Montana or Idaho [where he
lived previously]; Jim stated that the cattle came from Arkansas [where he had seen
pictures of his cousin’s house near a farm]; Liz said that the cattle came from Virginia [her
uncle had a farm there]; Tim thought the cattle came fiom a desert somewhere in the west
where they were held in cages, and finally, Ema suggested that the location didn’t matter
as long as there was suitable space.

Jay, Jill, Mona and Sara were co®d Nonexistent Jay said the cattle came from
“here or in Detroit” as he did for the lettuce, while Sara based her reasoning of the origin

of cattle upon visits to her aunts, “out in Michigan.”

I- Where did the cows come from that made the meat?

S- Out in Michigan.

1- Why do you say, out in Michigan?

S- See my aunts, ‘cuz they live out in Michigan.

I- Where do they live?

8- They live by this farm. On this farm, I don’t know the streets. Like
where it’s called but all I know it’s out in Michigan. I usually visit them
sometimes they got this house in Detroit that we can go to, this yellow
house and then we can go see them or if they are not there, they probably

they can be out in Michigan, ‘cuz they have two houses. Probably they
still own them. Probably out in Michigan.

Jill and Mona said they had no idea about the origin of the “animals” that made the meat.

132

3. People obtain food from places with more suitable climates.

For the final benchmark in this section-which asked elementary students to
describe how places too cold or too dry can obtain food from places with more suitable
climates—all were Compatible-Elaborate. They all described transport systems that
moved lettuce and cattle/meat from one location to another. All responses included

trucks, while Tom and Sara integrated the use of planes and ships into their responses.

Summary/Discussion

All except one (1) student did not know the reason why crops were grown
with irrigation They mentioned part of the answer, that plants needed water, but did not
add that humans often grow crops in unsuitable environments, such as winter lettuce in
the desert~ The informant who did know both reasons why irrigation was used had lived
in a rural, arid area where irrigation was employed The conceptions held by students,
like in many of the previous benchmarks, were not misconceptions, but rather
nonconceptions; their mental schemas were absent.

To an even greater extreme than irrigation was their dearth of understanding of
why fertilizers were used Only two (2) students spoke of fertilizers, although just one
(1) used the word fertilizer by name. The informant who did not mention fertilizer by

name held a misconception that people gave plants food in the form of “little white

133

pellets and sticks.” Both students who mentioned these materials had learned of them
from their parents in gardening and lawn maintenance.

Student conceptions of the origin of common foods were dependent upon
knowledge and understanding of : 1) climate, 2) plant and animals growth requirements,
and 3) geography. Four (4) students wove these concepts into accurate discourse about
the origin of lettuce. They reasoned that the lettuce on the BigMacTM was grown in a
warm climate-either in the south or west of the US. One student understood that lettuce
required a warm climate, but guessed that it came from South Africa because she knew
that they had the opposite temperature than Michigan.

Of most interest is that students who held no conception about the origin of
lettuce came fiom urban areas. They lacked a geographic reference to reason where the
lettuce could be grown. Also interesting is that, although they, in previous benchmarks,
discussed warmth as a growth requirement, they did not relate the temperature in
Michigan during February to the growth of crops—they appeared not to have integrated
school-knowledge into a workable everyday schema for the origin of crops.

Relative to the beef, the majority of students understood that cattle required
much land to graze and that this land could be virtually anywhere. Interestingly, all
students-except one-who were coded CE for this sub-concept, were very specific about
where cattle were raised. They referred to place where they had seen cattle themselves,
or places where they had seen them in pictures or heard of from relatives. Those that
were coded CS or N were all from urban areas. They seemed not to possess the same

library of experiences from which to draw upon. Their urban background and their

134

parents lack of economic resom'ces may have limited their geographic knowledge of and
their experiences with seeing cattle.

In contrast to the benchmark on the origin of foods, all students understood
that lettuce and beef were transported from place to place via truck. Much of the
background for this benchmark was laid in benchmark I.A.3.-the journey of crops. It
could be argwd that students, because of their lack of knowledge of the origin of winter
lettuce described previously, did not understand this benchmark. I placed emphasis on

the obtaining through transport system aspect of this benchmark, not the climatic aspect.

III. Cultu ral-Historical

A. Social Change by Agriculture

The Cultural-Historical section examines one (1) key concept and one (1)
benchmark corresponding to this concept. The key concept deals with human
management of ecosystems and its benchmark focuses on how agriculture has changed

society.

1. Effects of modern technology on farms, farmers and rural and urban
communities.

Table 21 divides the benchmark Explain the eflects of modern technology onfarms,

farmers, and rural and urban communities into three separate categories. For analysis,

135

each is ascertained separately. The analysis proceeds alphabetically as the categories are

found in the table.

Table 21. Elementary Student Understanding of: III.A. How has agriculture
changed society?

 

Benchmark Jay Jill Tom Jim Mona Sara Tim Ema Liz
1) Explain the affects
of modern technology N N CE CS CS CS CS N CS
on a) farms

 

b) farmers N CS CI CI CS CS CS N N
and c) rural and urban
communities. N N N N N N N N N

a—No evidence; NuNonexistent; IE-Incompatible Elaborate; IS—Incompatible Sketchy;
CI-Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE—Compatible Elaborate

a. Farms

This is a highly complex benchmark. The expert proposition for the effects of
technology on farms included: 1) the increase in size of farms, 2) the decrease in number
of farms, 3) the move toward specialization of crops produced, 4) the increasing
complexity of farms, and 5) the increase in the mechanization of farming operations.

Only Tom articulated an understanding of all five of these effects; he was as coded
Compatible-Elaborate. Similarly, Tim and Liz stated that farms had become more
specialized. Jim, Mona, Sara, Tim, Sara and Liz also understood that farms had become

more mechanized, but they did not relate this to increased size, complexity, or decreased

136

number; they were coded Compatible-Sketchy. Jay, Jill and Ema were Nonexistent in

their understanding, they said they did not know how technology affected farms.

b. Farmers

Relative to understanding technology’s effect on farmers, Jim and Tom’s
responses were Compatible-Incompatible (Table 21) when compared to the expert
conception which included: 1) a reduction in labor, 2) dependency of technology, and 3) a
reduction in the total number of farmers. Their coding as Compatible-Incompatible may
be misleading as they possessed a greater breath of understanding than their
contemporaries, but were confused and worked out ideas as they spoke. Tom’s
statements were contradictory. At one point he said that the number of farmers had
increased while later he reasoned that with more machinery, the number of farmers might

be decreasing. He explained:

I- So do you think that there are more farmers now or less than let’s say 70
years ago?

T- Probably more. Well, it could be more 70 years ago or it could, well, now
they have more machines to make bigger fields. So it could be less, ‘cuz
sometimes farmers back then have to do it by hands not by machines. So

it could have less farms out there. Or there could have more farms because
they had lesser room to have farms.

1- Ok. So you are really, you are really not sure.

T- Yeah I am not sure.

137

1.

Ok. Um, let’s say they do have more machines or bigger machines. So
what are the advantages of that?

Well, it gets it done faster.

Ok.

You can have bigger field with it And really it helps you, it can protect,
some machines protect the plants, ‘cuz those machines have a lot of, it has

water like a thing goes around it with water. That kind of machine.

I think it’s called center pivot.

Similarly, Jim answered that the number of farmers had decreased over the past 100

years. When probed about why this had occurred, he was unable to support his

proposition. He eventually stated that he saw this topic on a Discovery ChannelTM

television program.

Do you think that there are more farmers or less farmers now than there
were 100 years ago?

Less farmers now than it was 100 years ago.

How do you know that?

Because . . .

Or why do you think that?

Because farmersback,um, 100yearsagotheyhadtheyhadtoum... _
farmers back then, they, they, ok. There is a word I’m trying to say but
can’t get that.

Use another word.

0k Farmers, they were, they were like a lot. Farmers back then, they
were a lot. Serious about their farming. And farmers now they just, well

138

they’re, well they’re serious but they are not serious as the 100 year ago
farmers.

Ok, so the question was is there more or less farmers now than 100 years
ago. And you said less and then you said farmers back then were more
serious but so farmers now are also serious. So what are you saying?

But they are not serious as they were.

Ok, so they were, how does, how does that relate to the number of
farmers?

How does that relate . . . ?
To the number of farmers, ‘cuz you said there are less farmers.
Because farmers now, they just, I’ve never thought about that.

Ok, well if you are real sure of your answer, I am just trying to figure out
why you thought what you were thinking.

I can’t think of nothing. I was trying to think of something.
Ok. Why don’t you say that there are more farmers now?
Well, really, that was, that was my opinion.

Right, I am asking, I am trying to figure out why you had that opinion.
Why do you think that there are, why do you think there are less?

Why do I think there are less?

Yeah. You said that there are less farmers. So why do you think there are
less farmers?

You want to go on something else?
Yeah

Why did you think there are less?

139

J - I thought there were less because I never. Ok like on, I watch Discovery
Channel sometimes.

1- Sure, it’s a good thing.
J - And um. They show, they would show like farmers. There would be

farmers everywhere, ‘cuz they showed something about it They showed
a presentation about it. And it was, it was farmers everywhere.

1- Right.

J - Wherever we went, there were farmers 100 years ago. But now there is
not a lot, there is not as much farmers as there was then.

1- Ok. The reason why you think that was because you saw them on
Discovery Channel.

J- Yeah, because there were a lot of farmers.

I- So let me ask you this. Do you think that there is more or less food grown
now than 100 years ago?

J - I think there is more food grown now.
I- Tell me about that. Tell me how, how that could be possible.
J- Because it took, it took like years and years and years for people with
farmers 100 years. . . I mean, not years and years ago, but like a few years
for foods to grow. But now people just go, I mean, they, they, they just .
. . Can we come back on this subject later?
Additionally, Mona, Sara, Tim and Jill were coded Compatible-Sketchy. Mona, Sara and
Tim implied that with mechanization, labor would be reduced, but made no link between
this proposition and reduction the number of farmers or their dependence of technology.

Tim commented:

140

So farmers have to buy their technology. What does the technology do for
farmers?

It probably helps them out.

How?

Maybe, I am not so sure, the tractor is technology.

Say it is. How does it help them out?

It probably helps them like where the tractors pull those big towing things,
instead of horses, where it evens out the crops and puts them in a line and
they plant the seeds so where it can grow.

Ok. So, how would that help?

That makes sure the crops won’t . . .

How does, how does that help from doing it over animals?

Well, probably helps some, because it puts plants in a straight line, and
plants have a hard time growing (overlapping speeches).

You couldn’t do that with a horse?

Well, you could . . .

So what’s the benefit then?

Um, that sometimes you don’t have to spend your money or something?
What do you mean?

Like because if you go out and buy a tractor and you have a horse and, you
know, like

No. I am saying what the benefit of using a tractor versus a horse.
One thing you go a lot quicker. Because you have to, like, you never know
what the horse would do. Like it will stop, or go fast, or slow. But if you

have a tractor, and you could make sure that it goes (inaudible). Like goes
fast and slow. And you want it your way, not the horse’s way.

141

I-

T-

So it saves time for the farmer and the farmer can do what he wants.

Yeah And so he can get done other things, like chores.

Jill, on the other hand, stated that the number of farmers had decreased, but made no link

to increased mechanization. She added, however, that there were less farmers because

there were:

Better jobs and more of them.

So, OK, there are more and better jobs. So, when people don’t have good
jobs is when they are farmers?

What?

Well, you said that you think that there are less farmers today than 70
years ago because there are more and better jobs.

Yes.

So, do people farm then when there aren’t good jobs or when they can’t
get good jobs?

(four second pause) Ah.

So why do you think there are less people farming?

(shrugs shoulders indicating no idea)

Finally, Jay was coad as Incompatible-Sketchy. He believed that the number of

farmers had increased because there is now a greater number of people who enjoy farming,

142

while Ema and Liz were coded as Nonexistent as they responded that they did not know
the effects technology had on farmers.

Interestingly, when asked about technology, many informants spoke initially of
computers. Tim broached the idea of computer technology and then said that computers
were probably not used by farmers, because they didn’t have any jobs--they made their

own food:

I- How do you think farmers have computers to help them out?

T- They probably don’t, because a lot of farmers probably, I don’t know like
. . . to, I, farmers probably don’t, don’t use all that much technology stuff.

I- How come?
T- Probably because they don’t need it. They probably don’t have any jobs.

They get the food from the, probably the farm. They just, just going to
cost them a lot of money and they don’t need it.

c. Communities

In the last portion of this benchmark-agricultural technology’s impact on
communitiesuthe depth of response was limited to an increase in food availability. This
idea was held by Jill, Jim, Tom, Sara, Mona, Tim, Liz and Ema. This idea alone did not
warrant a coding of anything other than Nonexistent, because they were not linking this to
the effects increased food had on communities. Jay had no response to this question and

was also coded Nonexistent.

143

When asked about the effects of technology on communities, Sara and Mona
spoke at length about chemicals being placed into foods which reduced quality and made
people sick. On the other end of the spectrum, Liz spoke about how much more
healthful food was for people in communities today. She linked this proposition to the
notion that preservatives were now added to milk and that machines aided in the

reduction of harmful bacteria.

1- So how has that changed farms and farmers.

G- Probably helps the farmers out. They won’t have to do such of a big job.
Doesn’t really affect anything with the farms, not that much, not at all
really.

1- Ok, what about the community in which people live.

G- I don’t know if they have anything to preserve the milk, so it’s not bad or
anything. I don’t know if they drink it after they milk the cow, which I
think they just drink after they milk the cow, put it into a different
container-back then. And now, they probably find out that a lot more
people are getting sick from milk

I- A lot more are or aren’t?

G- Are, because of the bacteria and stuff in it. Now we have, probably
machines, that do all the different-J don’t know.

1- Why do you think more people are getting sick now from milk?

G- No-I meant back then. Um, because they didn’t have any like, machines
to do, like take all the bacteria and stuff out of it.

I- How do you do that?

G- Guess you have to have some bacteria in there because it’s good for you.

144

Summary/Discussion

Overall informants had difficulty in making cause and effect relationships
between technology and firms, farmers and committees. This was manifest in their
limited or lack of response to prompts. Relative to farms, only one informant’s discourse
matched the expert conceptions. This student-the only person with a rural background--
was able to link mechanization with the five (5) effects detailed in the goal conception.
Two (2) other informants lorew that mechanization was linked to specialization of crops
grown and increased in output of crops, but this was the extent of their understanding of
the effects of technology. Similarly, five (5) other informants knew mechanization
increased yield, while the remaining three (3) students had no conceptions for
technology’s affects. What was missing from these informants was the ability to make
connections between technology and its affects on farms.

Likewise, the same basic notion held true for the sub—concept of farmers, but
overall informant codes were less compatible with the expert conception. Two (2) spoke
in conflicting ways about the effects of technology. One (1) informant was working out
his mrderstanding as he spoke, while the other was confused about what he had seen on a
Discovery ChannelTM program about farmers. The other informants understood that
mechanization would help farmers make their jobs easier, but were limited to this effect,
while another believed that more people had entered farming because they found it

enjoyable. Still another believed that there were fewer people living on farms today, but

145

did not have any reasons to support her statement The remaining two (2) informants
had no concept of technology’s affect on farmers.

When extending the affects of modern technology onto communities, no
informant’s discourse was compatible with all parts of the expert conceptions. Students
understood that technology increased the amount of food produced, but could not make
the link to the effects this would have on rural and urban communities.

Two female respondents from Detroit both spoke at length about chemicals
that are now added to food today that were not used in earlier times. They suggested
tlmt, because of these chemicals, food was no longer as good for people. Interestingly, an
informant who had visited a university dairy farm held the exact opposite opinion
because she believed that modern technology prevented contamination of food by
bacteria. Her experience formed her opinion, while the beliefs of her urban
contemporaries where based on what they saw on the media and what they heard from
their families.

Of additional interest is that the young women who held such clear
conceptions for canonical science knowledge displayed the same level of understanding as

the rest of the informants when asked questions related to the effects of technology.

Research Objective 3. Prospective elementary teachers’ understandings of the
agri-food system goal conceptions.

146

This section describes prospective teachers’ understandings of five (5) clusters
of benchmarks for the elementary section of this study and two (2) for prospective
teachers. As in the previous research objective, the clusters are organized around Key
Concepts. F ormd within the key concepts are sixteen (16) individual benchmarks.

The analysis begins with elementary benchmarks which include: four (4)
benchmarks related to a general understanding of the Agri-food system, eight (8) Science:
Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence oriented items, and one (1) Cultural-
Historical benchmark detailing technological efi‘ects on society. Alter presenting these

findings, higher level results fi'om prospective teachers benchmarks are presented

Elementary (K-S) Benchmarks

I. Agri-food System

A. Concept of Agriculture

Table 22 lists the first cluster of benchmarks which are organized around

prospective teacher informants’ understandings of a key concept from section I. Agri-

food System: What is agriculture? Four (4) benchmarks necessary to answer the key

concepts are found in the table. Analysis of the benchmarks follows.

147

Table 22. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: LA. What Is Agriculture?

 

Benchmarks Sid Kat Moll Kara Di Dan Guy Met
1) Identify food and
fiber products that

come from plants and CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
animals.

2) Describe the variety
of farms and their CE CE CS CS CS CE CS CE
products.

3) Describe the journey
of a food or fiber
product as it travels CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
fiom the farm to the
consumer.

4) Describe how
agriculture uses
natural resourcesto CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
provide peoples’ basic
needs.

a—No evidence; NuNonexistent; IE--Incompatible Elaborate; IS—-Incompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

1. Food and fiber products that come from plants and animals.

As indicated in Table 22, all prospective teacher informants held a Compatible
Elaborate understanding of the origin of the lettuce and meat formd on the cheeseburger.
They talked at length about the lettuce being a plant that grew in the ground and the meat

coming from an animal; they all mentioned that the meat came from a cow.

2. Variety of farms and their products.

148

~LLI

In coding informants, Sid, Kat, Dan and Meri held Compatible-Elaborate
understandings of this benchmark as indicated by their knowledge of the size of farms and
their specialized nature. On the other hand, Molli, Kara, Di and Guy held Compatible-
Sketchy understandings based upon their understanding that lettuce came from a large
farm, but the notions, in the case of Molli, Kara, and Di, of farms that grew multiple
crops all in the same field

All informants stated that the farm that produced the lettuce was most likely
large. Their understanding of this relative terms varied from individual. Sid, Kat, Kara,
Dan and Meri all believed that the farm was in excess of twenty (20) acres (they were
told that a football field was about the size of an acre and used this as a basis for
discussion). Although Di and Molli stated that the farms were large, Di said that the field
where the lettuce grew was about ten (10) acres, while Molli thought it two to three (2-3)
acres. Guy stated that he had no idea about the size of the field.

Relative to the diversity of crops grown on modern farms, Sid, Kat, Dan and Meri
stated that lettuce was probably the only crop grown on the farm. This was in contrast
to the ideas held by Molli, Kara, and Di. These three informants described the farm like it
was a large garden. Guy did not mention anything about other crops being grown with
the lettuce. Kara stated:

I would assume they would have a lot of vegetables, I would assume—they

would-and this is from what we grew when we were at our garden-have

lettuce and carrots, tomatoes. I sure it would be mostly vegetables, like
ground vegetables.

149

Di, in her conversation about the farm that grew the lettuce, said that:

So let’s go back to where it started out, to
the farm [overlap of spwch]
Can you tell me a little bit about what that place looked like?

Sure, I picture a farm with lots of acres, probably different crops too, but,
um [someone] who makes his living off of farming and just tons of little
heads of lettuce sticking out of the ground

OK, then a football field is about the size of an acre, how many football
fields was that?

I would say 10 maybe.

And you said that there were probably other things being grown about it.
Can you tell me about that?

I would think that he probably won’t make his living solely off of lettuce,
but maybe he does. But I’m picturing just various other vegetables, maybe
corn or onions or something like that.

And you said that you don’t think that they would make their living off of
just one thinguwhy not?

I guess I don’t hear a lot about lettuce farmers, I mean, maybe wheat, I
would think that would, you know, I just picture lettuce as having other
crops grown with it.

3. Food or fiber product’s journey from farm to consumer.

Generally speaking, all informants understood that lettuce was grown on farms,

processed in some way and transported to the consumer. Not all prospective teachers

150

understood all the intricacies of the journey that lettuce traveled from farm to consumer,

but they had a notion of the basic system. They were all coded Compatible-Sketchy.

Specifically, all informants understood that lettuce was grown on a farm. Also all expect

Guy and Sid believed that the lettuce was shipped via truck to a plant for processing-

washing, cleaning and shredding. Guy believed that the lettuce was transported via plane

to a mid-westem processing plant for distribution, while Sid stated that the lettuce was

packed on the farm. He provided a very detailed and descriptive account of the journey

that lettuce travels from the farm to the consumer.

I-

Tell me about the lettuce.

Lettuce , um, let’s still say that it was grown in Michigan, um, the same
process I guess. It has to be planted, grown, raised, harvested, and then,
cultivated, picked, Whatever, and cleaned and washed, crated into boxes,
maybe checked over, make sure, no bugs or it hasn’t been [inaudible].

Where’s that going to be done?

Um, probably be done right there on the farm.

Ok, and the cleaning and washing stuff, also right there on the farm?

Ya, sure, then they would ship that somewhere, probably to a food service
company who purchases the lettuce from them, a giant food service
company, I guess, and they would ship it by truck or train.

Can you tell me a little about the giant food service company, do you have
any ideas about that?

Can’t think of it right now, somebody who specializes in purchasing stuff
for crop distribution and distribution center. Um, maybe--Gorden’s Food
Service. I think they’d be considered a middleman, they get food for
places and package it and ship it to certain restaurants and businesses.

151

Besides Sid, all prospective teachers stated that the processing plant prepared the lettuce
for consumption Interestingly, both Molli and Sid stated that the lettuce could be
frozen for shipment at a later date. From the processing plant, all informants except
Molli and Sid believed that the lettuce was shipped directly to restaurants. Molli and Sid
both discussed the need for a broker or middleman to orchestrate the distribution of the

lettuce.

4. Agriculture uses natural resources to provide people’s basic needs.

All informants knew that plants and animals required natural resources to grow
and, hence supply humans with food and fiber products from plants and animals. All
stated, except Guy, that plants needed soil, water, and the sun in order to grow. Guy, on
the other hand did not talk about soil as a requirement for plant growth Interestingly, all
informants neglected to discuss air (Oxygen and Carbon dioxide) as a natural resource
necessary for plant growth. As a result, all informants were coded Compatible-Sketchy

on this benchmark

152

Summary/Discussion

All prospective teacher informants rmderstood that plants and animals were the
source of food—in this case the lettuce and meat.

Their ideas about farms were not as consistent, however. Four (4) of the eight (8)
prospective teachers understood that most modern farms were large in size and
specialized in the crops they produced Four (4) informants stated that firms were large,
but described them much like large gardens, with multiple crops growing in rows next to
one another. Prospective teachers described firms as large, but their estimates of size
(using football field sized units as a measure) was lacking in comparison to the vast
expanses of monoculture agriculture. In addition, descriptions of farms seemed to be
based on personal experiences.

All informants understood that crops made a journey from the farm to the
consumer and that journey involved transport, processing, and delivery of product.
Although they were not extremely detailed in their descriptions of the journey, all showed
a rudimentary understanding of the system. Only two (2) informants spoke of a broker
or middleman who orchestrated the linkage between buyer and seller.

Prospective teachers were sketchy in the details of what natural resources were
required to provide for people’s basic needs through agriculture. Although all-except one
(1) - mentioned soil, water, and sun as natural resources necessary for growth, no
informant added air as necessary for life. It seemed that prospective teachers had

memorized soil--water--sun, but did not think deeply about these resources. As stated

153

previously in this dissertation, limited understanding of natural resources has been

documented by science education researchers for years.

II. Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence

The Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence section examines three
(3) key concepts and eight (8) benchmarks corresponding to the concepts. The key
concepts include: A. Ecosystem Management, B. Crop Management to Promote

Growth, and C. Role of Science and Technology in the Agni-food System.

A. Ecosystem Management

Student codes for the key concept pertaining to ecosystems management and its

supporting benchmark are displayed in Table 23.

Table 23. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: ILA. How are parts of the
ecosystem managed by humans, and how do they interact?

 

Benchmarks Sid Kat Mglli Kara Di Dan Guy Meri
1) Describe how crops ‘

depend on an area’s CE CE CI CE CE CE CE CE
a) climate and
b) soil for growth. CS CS CS CE CE CE CS CS

a—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IEuIncompatible Elaborate; IS--Incompatible Sketchy;
CI»Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE—Compatible Elaborate

154

.v

1. Crops depend on climate and soil.

a Climate

All informants, except Molli, were coded as Compatible-Elaborate for
understanding of climate. They stated that a specific climate was necessary for the growth
of craps such as lettuce. Climate was defined by them as temperature and rainfall. Their
responses were not as well developed and deeply rooted as the goal conception, but they
definitely understood the connection among climate and plant and animal growth
Origimlly Molli was coded Compatible-Elaborate for climate; she gave the appropriate
response. Upon further probing, though, she showed that she really didn’t consider
climate and temperature when it came to the origin of winter lettuce, or at least, her
response that lettuce in January came from Indiana, drew her initial coding regarding
climate into question; she was then coded Compatible-Incompatible. On the other hand,
Guy articulated the most well founded understanding of the climate concept when he
explained that the lettuce probably grew in California because of specific climatic
conditions found there. His statement was based upon a class he took in geography at
Michigan State University. Meri also took the same class and held similar ideas. Their
discourse about climate and its relationship to plant growth was much more extensive and

Specific than the other informants. Guy commented:

155

I would think the lettuce was grown somewhere, probably, I don’t know,
I’d say maybe California Although knowing McDonalds, it might be out
of the US, so I don’t know, but

Why do you think California?

Because from what I know about-Jet me think, see, I had class in this a
while ago. I believe most of the lettuce is grown in California, because of
the climate. But I might be wrong, that was a few years ago. So that’s my
best guess.

When you said Mediterranean climate, what do you mean by that?
Um, they get the, let me see, temperature-wise, like, it’s like, um, let me
think, um, and they have, um, well they get the climate [from] the water

and they get the continental climate from the north. So they have a little of
both, I guess. Just like Florida Actually, I’m kind of confused on it, so.

80, OK, it was grown in California Could it be grown here in Michigan?

I don’t think so, actually I’d say no.

How come?

Um, because, I believe lettuce has to be grown in a more moderate climate,
not a, I’d think it too cold, we don’t have enough months above the critical

temperature point, which I would think is like 60 to ‘70 degrees, from what
I, so I don’t think it would be grown here.

All informants spoke of soil as necessary for plant growth Upon deeper probing,

though, only Dan, Kara and Di said that soil provided minerals for plants, a place for
roots to anchor and hold water. Other informants simply stated that soil was necessary

for grth with no elaboration, this is underscored in Benchmark DB. 1).

156

Summary/Discussion

All prospective teachers-except one (1)-stated that a specific climate was
necessary for plant growth. They described climate involving temperature and
precipitation. The one (1) informant who did not understand climate’s link to plant
growth stated that lettuce grew during the winter in Indiana She did not link temperature
to plant growth and simply thought that Indiana was where farms were.

An understanding of soil’s role in growth was not as universally held Three (3)
of the eight (8) prospective teacher informants expressed understanding of all three
aspects of the expert’s conception, while the five (5) others only stated that plants
needed soil and included no elaboration As stated in the elementary student section of
this paper, an understanding of what plants derive from soil undergirds an understanding
of why fertilizers are used and the trade-offs of such technologies. It is apparent that the
majority of prospective teachers in this study do not have a deep understanding of this
concept, and as such, their understanding of more complex ideas about agriculture will

most likely be hindered

B. Crop Management to Promote Growth

The second key concept under the rubric of Science: Agricultural and

Environmental Interdependence involves the management of crops to promote growth.

157

There are four (4) benchmarks found in Table 24. They cover the requirements for plant
growth, how crops are lost to pests, pest management, and the impacts of using poisons

(pesticides) to protect crops.

Table 24. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: ILB. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

 

 

Benchmark Sid Kat Molli Kara Di Dan Guy Meri
1) Describe basic growth '
requirements for CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
plants and animals.

2) Describe how crops
may be lost to pests. CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
3) Explain how crops are
protected from weeds CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
and pests.
4) Describe the positive
andnegative impacts CS CS CS CS CS CS CS C8
of using poisons to
protect crops.

o—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; [Er-Incompatible Elaborate; ISuIncompatible Sketchy;
CI-Compatible/Incompatible; CS~Compatible Sketchy; CEuCompatible Elaborate

1. Basic growth requirement for plants and animals.

Table 24 indicates that all prospective teachers were coded as Compatible-
Sketchy in reference to the growth requirements of plants and animals. This is a K-2nd
grade benchmark in the AAAS Benchmark document. Therefore the depth of
understanding necessary to meet this benchmark is relatively shallow. None of the

interviewees articulated a well developed understanding of the canonical scientific

158

requirements for growth and maintenance of living things. All informants except Guy

mentioned soil, water, sun, and temperature as necessities for plant growth. Guy did not

mention soil as has previously been noted No informant discussed space or air as a need

for plants. Similarly, all informants stated that water and food were necessary for animals

to live. Air was mentioned by only Meri, Guy, and Di, while space was discussed by

Kara and Kat Finally, specific temperature requirements for animals were proffered by

Meri, Dan, Kara, and Molli.

The range of understanding of growth requirements for plants is representative

in the discourse of Kat and Guy. Kat held the richest and most highly developed

schema

Tell me about the light.

The light, does chlorophyll, turns into glucose, and - I had
biology last semester and I should know that

OK, what does it do then?

It’s the energy for the plant, how it grows or produces, fruit, sugar

So tell me how that works.

I have no idea. My mom is a science teacher, she would shoot me
if I didn’t know how that thing works.

What does the water do?
Well the plant needs water.
For?

For the same reason we do, for a, so we don’t get dehydrated.

159

I-

K-

OK

You can tell I know a lot about plants, can’t you!

Guy’s understanding of plant grth needs was also based on a similarly

disjointed and incomplete schema. Upon the initial prompt he mentioned that he only

knew water and light, “and that’s all I know,” but when probed further, he mentioned

bits and pieces of information related to the needs of plants:

What is it that plants need in order to grow?
I know they need light; they need water, and that’s all I know.
Can you tell me a little bit about what the light does?

I think the light just provides the energy for the processes to take place--
like photosynthesis and that’s about it.

What happens in photosynthesis?

Um, that’s where theul’m drawing a blank now--um, something to do
with the food, I think. It’s not repro; I don’t think it’s reproducing? I
don’t know.

What about the water, what does the water do?

The water keeps the plant at a level where it’s healthy, so it does not
dry. And water enables it to grow.

How?
I guess whatever it does to trigger the systems, to trigger the stuff inside

the plant to grow. It just helps the cycle run whatever the growth cycle
is in a plant. I’m not sure about plants.

160

I- So plants need light and water, anything else to grow?
G- Um, I know chlorophyll. I guess they need a lot of things. There’s all

that stuff inside of a plant, I guess, but I don’t know if that’s what you
mean now.

2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests.

Table 24 reflects that all informants were Compatible-Sketchy in their
understanding of how crops may be lost to pests. All informants, except Guy,
understood that crops could be lost to insects and other animals, such as rodents and deer.
Guy spoke only of losses due to insects. Di, Dan, and Kara specifically stated how these
might take place: eating of plants while growing or the nesting of insects in the crop. No
informant spoke of losses to crops afier harvest.

Only Sid, Di, and Dan spoke of weeds affecting crop growth negatively. Di
was the only informant that proffered a reason for these losses--the competition for

minerals by weeds with crops. She stated:

D- Well, I know in gardens you weed I don’t know if you would have to do
that in a big sort of field with any machines, but I’m assuming you’d
wanta keep other little plants from taking the minerals from the soil

[questioning, nervous laugh].

1- OK is there anything else that those little plants might do, take the
minerals from the soil, anything else?

D- Um, maybe attract other bugs, but I can’t think of anything else.

161

It is noteworthy that no informant spoke of competition for space and sunlight between

weeds and crops.

3. Explain how crops are protected from weeds and pests.

As indicated in Table 24, all informants were Compatible-Sketchy in their
understandings related to crop protection. In the expert conception for this benchmark,
three (3) methods were listed to protect crops: 1) establishing barriers to animals, 2)
killing of pests with poisons (pesticides), and 3) breaking the life cycle of pests through
management techniques. No informant spoke of all three methods. Dan and Meri
understood that barriers and pesticides could be used to control pests, while the others--
except Di-all stated that pests could be killed with pesticides. Meri had first hand
knowledge and experience with pesticides that led her to strong beliefs about their use.

She stated:

I- Can you tell me a little bit more, you talked about bugs, and you talked
about, um, did you say insecticides

M- Ya.

I- or pesticides?

M- Well I don’t know if there’s a difference.

I- Tell me a little about that

M- What I know or how they would use them?

1- Both.

162

Well they would probably just spray it on the fields with tractors that
pulls one of those big tanks and spray it on the lettuce.

You’ve seen that before?

Ya

Where at?

In Lapeer, basically so the bugs don’t eat the lettuce. They spray broccoli;
they spray; they spray everything, um, I don’t like the idea that they
spray everything.

How come?

I mean you’re eating the pesticides, I mean, would you rather eat bugs or

pesticides? It’s kind of gross to think about it , but at least the bugs won’t
kill ya in the long run.

Kara also had experiences that led her to a fairly deep understanding how

humans control and manage pests. She believed that insects knew that crops sprayed

with pesticides were toxic. She commented:

I-

How do they do that, the pesticides?
They’re toxic.
Meaning?

Meaning they’ll kill um. Like the insects don’t go by them because they
know that they are toxic. Like they will die from them.

They know that?

They figure it out, I guess. I don’t know. They help some.

163

You talked about other things they might need to protect them [crops]
from. Can you talk about that?

Well, like we had beans, and like all the wood chucks would cat You
know, I mean, so like small animals like that I know and rabbits. I don’t
know what else.

Di mentioned nothing about pesticides, but did speculate that weeds might be

controlled by the use of machines in large fields. Sid mentioned that weeds could be

controlled with herbicides:

Ok, you talked about rabbits a while ago and protecting it {lettuce} from
rabbits. Is there anything else they would need to

Um, I guess pesticides maybe, herbicides. Stuff to keep weeds out, certain
bugs maybe.

Why would that be important?
Well, possibly of destroying their crop.
Ok, and wlmt would be the significance of that?

Of having the crop destroyed? Well, they wouldn’t make any money and
we might not be able to eat McDonaldsTM hamburgers.

4. Positive and negative impacts of using poisons to protect crops.

Table 24 notes that all informants held a Compatible-Sketchy understanding of

the positive and negative effects of pesticides (poisons) to protect crops. This

benchmark is very complex and entails multiple subconcepts. The expert proposition

164

includes both benefits and liabilities. Benefits include: 1) reduction in labor, 2) increase in
crop yield, and 3) decrease in human disease. On the other hand, liabilities include: 1)
expense of pesticides to farmers and ultimately to consumers, 2) pest resistance to
poisons, 3) contamination to the environment and with it, death and morbidity to living
things, and 4) decrease in the use of sustainable practices based upon a reliance on
pesticides. No informant articulated an understanding of all these trade-offs.

In regard to benefits, all informants understood that pesticides could
contribute to the production of greater crop yields and greater profits for the farmer.

Only two of the informants had further understanding of how these poisons might benefit
humans. Di stated that pesticides could reduce human disease and Meri spoke of
decreasing labor costs through their use.

In regard to negative impacts of pesticides, informants’ discourses were
relatively extensive in comparison with other benchmarks in this key concept. All
informants, except Di, mentioned that pesticides could cause contamination to the
environment and might be detrimental to living things. Guy, Kara, Molli, and Kat
mentioned that certain pesticides caused cancer in humans. Similarly, Dan, Sid and Meri
mentioned death and morbidity in other animals, but did not specifically mention human
beings. Only Di mentioned the expense of pesticides to the producers of food. She also
mentioned that people were fearful of pesticides; this, she said, was a problem. Listed
below are responses illustrative of the informant’s ideas about the impact of pesticide

use.

165

Kara had a well developed schema for the impact of pesticide use. She understood

that pesticides were either organic or inorganic, that some were harmful to humans,

reduced labor, cured bugs, led to protection of a crop, and there was an economic

incentive for their use.

Tell me a little about this thing with pesticides.

The pesticides are things--either natural or whatever-«that cure the bugs.
OK, why would that be important?

So that the farmer’s crops weren’t destroyed by a plague of locusts.
OK, and then why would that be important?

Because if you didn’t have any lettuce you wouldn’t make money and
you’d lose the farm.

OK, how about more broadly speaking?
We won’t have any lettuce for our BigMacsT”.

OK, you talked about insects and insecticides-can you think of--what are
the positives things, what are the positive things about that?

They’re good because they protect the lettuce and that’s good, some of
them are cancerous or bad for people, some are bad for the environment

How do you know that?

Just from the news or whatever, and just know that pesticides, and like
the water, whatever that’s, probably not such a good thing.

166

Molli was concerned that the use of pesticides would result in contamination

of food. She spoke about the motive behind the production of food and stressed that

economics was a driving force, not health.

Ok, how about anything that would be a trade-off, a negative, a liability of
using [pesticides].

Well, they can cause, like perhaps, disease on the food.
Ok, what do you mean by that.

Like, um, well any chemical on food isn’t healthy for you So, if its too
many chemicals someone can get sick from it. If its not cleaned properly,
you know they have the risk of people getting sick and lawsuits, or just
people not using their business anymore.

So with that possibility, why do we use them?

I think people are just more concerned with selling the food and getting it
out. You know, the selling and buying aspect. They actually, I mean, this
isn’t a healthy meal [pointing to a BigMacm], but they want to sell it to
people and they will sell it anyway they can.

Both Sid and Meri mentioned that crops could be grown organically, instead of

using “chemica ” pesticides. Sid stated that he didn’t consider the use of pesticides in the

production of the food he ate, while Meri was conscious of pesticide use and had

purchased organic food herself. She believed that organic pesticides were less harmful

than those from inorganic, human-made origin. Sid’s and Meri’s comments on organic

food and pesticides follow:

167

Meri

I-

And why would people choose to do that?
Grow things organically? Um, I guess because it’s better for the
environment and a lot of people just think that it’s a lot better, it just
tastes a lot better if they don’t use pesticides.

So, if there are some positive things that come from the use of, let’s say of
pesticides, and there are some negative things, why do you think that
people use them?
Um, well I guess that people use them see more of a positive side than a
negative side. I guess either that or they just don’t care? And I guess they
use them because it does, benefit them in the long run and cuz [inaudible]
they come out with better crops and will make more money.

And what about the people who eat the food?

Um.

Do they consider that, is it a big deal?

I don’t think too many people take it into consideration. I know I don’t
when I bite into a hamburger; I don’t think what pesticides were used in
the production of the bun or lettuce.

And how come?

Cause, I guess, it’s never affected me or never really occurred to me? I
guess if it’s not harming me then.

And how would you know if it was or wasn’t?

So there’s a problem with the pesticides then?
Well, if they’re not some type of organic pesticide, if they’re spraying

something on there so the bugs won’t eat the lettuce, do you want to eat
the lettuce (laughs).

168

So why do they do it then?
Because it looks nice so they can sell it.
OK, what would happen if it wasn’t used?

The pesticides? Well you’d probably get lettuce with some holes in it,
maybe some bugs, you’d probably just have to wash it better and [trailed

off].

How do you think people would feel about that?

Well they probably would, a lot of people don’t like to take the time to
cook in the first place so, I mean, if you’re just buying prepackaged, cut
up salad, ready-to—go, then, you know, you don’t know what’s been
sprayed on it But if you’re growing something organic, you have to take
the time to, I mean, if you’re already buying it organic, then you’re already
considering what you’re doing, so you take the time to clean it.
And do you buy, do you personally buy organic food?

I have.
Tell me, what’s organic versus inorganic food?

Well all food is organic.

OK

You mean been sprayed?

I don’t know, what makes it organic?

Just that it was grown without pesticides, that a synthetic element wasn’t
added to it

OK, and why do you do that, why have you done it?
Bought organic food? Well usually it’s fresher, because if you get it, um, I

usually buy it in the summer, when I live in Lapeer, they have like a
farmers market and stuff, so well it ‘s local, so you know, it’s fresher. It

169

hasn’t been sprayed you know, then, you’re not digesting all those
chemicals, or ingesting.

Summary/Discussion

Informants’ understanding of how humans manage crops to promote growth were
generally shallow and not well articulated through discourse. In the first benchmark, all
but one (1) informant understood that soil, water, and the sun were needed for plant
growth They, however, did not speak to the requirements of space and air for plant
growth. For animal growth, all informants mentioned water and food. Three (3) spoke of
air, while two (2) said space was necessary for animals. Also included by four (4) of the
eight (8) informants was temperature. Prospective teacher informants, then, did not
possess a well founded understanding of what is necessary for the basic growth
requirements of plants and animals.

In the second benchmark-crop loss to pestsuall informants, except one (I)
mentioned insects and other animals ate crops. On the other hand, only (3) informants
mentioned weeds as pests for crops that limited production And of these three (3), only
one (1) mentioned competition between weeds and crops for space and sunlight. This is
significant, because weeds are a major deterrent for crop production, but the majority of
prospective teachers did not mention them.

The third benchmark dealt with crop protection. Again, the understanding of this
topic was quite limited among informants. No informant spoke of all three methods of

crop protection listed in the expert conception. Two (2) spoke of barriers and pesticides

170

to protect crops, while (5) exclusively mentioned pesticides, and one (1) did not state any
methods for protecting crops. It is noteworthy that only one informant mentioned
herbicides, a major component of pesticide use on farms. Also noteworthy is that several
informants held misconceptions about pesticides-they believed that they were repellents
like those used to ward off mosquitoes and that “insects figured out” not to go near plants
sprayed with pesticides.

The final benchmark concerned the positive and negative impacts of using poisons
(pesticides) to protect crops. In this case, as with the other benchmarks under this key
concept, informants held incomplete conceptions. First, all informants understood that
pesticides benefited farmers by increasing crop yield and thereby increasing profits.
However, for all of the informants, except two (2), this was the limit of their
understanding. In the two (2) more complete conceptions, one (1) discussed decreases in
human disease that accompany pesticide use, and one (I) mentioned a reduction in labor
to farmers.

On the other side of the coin, negative impacts of pesticides were better
understood All, but one (1) prospective teacher understood that pesticides could
contaminate the environment Four (4) of these also included that certain pesticides
caused cancer in humans and three (3) limited their responses to the death and morbidity
of animals. Only one (1) respondent mentioned the expense of pesticides to farmers as a
impact.

Deeper levels of understanding of this benchmark appears to be linked with

experiences held by informants. For example, the informant whose father was a farmer

171

described both positive and negative impacts of pesticides in detail. On the other end of
the spectrum, an informant fiom Detroit who had never grown a garden was the most
suspicious of pesticide use and questioned the motivations of those who used them.
Interestingly, two (2) informants mentioned the production of organically grown crops

and one (1) even purchased it.

C. Role of Science and Technology in the Agri-food System

The next Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence related key concept
deals with understanding the role of science and technology in the agri-food system. There

are three (3) benchmarks foundational to developing knowledge and science and

technology’s role.

1. Irrigation and fertilizers.

Table 25 reflects codings for why irrigation and fertilizers are used to grow crops.

Because this is actually a two part benchmark, analysis was broken into its two

components: irrigation and fertilizer.

172

Table 25. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: II.C. What Is the role of
science and technology in the agri-food system?

 

 

 

Benchmark Sid Kat Moll Kara Di Dan Guy Meri

1) Explain why a) CB CE N CE CS CE CS CE

irrigation

and b)ferti1izersare CS CS IE CE N CE IE CE

used to grow crops.
2) Identify the places of

origin of common

foods eaten by

Americans: CE 18 IS CE CE CE CE CE

a) lettuce

b)beef CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
3) Describe how places

too cold or too dry to

growcertaincropscan CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
obtain food from
places with more
suitable climates.

e-No evidence; N—-Nonexistent; [E--Incompatible Elaborate; Isulncompatible Sketchy;
CluCompatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

a Irrigation

Regarding the irrigation subconcept, five (5) infomrants, Sid, Kat, Kara, Dan
and Meri, understood both that a constant supply of water is necessary for plant growth
and that humans grow craps in places that are oftentimes unsuitable for crop production.

Kate, rather succinctly, explains why irrigation is nwded:

I- What is this irrigating, it’s the first time I’ve heard that word from you--
tell me about that.

173

K— It’s where you water the, it’s like they have these big sprayer things that
go over the entire field and spray water.

I- Why would you need to do that?

K- Because sometimes it doesn’t rain all the time, so and the plant always
need water.

I- And if you didn’t have that.
K- The plants would die.
I- And as a result...
K- If you’re the person growing it you’re kind of screwed , because you don’t
have a product to sell.
Di and Guy were Compatible- Sketchy and stated that water was required for growth, but
did not connect this with the unsuitability of the environment, while Molli mentioned

neither and was coded Nonexistent.

b. Fertilizers

Reasons for fertilizer use were also analyzed. Kara, Dan, and Meri stated that: 1)
plants required minerals for growth, 2) increasing the available minerals with fertilizers
increases yield, and 3) modern monocultural practices-lack of crop rotationunecessitates
the use of inorganic fertilizers; they held Compatible-Elaborate understandings of this
benchmark subconcept. Dan’s ideas about fertilizers represent a deep understanding of

the topic. He was able to draw upon previous knowledge to extend beyond the

174

anticipated response and spoke of soil fertility, organic verse inorganic fertilizers and their

costs and benefits. His response included:

You talked about raising a crop and then its productivity declining.
Typically, what would a farmer do in that case?

I guess he’d have to, they’d have to, sit back and assess why the
productivity is declining. Is it because of the land, you know, fertility is
leaving the soil. Is it because of maybe weather conditions, is something
else [inaudible].

If the fertility was leaving the soil what oftentimes [overlapping speech].

They could boost up with fertilizers, maybe let the land stay in set-aside
and pump matter, fertilizers, organic matter back into the soil.

Any drawbacks from that?

Well if you’re using like artificial fertilizers of course that could leach in
the water supplies. It depends on what you’re using, if you’re like maybe,
like maybe a cow manure for example, if you’re not a farmer that, you
know, if you don’t have access to thatuif you’re not a cattle farmer, I
mean, where are you going to get access, are you going to buy it from a
cattle farmer? You know, um, could there be a cost in transporting that
type of material and then what’s the effects. I know it’s good for the soil,
but what does it do to the water supplies or anything out of that, could
leach into the water supply and hurt it, from maybe a river that could be
nearby, or well water that could be going to the farm house.

Sid and Kat were coded Compatible-Sketchy. They stated that an increase in

needed nutrients would increase growth and the plants would become greener. Sid spoke

at length about Miracle Grow”, but did not find the word to call it a fertilizer. He

175

understood that it added nutrients for plant growth. However, he was confused about the

difference between a fertilizer and a herbicide.

1-

I guess things do grow a lot better, faster anyway, bigger with pesticide
and Miracle Grow”.

What is Miracle Grow?
Miracle Grow is, I don’t know, a type of chemical, I’m not sure exactly
what it’s made of, but it’s sprinkled on a lot of peoples’ home gardens.
Helps things grow faster.
Where did you learn about that?

Gardening in my backyard My Mom used to put it on.

So, your Mom has a garden when you were growing up?

Oh, ya, we’ve always had a garden.

And you used to help there?

Ya

What does that Miracle Grow do then?

Well, I guess it soaks into the soil, into the roots, and then it supposedly is
a nutrient for the plant, to enable it to grow-faster, stronger.

So is that, what is that called then, generally, what is it called?
Cheating! [we both laugh] I don’t know what do you?

Well is there a classification, I mean, what do you , what is Miracle Grow
called?

Pesticide, herbicide, I guess pesticide.

And how does that differ from a fertilizer?

176

S- Um, I don’t know really. I guess a fertilizer, they both do the same thing,
um, herbicides. I’m not sure how they differ.
Guy spoke of growth promoters that were akin to human steroids, while.
Molli said that fertilizers speed up grth processes and made plants skip natural growth
steps; they were both coded Incompatible-Elaborate.
Di was coded Nonexistent as she stated that fertilizers helped plants grow, but
had “No idea” about what they did to the plant. She did not attempt to offer any

additional information about fertilizers.

2. Obtaining common foods eaten by Americans

Table 25 displays codings for the benchmark: identify the places of origin of
common foods eaten by Americans. In this study, the two foods discussed were lettuce

and beef and they were dealt with separately.

a. Origin oflettuce

As Table 25 indicates, Sid, Kara, Di, Dan, Guy, and Meri were coded
Compatible-Elaborate in their description of the origin of the lettuce, while Kat and Molli
were Incompatible-Sketchy. The Compatible-Elaborate group stated that the lettuce
needed to grown in a warmer climate than was present in Michigan during the winter. Di,

Guy and Meri were very specific about the origin of the lettuce-Men and Guy stated

177

that it was grown in California, while Di said Mexico. California or Mexico were the

most accurate of possible answers for the origin of lettuce. Both Guy and Meri stated

that they learned about the origin of lettuce in a geography course at Michigan State

University.

Sid, Kara, and Dan said that lettuce came from a southem state which is

plausible, but not as likely as California Dan suggested:

1..

Typically, I would say that, I mean, how it affects, I mean, you wouldn’t
be able to get the resources, you wouldn’t be able to get the products--
lettuce, cuctunbers, out of the northern states. But you’d also have good
southern states in the United States, for example, that can still produce
this time of year.

So where do you think the lettuce came from?

Maybe came from someplace like Georgia, you know, Alabama Some
place, they still get a fair amount of rain, some decent weather, but yet, can
produce, it’s not an extreme climate, where they can’t produce.

Extreme meaning?

Too hot, you know, too dry.

The two informants labeled Incompatible-Elaborate--Kat and Molli—seemed not

to consider the climatic conditions in relation to the origin of winter lettuce. They spoke

of crops coming from farms in the plains states like Nebraska, North and South Dakota;

they seemed to simply know that many farms were located in this region Plains states

had farms; therefore, that is where the food comes from.

178

b. Origin ofbeef

Table 25 shows that all informants were coded Compatible-Elaborate relative to
the origin of the meat They said the cattle required much land to grow. Sid, Kat, and
Meri stated that the cattle were most likely raised in the western US or in Central or
South America Dan and Guy also said that beef could come from the southern Americas.
Dan went on to say that beef could be raised virtually anywhere, while Guy said that all
McDonalds beef was raised in Brazil; he based this on a protest he witnessed at a East
Lansing McDonalds’ restaurant Molli and Kat kept with their reasoning held relative to
the origin of lettuce. They said the beef cattle were raised in the plains states. Di’s
answer to the origin of the meat on the BigMacm was Ohio as she had seem a lot of cattle

there while on vacation.

3. People obtain food from places with more suitable climates.

In the last benchmark in this section, all prospective teachers held a Compatible-
Elaborate understanding of the need for food to be transported from one geographic
location to another (Table 25). They all also mentioned that trucks were used to
transport lettuce and beef. Sid, Guy, and Meri stated that other methods, besides trucks,

were used to move food along its journey from the farm to the consumer.

179

Summary/Discussion

The majority of prospective teachers understood why irrigation was used to
grow crops, while two (2) mentioned only that water was needed for plant growth and
ignored the fact that humans increasingly grow crops in tmsuitable environments where
rainfall is lacking. One informant mentioned the notion of providing water to plants.
This subconcept may have been relatively easy for most to understand, as they
understood that water was a bmic growth requirement On the other had, a minority of
informants understood why fertilizers were used. Only three (3) met the goal conception
by stating that fertilizers: 1) increased minerals in the soil, 2) increased minerals added to
plant growth and crop yield, and 3) allowed for detrimental monocultural practices such
as lack of crop rotation--thereby necessitating use of fertilizers. Two (2) informants had
a partial understanding that included adding a nutrient to the soil to make greener plants.
Interestingly, two (2) informants held incompatible understandings, one (I) believed
fertilizers were akin to steroids in humans and the other that they allowed plants to skip
natural growth steps. The remaining informant had did not speak of fertilizers at all.

As with pesticides, informant experience with fertilizers seemed to promote a
rich understanding. These experiences ranged from growing plants in a home garden to
living in a rural environment Additionally, the informant who had taken classes in
agriculture was very discursive about the topic of fertilizers.

Courses taken in college also led to a rich understanding about the origin of

winter lettuce. Six (6) informants understood that growth requirements of plants

180

necessitated them being grown in geographic regions that provided suitable climates.
Those that gave the most elaborate descriptions of this benchmark had taken a geography
course where the topic of climate was addressed and lettuce was used as an example by
the professor. Two (2) students held robust misconceptions about the origin of plant
crops. They believed that crops came from the plain states even during the winter
months. They did not consider plant growth requirements when they talked about the
origin of the lettuce.

Informants were asked about the origin of the meat found on the burger. All
stated that the cattle needed abundant land on which to graze. The speculated origin of
the meat ranged from the western US to South America to Ohio.

The final benchmark dealt with how people obtained food when they were in
unsuitable climates. All informants understood that food was shipped via trucks from
where it was grown to places when it was ultimately consumed. Three (3) informants
mentioned methods of transport other than trucks which were in accord with the expert

conception for this benchmark.

III. C ultu rid-Historical

A. Social Change by Agriculture

The Cultural-Historical section examines one (1) key concept and one (1)

benchmark corresponding to this concept The key concept deals with human

181

management of ecosystems and its benchmark focuses on how agriculture has changed

society.

1. Effects of modern technology on farms, farmers and rural and urban
communities.

Table 26 divides the benchmark Explain the eflects of modern technology on farms,

farmers, and rural and urban communities into three separate categories. Each is

ascertained separately. The analysis proceeds alphabetically as the categories are found

in the table.

Table 26. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: III. C. How has agriculture

 

 

changed society?

Benchmgk Sid Kat Moll Kara Di Dan Guy Meri
1) Explain the effects of
modern technology
on: CE CE CS CS CE CE N CE
a) farms,
b) farmersand CS CE CS CE CE CE N CE
c) rural and when

communities. CS CS N CS CS CS CS CS

e—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IE—Incompatible Elaborate; IS--Incompatrble Sketchy;
CI-Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE—Compatible Elaborate

182

a. Farms

Sid, Kat, Di, Dan, and Meri were coded Compatible-Elaborate in their
discourse about the effects of technologies on farms. Their responses included' 1) the
increase in size of farms, 2) the decrease in number of farms, 3) the move toward
specialization of crops produced, 4) the increasingly complexity of farms and the, 5)
mechanization of farming operations. Molli and Kara held Compatible-Sketchy
understandings because Molli mentioned neither the specialization nor the complexity of
farms, while Kara mentioned the complexity, but not the specialization; this is to be
expected as she thought that most farms produced many different crops (Benchmark
LA. 1.). Further down the continuum, Guy was coded as Nonexistent because he was
unable to articulate the effects modern technology had on farms. He knew that farms had

become mechanized, but he said he did not know the impact

b. Farmers

Relative to understanding technology’s effect on farmers, Kat’s, Molli’s,
Kara’s, Dan’s, and Meri’s responses were Compatible-Elaborate when compared to the
expert conception (Table 26). They understood that: 1) the number of farmers has
Wed; 2) manual labor has been replaced by machines; and 3) farmers are increasingly
dependent upon the technologies they employ. Sid mentioned the first two above, but

did not articulate an understanding of dependence upon technology and was coded

183

Compatible-Sketchy. Guy said he did not know how technology affected farmers and
was coded Nonexistent.
Meri’s comments are representative of the informants’ thoughts about

technology’s impact on farmers:

I- How about any machines that are used?

M- Tractors

1- OK, what can you tell me about that?

M- How they’re advanced, how their, you don’t have to go out and hoe it. I
mean, they can go out there and in a few hours they can plow up the field
Their just advancing.

I- So then how has that impacted people?

M- The tractors. Well for farmers they can have mass production instead of,

it’s a lot less physical labor. I mean, you can go out and sit in your air
conditioned tractor and listen to your favorite CD and plow the field

c. Communities

No prospective teacher indicated a complete understanding of the expert
conception relative to the impact of agricultural technologies on anal and urban
communities. AIL-except Molli who was coded Nonexistent-articulated Compatible-
Sketchy understandings of this benchmark component (Table 26). Kat, Di, Kara and Dan
included four (4) of the five (5) ideas in their responses. They suggested that technology

impacted society by: 1) promoting a shift in population from rural to urban areas, 2)

184

shitting opportunities (employment, economic, etc.) from rural to urban centers, 3)
allowing for the production of cheap food, and 4) altering cultural practices and social
traditions with the move from an agrarian to an industrial society. Merri and Dan
articulated the same propositions, with exclusion of cheap food, but added 5) mediating
society’s connection with the earth. Sid did not consider either the fourth or fifth
propositions. Guy’s understanding was even more sketchy and included only the notion
that food would be cheaper as a result of technology. Molli, upon direct questioning
about the impact on communities, did not proffer any ideas.

Dan’s response to the probe about technology was very elaborate:

D- . . . the 19205, we started to see urbanization in the US, a lot of industry--
the automobile was starting to become a major factor-major player,
especially from Michigan [It] became more profitable for families to move
into cities and off the farm to establish themselves and to live the
American dream-to have things, to have a house, some of the finer things
in life. Um, and those that did stay back on the farm started specializing
and also, I believe, it was the 1920s when we started to really see a
decrease in farm prices. It, that was the depression? I mean, correct me if
I’m wrong, and um, it just wasn’t profitable. It was more profitable to go
into the cities and into industry-40 skilled labor. Where, I don’t mean to
make farming sound like it’s an unskilled profession, but at the time,
building a car or cabinet—building furniture in Grand Rapids—were seen as
skilled labor.

1- OK, some people moved because there were more opportunities, but then
there were less people producing food, so what had to, what came in that
allowed for this smaller number of people to produce food for an

increasingly larger population?

D- Technological innovation—the farm tractor became a big key player,
instead of having a team of horses and a one to two bottom plow, we now
had the farm tractor and of course with that, the implements that could
take care of the duties of harvesting crop, or planting a crops, so it wasn’t,

185

you know, wasn’t a hand and shovel type job, you know, the farmer sat
on a tractor and he did his work

On the biological end at this time period, I think, you know, land grant
universities became key players. Um, we were starting to look into
scientific agriculture, you know, raising crops with a purpose, you know,
there’s a system for raising lettuce, you know, and farmers becomes more
reliant on, you know, say places like Michigan State to give them advice
and techniques to do their crops and manage their farms effectively.

Di also provides insight into a common line of thinking held by the prospective teachers:

Tell me a little bit about, on a broader picture, not just the farmer, but
maybe on a societal impact, what would be the impact of things like that
[new technologies].

I think it makes peoples’ jobs easier, and it enables them to do more
things, whereas they would spend more of their time doing that now they
can use their time, like more and maybe do something else, like have
another crop or another business or whatever, they’re doing.

So you’re still talking abut the farmer then?

Not necessarily, I mean, if it’s a businessman who, like, sort of , any
invention, gives you more time, you know, [its] kind of the purpose is to
be more useful.

So, I’m still trying to figure out, so we have this irrigation that allows the
farmer to irrigate in 5 hours verses 5 days and then you started to talk
about business people. Tell me about that How did you, there’s a, you
made a jump, but I’m wondering what’s in the center of that jump.

I was just trying to expand it to society and I was thinking of other
careers or other places where inventions are useful to people and I just
thought of the business world How they [technologies] enable things to
go faster, sort of give you time.

186

Summary/Discussion

Generally speaking, informants were fairly well versed with the first two (2)
benchmarks in this section. The majority of informants understood how modern
technology affects farms by: 1) increasing their size, 2) decreasing their number, 3)
specializing their crops produced, 4) increasing their complexity, and 5) mechanizing their
operations. Likewise most said that technology affected farmers by: l) decreasing their
number, 2) replacing manual labor with machinery, and 3) increasing their dependency
upon the technologies. Two (2) informants did not mention specialization and
complexity in their responses to farms, while one (1) prospective teacher did not talk
about farmers’ increased dependency on technology. Additionally, one (1) informant in
each of the two aforementioned benchmarks expressed no conception of technology’s
effect on farms and farmers.

Technology’s effect on rural and urban communities was not as well
understood. No informant’s discourse matched perfectly the expert proposition for
communities. The majority, however, understood four (4) of the five (5) goal
conceptions. These conceptions were modern technology’s effect on communities by: 1)
promoting a shift in population from rural to urban areas, 2) shifting opportunities
(employment, economic, etc.) from rural to urban centers, 3) allowing for the production
of cheap food, 4) altering cultural practices and social traditions with the move from an
agrarian to an industrial society and 5) mediating society’s connection with the earth The

most ofien ignored was the last Only two (2) prospective teachers mentioned how

187

technology disconnected the majority of society from nature. One (1) informant only
mentioned increased food production as an effect of technology. Finally, one (1)
informant did not possesses a schema to enable her to discuss how technology affected
the farms, farmers, and rural and urban communities.

Findings from this group of benchmarks indicates that even though informants did
not understanding the specifics of technologies-irrigation, fertilizers, etc. for example—the
majority did understand how technology affected farms, farmers, and rural and urban

communities (with the exclusion of one subconcept).

Prospective Elementary Teacher Benchmarks

The prospective teacher benchmarks are derived from the 1. Science: Agricultural-
Environmental Interdependence and II. Cultural-Historical key concepts
aligned with two (2) key concepts. The first key concept is based on the role of science
and technology in the agri-food system and the second with its impact on society. There

is one (1) benchmark found under the first key concept and two (2) under the second.

1. Science: Agricultural-Environmental Interdependence

A. Role of Science and Technology in the Food and Fiber

1. Engineering of new varieties of farm plants and animals.

188

The first benchmark asked informants to describe how new varieties of farm

plants and animals have been engineered to produce new characteristics (Table 27).

Table 27. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: LA. What is the role of
science and technology in the agri-food system?

 

Benchmark Sid Kat Moll Kara Di Dan Guy Meri
1) Describe how new

varieties of farm

plants and animals CE CE N CE N 0 N CE
have been engineered

to produce new

characteristics.

 

e-No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IE--Incompatible Elaborate; IS—-Incompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS—Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

Sid, Kat, Kara and Meri--were coded Compatible-Elaborateuand understood that
humans selected desired traits in farm plants and animals2 and then employed
strategies/technologies that would reproduce these valwd characteristics. They
mentioned reproductive techniques, such as selective breeding of seedstock, crossbreeding
and hybridization, grafiing in plants, and cloning. Interestingly, both Meri and Kat
mentioned ethical concerns that cloning posed for them; Kat said it was “kinda God-like.”
Meri’s conversation about cattle genetics displays her understanding of both selective

breeding and cloning, while bringing to the fore her concern over cloning:

M- I know Angus beef is supposed to be the best.

 

’ Questions related to the meat on the burger, because it was thought that informants would be most
familiar with genetics in animals, specifically cattle.

189

Do you have any idea why?
Well their supposed to be com fed Um, they’re supposed to have less fat

in their meat. Just a better type of cowl guess. Probably genetically
breeded to be better, to have less fat.

Can you tell me about thatuhow would they do that?

Well they probably pick the cows with the best traits and use those for
breeding.

Can you think of anything else that maybe, any other technologies maybe
that you’ve heard of that people might use now or possibly in the future
to be raising and selecting?

Cloning.

Tell me about that.

I don’t know»! think it’s kind of weird I mean, you’re altering life.
What’s cloning though?

Making the same identical thing over and over again, basically.

How would you do that?

Test tubes. Select the, chromosomes or what needs to be, you know,
selected so that they can reproduce the same thing basically over and over

again

Why would they do that?

Well cause the one that they, you know, the one they’re reproducing is
probably the one they feel is the best cow-Angus beef.

OK, so they’re going to produce the best one over and over again. Can
you think of anything—so what’s the advantage of that?

Well they would justuif you’re getting the same thing over and over again-

-you don’t have to worry about, you know, genetic defects if you ‘re going
to be cloning-4t won’t be something that they’re going to worry about

190

whether all their cattle were going to be this quality of meat that their
putting on the label.

I- OK, can you think of any disadvantages?

M- Ya, you’re altering human life, you’re messing with something that I don’t
think that was probably meant to be altered or changed.

1- OK, so what about, why isn’t it meant to be altered or changed? And you
talked about human life or animal life?

M- Well most people don’t think cloning is so bad because you don’t really,
I’m, if you clone a human, I’m, will it have the same personality, will it
look exactly the same, are you making a twin? You know, it’s not really a
twin--it’s a clone. It just seems [inaudible].

1- OK, let’s go back. It sounds like you have a moral concern dealing with
cloning of humans.

M- It seems kind of weird.
I- So let’s go back to the livestock part. What’s the disadvantage of that?
M- I don’t, we haven’t done too much with it. It could, you know,

eventually, I don’t know. It could eventually, you know, lead to
something that we hadn’t predicted.

On the other end of the understanding continuum were those with Nonexistent
understandings--Molli, Di, and Guy. Guy and Di did mention that animals could be
different from each other, but did not know how humans could perpetuate this
differentiation with breeding schemes. Molli did not indicate that she had any
understanding of the concepts listed in this benchmark. Di’s discussion on the differences
between dairy and beef cattle is noteworthy. She believes that there is a difference

between these two types of cattle-and rightfully so-but she states she doesn’t know

191

 

how they got that way, or how they might stay that way. She doesn’t see the connection

between these animals and the humans who brednand continue to design and breeduthese

beasts for the traits they value. Di states:

So, are there differences between the dairy ones and the meat ones [she
was discussing dairy and beef cattle]?

I think so.
Tell me wlmt you think.

I think that they are both capable of producing milk, but I think that the
dairy cows produce more milk.

How?
I would think that just genetically. Like sort of a different line of cows.
So tell me a little bit more about that genetic thing.

I’m trying to think about what I can compare it to. I just think that there
is sort of like a different breed of cow; I guess.

How did they get that way?
Um, I don’t know. [Laughs], I don’t know.

You talked a little bit, you said something about a line of cow, well, tell me
about that.

Still the same sort of concept, like um, I’m not sure how they got that
way, but I think

How do they stay that way?
Well, I was under the impression that dairy cows, once you start milking

them, that if you don’t milk then, that they get sick, you know from
keeping all that milk inside. So, I would think that once they are producing

192

a lot of milk that they keep producing that amount and you need to, and
that you need to, milk them [laughs].
Dan was labeled No Evidence, he was the first informant interviewed and I

neglected to address this question specifically.

Sum mary/Discussion

There was a pronounced difference in understanding of how humans engineer new
varieties of farm plants and animals. One group of prospective teachers-consisting of
four (4)—understood that humans valued certain traits in plants and animals and then
developed breeding methods to obtain these valued characteristics. They noted that
humans employed selective and crossbreeding, grafting in plants, and cloning to mold
nature into the desired image. Additionally, half of this group were troubled by the
thought of cloning and broached ethical concerns.

Conversely, other prospective teachers-«a group of three (3)»did not offer ideas
of how new varieties of farm plants and animals came to being. Some knew that plants
and animals had unique characteristics, but they did not know how they were derived or

were perpetuated One (1) student was not asked directly about this topic.

II. Historical-Cultural

Under the category Historical-Cultural there is one key concept: How has

the modern agri-food system impacted society? and two benchmarks under this key

193

concept dealing. They deal with the changes brought on by agricultural technology to: l)

the way people live and 2) work An analysis of these benchmarks follows.

A. Impact of the Modern Agri-food System on Society

1. Agricultural technology has changed the way people live and work.

As Table 28 indicates, this benchmark was separated into its two parts,

agricultural technology’s affect on the way people: a) live and b) work.

Table 28. Prospective Teacher Understanding of: ILA. How has
the modern agri-food system impacted society?

 

 

 

Benchmarks Sid Kat Molli Kara Di Dan Guy Meri

1) Explain how

agricultural technology

has changed the way

people live and CS CS N CE CS CS N CS

work in the US over

the last century. CE CE N CS CE CE CE CE
2) Describe trade-offs

inherent in the use of

agricultural technology

in terms of:

a) environment and CS CS CS CS N CS CS CS
b) hrananculture. CS CS CS CE CS CE CS CE

e—No evidence; N~Nonexistent; IE--Incompatible Elaborate; IS—Incompatible Sketchy;
CI—Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

194

a Live

On the first portion of the benchmarkulivenonly Kara vocalized all four (4)

components of the expert conception and was coded Compatible-Elaborate. Her

explanation inclukd: l) a shift of people from farms to cities, 2) a reduction of toil in

producing and gathering food, 3) a disconnectedness from the land as a result of not

growing food, and 4) an improvement in diet and health. In the passage below Kara

discusses the changes that have resulted from technology. In particular she stresses how

technology saves time, how it improves human health, and how it disconnects people

from the production of food.

Can you tell me about the types of technologies that have been used to
produce food and tell me what their effects have been on people over the
last 100 years?

Well the different types of technologies would be like as far as milking
goes, I know that cows are hooked up to machines and they suck the milk,
or, like they milk the cows from that and then they use it, those machines
send the milk to whatever and they add vitamins, they heat it to get all the
enzymes out and they separate. I know that they, it goes through a lot of
different processes before it gets put into gallons or whatever. And that’s
good because it purifies it, but they put a lot of additives in it and some are
goodandsome ofthemarebad Likevitamianilk, theyhadtoput
something in it to get it to be Vitamin D milk and skim milk, they had to
take the fat out of it. So, it’s a lot faster, and better for us, but I think we
might rely on technology a lot. Like if that weren’t the case, I think
people would just cut milk and meat out of their diets a lot more, like we
won’t a lot of know how to do it without technology, so I don’t know.
It’s good because you can do more, but it’s bad because, like if that breaks
down, then you can’t, I mean you can get it fixed, but you might , I think
they miss a lot too.

So let me go back, so you think there’s less people farming now.

195

K- Yes.

I- So how has that affected pe0ple?

K- People don’t appreciate, like don’t appreciate what goes into it and like
they complain about the prices, but don’t stop to think about, like, ya
know where you’re getting it fi'om. I mean, obviously, it is going to cost
more if you’re shipping it in fiom California or wherever and, um, they
also don’t stop to think . . . like what goes into it.

Sid, Kat, Di, Dan and Meri were coded Compatible Sketchy because they did not
include all four (4) parts of the goal conception Sid and Di excluded the disconnection
from the land, while Dan and Meri also excluded one, the improved diet and health. Kat
excluded both the disconnection and diet aspects.

Molli and Guy were Nonexistent as far as their understandings of the impact of

technology on the lives of people. Guy doesn’t seem to understand how technologies

have impacted where pe0ple live over the past 100 years:

I- Has it [agricultural technology] affected people’s lives?
G- The technologies? I can’t, I don’t think so, because to me, it’s like, I guess
they’ve always grown, I don’t think so, because there’s always been land

set for growing vegetables and stuff, and raising cattle. I don’t think that’s
pushed pe0ple away or drawn people.

b. Work

In the second part of this benchmark--changes in the way people work as a result

of agricultural technologies-«Sid, Kat, Di, Dan, Guy and Meri all stated the two (2)

196

propositions defined in the expert conception: l) the agri-food system is more
mechanized and relies less on manual labor than during previous epochs, and 2) new
employment patterns have emerged as a result of these innovations. They were coded
Compatible-Elaborate. Interestingly, when Guy was not asked specifically about farms
and farming, he was very discursive about the impact of technologies in other parts of the
agri-food system.

Kara’s response to this prompt was Compatible-Sketchy. Although she did
acknowledge that labor requirements were reduced by technology, she did not speak to
the changes in employment opportunities. Rather, her response focused exclusively on
the on-farm implications of technological infusion.

Molli’s response was coded Nonexistent Like Kara, she had difficulty making a
link between the use of agricultural technology and non-farm work. She seemed to be

sorting out how industrialization has changed farming.

I- Can you tell me about what you think has changed in society’s work in the
last 100 years as a result of agricultural technology?

M- I think, I don’t know, um, since the industrial revolution farmer definitely
have just had to struggle because of that and there are more industrial farms
than just family farms. People are having a hard time srn'viving in that

1- Ok, and why?

M- It seems like more people are producing more food in factories. And ship
them and sell them and do so much stuff like faster methods.

I- Can you tell me, you just said, um, make them in factories. What do you
mean?

197

M- Um, I just think of like huge grain factories, or something and, that are
breaking grain down or whatever you need to do, and turning into bread
there, shipping stuff out from there, instead of just like a small family
farm, being able to do that for amount of pe0ple.

2. Trade-offs of agricultural technology.

As with the previous prospective teacher benchmarks, the trade-offs in the
use of agricultural technology were divided into its two parts: a) environment and b)

hmnan culture.

a. Environment

Table 28 indicates that all informants-with the exception of Di-articulated a
Compatible-Sketchy understanding of the environmental aspect of the expert conception.
The conception included: I) altering the physical and biological world to maximize
output of selected organisms (limiting diversity), 2) increasing changes of extemalities of
production by polluting the environment, and 3) promoting the use of an unsustainable
agri-food system based on non-renewable resources.

Relative to the first component of the environmental expert conception, no
informant, except Sid, mentioned the trade-off caused by selecting only the most
immediately beneficial plants and animals for production. In the second part of this
benchmark, everyone-except Diuknew of the tradeooff of using technologies and

polluting the environment. In fact, their responses were quite elaborate as evidenced by

198

Kara’s response. She seemed to be aware of the trade-offs involved in the use of

pesticides, but she was somewhat skeptical of their deleterious effects on her health.

I-

You talked about, what are the positive things about pesticides and what
are some of the trade-offs, some of the negative things about pesticides?

Positives are you get more crop. You harvest more, because I know a lot,
some of the bugs will like eat you, I mean like, eat the whole thing. Like
just ruin everything. Whether they lay eggs in it and make it their home, or
whether they just eat in themselves; they’ll ruin it So that’s a positive. I
don’t know but I want to say there’s some kind of pesticide too, so that it
can be kept longer, but I don’t know that. The negatives are, they don’t
wash them off, like the producer, urn, like the packer, might rinse the
lettuce off, but I know they don’t do a very thorough job of it, cause it’s
just like, I’m sure that it’s just on a conveyer belt and they have water or
whatever spraying on it and so it’s not going to rinse all the pesticides off.
And I know like lemons, they don’t because there’s a skin on lemons; they
don’t rinse those off. I have a friend who won’t drink water with lemon in
it at a restaurant because they don’t wash the pesticides off the lemons.
And I’m sure that part of it, but you know, like seeps into it, but you
know, it affects it in some way. But, I mean, it’s not harmful, because
they, it’s tested, so to a certain degree it might be harmful, but not
anything that, like, you know, maybe if that was the only thing in your
diet, you might.

So why would it be a big deal if there were pesticides on that lettuce or on
that lemon?

Because they’re pesti..., toxins. They’re toxic and some people are just
paranoid, like, if it doesn’t kill it’s all right, I guess, I mean, like you know,
if I’m not getting , like you know, I’m not getting cancer from it or
something like that, I’m OK, but um, some people are just real careful
about what they put in their bodies, and I guess they rightly can be, but
[inaudible].

Any other trade-offs?

I could see, because the pesticides, I know they do it, in, on a day that’s
not so windy, but because it’s a pesticide it might get into the water, like

199

because, it will be in the soil, so it might filter through, get in the water
somehow.
In the last portion of the environmental trade-off benchmark, only Molli mentioned

anything related to the lack of sustainability

M- I think society has lost track of how things are done, or how things used to
be, and the more technology that we develop, and the further advanced
things become, the less people even pay attention, because they don’t
need to. They just assume it came from a farm and a farmer plowed it,
grew it, whatever, and it came here-and I have it and that’s all I worry
about right now is that I have the food and that I’ll eat it.

b. Human culture

Prospective teachers articulated a deeper understanding of the trade-offs of
technology on human cultrue than for the environment. As indicated in Table 28, Kara,
Dan and Merri were coded as Compatible-Elaborate because they stated that: 1)
Agricultural technologies precipitated a reduction in the need for large numbers of people
to produce food As a result, cities swelled; additioml time was available for other
productive endeavors; population density increased; maladies of urban life came to the
fore, 2) As a result of the previously mentioned shift, rural culture has declined and
urbanites have lost a connection to the land and their food, and 3) Society has become
increasingly dependent upon technologies for their economic base, while at the same time

becoming fearful of risks that they no longer understand

Sid, Molli, Kate, Di and Guy were Compatible-Sketchy. All indicated that
humans had become dependent upon agricultural technology and that there were risks
associated with their use. However they did not articulate an understanding of society’s
loss of rural culture and of city dwellers’ disconnection fiom the land. Additionally,

Molli did not speak of the time savings resultant from agricultural technology.

Sum marleiscussion

Prospective teachers were reasonably well versed on the changes brought by
agricultural technology to the way people live and work over the last century. Only one
(1) informant, however, met the first part of this benchmark’s goal conception entirely.
She said technology had changed the way pe0ple live by: l) shifting people from farms to
cities, 2) reducing the toil of producing and gathering food, 3) disconnecting society from
the land, and 4) improving diet and health. Five (5 ) other informants spoke of two (2) of
these changes. The two (2) aspects of the goal conception were omitted by these five
(5). They were: a disconnection of society from the land and the improvement of diet and
health

It seems that informants are unconscious of food’s connection to the earth. This
may be the result of their not being involved with the growing of the food. Additionally,
they seemed to take for granted the high level of general health-brought in part by an

abundant US food supply. This lack of understanding was further evident in two (2)

201

informants who did not offer plausible explanations of changes to the way people lived as
a result of agricultural technology.

Informants more clearly understood agricultural technology’s changes on the way
people have worked over the past century. Six (6) of the eight (8) prospective teachers
spoke about the two (2) propositions found in the goal conception: l) the agri-food
system is more mechanized and relies less on manual labor than during previous epochs,
and 2) new employment patterns have emerged as a result of these innovations.
Additionally, one (1) informant spoke of the need for less labor as a result of agricultural
technology, but did not expand this to include changes in societal employment patterns.
Another did not articulate a full understanding of this concept. For the most part,
prospective teachers seemed to grasp the ideas that the industrial revolution impacted
society by making work easier. They, then, made connections between industrialization
of society generally and changes in the agri-food system specifically-their schemas could
accommodate the impact of agricultural technology on the way people lived and worked

Trade-offs inherent in the use of agricultural technology in terms of environment
were not as well understood by prospective teacher informants. There were three (3)
components to the goal conception for the environment: 1) altering the physical and
biological world to maximize output of selected organisms (limiting diversity), 2)
increasing extemalities of production by polluting the environment, and 3) promoting the
use of an unsustainable agri-food system based on non-renewable resources. Although
informants understood the immediate dangers of polluting the environment with

pesticides and fossil fuel, only one (1) spoke of the loss of biodiversity that accompanies

202

modern agricultural practices and only one (1) other addressed the lack of sustainability
inherent in the current agri-food system. This lack of understanding of how society alters
the environment through agricultural practices and then perpetuates a non-sustainable
system through its food and fiber choices seems to be an area where education is most
needed

In the second portion of this benchmark (trade-offs of agricultural technology
in terms of human culture) prospective teachers possessed a deeper understanding than
they did for the environment. Three (3) informants understood all three (3) parts of the
goal conception which included technological trade-ofi’s in: l) labor-resulting in a) less
time required for food production and preparation, and b) increase in urban culture; 2)
population shifts- resulting in a) decline of rural culture and b) a disconnection from the
land; and 3) dependency on machines and science—resulting in a) greater productivity, b)
misunderstanding and c) fear. The other five (5)informants discussed the first and third
components of the expert conception, but they did not address the decline of rural culture
and society’s general disconnection with the land

Interestingly, the informants who grew up in mm] areas demonstrated the
most compatible and elaborate discourse relative to the cultural trades-offs inherent in the
use of agricultural technology. The informants raised in urban areas were less balanced in
their tmderstanding and spoke more wearily of trade-offs resulting from agricultural
technologies. Generally, as a group, they also spoke more often about the detrimental

effects of these technologies than they did about the benefits.

Research Objective 4. Commonalties among informants within groups with
regard to their backgrounds and experiences and to their understandings of the
agri-food system.

To address the study’s fourth objective, commonalties among informants with
regard to backgrormd and experiences for both elementary and prospective teacher groups
were assessed. The goal was to determine if associations between these variables were
apparent These variables included: demographic background and food and agriculturally-
related experiences of informants. Findings for the elementary students are presented

first followed by the findings for the prospective elementary teachers.

A. Elementary Student Informants

Analysis of these elementary student informants begins with the most general
association and ends with the most specific. Three (3) commonalties surfaced The first
and most notable relationship is between understanding of the agri-food system and the
background of informants. Overall, the suburban, European American, upper middle class
SES group had the greatest number of Compatible-Elaborate (22) and the lowest number
of Nonexistent (9) codings of the three groups, while the urban, African American, lower
SES group had the lowest number of Compatible-Elaborate ( l4) and the highest number
of Nonexistent (16) codings.

The second commonality dealt with understandings of specific benchmarks by

groups. Groups of informants displayed marked differences related to their

204

understanding of the science benchmarks in two areas: 1) pests and pesticides and 2)
origins of food The European American, upper middle class SES group members were
the only informants to describe weeds as pests that farmers might need to protect crops
against. Two informants fi'om this group-~Tim and Ema-explained that the weeds would
compete for growth requirements—specifically light and water-with other, more desirable
plants. Ema explained that crops are lost to weeds because they competed with crops for

space and for growth requirements.

I- Can you tell me, you talked about plants growing and blocking out
something, tell me about that

E- Yeah, there might be other weeds or plants or something that are growing
too close and the leaves might block out the srmlight from the lettuce and
make it die, because it doesn’t get much sunlight

I- So what would the person who is growing the lettuce do?

E- Probably chop down the weeds or before they grow the plants, if it’s like
has another vegetable a little farther.

I- So they have more space.

E- Yeah

Conversely, urban Detroit informants who had never gardened had no schema related to
pests. They did not express any understanding of: 1) how pests (insects or weeds) affect

crops, 2) how crops might be protected from pests, or 3) the positive and negative

impacts of using pesticides.

205

A siniilar pattern held true for understandings related to the origin of food.
The suburban informants were better able to identify and explain why crops were grown
in specific geographic locations. Four (4) of the six (6) urban students (Jay, Jill, Mona,
and Sara) were unable to identify the locations where crops may have logically been
grown in winter months; it seemed they had never considered climate before. Jay, Mona
and Sara, when asked about the origin of the lettuce all gave answers similar to Sara’s “out
in Michigan” or Jay’s “here or in Detroit.” Jay’s comments are typical of this group of

students:

I: Now the lettuce and the pickles, where do you think they were grown?

J: ...Probably grown, here.
I: So, what was the temperature like here in Michigan last month?
J: Cold

1: So, go ahead

J: About in the...fifiies [it was actually about 30 degrees F].
1: OK, how do you think lettuce would grow in the fifties?
J: Not very good

I: So, you still think it was grown here in Michigan?

J: (Shakes head) No.

I: Where do you think it was grown then?

J: Probably out in Detroit.

This group of informants did not take the knowledge of plant growth requirements in
benchmarks H.A.1. regarding the need for specific climates for growth and ILB. 1.
regarding basic plant growth needs and link it to Michigan winter weather conditions or
the use of the transportation systems elaborated upon in benchmark II.C.3.-obtaining
food from more suitable climates.

The final commonality was found in Mona’s and Sara’s understandings (urban
Detroit females who had not grown food). Both informants had little experience with
food before it got to their table. They elaborated upon the unhealthfulness of food and
detailed the changes in the agri-food system that made food of lesser quality and
wholesomeness than in the past. They both said that the newspapers, television and

their families were the sources of their understandings. Sara explained:

S- Foods are, I heard on the news, sometimes how food can damage you or . .

I- Tell me about that.

S- Ok. I heard on the news sometimes that when you get, they tell you be
careful, because what kinds of foods that they have, or um tooth pastes, or
anti-biotics, um, how that can hurt you or make you sick

I- How? How does it do that?

S- I think it’s, well it’s my opinion. I think sometimes there is probably
some stuff that is in it And then they put extra stuff in it or something
and it makes sick. It probably

I- Like what extra stuff? Like for food What extra stuff for food to put in?

207

They put lots of chemicals.

Like what?

Like, orange juice.

Tell me about that.

Ok Orange juice is now hot like it really used to was.
How is it different?

Because they put, it is not like real orange juice, it’s not like real orange,
because they put stuff in it that makes it taste, um, like, like orange juice.

Ok. So artificial stuff is put in?
Yeah Makes it seem like orange juice, just like orange juice or milk
Right. Tell me about that.

Milk is not like it was like back then, because they put some chemicals in
it to make it taste like milk, just like orange juice.

Ok. Why do they do that?
Probably they don’t like, probably most people have opinions like they

don’t like real milk or real orange juice probably. So they wanna put
something in it to make it taste better.

B Prospective Teachers

Just as in the previous section, a broad view of the commonalties or apparent
associations are presented, followed by a more detailed analysis. This group of
informants was not purposefully selected other than by the fact that they all were

prospective elementary teachers. As it happened, however, there were three (3)

208

informants who were raised in rural Michigan. These three (3) students--Dan, Meri, and
Kara--were the most knowledgeable about the agri-food system. They were coded the
most often in the elementary (K-S) benchmarks as Compatible-Elaborate (CE), with 12,
11 and 10 times respectively. Additionally, Meri and Kara were also tied for the most
number of CE codes in the prospective teacher benchmarks (Dan scored two (2) CBS in
this category and one (1) No evidence, because of my error at the beginning of this study).
These informants were not coded “Nonexistent” for any of the benchmarks. It must be
restated that Dan’s mirror was in agriscience and Kara’s father was a farmer; therefore, it
would be ill-advised to argue that only geography played a role in these three (3)
students’ deeper understanding of the agri-food system than their contemporaries.

As with the elementary informant group, literacy-~as measured by coding on
the benchmarks in this study-was lower in the prospective teacher group who had no
experience with gardening and who was raised in urban Detroit. Molli and Guy, who
both had never gardened, were coded with the least CBS for the elementary benchmarks.
Guy had six (6) and Molli four (4). They also had the largest number of CI, IS, IE and N
codings of the prospective teacher informants. Similarly, Molli (3) and Guy (2) were
coded with the most Nonexistent for the prospective teacher benchmarks. Di--who also
was reared in Detroitnhad two (2) Ns as well.

Upon deeper analysis, it became apparent that Molli, Di and Guy were coded
similarly on their understanding of fertilizers Both Dan and Molli held misconceptions

about what fertilizers do to crops. As stated previously, Guy believed fertilizers to be

209

akin to human steroids, while Molli believed that fertilizers cause plants to skip natural

processes. Her ideas about fertilizers included:

You talked about fertilizers and chemicals, tell me how those would be
used on this farm.

Probably use just to make a lot of it if they are trying to sell it.
And what does it do?

I don’t know, like probably just something to speed up the growth
process of whatever crop they would be growing.

And what would it then be supplying to the plant that is going to speed
up the growth process?

What do you mean?

Well, you’re saying that their giving it fertilizer so that it speeds up the
growth process, so this is a plant, right. Lettuce is a plant, what is it
doing?

What is the fertilizer doing? I don’t know, some kind of chemical that
would probably just like, not go through the natural steps of growing, or
maybe do it but somehow, I don’t know how, but somehow makes it go
faster, maybe miss steps that it won’t go through natural growth, or
something.

At the other end of the fertilizer knowledge and understanding was again-~Dan,

Kara, and Molli. They had well-developed schemas for fertilizers that allowed them to

talk at length about such ideas as organic and inorganic compounds, pumping organic

matter into the soil via cover crops, etc. Their understandings were enriched by personal

experience that they conveyed through their discourse.

210

Of additional interest was the commonality held by Meri and Guy. Guy,
whose overall agri-food system literacy was low in comparison to his contemporaries,
held the most compatible and elaborate understanding related to the origin of the lettuce.
Guy had taken a geography course at Michigan State University in his social studies
minor. Meri, also a social studies minor, took the same course. They both held extremely
deep and well reasoned notions as to why most lettuce in the US comes from California.
They also, reported that this class contributed to their understanding of the monocultural
nature of most farms in the US. Their understandings of the role climate plays in
determining where crops can be grown was also influenced by this educational

intervention.

Sum mary/Discussion

In sum, it seems apparent that there were commonalties among informants in
both groups. In the elementary group, high SES, gardening and not living in an urban
environment were correlates that manifested in a more compatible and elaborate
understanding of this study’s benchmarks. Specifically, students from suburban,
gardening, high SES held a richer understanding of pests and pesticides than did the urban,
non-gardening, low SES students. Similarly, these groups differed in their understanding
about the origin of winter produce. Urban, non-gardening students seemed to lack a

schema for both these clusters of benchmarks. One might speculate that this results from

211

their lack of experiences with growing food and hem a dearth of opportunities to travel
and gain a more broad geographic perspective.

The prospective teacher group bore similar trends as the elementary students.
Informants who gardened and were raised in rural areas achieved the highest attainment of
the agri-food system benchmarks, while non-gardening suburban and urban informants
were lowest. This was most apparent in the benchmark that dealt with fertilizers where
the nnal gardening students were markedly higher than those who did not garden Of
additional interest is the commonality of understanding promoted through a college
course. Two (2) students who both completed a geography course held the most
compatible and elaborate understanding for the how climate relates to the origin of food
This suggests that much of the lack of understanding about the agri-food system could be

ameliorated by education

Research Objective 5. Differences between prospective teachers and students
relative to their understandings of the agri-food system.

This research objective addresses the differences found in the elementary
student and prospective teacher groups. It must first be stated that what is most striking
about these two groups is the many similarities. Notable differences are found in three
(3) of the eighteen (18) or twenty-three percent (17%) of the elementary benchmarks and

their subcomponents. These benchmarks were:

212

I.A.4. Describe how agriculture uses natural resources to provide
peoples’ basic nwds.

II.C. 1. Explain why irrigation and fertilizers are used to grow crops.
III.A.] Explain the effects of modern technology of farms, farmers, and
rural and urban communities.

Differences were identified by comparing codes of the two groups-a
description of the decision criterion for selecting notable differences can be formd in
Chapter 3. The findings for this question begin with the benchmark from the I. Agri-food
system standard, then address the II. Science: Agricultural-Environmental

Interdependence benchmarks, and conclude with the III. Historical-Cultru'al benchmarks.

A. Agriculture Uses Natural Resources

The first benchmark where differences were noted between the elementary
student and prospective teacher informants was LA. 4. Describe how agriculture uses
natural resources to provide peoples’ basic needs. This was the only benchmark where
elementary students held more compatible and elaborate responses than did the older and
more educated prospective teacher group. The major difference laid in three elementary
students’ understanding that air was a natural resource needed by plants to live. None of

the prospective teachers ever mentioned air as a natural resource or basic need for plants.

213

B. Irrigation and Fertilizers

The second benchmark where differences were noticed was 11. C. 1. Explain
why I) irrigation and 2) fertilizers are used to grow crops. This benchmark was divided

into two parts: a) irrigation and b) fertilizers.

1. Irrigation.

In the case of irrigation, elementary students understood-on a basic level—that
crops needed a constant supply of water for growth, but did not expand beyond this fact.
No informant used the word irrigation during the interview. Students did not bring up the
fact that humans grow crops in regions unsuitable for unaided plant growth (arid or desert
climates). The majority of teachers, on the other hand, understood the connection
between water requirements and where humans grow crops. To make this connection,
teachers synthesized what they knew about these two ideas and reasoned why there was

a connection-something none of the elementary students articulated orally.

2. Fertilizers.

Only two (2) elementary student informants discussed fertilizers, the other
seven (7) never mentioned fertilizers (or any kind of plant grth promoter)--only one

elementary informant explicitly used the word fertilizer. These two (2) informants

214

understood that a substance could be given to plants to promote growth. They did not,
however, link this idea to increased crop yield and a major reason why fertilizers are used-
- modern monocultural practices.

In contrast, three (3) of the prospective teachers had a compatible and
elabofate understanding of why fertilizers were used, while the conceptions of another
two (2) were murky. The CE informants made explicit links to the results humans
gleaned from fertilizers and the reason why they are used Again, as in the irrigation sub-
concept, selected teachers were able to connect knowledge structures to form a schema for
fertilizer use.

Of the remaining three informants not yet described, two (2) held
misconceptions and told inaccurate stories about fertilizers-the last held no conception
about this topic. The sub-benchmark fertilizers, then, is an area flagged by meeting the
criterion for difference, but is not one where clear understandings are present for only a
few prospective teachers. This finding is of particular import, as both agricultural and
science educators suggest that elementary students should grasp this concept.

C. Effects of Modern Technology on Farms, Farmers, and Rural and Urban
Communities

The final benchmark that met the decision criterion, and the one where the

greatest difference was found, was 111A. 1 Explain the eflects of modern technology on

215

farms, farmers, and rural and urban communities. This benchmark was divided into

three (3) sub-components: a) farms, b) and c) communities.

1. Farms

In the first sub-component, students generally understood that farms were
mechanized, but they did not make a connection between mechanization and the effects it
had on farm size, complexity or number. The majority of prospective teachers,
conversely, held schemas that allowed them to articulate the cause-effect relationship

between technological use and farms.

2. Farmers

Closely akin to the understandings informants’ held regarding farms was the
effect technology had on farmers. As a group elementary student informants were less
aware of the effects technology had on farmers than the prospective teachers. The
majority understood that technology reduced labor requirements, however only two (2)
made a link between technology and a reduction in the number of farmers, and their
dependence upon technology. Only one (1) elementary student informant held a
Nonexistent understanding of technology’s affect on farmers. Interestingly, most

elementary students-when first asked about technology-«talked about computers.

216

Similar to the other technologically-based sub-components, the majority of
teachers held richer schemas than the elementary students that allowed them to evaluate
the affects of technological innovations on farmers, lives and businesses. Those teachers
that did not possess schemas that allowed for compatible and elaborate discourse about

this topic sounded amazingly like the elementary student informants.

3. Communities

No elementary student informant articulated a clear understanding of the
effects of technology on communities. The majority understood that food production
was higher when using technology, but were unable to specify how technology further
affected rural and urban communities. They were unable to make the abstraction on a
broader scale that most of their prospective teachers made. The prospective teachers
articulated a piecemeal understanding of the expert conception which included the
following effects: 1) a shift in population, 2) the creation of new opportunities, 3) the
loss and creation of culture, and 4) a move toward increased alienation from the land. It
must be mentioned that seven (7) of the eight (8) prospective teacher informants were

coded Compatible-Sketchy.

217

Summary and Discussion

Notable differences were found between teachers and students in 17% of the
benchmarks and their subcomponents. Generally speaking, the differences between
elementary student and prospective teachers lay in the connections they made within
their idiosyncratic schemas. Specific differences were found in three (3) areas: 1) natural
resources use in agriculture, 2) irrigation and fertilizers, 3) the effects of technology on
farms, farmers and commrmities.

In agriculture’s use of natural resources, the difference was found in selected
elementary students understanding that air was a natural resource that was required by
both plants and animals. No prospective teacher mentioned air during their interview.
This could be the result of students recently learning this fact in science class.

The second area where differences surfaced was in the irrigation and fertilizer
benchmark Although elementary students understood that plants required water to live,
they did not discuss why humans needed to irrigate crops. Prospective teachers, on the
other hand, said that humans grew crops in areas that were warm, but that also lacked
precipitation. Similarly, more prospective teachers were aware of what fertilizers were
and why they were used than were elementary students. Most students, like some
teachers, did not understand that fertilizers supplied minerals to plants.

The last benchmark where differences were manifest dealt with the effects

of technology on farms, farmer and communities. The major difference between students

218

and prospective teachers was in the ability to make cause-effect type evaluations.
Elementary students knew that farmers used more machines that increase food
production, but were generally unable to make the leap to judge the consequences of this
technology for the farmers’ lives, the structure and number of farms or the culture and
make-up of communities. The majority of prospective teachers, themselves, did not have
a clear understanding of the effects, but were more compatible and elaborate with the goal

conception.

219

CHAPTERS

CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS

Overview

In Chapter Pour, the findings of the study were presented and discussed Chapter
Five begins with a summary of the findings. This is followed by conclusions/discussions
that are drawn from those findings. The conclusions are divided between the two
dimensions of the study’s theoretical framework: psychology of learning and sociology.
In the final section of the chapter, implications for educational research, curriculum

development, collaboration and teacher preparation are offered

A. Summary of Findings.

A summary of findings is presented below for each research objective. The first,

fourth, and fifth objectives are presented in a narrative, while the second and third are

summarized in Tables 29, 30 and 31. because of the extent of the findings related to these

two objectives.

1. Research Objective 1. Inforrnants’ backgrounds and experiences.

220

The elementary student informants for this study were five (5) females and four
(4) males. They were of European or African ancestry and came from urban and
suburban backgrounds. Student informants attended both parochial and public schools.
The parent occupations for this group ran the gamut from janitor to pharmacist The
informants were evenly divided by socio-economic status (SES) groups: lower, lower-
middle, and upper-middle. One of the students who lived in a urban location had once
lived in rural areas in the western US.

The prospective teacher backgrounds were less varied than those of the student
informants. There were eight (8) informants in this category, three (3) were male and five
(5) were female. All of them were of European ancestry--all were white. Two (2)
attended Catholic school, and the remaining six (6) attended public school before college.
All informants attended Michigan State University and majored in elementary education.
Prospective teachers came from rn'ban, suburban and rural backgrounds. Occupations of
their parents varied from janitor to landscape architect.

All informants in both groups had food-based experiences. The primary
difference among them was experience with gardening. Two (2) informants in each group,
for a total of four (4), had never grown food Of these, three (3) were raised in Detroit
,and the other in one of its suburbs. Additionally, two (2) prospective teachers had

experiences working on farms.

2. Research objective 2. Elementary students’ understandings of the agri-food system
goal conceptions.

221

The next objective sought elementary student understanding of goal conceptions

for agri-food system literacy. The sophistication of informant thinking about a given topic

was judged for each subconcept along two dimensions: quality (compatibility) and depth

(elaboration of response) by comparison with expert conceptions. Student

understandings were assigned codes based upon this comparison scheme (Table 12).

Table 29 lists key concepts and benchmarks in the left-hand column Included in

the right are the most common codings as well as codings that are of particular import

because they are indicative of trends found within the data Comments are provided next

to the codings to illuminate salient findings embedded in the data

Table 29. Elementary Student Codes for Goal Benchmarks

 

Kev Concept/Benchmarks

 

Codings/ Comments

 

 

I.A. Agriculture CE - plants and animals as the source of food
1) Products from plants and animals.
2) Variety of farms. CE - food comes from farms
CS- farms look like big gardens
CS- farms are big-4 football fields in size
3) Journey of food or fiber. CE- network of interrelated systems

 

, 4) Agriculture uses natural resources.

CS- lack of air as a reqrirement

 

II.A. Ecosystem Management

1) Crops depend on climate and soil.

CE- climate-(temperature and precipitation)
required for growth in regions

CS- soil-needed for growth, “good” but no idea
of what makes it good

 

ILB. Management of Crops
, I) Basic growth requirements

CS- animals and plants-missing space and air,
little idea of what requirements do

 

 

 

 

2) Crop loss to pests. CS-animal pests (insects rodents, etc.)
CE-weeds compete for growth requirements -
suburban informants only
N-weeds-urban students
3) Crop protection from pests. CS- dependent omof pests known, see

 

222

 

 

benchmark II.B.Z above

 

4) Impacts poisons to protect crops.

CS-those that knew of insects (benchmark
II.B.2) mentioned pesticides impacts
N-no schema for non-insect knowers

 

II.C. Science and Technology
1) Irrigation and fertilizers.

irrigation:

CS-knew plants needed water, but no link to
humans choosing to grow in arid regions

fertilizers:

N-maj ority of informants

CS-stuff to make plants grow

IE-food for plants

 

2) Origin of common foods.

CE-interplay of climate, growth requirements,
and geography

N-no link to climate and geography, urban
students

 

3) Food is from suitable climates.

CE-food is transported via trucks

 

 

III.A. Agriculture Changed Society
1) Effects technology.

 

CS-mechanization decreases labor, but no link
to number of farmers or farmers; cause-effect
relationships missing

N- no knowledge of affects on communities

 

e-No evidence; NuNonexistent; IEnIncompatible Elaborate; I SnIncompatible Sketchy;
CI-Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE—Compatible Elaborate

3. Research objective 3. Prospective elementary teachers’ understandings of the agri-

food system goal conceptions.

The third objective sought prospective elementary teacher rmderstandings of goal

conceptions for agri-food system literacy. The same procedures for coding were followed

as described previously for the elementary student informants, except that additional

benchmarks exclusively for prospective teachers were also coded Tables 30 and Table 31

list key concepts and benchmarks in the left-hand column Included in the right-hand

column are the most common codings as well as codings of particular import because they

223

 

describe trends within the data. Comments are provided next to the codings to illuminate

salient findings embedded in the data.

Table 30.

Prospective Teacher Coding for Elementary Benchmarks

 

C_gd_r_ng' s/ Comments

 

Key ConceptLBenchmarks
I.A. Agriculture

1) Products from plants and animals.

CE jalants and animals as the source of food

 

 

2) Variety of farms. CE - food comes from farms

CS- fanns look like big gardens

CS- big farms - 2-20+ football fields in size
3) Journey of food or fiber. CE- network of interrelated systems

 

4) Agriculture uses natural resources.

I- lack of air as a requirement

 

ILA. Ecosystem Management
1) Crops depend on climate and soil.

CE- climate-(temperature and precipitation)
required for growth in regions

soil:

CE- only rural informants

CS- needed for growth, but no idea of what it
supplies

 

II.B. Management of Crops
1) Basic growth requirements

CS- animals and plants-missing space and air,
little idea of what requirements do (srm,

 

 

water, soil)
2) Crops loss to pests. CE- animal pests (insects, rodents, etc.)
CE- weeds-rural informants
N— weeds urban students
3) Crops proteetion from pests. CE- rural informants

CS- pesticides only, most informants

 

4) Impacts poisons to protect crops.

CS- negatives better understood than positives

 

II.C. Science and Technology
1) Irrigation and fertilizers.

CE-irrigation needs of plant and where grown
fertilizers:

CE- rural informants

CS- gave something to plant to make it greener
IE- steroids for plants

 

2) Origin of common foods.

CE- climate, geography, and growth needs
IE- plains states where the farms are

 

3) Food comes fi'om suitable climates.

C- food transported via trucks

 

III.A. Agriculture Changed Society
1) Affects technology.

 

 

CE- farms and farmers, mechanization
CS- mechanization, incomplete on affects
communities

 

224

 

e—No evidence; NuNonexistent; IE-—Incompatible Elaborate; IS—Ineompatible Sketchy;
CI-Compatible/Incompatible; CS--Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

Table 31. Prospective Teacher Codings for Teacher Benchmarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kev Concemlljenchmarks Codir_rgs/ Comments
II.C. Science and Technology CE- human design animals and plants
1) Engineerigg of plants and animals. N- no idea
III.A. Agriculture Changed Society live:
1) Technology’s changes-live and work CS- missing food’s connection to land and
improved health and diet
work:
CE: deep understanding of industrialization
and changes with work
2) Trade-offs of agricultural technology. CS- understood pollution, but lack
understanding of loss of biodiversity
and sustainability

 

 

 

e—No evidence; N--Nonexistent; IE»Incompatible Elaborate; IS--Incompatible Sketchy;
CI»Compatible/Incompatible; CS-Compatible Sketchy; CE-Compatible Elaborate

4. Research Objective 4. Commonalties among informants within groups with regard to
their backgrounds and experiences and to their understandings of the agri-food system.

The fourth research objective probed commonalties within informant groups in
regard to understandings of the agri-food system benchmarks. In the elementary group,
high SES, gardening and not living in an urban environment were correlates with the most
compatibility and elaboration of understanding the study’s benchmarks. Specifically,
high SES students held a richer understandings of pests and pesticides and the origin of
winter produce than did the urban, non-gardening, low SES students. Urban, non-

gardening students seemed to lack a schema for both these benchmark clusters.

225

The prospective teacher group exhibited trends similar to those among
elementary students. Informants who gardened and were raised in rural areas achieved the
greatest understanding of the agri-food system benchmarks, while non-gardening suburban
and urban informants demonstrated the least understanding. Additionally, enrollment in a
college geography course appeared to improve understanding of the origin of food in

relation to climate.

5. Research Objective 5. Differences between prospective teachers and students relative
to their understandings of the agri-food system.

In the final research objective sought differences between groups in regard to
agri-food system rmderstandings. Notable differences were found between teachers and
students in 17% of the elementary benchmarks and their subcomponents. Generally
speaking, the difi’erences between elementary student and prospective teacher groups
were in the connections made between knowledge structures to proffer casual
relationships. Specific difi‘erences were found in three (3) areas. In the first, several
elementary students added air as a resource needed by plants and animals, while no
prOSpective teacher did.

The second area dealt with inigation and fertilizers. Prospective teachers
related warm, arid climates chosen by humans to grow food to the need for irrigation;
younger learner did not make a connection between human placement of crops and the
need for water. Additionally, more prospective teachers were aware of what fertilizers

were and why they were used than were elementary students.

226

In the final benchmark, effects of technology on farms, farmers and
communities, the major difference between students and prospective teachers was in the
ability to make cause-effect type evaluations. Elementary students were generally unable
to make the leap to judge the consequences of technology for farmers’ lives, the structure
and number of farms, or the culture and composition of communities. The majority of
prospective teachers, themselves, did not have a clear understanding of the effects, but

were more compatible and elaborate with the goal conception

B. Conclusions/Discussion

The study’s conclusions are organized around its theoretical frameworks in
psychology and sociology. Conclusions are presented first which aligned with teaching
and learning theory with particular emphasis on agricultural and science education After
these conclusions are presented, a broader perspective is discussed that links the findings

of this study to society.

1. Conclusion from a Teaching and Learning Perspective.

This study’s conceptual framework used conceptual change theory as a
foundation in the study of the agri-food system. A review of the literature indicated this
research methodology had never previously been employed in agricultural education to

assess agri-food system understandings. This study shows that conceptual change

227

research methods can be fruitful in surfacing informant conceptions in agricultural
education Tables 29, 30 and 31 indicate that informants generally held conceptions
classified as compatible (CE and CS), incompatible (IE and IS), and nonexistent (N). CE
conceptions were primarily found in benchmarks of a factual nature, such as plants and
animals being the source of food, food’s origination at farms, etc. In both elementary
student and prospective teacher groups, the CS coding was the most common This
indicates that informants held partial understandings of agri-food system concepts. These
incomplete understandings were often found in concepts that required informants to make
connections between biological, physical, and earth science concepts. Informants had
difficulty with connecting to schemata that could help them fully explain concepts orally.
The third most often assigned code was Nonexistent, indicating that informants
were not able to access cognitive structures related to the agri-food system to make sense
of the interview prompts. Interestingly, informants with nonexistent understandings may
prosper the most from direct instruction. Hogan and Fishkeller (1996) found that learners
who held non-conceptions learned more than those who held compatible but sketchy and
incompatible understandings on the topic of nutrient cycling in ecosystems. It is also
noteworthy that the incompatible codings were the least assigned in this study, because
they show that few of the agri-food system concepts are deeply rooted within the schema
of most informants. Time consuming educational interventions designed to reconstruct
misconceptions can be kept to minimum, because the schemata are not burdened with

misconceptions, rather the accurate conceptions are simply not present.

228

The second part of the study’s psychological focus included sociocultural theory.
The theory was well supported by the findings of this study. Findings in both groups
indicated that experiences outside of school were the strongest determinant of agri-food
system literacy. This is supported by the fact that informants who held the
understandings most compatible with expert conceptions, time and again, related their
discourse to personal experiences and not school-based learning (except in reference to
plant and animal growth requirements, natural resources, and climate). These experiences
were most apparent in the student understandings related to: pests, crop protection,
pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation and the origin of foods. Informants from both groups
with background in gardening or who had traveled outside of an urban area conveyed
much richer, more scientifically accurate discourse than students from urban areas who
had not had these experiences. Codings of the urban non-gardening informants present a
clear pattern of limited understanding for both the elementary student and prospective
teacher groups.

Of further interest is the link between younger informants and their families in
regard to leaming about the agri-food system. Findings indicate that parents and
grandparents were instrumental in providing younger children with knowledge that was
integrated into their schemata Informants from urban areas referred to listening to
parents talk about the higher quality of food in past generations. From these experiences,
they developed a mistrust of food makers and nrisconceptions about the composition of
food products. On the other hand, students who gardened with their parents or assisted

with maintaining lawns were more likely to understand the linkages between in-school and

229

out-of-school learning. It appears, then, that most learning about the agri-food system
occurs through informal activities with families and not in school.

Similarly, prospective teacher informants who were raised in rural areas, as a
group, held the most (C) and least (N) codings. Therefore, one can cautiously link the
experiences gleaned in these settings to the development of ideas and schemata that
helped them to understand the agri-food system.

This study also surfaced polarities in terms of prospective teacher understandings
of higher level conceptions (high school benchmarks called prospective teacher objectives
in this study). Over a third of these university juniors and seniors were unable to talk
about how farm plants and animals are engineered by humans to produce specific traits.
Even though they most likely were required to take a biology course in either high school
or in college, they were unable to offer any ideas about human designed life forms to
obtain the things they value. As biotechnology increasingly enters public discourse, it is
alarming that a significant number of future teachers in this study possessed such limited
understanding of even rudimentary applied genetics.

This study also brought to the fore limited understanding of the trade-offs
inherent in the use of agricultural technology in terms of the environment Future teachers
understood that agricultural technology could increase crop yield while at the same time
contribute to environmental degradation through pollution from fossil fuels and improper
use of pesticides. However, only two (2) of these informants mentioned ecosystem
decline over a long time horizon Specifically, college students did not understand how

current farnring practices alter the environment and necessitate the reduction of

230

biodiversity. This lack of understanding of how society alters the environment through
agricultural practices and then perpetuates a non-sustainable system through its food and

fiber choices seems to be an area where the need for education is most evident.

2. Conclusions from a Societal Perspective

Although the need for education about the environmental-agri-food system
connection was apparent from the findings of this study, it will be a difficult topic to
arouse a need for in society’s consciousness. Humans are confronted with thousands of
choices and decisions daily. In order to deal with the complexity of the world around
them they develop a bounded rationality (Simon, 1978 ). By bounding rationality to a
limited number of decision sets, one is able to live in the complicated and changing world.
Bringing new rationalities to consciousness (e. g., the link between food and fiber choices
and environmental degradation) will be exceedingly difficult, at best People simply do
not have the capacity—nor energy-40 understand and care about all things. As a result,
they concern themselves with issues that affect them personally-and for many the
complexities and trade-offs of the agri-food system are far removed and inconsequential.

As this study has shown, the hegemony ( Feenburg 1995) of science and
technology in the agri-food system is well entrenched. Students learn about the canons of
science with little ability to make links to real-world application in their own lives. They
learn about the effects of industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuriesuas evident by

the extensive discourse of informants about the industrial revolution--but are blinded, by

231

bounded rationality, to the trade-offs inherent within their own epoch. This may be
because of misconceptions and non-conceptions held by most people about the agri-food
system. For example, this study found that the majority of elementary and university
students believed a farm today looked like a large gardens-a picture from Grant Wood’s
“American Gothic.” They held conceptions of farms that were not compatible with
today’s reality.

These non-and misconceptions of scientific principles and technological realities
serve to limit understanding of the agri-food system. As such, they limit society’s ability
to see how its choices influence human health and safety and environmental sustainability
for future generations. Democratic participation, an ideal of liberal democratic theory, is
based upon a citizenry that has the ability to make informed decisions. This study has
shown that most elementary students and prospective teachers do not possess the ability
to draw upon scientific concepts to engage in democratic discourse about environmental
trade-offs in the application of agri-food system technologies. F eyerabend (1978)
comments on democracy and the need for learning that is relevant for active participation
in decisions of the day:

a democracy is an assembly of mature people and not a collection of sheep

guided by a small clique of know-it-alls. Maturity is not found lying about

in the streets, it must be learned It is not learned in schools, at least not in

the schools of today where the student is confronted with desiccated and

falsified copies of past decisions, it is learned by active participation in
decisions that are still to be made (p 87).

232

Feyerabend’s critique of formalized schooling merits consideration in light of this study’s
findings that outoof-school experiences were the strongest determinant of an informant’s
ability to engage in discourse about the agri-food system’s effects on society and the

environment

C. Implications of Study

Implications from this study follow. First to be presented are implications that
highlight research agendas and study that are logical extensions of this study. Next
recommendations for curriculum development are offered This is followed by discussion
of how identifying developmental ideas and collaborating in agricultural and science
education can promote agri-food system literacy. The last implications are proffered for

creation of an interdisciplinary approach to teacher education about agriculture.

1. Research

First, further research can yield deeper understandings of what people know about
the agri-food system. Specifically, additional use of this study’s research protocol by
other researcher on similar, but different groups, for example, can add to the
generalizability of findings. These studies might target areas where non-and
misconceptions are present. With misconceptions, researchers may consider determining

the robustness and cause of inaccurate schemata. Additionally, there would be profit in

233

studying groups that are: a) are less educated and b) are in elite policy making positions.
This range would yield fru'ther understandings of what others in society comprehend
about the agri-food system. Finally, researchers may consider utilizing quantitative
methods to determine if the findings from qualitative studies of small groups can be

generalized to a large population.

2. Curriculum Development

This study has implications for those interested in curriculum development.
Findings from this study shed light on the understandings found in elementary and college
students. For those developing curriculum and other educational interventions, this study
provides a glimpse of what conceptions these two groups do and do not hold.

Specifically, designers of elementary curriculum do not need to focus on food’s
origin from plants and animals; students already know the biological origin of their food
On the other hand, curriculum that helps students understand the structure and size of
modern farms could be firritfrrl in confronting misconceptions about firms looking like
large gardens.

‘ In the area of Ecosystems Management, science educators might fiuther
concentrate on helping students develop an understanding of soil’s contribution of
minerals to plants. By teachers integrating fertilizer laboratory activities into the teaching
of plant growth needs, both soil nutrients and the contributions of fertilizers could be

fused into a connected whole. Likewise, curriculum designers could “double-dip” by

234

using the agricultural example of crop pests to provide a context for learning about
competition among living things. This would be of particular import because the majority
of elementary students in this study did not have any conception of how weeds compete
with crops for sun, soil nutrients, space and water. Cuniculurn based on school gardens
could be illustrative of competition. In these gardens, students could also weigh-under
the supervision of an experienced teacheruthe pros and cons of pesticide use, which is
another area where students held incomplete understandings. Finally, elementary
curriculum designers may consider linking the idea of industrialization to present day
agriculture. Students spoke at length about industrialization as it relates to past epochs,
but few used examples of the technologies of the present. Specifically, elementary
students thought of technology only in terms of computers and machines; they did not
extend technology to the biological realm. This is noteworthy because agriculture is now
on the cusp of a revolution based on biotechnology, and society will increasingly be
confronted with the risks and benefits of these innovations.

This study underscores the need for an enhanced curriculum for prospective
teachers. Like the elementary students, one-half of these college students did not
understand about the engineering of plants and animals by humans. Science and social
studies teaching methods courses for these prospective teachers could emphasize the
integration of ethical and scientific content related to the biotechnology spoken of
previously in the elementary student section If prospective teachers do not
understanding how humans use science and technology to design the crops they value,

how will their students gain such understandings?

235

Another area related to both science and social studies that needs to be addressed
at the university level is the trade-offs of using agricultural technologies. Specifically
prospective teachers do not understand how agriculture alters the land and how society’s
eating habits affect the way resources are used. This is of particular import considering,
for example, that rain forest habitat destruction is a common topic studied in elementary
school. Based upon the findings of this study, it appears that most teachers would be
unable to link the eating of bananas and chocolate (something that most elementary
students do much of) to the alteration of natural landscapes within the rain forests
(monocultural practices require the destruction of indigenous habitats). In other words,
most universities do not provide programs and curricula to help prospective teachers
understand the trade-offs resulting from the food choices that society makes. Without the
prospective teachers understanding this concept, there is little hope that elementary
students will understand.

If formalized education can be thought of as the learning of ideas, concepts and
information commonly held by society, then educational programs and materials can be
designed to strengthen, construct, or reconstruct leamer-held conceptions so they

correspond with those that are commonly held by societies of eXperts.

3. Developmental Ideas and Collaboration between Agricultural and Science Education

Societies of experts-such as university agricultural and science educators-may

find this study of particular interest as it underscores the need for cooperation between

236

them. Specifically, there are ideas missing in the cm'ricular frameworks of both disciplines
(See Chapter 2) that require each to teach agri-food system topics so that students
develop schemata that are compatible with experts and allow them to question the
hegemony within the system. For example, there are developmental ideas essential to
understanding the agri-food system. By this I mean ideas that are foundational to
developing a sequenced understanding of complex ideas. For example, there appear to be
core biological concepts (plant and animal growth needs, competition among organisms,
etc.) that undergird other more complex concepts. Without this initial structure, learners
do not acquire the scaffolding for learning. A good example is pesticide use. To
understand why humans use this technology one must understand that: 1) humans are
animals that compete for food with other animals, e.g., insects, rodents, etc., 2) animals
have grth requirements (food, water, shelter, air, space), 3) these growth requirements
are in limited supply, 4) humans select certain plants and animals to grow for food, 4)
animals and plants that humans grow can be food for competitors, 5) humans, to control
animals and plants that destroy their food, employ fichnologies that kill them, limit their
number, or prevent them from reaching the cr0p they choose to grow, and 6) humans
must weigh trade-off of the use of technologies, such as pesticides, in regard to human
health and safety and the environment.

Additional developmental ideas that surfaced in this study, but that can be
fleshed out in other studies are:

. agricultural production systems-requiring an tmderstanding of physical and biological
resources as well as climates

237

' decline in biodiversity from finning—requiring an understanding of requirements for
growth, food chains, energy transfer, soil erosion.

4. Teacher Preparation

In addition to curriculum development and developmental ideas, this study has
implications for teacher preparation at the university level. The findings showed that
prospective elementary teachers had difficulty understanding various aspects of the agri-
food system benchmarks. To insure that elementary students are provided with the
canonical knowledge in agriculture and science that undergirds agri-food system literacy,
future teachers need background and knowledge that teach science concepts through
pertinent agri-food system contexts. Further, this study showed that prospective
teachers with real-world experiences in gardening, lawn maintenance, food preparation,
etc. held rich and accurate agri-food system conceptions. Unfortunately, most elementary
teachers are not presently trained in the use of experiential teaching (Hikawa and Trexler,
in press) and are uncomfortable using agricultural examples (Trexler and Suvedi, 1998) as
a context for instruction. Therefore, strategies to help prospective teachers learn to teach
through experience are warranted. Interdisciplinary teacher preparation classes inclusive
of science, social studies and agriculture could provide the necessary contextual
background and skills to teach in ways that this study indicated were most contributory

to agri-food system conceptual development.

238

A Final Thought

This dissertation focused broadly on determining what certain people in society
understand about the agri-food system so they can make informed choices about the use
of its science and technology. To do this, people need to possess an understanding of
scientific and technological principles to assess implications for the environment and
culture. Acquiring such understanding is a cumulative process that begins when people
are very young. This study points out that there are areas where elementary students and
their prospective teachers are well informed and others where they hold incomplete or no
conceptions about the system. By ferreting out what people do and do not understand,
educational programs, materials and experiences can be designed to foster agri-food

system literacy.

239

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Review Committee

241

Review Committee

Committee Members for this dissertation were:

Dr. Charles W. Anderson, Professor
Department of Teacher Education
College of Education

Dr. Frank Bobbitt, Professor Emeritus
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Dr. Lawrence Busch, Professor
Department of Sociology
College of Social Science

Dr. Kirk Heinze Associate Professor and Acting Chairperson
Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources Education and
Communications System

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

242

APPENDIX B

Synthesis of Selected Benchmarks from AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy
and the California Agriculture Literacy Framework

243

A. Key concepts, benchmarks, language and applied context for elementary students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key concepts Curriculargoals Lgapgu_age Applied context
1. Food and Fiber
System

A. What is agriculture? 1) Identify food and food, fiber, wood Examples of
fiber products that clothing, shoes,
come fiom plants wool, cotton
and animals. lumber, meats,

vegetables, milk

2) Describe the small, large, ranches,
variety of farnrs and family, corporate, gardens,
their products. firms, structure horticulture

menhouses

3) Describe how grow, food, See objective 1
agriculture provides clothing and
peoples’ basic shelter.
needs.

4) Identify agriculture forestry, livestock, Local firms,
in their region, and dairy, fiber crop, nurseries,
describe the basic grain florists, lumber
needs it provides. mills, food

5) Describe the research, Grocery stores,
journey of a food or production, processing
fiber product travels transportation, plants,
through from the processing, wholesale
farm to the marketing, markets,
consumer. distribution, butcher store,

consumption restaurants

6) Describe how soil, air, water , See objective 2
agriculture uses energy
natural resources to
provide peoples
basic needs .

7) Explain the role of conservation, DNR officers,
natural resource resources, forests,
management in the management greenbelts
agri-food system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key concepts Curriculpr_goals Langgge Applied contexts
H. Science:
Agricultural -
Environmental
Interdependence
A) How are parts of 1) Explain how humans consumers, Humans, cows,
the ecosystem are part of a food producers, pigs, deer, meat;
managed by hmnans chain or web, and predator, prey, wheat, corn, rice
related and how do describe their decomposers , , grass,
they interact? feeding relationships top of chain egetables;
within the web. slaughter of
animals
2) Describe the See objective 1
interaction with and
interdependence of
humans and their
environment
3) Describe competition, Mice and rats in
competitive limit, resources, houses; weeds in
relationships humans, insects, gardens;
between humans and weeds, rodents cockroaches in
other liviLrg_tl_u;_ngs. kitchens
4) Describe how crops temperature, Summer fruits,
depend on an area’s dependent, pine trees, winter
climate and soil for habitat, soil, lettuce from
growth precipitation south US
B) How do humans 1) Describe basic light, air, water, wood lots,
manage crops to growth requirements food, space, gardens, rotting
promote growth for plants and warmth, fertile wood, lumber
and reduce animals. soil with termites
M?
2) Describe how crops pest, damage, Insects damage in
may be lost to pests. loss gardens and on
houseplants,
larvae in corn-on-
the-cob,
3) Explain how crops kill, poison, Bait for mice,
are protected from crop protection rats, and birds, '
weeds and pests. Sprays for weeds
and insects
4) Describe the poisons, Larger and less
positive and negative resistance, blemished house

 

 

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

impacts of using harmful, plants, illness
poisons to protect beneficial , among
crops. alternative fannworkers,
practices birds- DDT
5) Describe how foods heat, consumer, Rotten meat,
may spoil before spoil, germs, curdled milk,
use. decay, slimy lettuce,
decompose, refrigerator gets
sanitation turned off
C) What is the role of 1) Explain why taste, selection, Selective
science and hmnans select certain nutrients, yield, breeding in cattle
technology in the plant varieties and profit for milk , shelf-
foodandfiber animalbreedsover life ofwinter
system? others to grow for tomatoes,
food and fiber. protein content
of wheat
2) Explain why nutrients, soil, Miracle Grow
irrigation and water, dry, ads on TV,
fertilizers are used to increased watering of
grow crops. production, arid lawns during
summer, growing
vegetables in the
Western US
3) Describe advantages heating, salting, Beef jerky, dried
of and methods to smoking, drying, fruit, frozen
slowing down food cooling, storage, fruit, powdered
spoilage. decomposers milk, pickled
- pigs_feet
4) Identify the places state, countries, bananas- South
of origin of common world and Central
foods eaten by America, peanut
Americans. butter- so. US,
oranges- FL, CA
& Brazil
5) Describe how places trains, cargo Lettuce and
too cold or too dry planes, trucks, tomatoes trucked
to grow certain crops transportation, to Michigan in
can obtain food from trade, roads, winter, cranberry
places with more ships, fuel, juice in Arizona,
suitable clirnates. energy use, maple syrup in
climate, cold , Texas
dry. food

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key concepts Curricular goals Langugge Applied context
III. Cultural-historical
A. How has the 1) Describe how hrmter gatherer, Plains native
agriculture changed society transitioned nomads, American
society. from a hunter agriculture, culture; nomadic
gatherer to agrarian domestication Afiican tribes,
structure. Northern
Europeans in
the new world
2) Explain the affects machines, fewer Animal power
of modern firms, agriculture, (Amish) vs.
technology on firms, farmers, tractor power,
farmers and rural and efficiency, loss of small
urban communities. pollution, loss of farms, less
jobs and culture farmers, loss of
rural population
IV. Business and
Economics
A. How is agriculture 1) Explain how surplus surplus, supply, Grocery store,
and economics products (crop) demand, trade, roadside
related? allow for the money vegetable stand,
development of oversupply of
trade. tomatoes traded
with neiggbors .
2) Descrrbe how each pathway, value Cost of a fast
step in the food and (costs), food hamburger
fiber pathway adds transportation, vs. one made at
value to a product labor costs, home, cost of a
energy costs potato vs.
frozen French
fiies
V. Food, Nutrition,
and Health
A. Why do we choose 1) Describe the factors survival, Snack foods,
the foods we do? that influence our economic, fast food, ethnic
food choices. cultural, foods
convenience,
information,
advertisipg
B. How safe is the 1) Explain how food storageL WW

 

 

 

 

 

2A7

 

 

food we eat?

 

should be handled to

ensure health and
proper nutrition?

 

preparation,
sanitation,
expiration dates

 

before eating,
cleaning food
preparation
areas,
refrigeration of
foods

 

B. Key concepts, benchmarks, he"language and applied context for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prospective elementary teachers
Key concepts Curricular Goal Language Applied context
II. Science:
Agriculture -
Environmental
Interdependence
A. What is the role 1) Describe how new genetic Drought
of science and varieties of farm engineering, resistant plants,
technology in the plants and animals cloning, natural cloning of
food and fiber have been engineered selection, sheep, BST
system? to produce new mutation hormone in milk
characteristics. production
III Historical and
Cultural
A. How has the 1) Explain how farms, cities, Migration of
modern agri-food agricultural population, rural people to
system impacted technology changed society, shifi, cities,
society? the way people live employment, fannworker
and work in the US increased unionization,
over the last production, time migrant labor
century.

2) Describe trade-offs increased Inexpensive
inherent in the use of production, food, algae
agricultural sustainability, blooms in
technology in terms land degradation, waterways from
of environment and efl'rciency, higher fertilizer run-
human culture. disposable off, nationwide

income, E coli scares,
pesticides, increased
fertilizers, petroleum
employment, consumption
pollution , loss of for transport of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

culture, crops
preservation,
exploitation,
erosion,
conservation
IV. Business and
Economics
A. What are the roles 1) Explain why the inexpensive food Monitoring of
of local, state and US government supply, high- the USDA,
national monitors and quality, stable , FDA, BLM;
governments in the intervenes in the residues, food Alar scare in
agri-food system? agri-food system? poisoning apple
production
2) Describe reasons for competition, Drought or
governmental natural disaster, floods, insect or
regulations to supply, demand, disease plague,
protect farmer from food security over-production
abrupt changes in of crops,
environmental subsidies for
conditions and from farmers
competition by
farmers in other
countries.
V. Food Nutrition
and Health
A. How is nutrition 1) Explain how a processed foods, Kiwi fruit from
related to person’s food transportation, New Zealand in
agriculture. choices affects the energy use, the winter in
use of the environmental Michigan, a diet
environment and costs, high in meat
culture. employment, products, loss
nutrition, of diversity on
the planet due
to monoculture

 

 

 

249

 

APPENDIX C

Expert Concept Maps for the Study of Key Concepts and Benchmarks

 

 

Figure 1. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: I .A What rs agriculture?
Bencmarks 1-4.

 

LA. 1 Identify food and fiber products that come from plants and

animals.

 

 

I.A.2. Describe the variety of farms and their products.

 

 

I.A.3 Describe the journey of a food or fiber product as it travels from
farm to consumer.

 

 

I.A.4 Describe how agriculture uses natural resources to provide
peoples' basic needs .

Lettuce grows 0" .
-
‘

use PFOdUClng several
hrmdred
.sources transported vi
\
marketed by a
are mostly

 

 
    
    

 

..shreds "" refrigerated truck
distribute

.mumption prepackaged to
.ags of
.ettuce obtains .uran

 

251

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: ILA. How are parts of the
ecosystem managed by humans related and how do they interact? Benchmark 1.

 

II.A.1 Describe how crops depend on an area’s climate and soil for

growth.
natural
CSOUI’OCS
are required by
forcing mixing
among ngs are building blocks
‘0'

 

insects,
m m...
a.

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: [13. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmark 1.

 

 

II.B.l. Describe basic growth requirements for plants and
animals.

 

       

such as

 

I such as
such as

provides

 

     

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: II.B. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth? Bencmark 2 & 3.

i II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. '
‘ II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. '

like
grow protect
constructing
® with

by

can be
removing

are required by

 

 

   

   
 
 

 

are limited (lost 0

damaged) by

® such as by pul g or cutting
space

such isuch as\
0 a...
. pete for ®
eat
\
@ @ ....

 

canbe

 

      
 

 

insects,
rabbits, other

animals

 

 

 

Figure 5. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: ILB. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth? Benchmark 4.

 

II.B.4. Describe the positive and negative impacts of using
poisons to protect crops.

poisons
(pesticides)

have

 

   

impacts

that are that are

can produce
increased

increased d\ecrease SUCh as

contamination of
increased\
decrease mi stance
01d
3” /resulting in
-like like

meeting | ike death and
morbidity
.mumptio .;°

 
    

   

 

 

 

 

 

255

 

 

Figure 6. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: II.C. What is the role of science
and technology in the food and fiber system? Benchmark 1.

l II.C.l. Explain why irrigation and fertilizers are used to grow crops. '

 

try to manage in
environmental 'tabl
factors requiring control of mm c or
\ marginal land
by using by using
to increase

to provides a

® constant

supply

U

varies of

      
 

of

® are found in
can become
of for growth of or grow“? 0f
depleted temperature

because of little

because of

 
   

increases or
decreases
evaporation of

rotation modem increasing
firming . l d
techniques such as mono- Y‘e
culture (amount)

 

 

Figure 7. Concept Map for the Expert Key Concept: II.C. What is the role
of science and technology in the food and fiber system? Benchmarks 2 & 3.

 

II.C.2. Identify the places of origin of commons foods eaten by
Americans.

II.C.3. Describe how places too cold or too dry to grown certain
crops can obtain food from places with more suitable

climates.

      
      
 
 

unsuitable
climates
(cold or

M)

USO

involving

 

ains involving
from
suitable
climates
cargo
planes

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Concept Map for the Elementary Student Key Concept: 111. How has
agriculture changed society? Benchmark 1.

 

III.A. 1. Explain the affects of modern technology on farms,
farmers and rural and urban communities.

    
   
    

..®

. @
decreased
- dependency -
of

number

      

‘ increasing

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Concept Map for the Elementary Teacher Key Concept: II.
A. What is the role of sceince and technology in the food and fiber system?

 

II.A. 1. Describe how new varieties of farm plants and animals have
been engineered to produce new characteristics.

 

can be engineered by
to produce
characteristics

 
 

 
   

through

    
 
 

  

new
characteristics

can result in

  

such as selection of such as

such as such as
such as
such as gene
m .
11ml: tolerant 0f resistant to

 

 

 

259

 

Figure 10. Concept Map for the Elementary Teacher Key Concept: A. How has
the modern agri-food system impacted society? Benchmark 2.

 

III.A.2. Describe trade-offs inherent in the use of agricultrual
technology in terms of environment and human culture.

 

agricultural

technology upon
has
becomes

     
 

extemalities to

large scale
risk
eas '

   
 

impacts the shifts

 
 

increased

  
 

demographics

  
 

loss of

 

 

 
 

increases
decreases

    
   

 
 
  
 

increases

disposable

increases

  

increase

   
 

increases

260

 

increases

 

 

Figure 11. Concept Map for the Elementary School Teachers Key Concept: II
A. How has the modern agri-food system impacted society? Benchmark 1.

[ III.A. 1. Explain how agricultural technology changed the way peor ]
live and work in the US over the last centurv.

agricutlural
technology

increases

     

 

provides
alternatives in

   
 
 

crop
prodcution

requiring less
mannual
labor freeeiw up.

allows for provides for

employment
patterns

to movefrom

 

 

 
 

varitey in
food
choices

food storage,
processing,
transportation

   

   

 
   
 
     
 

allowing

  

other
productive
endeavors

moved from

   

 

 
 

rural
(farms)

shifting

urban
(cities)

decreasing

coonection to aid
understanding of the

land

 

 
   
 

 

 

261

APPENDIX D

Students’ Understanding of the Expert Key Concept 11.3.2 & 3

262

 

Figure 12. Jay's Understanding of Key Concept: 11. B. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

 

II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests.

 

 

II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests.

people with

grow protect guns

 

  
 

by constructing

running

 

such as

can be

into I

limiting access to

are limited (lost or
damaged) by

.T
such as ® can be
a \a.
®

 
  
 
 

provides

 

 

 

 

Figure 13. Jill's Understanding of Key Concept: II.B. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth?

‘ II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pest '
i II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. '

 

grow protect

   
   

by constructing I
limiting
® ’
are required by

are limited (lost or
damaged) by

   
 

such as

.‘

such as

 

 

 

Q1

 

Figure 14. Thom's Understanding of: Key Concept: II.B. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

‘ II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. '
i II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. .

grow protect

 

 

® can be ® by killing

are required by

 
  

are limited (lost or can be
damaged) by

  
   

poisons
(pesticides)

  
 

such as

such as animals
can be
eat

@ @ ...b.

 

 

 

265

 

Figure 15. J im‘s Understanding of Key Concept: II.B. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

' H.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. |
i II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. ,

grow protect

canbe

can be

canbe

 

 

are damaged by

 

#

 

266

 

 

Figure 16. Mona's Understanding of Key Concept: ILB. B. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth?

I II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. '
( II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. '

 

 

Did not discuss anything about pests. Never heard of pesticides.

 

 

267

 

 

 

Figure 17. Sara's Understanding of Key Concept: 11.8. B. How do
humans manage crops to promote growth?

' II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. m
i II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. ,

 

 

 

Did not discuss anything about pests. Never heard of pesticides.

 

 

 

 

Figure 18. Tim's Understanding of Key Concept: H. B. How do humans manage
crops to promote growth?

‘ H.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. .

II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests.

 

 

 

grow protect

      
   
 

are limited (lost or
damaged) by

  
     
   
 

  

rodents

(smtmd
hogs and
bunnies)

®

take away

prevented by scared by
are killed by
pulling plastic
- scarecrows snakes l

269

 

 

 

 

Figure 19. Ema's Understanding of Key Concept: H.B. How do humans
manage crops to promote growth?

I H.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. '
i II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests. .

.

umans .
like

Qrow Protect constructing «

poisons
(pesticides)

 

 

   
   

are limited (lost 0

. damaged) by i
can be
animals
®
osuch . such as\ by pulling or cutting

 

eat

can be
block

 

 

 

 

270

 

Figure 20. Liz' Understanding of Key Concept: II.B. How do humans manage crops
to promote growth?

' II.B.2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests. '

II.B.3. Explain how crops are protected from pests.

grow protect
barriers
create
can be

 

 

 

like

use
sprays fences r
can be

stop

are limited (lost or .
damaged) by

      

are required by

growth
(requirements)

such as

to repel

eat

Pg-
6 s
‘9
s
‘23
s

 

 

 

271

‘i

APPENDIX E

Interview Prompts

272

Elementary Interview Prompts
Hi. Today I’m going to ask you some questions about where food comes from.
You will probably have a pretty good idea about some of the things I am going to ask,
others you might not. I am interested in finding out what you do and don’t know.
Sometimes I might ask you questions to push you as far as you can go about a certain
topic. Do you have any questions?

Ok, let’s get started Can you separate the BigMai:TM in front of you in any way that
makes sense to you?

Why did you separate it in the way you did?
Research Objective 1) What are informants’ backgrounds and experiences?
What grade are you in?
Who do you live with?
What do they do for work?
Where did you grow up? Can you describe the area?
Do/did you ever go with your parents to buy food? Where do you go?
Do you prepare your own food at home? What do you like to cook?
Have you ever been involved in growing food to eat?

Research Objective 2) How do student understandings of the agri-food system
compare to goal conceptions based upon a synthesis of Project 2061’s Benchmarks

for Science Literacy and the California Agricultural Literagy Framework?

Research Objective 3) How do prospective elementary teacher understanding of
the agri-food system compare to goal conceptions based upon a synthesis of Project

2061’s Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the California Agricultural Literacy
Framework?

Key Concept: I.A. What is the agri-food system?

Benchmarks
1. Identify food and fiber cr0ps that come from plants and animals.

273

2. Describe the variety of farms and their products.
3. Describe the journey of a food or fiber product as it travels fi'om
the farm to the consumer.

Key Concept II.A. How are parts of the ecosystem managed by humans related, and how
do they interact?

Benchmark
2. Describe how crops depend on an area’s soil for growth.

Key Concept H.C. What is the role of science and technology in the food and fiber
system?

Benchmark
2. Identify places of origin of common foods eaten by Americans.
3. Describe how places too cold or too dry to grow certain crops can
obtain food from places with more suitable climates.

Can you tell me a little about where the stuff that is on the cheeseburger came from?
Let’s just focus on the lettuce. Where did it come from? Can you trace back how it got
to McDonalds”?

Can you talk about the what you think the place looked like where the lettuce was
grown? What did the lettuce look like when it was growing? Were there other things
growing near them?

Can you tell me about the size of the place where the lettuce came from? Land is
measured in acres, which are about the size of a football field How many football fields
do you think made up the place where the lettuce was grown?

Key Concept: I.A. What is the agri-food system?
Benchmark
4. Describe how agriculture uses natural resources to provide peoples
basic needs.

Key Concept: II.A. How are parts of the ecosystem managed by humans related and
how do they interact?

Benchmark
2. Describe how crops depend on an area’s climate and soil?

274

Key Concept: II.B.

Benchnmrks
1. Describe the basic growth requirements of plants and animals.
2. Describe how crops may be lost to pests.
3. Explain how crops are protected from weeds and other pests.
4. Describe the positive and negative impacts of using poisons to
protect crops.

Key Concept: II.C. What is the role of science and technology in the food and fiber
system?

Benchmark
1. Explain why irrigation and fertilizers are used to grow crops.

Key Concept: II.A

Benchmark
1. Describe competitive relationships between humans and other

living things?

Can you tell me what plants need in order for them to live?

Can you talk about what the farmer might need to make sure the lettuce gets so that it
grows? How would they do this?

Is there anything that the farmer must protect the plants from? Why would he need to do
that?

Depending on the level of understanding. pesticides and their eflects and trade-oflfs were
probed. Similarly, if irrigation, fertilizers or use of chemicals surfaced, questions probed
these topics.

What do the pesticides (chemicals) do? How do they do it? Can you think of any
positive or negative things about using these things (pesticides/chemicals)? If they are
negative, why do farmers use them?

Meat
The same Key Concepts and Benchmarks were addressed relative to the meat, except

II.A.2., II.B.1., II.B.4, II.C. l. Essentially the same questions were asked for this
commodity.

275

Key Concept: III.A. How has agriculture changed society.

Benchmark:
1. Explain the effects of modern technology on farms, farmers,
and rural and urban communities.

Do you think there are more or fewer farmers in the US today as compared to 70 years
ago? Why do you think so? So what has allowed this to happen? How does this affect

people?

Additional Questions for Prospective Elementary Teachers

Key Concept; II.A. What is the role of science and technology in the agri-food system?

Benchmark
1. Describe how new varieties of farm plants and animals have been
engineered to produce new characteristics.

If a firmer wanted to improve the amount or quality of animals used for beef, how do you

think he would go about it? Have you heard of any emerging science or technologies that
might help farmers get better animals?

Key Concept: III. B. How has the modern agri-food system impacted society?

Benchmark
1. Explain how agricultural technology changed the way people live
and work in the US over the last century.
2. Describe trade-offs inherent in the use of agricultural technology in
terms of the environment and human culture.

Can you tell me how you think the (a technology stated by the informant)
has changed the way people live and work over the last century?

 

Can you think of any trade-offs (positive or negative consequences) that could result
from the use of these agricultural technologies?

276

APPENDIX F

Parental Consent Letter

277

Parent Consent Letter

Date

Dear parent/guardian:

I am a doctoral student in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at
Michigan State University. I am conducting a research project on student perceptions
and understandings of the human food system. This is a personal interest of mine, since I
have taught students in urban settings about the importance of food and food
production’s effects on the environment.

My research will involve two groups of people. The first is elementary school students;
the second is the college juniors and seniors who plan on teaching elementary students. I
first plan to determine elementary student understandings, and then compare these to
what prospective teachers understand. There is little research on this topic. Through this
research, I hope to inform people about the absence of this subject in our public schools.

To conduct this research, I will interview people from the two groups described above.
These interviews will not take more than 45 minutes and will be video taped so that I can
refer back to them at a later date. I will pay $6.00 for the interview.

All responses will be kept in strict confidence. Participants’ request to stop the
interview or to stop the video recording will be honored immediately upon request. Since
my work involves minor children, I need to obtain permission from their guardian for the
interview. If you will allow your child to participate, please fill out the attached form.

Thank you for considering to allow me to interview your child for this study. If you have

any further questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Cary Trexler

Doctoral Candidate
trexlerc@pilot.msuedu
(517) 355-6580 W

278

APPENDIX G

Elementary Student Release Form

279

Elementary Student Release Form

1, ,agree to participate in the research study
described rn the attached letter. The study has been explained to me and I have been
informed of the potential benefits and possible risks of participation.

1 further understand that a pseudonym will replace my real name in any report of the
research findings and that any identifying information about myself will be deleted or
protected with pseudonyms. My identity may be known to the principal investigators
but will be kept confidential. I may refuse to answer any questions or to stop the
interview at any time. I may ask for the video tape recorder to be turned off at any time
during the interview.

$6.00 per hour of interview time will be paid to the guardian

I, , would prefer not to participate.

 

Participant’s Name
please print

Signature

 

Date Phone

 

 

My child has permission to participate in the research study described in the attached
letter.

Guardian Name

 

please print

Signature

 

Date Phone

 

APPENDIX H

Prospective Teacher Release Form

281

Prospective Teacher Release Form

I, , agree to participate in the research study
described in the attached letter. The study has been explained to me and I have been
informed of the potential benefits and possible risks of participation.

I further understand that a pseudonym will replace my real name in any report of the
research findings and that any identifying information about myself will be deleted or
protected with pseudonyms. My identity may be known to the principal investigators
but will be kept confidential. I may refuse to answer any questions or to stop the
interview at any time. I may ask for the video tape recorder to be turned off at any time
during the interview.

I understand that my decision to participate or not to participate will not afi‘ect my grade
received in the course which my participation was solicited. I will be paid $6.00 per hour
of interview time.

 

 

 

 

I, , would prefer not to participate.
Date Phone
Name
please print
Signature

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all
Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for
science litm. NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, C. W. (1994). Teaching content in a multicultural
milieu Zeitschrifi filr Padagogik, 33, 127-42

Anderson, C. W. (1995). Designing a clinical interview. Class handout from CEP
806: Psychological Foundations of Science Education: Michigan State University: East
Lansing.

Anderson, C., & Roth, C. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated
learning of science. In Advances in research on teaching Vol. 1 (pp. 265-309). JAI Press
Inc.

Anderson, 0. R., & Demetrius, O. J. (1993). A flow map method of representing
cognitive structure based on respondents’ narrative using science content. Journal of

Research in Science TeachingI 28, 305-313.

Anderson, RC., Spiro, R.J., & Anderson, MC. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding
for the representation for information in connected discourse. American Educational
Research Journal 15 (3), 433-440.

 

Arrow, K . (1987). Rationality of Self and Others in an Economic
System. In R Hogarth and M. Reder (Eds), Rational choice. University of
Chicago Press.

Bartlett, R. (1989). Economics and pgwer. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s world 3.
Educational Researcher 23 (7), 21-23.

 

Berry, W. (1977). The rmsettligg of America: Culture and gm'culture. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books. '

234

Berry, W. (1990). What are @ple for. New York: North Star Press.

Bird, E. (1987). The social construction of nature: Theoretical approaches to the
history of environmental problems. Enviromnental Review 2 (4), 255-264.

 

Birkenholz, R., Frick, M., Gardner, H., & Machtrnes, K. (1994). Rural and urban
inner-city school student knowledge and perception of agriculture. Proceedings of the
Twenty-First National Agp'culttual Education Research Meetipg, 130-136.

Busch, L., Lacy, W., Burkhardt, J., Hemken, D., Moraga-Rojel, J., Koponen, T.,

& de Souza Silva, J. (1995). Making, nature, shaping culture: Plant biodiversity in global
context Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Busch, L., Lacy, W., Burkhardt, & Lacy, L. R. (1991). Plants, pgwer and profit:

social, economic, and ethical comuences of the new biotechnolog'es. London: Basil
Blackwell.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge
on cunicular planning. Science Educatiop, 6, 631-647.

Cazden ,C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books, Inc.

Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological citizens and ecologically guided democracy. In
Brain Doherty & Marius de Geus, (Eds), Democ and en litical tho
Sustainabiliy, rim and citizenship. London: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democm and Education New York: Macmillian Publishing
Co.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think New York: D. C. Heath and Company.

Donnelly, J. F. (1992). Technology in the school curriculum: A critical
bibliography. Studies in Science Educatiop, 20, 123-156.

Douherty , B. & de Geus, M (1996). Democm and gre_;en mlitical thogght:
sustainability, rights and citizenship. London: Routledge.

Driver, R Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach,J, Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher 23 (7), 5-12.

 

285

Eggertsson, T. (1990). Economic behavior and institutions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative Methods. In M. Whittrock (Ed), Research in
teachng and leaning, Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Feenburg, A. (1995). Subversive rationalization: technology, power and

democracy. In A. Feenburg & A. Hannay (Eds), Technology & the pplitics of
knowlgge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free socigty. London: NLB.

Fine, G. (1990). Symbolic interactionism in the post-Blumerian age. In G. Ritzer
(Ed), Frontiers of social theog. New York: Columbia University Press.

Flood, R., & Elliot, J. (1993). Agriculture awareness in Arizona Proceedings of
the tweng -first national agjcultural education research meeting, 103-111.

Frake, C. (1980). Langme and cultural description. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Frank, R. (1987). Microeconomics and behavior. 3rd ed New York: McGraw
Hill.

F rick, M., Birkenholz, R & Machtrnes, K. (1995). Rural and urban adult

knowledge and perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Educatiop, 36 (2), 44-
53.

Frick, M., Kahler, A, & Miller, W. (1991). A definition and the concepts of
agricultural literacy. Journal of Agg'cultural Educatiop, 32 (2), 49-57.

F rick, M., & Spotanski, D. (1990). Coming to grips with agricultural literacy.
The Agjcultural Education Magazine 62 (8), 6-13.

F rick, M., & Wilson, D. (1996). Native American high school student knowledge
and perception of agriculture. my 3 of the twepty-third national w’cultural
education research meeting, 59-65.

Foster, T. (1992a). Technology education research: Looking to the future. _'I_'h_g
Technology Teacher, 52 1, 33-34.

286

Foster, T. (1992b). Topics and methods of recent graduate student research in
industrial education and related fields. Unpublished report.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind How children think and how schools
should teach. NY: Basic Books.

Gazzaniga, M. (1985). The social brain. NY: Basic Books.

Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler, Culture and the
discourse of the other. NY: Bergin and Garvey.

Goodman, D., & Redclifi, M (1991). Refashioning nature: Foggy ecology, and
culture. New York: Routledge.

Green, K. (1992). Creating demand for biotechnology: shaping technologies and
markets, In Coombs, R. Saviuotti, P., Walsh, V. (Eds), Technological change gg
ggmpggy strategies (pp. 164-184). London, Academic Press.

Gussow, J. (1983). Food wanting, needing and providing. Food Monitor 34 12-

 

15.

Gussow, J. (1991). Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce & Agriculture. New York; The
Bootstrap Press.

Hennen, L. (1995). Discourses on technology: public debates on technology and
technology assessment as symptoms of reflexive modernisation. In R. von Schomberg
(Ed). Contested technology: ethics, risk and public debate. International Centre for
Human and Public Afl‘airs: Tilurg, The Netherlands.

Hikawa, H., & Trexler, C. (in press). Developing a process for an agriculturally-
based curriculmn for elementary and middle school: A case of teacher struggle in
Countryside Charter School. WEE of the twenty-sixth annual national ggg’cultural

education research conference.

Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about
nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of
Research in Science Teac ' 3 (9), 941-970.

Humphrey, J., Stewart, B., & Linhardt, R. (1994). Preservice elementary
education majors’ knowledge of and perceptions toward agriculture. Journal of

Ag'cultural Educatiog, 35 (2), 27-30.

287

Jennings, B. (1986). Representation and participation in the democratic
governance of science and technology. In M Goggin (Ed), Governing science and
technolgy in a democgg. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Jonassen, D., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge. Hilldale,
NJ: Lawerance Erlbaurn Associates, Inc.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. IL: The University of
Chicago Press.

Kunreutner, H. & Slovic, P. (1978). Economics , psychology and protective
behavior. American Economic Review, 68: 64-69.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Law, D. (1990). Implementing agricultural literacy programs. The Agp'cultural
Education Magazine, 62 (9), 5-6, 22.

Leising, J ., & Zilbert, E. (1994). Validation of the California agriculture literacy
framework. Proceedings of the twe_n_ty -first national m’cultrual education research
m 112-1 19.

Levenstein, H. (1988). Revolution at the table: The transformation of the
American diet. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mannheim, K. (1929). In L. Wirth & E. Shils (Trans), (1936) Ideology and
utom'a: An introduction of the sociology of knowledge. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich Publishers.

Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking and cogrp'tion. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.

Marris, P. (1974). Loss and change. New York: Pantheon Books.

Merton, R, Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1952). The focused interview: A manual
of goblems and mocedures. Glencose, IL: The Free Press.

Michals, S., & O’Connor, M. (1990). Literacy as reasoning within multiple

discourses: implications for ppligy and educational reform Paper presented at the
Council of Chief State School Officers 1990 Smnmer Institute.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Mimfive data analysis: An exgpded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

288

Moll, L. (1990). Vygotski and education: instructional implications and
applications of soci-historical psychology . New York: Cambridge University Press.

National Council for Agricultural Education (1999). A new era for agricultural
education: Reinventing agricultural education for the year 2020. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (1988). Understang'pg ggp'culture: New directions
for education Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Novack, J. (Ed). (1983). Proceedings of the first international seminar on
miscom'ons and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell.
Novack, J ., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. NY: Cambridge Press.

Piaget, J. (1950). Pychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

Piaget, J. (1957). Language and throughout from a genetic point of view. In
Elkind, D., Six psychological studies. New York' Vintage Books.

Pigou. A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare (4th ed). London: Macmillan

Posner, G., & Gertzog, W. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of
conceptual change. Science Educatiop, 66, 195-209.

Posner, G., Strike, K., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Educatiop, 66, 211-227.

Raizen, S., & Michelson, A. (1994). The future of science in elementpg schools.
Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education

Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable develompent: Exploripg the contradictions.
London: Routledge.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher 16
(4), 13-19.

 

Rosebury, A., Warren, E, & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific
discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning
Science 2(1), 61-94.

 

289

Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and mwer: Toward a mlitical philosophy of
science. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

Russell, E., McCracken, D., & Miller, W. (1990). Position statement on
agriculttual literacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine 62 (9), 13-14, 23.

Samuels W., & Schmid, A. (1997). The concept of cost in economies. In
Samuels, Medema, & Schmid (Eds), The economy as a process of valuation.

Saunders, P. (1995). Cgpitalism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.

Scharzweller, H. & Lyson, J. (1995). Research in rural sociolpgy and

development: Sustaining m‘culture and rural communities, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: AI _.
Press. L

 

Schmid, A. (1998). Introduction of Institutional and Behavioral Theory.
Unpublished manuscript.

Schmid, A. (1987). Property. power & grblic choice: An inquiry into law and
econorrrics. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Schriffin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers, Inc.

Sen, A. (1982). Choice welfare and measurement. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

 

Simon, H. (1957). Models of man: social and rational; mathematical essays on
rational human behavior in socigty. New York: Wiley.

Simon, H. (1986, November-December). The Failure of Armchair Economics.
Challggg, 18-25.

Simon, H. (1987). Rationality in psychology and economics. In Robin Hogarth
and M. Reder (Eds), Rational choice. University of Chicago Press.

Smith, E. (1990). A conceptual change model of learning. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany,
& B. Britton (Eds), Psychology of Learning Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stemerding, D. (1995 ). The entrenchment of hmnan genome technology in
society: On shifiing boundaries between private and public discourses. In R. von

Schomberg (Ed), Contested technology: ethics, risk and public debate. International
Centre for Human and Public Affairs: Tilurg, The Netherlands.

290

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Regtition, dialogne, and m in
conversational discourse. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Terry, R, Herring, D., & Larke, A. (1992). Assistance needed for elementary
teachers in Texas to implement programs of agricultural literacy. Proceediigs of the

twegy-first national ngiicultural education research meeting, 233-240.

Thompson, P. B. (1995). The spirit of the soil: Ag'cultural and environmental
ethics. New York: Routledge.

Trexler, C. (1997). The cheeseburger came from where?: Elementary students’
understanding of how food is affected by biology and climate. Proceedingg of the tweniy-

foruth national am’ cultural education research m_e_etr_'ng, 23-33.

Trexler, C. (1997). Synthesis of Project 2061 Benchmarks for ngnculture and the
California Agn'culture Lite_rgpy Framework. Unpublished framework.

Trexler, C. (1998). The cheeseburger came fi'om where?: Elementary students’
thoughts about and understandings of the technological origins of food. Proceedings of

the flay-second annual central region research conference and seminar in ngicultmal
education, 89-99.

Trexler, C., & Miller, N. (1992). Improving scientific literacy through an
agriscience curriculum. The Agn'cultural Education Linguine, 65 (4), l4-16, 23.

Trexler, C., & Suvedi, M. (1998). Perceptions of agriculture as a context for
elementary science teaching: A case of change in Sanilac county, Michigan The Journal

of Am'cultural Educatio_r_r, 39, 4, 28-36.

Vellom, R Anderson C, and Palincsar, A (1993). Scientific Reasoning in School
Contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta GA.

Vygotski, L. (1962). Thongntandlangnnge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Warren, S. (1989, August). The Legal-Economic Nexus. The George Washigtpn
ng Review. 5'2, 6.

Weber. M. (195 8). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New Yorlc
Charles Schribner’s Sons.

291

West, L, F ensham, P., & Garrard, J. (1985). Describing the cognitive structures
of learners following instruction in chemistry. In L. West & A. Pines (Eds), Cognitive
structure and 00%] change. N Y: Academic Press.

Wilkins, L. (1995). Seasonal and local diets: Consumers’ role in achieving a

sustainable food system. In Research in rural sociolog and develoment: Sustaining
ngn'culture and rural communities, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: AI Press, Inc.

Williamson, 0. (1989). Transaction cost economics. In Schmalensee & Willig
(Eds). Handbook of industrial econorrrics. Dordrecht' North Holland

Winner, L. (1995). Citizen Virtues in a Technological Order. In A. F eenburg and

A. Hannay (Eds) Technology & the mlitics of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

292

.5311} 1 br-
adflrlrdrnslflufl H.

l-‘nfiitri

Eur
daze. ..
. , .:

 

 

 

I. 7 .
A!)

43.4..

a”.
a“ y.