FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS:
TEACHER INTEREST IN, AWARENESS OF, AND USE OF RESOURCES
By
Samantha Loscalzo

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community Sustainability – Master of Science
2017

ABSTRACT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS:
TEACHER INTEREST IN, AWARENESS OF, AND USE OF RESOURCES
By
Samantha Loscalzo
Most youth consume inadequate amounts of fruits and vegetables, increasing their risk for
diet-related diseases. At the same time, many youth lack an understanding of the relationships
between their food, agriculture, the environment, society, and their health. An understanding of
these relationships has the potential to enable youth to make healthy food choices and participate
in a food system that benefits communities, the environment, and economies. Schools are ideal
settings for food and agricultural education, but it is not required in most classrooms. In addition,
barriers such as a lack of time and resources prevent the incorporation of non-required education.
To assess teacher interests in food and agricultural education and resource needs, a statewide,
online survey of Michigan kindergarten through sixth grade teachers was conducted in 2015,
with 1,196 respondents. The survey asked teachers about their interest in food and agricultural
topics, subject incorporation, interest in resources, and awareness of existing resources. Analysis
suggests that teachers were most interested in the topics of school gardens, organic food and
farming, and youth entrepreneurial opportunities. There was also a surprising amount of interest
in incorporating these topics into English language arts, where they are currently not common.
Respondents indicated that it was very important that resources have no fee to use and are handson. The majority, however, were not aware of key existing resources, which suggests that
outreach efforts could be strengthened. Providing resources shaped by the interests of teachers
may help to expand the incorporation of food and agricultural education in Michigan classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people. First, I
would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Phil Howard, for his continual guidance, support, and
patience throughout the development of my thesis and graduate studies. I would also like to
thank my graduate committee, Dr. Katherine Alaimo and Dr. Mike Everett, for the support and
critical feedback they provided.
I would like to express my gratitude to Michigan State University’s Center for Regional
Food Systems and the Michigan Good Food Charter team, for providing me the opportunity and
assistance that allowed me to work on this research. I would especially like to thank Liz Gensler
and Dr. Jude Barry for their invaluable support, patience, and encouragement. Also, to the
teachers and educators who provided insight and feedback during the development of the
research, thank you for your time and support.
Lastly, I am immeasurably grateful to my family and friends. I cannot thank my parents
enough, who have always been there for me throughout my many endeavors, and my sister, who
has been an important influence in my life.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
Study Overview ....................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 9
Current Food and Agricultural Education at the Elementary School Level ............................ 9
Barriers to Food and Agricultural Education......................................................................... 10
Time and Academic Standards .................................................................................... 10
A Lack of Resources .................................................................................................... 11
Confidence and Interest................................................................................................ 12
Facilitators ............................................................................................................................. 13
Fit with subjects, perceived value, and interests .......................................................... 13
Resources ..................................................................................................................... 14
Social and Environmental Supports ............................................................................. 15
Collaboration and Outreach ......................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 18
Population .............................................................................................................................. 18
Survey .................................................................................................................................... 18
Topics ........................................................................................................................... 19
Resources ..................................................................................................................... 20
Subjects ........................................................................................................................ 21
Resource Awareness .................................................................................................... 21
Barriers ......................................................................................................................... 22
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 22
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 26
Incorporation and interest in incorporation of topics ............................................................ 26
Interest in Resources .............................................................................................................. 29
Incorporation of Topics into Subjects.................................................................................... 33
Resource Awareness .............................................................................................................. 35
Barriers to Food and Agricultural Education......................................................................... 37
Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 42
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix A: Online Survey .................................................................................................. 47
Appendix B: Sources of Resource Characteristics ................................................................ 55
iv

Appendix C: Sources of Resource Types .............................................................................. 56
Appendix D: Initial Recruitment Email ................................................................................. 58
Appendix E: Follow-up Survey Invitation for Teachers ....................................................... 60
Appendix F: Additional Organizations and Programs with Food and Agricultural Education
Resources ............................................................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 65

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Michigan Good Food Charter Goals to Meet or Exceed by 2020.................................... 3
Table 2. Source of Resource Characteristics ................................................................................ 55
Table 3. Sources of Resource Types ............................................................................................. 56
Table 4. Additional Organizations and Programs with Food and Agricultural Education
Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 62

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Incorporation and interest in incorporation of food and agricultural topics ................. 27
Figure 2. Importance of resource characteristics .......................................................................... 30
Figure 3. Interest in types of resources ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 4. Interest in incorporation of topics into subjects ............................................................ 34
Figure 5. Awareness and use of resources.................................................................................... 36
Figure 6. Possible barriers of food, nutrition, and agricultural education .................................... 38

vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background
Most youth consume inadequate amounts of fruits and vegetables, increasing their risk
for diet-related diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014; Kim et al., 2014;
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). At the same time, many youth lack an
understanding of the relationships between their food, agriculture, the environment, society, and
their health. An understanding of these relationships has the potential to enable youth to
participate in their food systems as informed consumers, capable of making healthy food choices
that are supportive of a food system that benefits communities, the environment, and economies
(Bagdonis, Hinrichs, & Schafft, 2009; Briggs, Fleischhacker, & Mueller, 2010; Freeland-Graves
& Nitzke, 2013; Joshi, Azuma, & Feenstra, 2008; Joshi & Ratcliffe, 2012; Story, Kaphingst,
Robinson-O’Brien, & Glanz, 2008). Schools are ideal settings for food and agricultural
education. Over 95% of youth from kindergarten through twelfth grade attend a public or private
school, and many students consume at least one major meal at school, thus providing
opportunities for food and nutrition learning and engagement (ASCD, 2014; Story, Kaphingst, &
French, 2006).
Food and agricultural education is not required in most classrooms. Barriers such as time,
adequate materials, and budgets prevent the incorporation of education that is not part of the core
curriculum (Diker, Walters, Cunningham-Sabo, & Baker, 2011; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005; Hammerschmidt, Tackett, Golzynski, & Golzynski, 2011; Jaeschke, Schumacher, Cullen,
& Mardell, 2012; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Knobloch, Ball, & Allen, 2007; Shumacher,
Fuhrman, & Duncan, 2012; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Overcoming these barriers can help

1

expand food and agricultural education in classrooms and meet goal six of the Michigan Good
Food Charter, which states that “Michigan schools will incorporate food and agriculture into the
pre-K through 12th grade curriculum for all Michigan students and youth will have access to food
and agriculture entrepreneurial opportunities” (Colasanti et al., 2010, p. 2).
The Michigan Good Food Charter presents a roadmap to move Michigan’s food and
agricultural system towards a good food system that is rooted in communities and provides
healthy, fair, affordable, and green food to its residents. It presents six goals to achieve or surpass
by 2020, and 25 policy priorities that provide strategic steps to achieve these goals (Colasanti et
al., 2010).
Work on the Michigan Good Food Charter began in 2009 through the leadership of
Michigan State University’s Center for Regional Food Systems, the Food Bank Council of
Michigan, and the Michigan Food Policy Council. Foundational funding came from the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. Work groups were formed to examine Michigan’s current situation and
provide recommendations to advance good food in five areas: youth engagement and
opportunity, good food access, institutional food purchasing, farm viability, and food system
infrastructure. In February 2010, a summit was held to discuss recommendations and gather
feedback, comments and input; the Michigan Good Food Charter was released in June 2010
(Colasanti et al., 2010). Table 1 provides a list of the Charter’s six goals. As of October 2016,
over 800 individuals and institutions signed the Charter, including 24 signatures from school
districts, school food services, or education associations (Michigan Good Food, 2016).
Two agenda priorities specifically focus on youth to achieve goal six of the Charter.
Agenda priority 9 focuses on youth opportunity and entrepreneurship and agenda priority

2

11 focuses on good food education in the school curriculum. Providing students with education
and opportunities in food and agriculture can benefit them in a multitude of areas. The Michigan
Good Food Charter Youth Engagement and Opportunity Work Group focused on three areas:
health, career opportunities, and food citizenship (Satchell, Scott, & McClendon, 2011).

Table 1. Michigan Good Food Charter Goals to Meet or Exceed by 2020
Goals
1. Michigan institutions will source 20 percent of their food products from Michigan growers,
producers and processors.
2. Michigan farmers will profitably supply 20 percent of all Michigan institutional, retailer and
consumer food purchases and be able to pay fair wages to their workers.
3. Michigan will generate new agri-food businesses at a rate that enables 20 percent of food
purchased in Michigan to come from Michigan.
4. Eighty percent of Michigan residents (twice the current level) will have easy access to
affordable, fresh, healthy food, 20 percent of which is from Michigan sources.
5. Michigan Nutrition Standards will be met by 100 percent of school meals and 75 percent of
schools selling food outside school meal programs.
6. Michigan schools will incorporate food and agriculture into the pre-K through 12th grade
curriculum for all Michigan students and youth will have access to food and agriculture
entrepreneurial opportunities.
Note. Adapted from Colasanti, K., Cantrell, P., Cocciarelli, S., Collier, A., Edison, T., Doss, J.,
George, V., Hamm, M., Lewis, R., Matts, C., McClendon, B., Rabaut, C., Schmidt, S., Satchell,
I., Scott, A., Smalley, S. (2010). Michigan Good Food Charter. East Lansing, MI: C.S. Mott
Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University, Food Bank Council of
Michigan, Michigan Food Policy Council. Available from: www.michiganfood.org.

A number of studies have found important relationships between health, diet, and disease
prevention (Darnton-Hill, Nishida, & James, 2004; Food and Nutrition Service, 2010; FreelandGraves & Nitzke, 2013; Kavey, 2010, 2016). Fruits and vegetables in the diet can help minimize

3

the risk of disease, for example, but many youth do not consume adequate amounts of fruits and
vegetables (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). In Michigan, less than 20%
of high school students reported eating the recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables a
day and obesity increased from 13.7% in 2011 to 18.5% in 2013 (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2014). Health and nutrition education programs have become important
initiatives in response to a high prevalence of youth obesity (Department of Health and Human
Services, 2011; Michigan State Board of Education, 2005). Programs have been shown to be
successful with youth when they are driven by theory and focus on food behaviors, include a
school and community environment that reinforces nutrition education, and involve intensive
instruction time including hands-on, experiential learning (Lytle, 1995; Lytle & Achterberg,
1995; Meiklejohn, Ryan, & Palermo, 2016; Murimi et al., 2016).
Food and agricultural education can also open up career pathways for youth in their local
and regional food system. Michigan’s food and agriculture industry employs about 22% of the
state’s workforce (Knudson & Peterson, 2012). Compared to past generations, there is a wider
range of career opportunities available to those entering the workforce within food and
agriculture. The future workforce will need to have skills and proficiencies to meet the demands
of a changing agricultural field that is intertwined in a broad range of natural and social sciences
disciplines (National Research Council, 2009). Studies suggest that decisions to enroll in
postsecondary agricultural programs are influenced by exposure to hands-on educational and
work experiences in agriculture and awareness about career opportunities (Esters, 2007; Esters &
Bowen, 2005; Smith-Hollins, 2009; Thielen, 2012). The National Research Council recommends
that post-secondary programs should reach out to elementary and secondary school teachers to
expose students to agricultural experiences and careers. Not only will this help to attract students

4

into postsecondary agricultural programs but also “foster an interest in and awareness of the role
of agriculture in society among its youngest citizens” (National Research Council, 2009, p. 9).
While not all students will enter a career in the food and agricultural industry, they will
play a role in the food system as consumers. Many of today’s youth have little connection to or
understanding of their food systems (Bissonnette & Contento, 2001; Calabrese Barton, Koch,
Contento, & Hagiwara, 2005; Hess & Trexler, 2011; Kovar & Ball, 2013). The Michigan Good
Food Charter Youth Engagement and Opportunity Work Group writes, “Without intentional
teaching, youth who enjoy food abundance may be only vaguely aware of others’ food needs,
and youth with limited access to healthy food may not understand that a fair, affordable, healthy
food system in their community is attainable” (Satchell et al., 2011, p. 8). Food and agricultural
education can improve students’ literacy and understanding about food systems (Joshi et al.,
2008; Kovar & Ball, 2013).
In a study assessing one key program, students in 56 kindergarten through sixth grade
classrooms with an integrated Agriculture in the Classroom curriculum possessed a greater
knowledge about agricultural themes compared to students in 48 classrooms without the
curriculum (Pense, Leising, Portillo, & Igo, 2005). In another study, teachers surveyed in Illinois
responded to three, open-ended questions about the benefits of teaching agriculture and resource
needs. Two themes emerged regarding the benefits of student learning: connectedness and
authenticity. A majority of respondents felt agriculture provided students with a connection to
the larger world and an appreciation for farming, agricultural communities, and the environment.
Over a third of the respondents felt it provided an authentic learning context for academic
subjects (Knobloch et al., 2007). Teachers who used school gardens in California felt that the
gardens were effective in improving social skills such as teamwork, sharing, and communication

5

skills (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005). These studies illustrate the impact food and
agricultural education can have on students, provided they have the opportunity to participate in
a program or classroom with food and agricultural education.
Michigan high school students have the opportunity to enroll in a formal agriculture,
food, and natural resources program as part of a Career and Technical Education track if their
school has a program (MI School Data, 2015). Many of the high schools with a formal program
provide a similar program to middle schools in their district (M. Everett, personal
communication, December 12, 2016). However, food and agricultural education at the
elementary school levels is limited, and there are few grade level content expectations that
address food and agricultural concepts (Satchell et al., 2011). Barriers such as standardized
testing, time, and budgets can prohibit the incorporation of non-core curriculum content (Diker et
al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Resources that are shaped
according to teacher needs and their interests in food and agricultural topics may help to expand
the incorporation of food and agricultural education into classrooms.
Studies in nutrition education and in agricultural education suggest that many teachers
perceive food and agricultural education to be important, and that they would be more likely to
incorporate it if they had access to adequate resources (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Jones
& Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch et al., 2007; Knobloch & Martin, 2002;
Knobloch & Martin, 2000; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Factors such as the value of teaching
agriculture, its fit into other academic subjects, and access to resources help to explain the extent
to which teachers incorporate food and agricultural topics into classrooms (Knobloch, 2008;
Watts, Piñero, Alter, & Lancaster, 2012).

6

There is a gap in the literature regarding the current perceptions of Michigan teachers
regarding food and agricultural education and resource needs. A study by Trexler and Johnson
(2000) examined the perceptions and resource needs of Michigan kindergarten through eighth
grade teachers. However, the study was conducted prior to the passage of the No Child Left
Behind Act in 2001. This act placed a greater responsibility on schools receiving federal funding
to meet academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). A recent study examined the
perceived barriers and facilitators of healthy eating and physical activity education in lowincome, Michigan schools (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011). Jones and Zidenberg-Cherr (2014) also
explored educational resources and barriers specific to nutrition education in California. These
studies, however, did not address agricultural education. There are current studies regarding
agricultural education needs and perceptions of elementary teachers in Iowa and Illinois
(Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch et al., 2007). Michigan has a diverse agricultural industry and
variations in academic state standards and resources. Thus, Michigan teachers are likely to have
perceptions about food and agricultural education and resource needs which differ from teachers
in other states.

Study Overview
The objective of this study was to explore what food and agricultural topics and resources
Michigan elementary school teachers are interested in and what resources they are aware of or
already utilizing. The following research questions guided this study:
1) What food and agricultural topics are teachers most interested in incorporating or already
incorporating into classrooms?

7

2) What types and characteristics of resources do teachers find important in food and agricultural
education resources?
3) What core subjects are teachers interested in utilizing to deliver food and agriculture
education?
4) Are teachers aware of and utilizing already available food and agricultural resources from
Michigan-based programs and organizations?

The information gathered from this study can be used to inform the development of food
and agricultural education resources and aid in expanding the incorporation of food and
agricultural education. Understanding what is already being taught and what resources are being
utilized can prevent duplication of efforts, help identify gaps in the education, and allow for
collaboration between organizations and programs offering resources.

8

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Current Food and Agricultural Education at the Elementary School Level
Agricultural education at the secondary and post-secondary school levels is federally
authorized and funded through the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and the Morrill Act of 1862,
respectively. School-based food and agricultural education at the elementary level remains
limited but has recently been growing alongside the farm to school movement (Joshi et al., 2008;
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). The Hunger Free Healthy Kids Act of 2010 established a
Farm to School Program within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
program’s primary focus is to improve access to local food in eligible schools. It also includes
nutrition education and grants for farm to school activities, such as school gardens and food
tastings (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). Farm to school is defined by the program as
“efforts that bring locally or regionally produced foods into school cafeterias; hands-on learning
activities such as school gardening, farm visits, and culinary classes; and the integration of foodrelated education into the regular, standards-based classroom curriculum” (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2015, p. 3).
The Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 also required all local educational agencies or school
districts participating in the National School Lunch Program and/or School Breakfast Program to
have a local school wellness policy. While there is much flexibility in the content of the policy,
all policies are required to include goals for nutrition education and the promotion of student
wellness (Team Nutrition, 2016).
Numerous organizations provide materials and resources for in-school food and
agricultural education. However, the programmatic outreach of those organizations is likely

9

limited. National Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) is coordinated by USDA and each state is
responsible for its own statewide organization. As of 2010, it was estimated that the 35 active
state-AITC programs reached 5.3 million students, approximately 12% of the kindergarten
through eighth grade population (Davis & Bauman, 2013; National Agriculture in the Classroom,
2010). FoodCorps is another educational initiative—it is a national non-profit and grantee of
AmeriCorps. FoodCorps service members reached over 182,000 students in 2015 in their
mission to connect kids to healthy food in their schools (FoodCorps, 2015).

Barriers to Food and Agricultural Education
Time and Academic Standards
Studies have found that teachers perceive time to be a major barrier to food and
agricultural education (Diker et al., 2011; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hammerschmidt et
al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Knobloch et al., 2007; Shumacher et al., 2012;
Trexler & Johnson, 2000). This is largely attributed to academic standards and testing. Meeting
learning objectives for subjects and standardized testing leave little instructional time for
education outside of the core curriculum (Diker et al., 2011; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005;
Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Knobloch et al., 2007; Trexler & Johnson, 2000).
Teachers situate themselves in the context of the subjects and grades they teach. They are
less likely to incorporate content that is not part of the curriculum if they do not perceive the
curriculum to fit with the subjects they teach and the standards their students need to achieve
(Knobloch, 2008). Kindergarten through eighth grade teachers in Illinois answered three openended questions about the benefits of teaching agriculture. Those who did not believe integrating
agriculture was beneficial, rationalized their beliefs based on the subjects they taught. One

10

teacher is quoted as writing, “In Language Arts, as an 8th Grade teacher, I have to prepare my
students for the state tests. I haven’t found time to teach anything about Agriculture” (Knobloch
et al., 2007, p. 26).
Time available for class preparation is also a barrier. Programs which require time to
coordinate with faculty and staff or which require the preparation of materials and activities are
likely to be difficult for teachers (Diker et al., 2011; Trexler & Hikawa, 2001). In a study by
Trexler and Johnson (2000), teachers stated that they viewed experiential activities to be
valuable, but required too much time to carry out and would be too costly. Participants felt
traditional lessons were more practical. Diker, Walters, Cunningham-Sabo, and Baker (2011)
found that the perceived ease of implementing a lesson was an important factor to educators in
the decision to download nutrition education materials.

A Lack of Resources
A perceived lack of resources is a common barrier, particularly for funding and
instructional materials (Diker et al., 2011; Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Jones & ZidenbergCherr, 2014; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). In a study of 69 Michigan teachers in low-income
schools, a lack of funding was the second greatest barrier to nutrition education in kindergarten
through eighth grade classrooms (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011). Time in the school day was the
top barrier for the respondents. The researchers noted that the state had “exemplary curricula,
programs, and networks of health professionals” to implement nutrition and physical education
(Hammerschmidt et al., 2011, p. 65). Despite this, nearly three-quarters of the kindergarten
through eighth grade teachers felt there was not enough nutrition education being taught. The
researchers attributed this to a decline in statewide funding to deliver nutrition programs, and an

11

increase in focus on Common Core State Standards in English language arts/literacy and math
(Hammerschmidt et al., 2011).
Teachers have commented on a lack of appropriate instructional materials to deliver food
and agricultural education (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014;
Knobloch et al., 2007; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). In a study by Trexler and Johnson (2000), a
few focus groups participants felt it was important that students learn about connections between
the environment, agriculture, and society, but they pointed out a lack of instructional resources to
teach about those connections. Jones and Zidenberg-Cherr (2014) also found a majority of
respondents felt they did not incorporate nutrition education, in part, due to a lack of appropriate
resources.

Confidence and Interest
A lack of confidence and training in incorporating food and agricultural education have
also been cited as barriers by teachers and school principals (Diker et al., 2011; Graham &
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Jaeschke et al., 2012; Snelling, Belson, & Young, 2012; Trexler &
Johnson, 2000). In a survey of teachers in a large urban area, close to three-quarters of
respondents felt it was the teacher’s responsibility to address health in the classroom, and it was
their role as a teacher to promote healthy habits. However, just over a third of the respondents
felt they were prepared or empowered enough to integrate health education into the classroom
(Snelling et al., 2012).
Hands-on activities such as school gardening or composting present additional barriers on
top of a lack of confidence. In a case study by Shumacher, Fuhrman, and Duncan (2012),
teachers in a private school were encouraged to incorporate environmental education into the

12

school day, including the use of school garden plots and compost piles. They received support
from school administrators, freedom in the curriculum, access to resources, and time to
collaborate with other teachers. Despite these accommodations, some teachers were resistant
towards the incorporation of environmental education. One teacher stated that she would not
know what to teach or what would be appropriate for the grade-level. Other teachers stated that
they, or their students, were simply not interested in or comfortable with being outside and
digging in gardens.

Facilitators
Fit with subjects, perceived value, and interests
A common theme in the barriers and facilitators to food and agricultural education is the
time required to meet core content standards and standardized testing. Many of the facilitators of
food and agricultural education align with core content standards and add value to lessons to
leverage the teacher’s time (Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch et al., 2007; Trexler & Johnson, 2000).
Knobloch (2008) analyzed the beliefs of teachers regarding food and agricultural education with
their behavior in integrating food and agricultural topics and activities. Knobloch found that the
extent of integration depended on the belief that topics fit with subjects and the value teachers
placed on teaching students about the topics (2008).
This supports previous findings that teachers situate themselves in the context of their
grade-level and subject content (Knobloch, Ball, and Allen 2007). The perceived benefits, or
lack of benefits, of integrating agriculture was viewed from the lens of what they taught.
Teachers also expressed interest in topics if they felt they would provide students with concrete
connections between the real world and the classroom.

13

The interests of teachers and students play a role in the decision to incorporate food and
agricultural education (Diker et al., 2011; Knobloch, 2008; Knobloch et al., 2007; Shumacher et
al., 2012). In Shumacher et al.’s (2012) study, one teacher commented that she takes the students
to the woods because they like to hike, even though she does not enjoy it. However, she does not
utilize the garden because neither she nor her students are interested in it.

Resources
Numerous resources have been recommended by teachers to facilitate the incorporation
of food and agricultural education. Curriculum materials which are linked to academic standards
are one that is most commonly cited (Diker et al., 2011; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005;
Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). In focus groups with Trexler and
Johnson (2000), teachers believed that a statewide curriculum specific to different grades would
be an effective way to expand agri-food systems education. The teachers in the focus groups also
praised the Michigan Model for Health, a grade-specific, comprehensive health curriculum, and
suggested developing materials linked to the educational program. In a Michigan-based survey
regarding nutrition education, a comprehensive health curriculum with a nutrition module was
the second most utilized method to implement nutrition education (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011).
Funding to support educational programs or programs which are free to use are also
important to teachers (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Shumacher
et al., 2012; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Teachers in California indicated that funding to support
nutrition education would be the most likely resource to increase the incorporation of nutrition
education (Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014). Free resources can circumvent a lack of funds.

14

Diker (2011) found that the free use of a nutritional program was an important factor leading to
the download of cooking lessons and attributed this to a lack of funds available to teachers.
Respondents in Diker’s (2011) study also indicated that they valued resources with
hands-on learning. Most respondents felt that hands-on activities were more effective in teaching
compared to didactic lessons. Fourth-grade students taking part in a Cooking with Kids program
also expressed excitement in the hands-on activities, and students in the cooking program were
more likely to consider classmates as friends compared to the control group (Lukas &
Cunningham-Sabo, 2011). Focus group participants in Trexler and Johnson’s (2000) study found
hands-on learning to have merit, however, they felt that it was impractical due to the cost and
time associated with hands-on activities.

Social and Environmental Supports
Teachers perceive several social and environmental factors to impact their ability to
incorporate food and agricultural education, including the school environment, community
partnerships, family involvement, and administrative support (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011;
Knobloch & Martin, 2002; Lukas & Cunningham-Sabo, 2011; Shumacher et al., 2012). In
Shumacher et al.’s (2012) case study of a private school, teachers attributed the support of
parents, school administrators, and other teachers as positive influences that impacted the school
culture. This enabled teachers to incorporate environmental education throughout the school day.
In a survey of Michigan teachers, over half of the respondents indicated that nutrition education
was being incorporated in the school through their school wellness policy. Respondents also felt
that family involvement would be the best way to further expand nutrition education
(Hammerschmidt et al., 2011).

15

Collaboration and Outreach
Several studies and reports have recommended that organizations should collaborate with
each other and with teachers to create programs and expand their outreach (Hammerschmidt et
al., 2011; Knobloch & Martin, 2002; Knobloch & Martin, 2000; Kovar & Ball, 2013; Mercier,
2015; National Research Council, 2009; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Mercier (2015) and Kovar
and Ball (2013) reviewed agricultural education programs and literacy in the US. While they
found there were numerous programs being implemented, they suggested the programs reached a
limited audience, and a lack of coordination was likely reducing their potential for impact.
Studies have also suggested that there is a need for better outreach to teachers regarding
available resources. Watts, Piñero, Alter, and Lancaster (2012) surveyed teachers in New York
and found respondents with a perceived lack of access to materials spent less time teaching
nutrition education compared to teachers who felt they had access to materials. A majority of the
respondents wrote that they would be more likely to incorporate nutrition education if they had
access to resources. Overall, most respondents were unaware of available materials. Jones &
Zidenberg-Cherr (2014) similarly found that California teachers were widely unaware of
resources available to them. This finding suggested there was limited outreach from existing
resources.
The literature on barriers and facilitators of food and agricultural education suggests that
time, adequate resources, awareness of those resources, and interest in food and agriculture play
important roles in the incorporation of food and agricultural education. An interest in food and
agricultural topics and a perception that topics add value to and fit with lessons influence the
incorporation of food and agricultural education (Knobloch, 2008; Shumacher et al., 2012).

16

Teachers have identified resources, including funding, curricular materials, training, and support
as possible methods to expand food and agricultural education (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005; Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Trexler & Johnson, 2000).
Despite an interest in resources, studies show that teachers are largely unaware of available
nutrition education resources (Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Watts et al., 2012). Exploring the
current interests of Michigan teachers regarding food and agricultural education and resource
needs, and awareness of resources in Michigan, can help shape future resources, collaboration,
and outreach.

17

CHAPTER 3. METHODS

This study assesses Michigan teachers’ interest in food and agricultural education and
resources and their awareness and use of available resources. The information gathered from this
study can be used to inform the development of food and agricultural education resources and
allow for collaboration between organizations and programs that offer resources. An electronic
survey was implemented to collect data. Its development was based on existing food,
agricultural, and nutrition education literature and with input provided by teachers and experts
involved in food and agricultural education (Diker et al., 2011; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005; Jaeschke et al., 2012; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Knobloch et al., 2007; Trexler &
Johnson, 2000). The survey was open to all Michigan prekindergarten through twelfth grade
teachers during the fall of 2015. This study focused solely on respondents who taught students in
kindergarten through sixth grade.

Population
The population of this study are the Michigan kindergarten through sixth grade teachers
who responded to the survey. This study is not meant to generalize to the entire population of
Michigan kindergarten through sixth grade teachers, but to explore the interests of respondents
who are incorporating food and agricultural education or those who have an interest in doing so.

Survey
The questionnaire was developed based on existing literature, interviews with educators
and with input from experts who deliver food and agricultural education. Qualtrics (Provo, UT),

18

an online survey tool, was used to build the questionnaire. Teachers, school principals, Michigan
State University Extension agents, and Michigan Good Food Charter team members provided
input on the content, wording, and design of the draft survey. It was then pretested on 18 teachers
for validity and reliability. The teachers taught students from kindergarten through twelfth grade
and came from five different schools. Two Michigan school principals, who provided input
towards the development of the survey, requested teachers in their schools to pretest the survey.
Additionally, three teachers, who provided input towards the development of the survey,
requested teachers in their schools to pretest the survey.
Based on input from teachers and principals, “food, nutrition, and agriculture education”
was used in the survey in place of “food and agricultural education.” The educators indicated that
they strongly associated food and agricultural education with nutrition education, and that they
would be more likely to respond to a survey on “food, nutrition, and agriculture education.” The
survey can be found in Appendix A.

Topics
The selection of food and agricultural topics was informed by the Michigan Good Food
Charter and the four components of the charter’s definition of “good food,” which is food that is
healthy, fair, affordable, and green. Input from teachers also informed topic selection and the use
of wording. The inclusion of social impacts, economic impacts, and environmental issues
associated with food and agriculture, and healthy eating and nutrition all stemmed from the good
food components of fair, affordable, green, and healthy. Youth entrepreneurial opportunities and
career opportunities were included as topics based on Goal 6 of the charter and agenda priority 9,
which focus on providing youth with entrepreneurial opportunities and education about careers

19

in good food (Colasanti et al., 2010). Food systems were originally included as a topic but
changed to “How food travels from farm to plate” based on input from educators. Organic food
and farming, information about GMOs, food science, and agricultural sciences were also
included based on input from teachers (M. Wloczewski, personal communication, July 31, 2015;
S. Hefferon, personal communication, July 30, 2015; A. Suska, personal communication, July
30, 2015). School gardens were included due to their growing popularity and use in schools and
based on input from educators (The Farm to School Program, 2016).
Two questions informed the use of and interest in food and agricultural topics. The first
question asked teachers if they incorporated topics into their classroom. Respondents answered
“Yes” or “No” to each topic. In a second question, respondents were asked to indicate their
interest in topics that they did not incorporate, using a 5-point scale from “Very Interested” to
“Very Uninterested.”

Resources
Characteristics and types of resources were selected based on resources available from
the 17 programs and organizations found as described above. Existing literature on food and
agricultural education resources, barriers, and facilitators to the educations’ incorporation were
also used to inform the selection of types and characteristics (Diker et al., 2011; Eliassen &
Wilson, 2007; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Leggette,
Rutherford, Sudduth, & Murphrey, 2012; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Appendix B and Appendix
C provide a list of the resource characteristics and types along with the programs, organizations,
and literature from which the characteristics and types came from.

20

Respondents were presented with a list of resource types and indicated their interest in
each type using a 5-point scale from “Very Interested” to “Very Uninterested.” Similarly,
respondents indicated the importance of each resource characteristic based on a scale from “Very
Important” to “Very Unimportant.”

Subjects
The subjects of science, social studies, English language arts, and math were included in
the survey. Students in Michigan receive standardized testing for these subjects through the
Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (Michigan Department of Education, 2016). In
addition, respondents were able to select health/physical education and an “other” subject box,
where they could write-in a subject.

Resource Awareness
Programs and organizations were selected for use in the questionnaire if they had a
statewide presence in Michigan and provided food or agricultural education resources to
educators and schools. For programs and organizations based in Michigan, this meant resources
must be available statewide. For national programs or organizations, this meant there was a
Michigan representative who could be contacted. A Google search was used to find programs
and organizations. If websites provided links to additional resources, those links were followed.
This resulted in a list of 14 programs and organizations. Educators and experts involved in food
and agricultural education provided three additional resources (Fuel Up to Play 60; Milk Means
More; and Agriscience instructor). A 5-point scale was utilized to indicate awareness from “I
have used this for a resource and plan to keep using it” to “I have never heard of this before.” An

21

open-ended text box was used to allow respondents to enter in additional resources they utilized
or were aware of that were not listed in the questionnaire.

Barriers
Five major barriers to food and agricultural education were included in the survey: a lack
of instructional time, resource availability, a lack of confidence, educational importance, and
support from administrators. Respondents indicated their level of agreement towards statements
regarding each barrier. A 5-point scale was utilized, ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly
Disagree.” Respondents were asked about these barriers if they indicated that they did not
incorporate food and agricultural topics and had no interest in doing so.

Data Collection
School principals, intermediate school districts, Michigan Team Nutrition, and Michigan
health coordinators were used as intermediary contacts to reach teachers regarding the survey.
These contacts were selected due to an already established relationship with teachers and were
suggested by food and agricultural education experts, or have been used in the literature as an
intermediary contact to teachers. School principals and Team Nutrition have been used as
intermediary contacts to reach out to teachers regarding nutrition and agricultural education
(Jaeschke et al., 2012; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Wall, Least, Gromis, & Lohse, 2012;
Watts et al., 2012). Intermediate school districts and school health coordinators often provide
food and agriculture-related resources to schools and teachers (Department of Health and Human
Services, 2011; Trexler & Hikawa, 2001). Shortly before the close of the survey, an additional
intermediary contact through the Michigan Department of Education became available. All

22

Michigan teachers with a valid teaching certificate were contacted through the department. The
Michigan Department of Education also included a statement about the survey through an emailbased, weekly communication to Michigan educators.
Dillman’s tailored design method was used to inform the development and distribution of
the survey (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). A raffle was used to incentivize participation
and all email recipients were informed that teachers would be eligible to win one of six $25 gift
cards to Amazon.com. Dillman et al. (2014) suggest sending multiple emails to contacts spaced
out in intervals to improve response rates. As teachers could not be reached directly, four emails
were sent out in two-week intervals to 4,136 prekindergarten through twelfth grade school
principals, 57 intermediate school districts, and 32 Michigan Team Nutrition and health
coordinators informing them about the survey. Those contacts were requested to assist in
distributing the survey to teachers. The first email informed the contacts about the survey. The
three subsequent emails contained information and survey links to be distributed to teachers. The
initial recruitment letter emailed to contacts can be found in Appendix D. Appendix E contains a
follow-up email with the survey invitation for teachers. The survey was extended by two weeks
to allow the Michigan Department of Education to send out an email to 123,584 Michigan
educators holding a valid teaching certificate.

Data Analysis
Only respondents who taught Michigan students from kindergarten through sixth grade
and provided a valid school email address were included in the analysis. This study focused on
kindergarten through sixth grade as students in those grades are often in self-contained
classrooms. Teachers in those grades are more likely to teach multiple subjects and thus, have a

23

greater understanding of the requirements within multiple subjects and the feasibility of
incorporating food and agricultural topics into those subjects (Trexler & Johnson, 2000). School
emails were used to limit the survey to currently practicing teachers and prevent multiple
responses from a single individual. Survey data were analyzed for frequencies with Statistical
Packaging for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0.
Analysis for the incorporation of topics was based on a “Yes”/“No” response. Interest in
topics was based on a 5-point scale from “Very Interested” to “Very Uninterested.” This scale
was reduced to a 2-point scale for analysis. “Very Interested” and “Slightly Interested” were
combined into a single point, “Interested.” “Not Interested” included responses for “Neutral,”
“Slightly Uninterested,” and “Very Uninterested.” Data for food and agricultural topics were
analyzed for frequencies using actual percentages.
Valid percentages were used the for the frequency analysis of types and characteristics of
resources on a 5-point scale. The scale for resource types ranged from “Very Interested” to
“Very Uninterested.” The scale for resource characteristics ranged from “Very Important” to
“Very Unimportant.”
Interest in topics was based on a 5-point scale from “Very Interested” to “Very
Uninterested.” Respondents indicated their interest in incorporating topics into subjects using a
matrix table with a list of the topics they expressed interest in and a list of the subjects which
they taught. The 5-point scale was reduced to a 2-point scale for analysis. “Very Interested” and
“Slightly Interested” were combined into a single point, “Interested.” “Not Interested” included
responses for “Neutral,” “Slightly Uninterested,” and “Very Uninterested.” Actual percentages
were used for frequency analysis.

24

Resource awareness was based on a 5-point scale, ranging from “I have used this for a
resource and plan to keep using it” to “I have never heard of this before.” Valid percentages were
used for the frequency analysis.
Agreement towards possible barriers was based on a 5-point scale, ranging from
“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Valid percentages were used for the frequency
analysis for barriers.

25

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 1,947 prekindergarten through twelfth grade teachers who participated in the
survey, there were 1,193 teachers who taught students from kindergarten to sixth grade.
Respondents taught in 747 public and non-public schools, 357 school districts and 76 of
Michigan’s 83 counties. Over two-thirds of the respondents reported teaching English language
arts (70.9%) and math (66.3%). Over half of respondents taught science (60.6%) and social
studies (58.2%). Approximately a quarter of respondents taught physical education or health
(25.7%) and just under a quarter taught a subject other than those listed (23.1%). While a number
of teachers listed “other” subjects, only art (2.7%), music (2.4%), and technology (2.1%)
contained 2% or more of respondents.

Incorporation and interest in incorporation of topics
Figure 1 shows the percent of teachers interested in incorporating each topic and the
percent who already incorporate topics. Seventy-two percent of respondents indicated they
would be interested in incorporating at least one food and agricultural topic that they did not
already incorporate. School gardening received the greatest interest as a topic to be incorporated
(37.2%). This was followed by organic food and farming (32.1%) and youth entrepreneurial
opportunities (31.4%).
School gardens have been gaining popularity and have been used as part of farm to

26

For interpretation of the references to color
in this and all other figures, the reader is
referred to the electronic version of this
thesis.
Topic

Interest in incorporating
topic
Incorporated topic
Percent of teachers (n=1,193)
37.2%
27.5%

School gardening
Organic food and farming
Youth entrepreneurial opportunities

21.4%

32.1%

31.4%

16.1%

Career opportunities in agriculture

29.1%
24.0%

Food science

28.5%
22.4%

Information about GMOs

11.2%

28.4%
28.3%

Local food and farming

48.5%

27.1%
32.7%

Social impacts assoc. with food and ag.

26.4%

How food travels from farm to plate

51.7%

Economic impacts assoc. with food and ag.

26.0%
33.2%

Environmental issues assoc. with food and
ag.

25.5%
21.2%

Agricultural sciences
Healthy eating and nutrition

41.1%

34.5%

13.0%

78.1%

Figure 1. Incorporation and interest in incorporation of food and agricultural topics
Note: Interest includes respondents who reported to be very to slightly interested in incorporating
the topic on a scale of: 1 = Very Interested, 2 = Slightly Interested, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Slightly
Uninterested, 5 = Very Uninterested.

27

school programs, food and nutrition education, and environmental education (Graham &
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Jaeschke et al., 2012; The Farm to School Program, 2016). Studies have
suggested that teachers perceive school gardens to be multidisciplinary, provide students with a
connection to the food they have grown, improve fruit and vegetable preferences, academic
performance, and social skills (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2002; Robinson & Zajicek, 2005).
The other two most popular topics, organic food and farming and youth entrepreneurial
opportunities, are not commonly found in the food and agricultural literature at the elementary
school level. A New Jersey youth farmstand project for special needs students and at-risk-youth
suggests that there may be many benefits in youth entrepreneurial opportunities (Strieter &
Hughes, 2009). During the school year, students learn about nutrition, food safety, banking, and
finances. They then apply their knowledge working with the farm stand in the summer.
Researchers involved with the project reported that during the first five years of the program’s
run, students improved their work and life skills. This included improvements in nutrition
knowledge, food handling, money management, teamwork, and customer service.
Healthy eating and nutrition received the lowest interest for incorporation (13.0%).
However, the low interest in healthy eating and nutrition can be attributed to the large percentage
of teachers who were already incorporating healthy eating and nutrition (78.1%). Overall, 11 of
the 13 topics received interest from at least a quarter of respondents, with the exceptions of
agricultural sciences (21.2%) and healthy eating and nutrition (13.0%).
Ninety-two percent of respondents already incorporated at least one food and agricultural
topic. As stated above, healthy eating and nutrition was the most widely incorporated topic
(78.1%). This was followed by how food travels from farm to plate (51.7%) and local food and

28

farming (48.5%). The high rate of nutrition education follows the beliefs of Michigan teachers
who participated in focus groups about food systems education. The teachers believed that their
primary role in food and food systems education was to educate students to make healthy food
choices (Trexler & Johnson, 2000). These beliefs are supported with resources and federal
requirements. Hammerschmidt et al. (2011) pointed out that Michigan has “exemplary curricula,
programs, and networks of health professionals available for [nutrition education]
implementation” (p. 65). Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program and/or
School Breakfast Program are required to set nutrition education goals through their school
wellness policy. The combination of beliefs, resources, and requirements may enable teachers to
incorporate nutrition education.

Interest in Resources
The next aim was to determine what resource types and characteristics teachers were
interested in. Figure 2 shows how important each characteristic was to respondents (n = 1,093).
It was very important to respondents (85%) that there was no fee to use resources. At least half
of the respondents also felt it was very important that resources indicate grade appropriateness
(63.5%), state standard alignment (58.5%), be easily found through a search engine (56.4%), and
indicate subject fit (50.3%).
Figure 3 illustrates how interested respondents (n = 1,120) were in each type of resource.
Hands-on activities received the greatest interest with 60.2% of respondents who were very
interested and 29.1% who were slightly interested in the type. The least amount of interest was in
games for the computer and tablet and for resource types involving training workshops.

29

Importance of characterisitc

The resource...
has no fee to use.

85.0%

indicates what grade it is
appropriate for.

63.5%

6.1%
9.3%

inidicates what state standard it
aligns with.

58.5%

26.1%
8.9%

can easily be found through a
search engine.

56.4%

31.7%
10.5%

inidcates what subject it fits in
with.

50.3%

is referred by an expert in the
field.

31.5%

is referred by another teacher.

Very Important
Somewhat Unimportant

27.7%

10.0%
2.7%

23.2%

Somewhat Important
Very Unimportant

34.8%
43.7%
41.9%

18.4%
27.6%

Neutral

Figure 2. Importance of resource characteristics
Note: Somewhat Unimportant and Very Unimportant values are all equal to or less than 4.3%;
values are not reported in the figure.
However, at least 50% of respondents were very to slightly interested in each type of resource
that was listed.
The high importance of resources with no fee is consistent with studies indicating that
funding and budgets are a barrier to food and agricultural education (Diker et al., 2011;
Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014). However, there were less
teachers interested in grants and other funding opportunities compared to those who felt
resources with no fee was very important. Diker et al. (2011) found that the free use of nutrition
education materials was an important characteristic leading educators to download the program.

30

Nearly all respondents in that study also indicated the importance of simplicity in resources and
ease of use. This can suggest that while limited funding is a barrier, the time required to search
for and apply for funding and grants makes it less appealing compared to the easier use of a free
resource.

Percent of teachers (n = 1,120)

Resource
Hands-on activities

60.2%

Grade alignment

29.1%

47.5%

5.8%

32.1%

11.6%

Searchable database

45.5%

30.5%

14.7%

Grants and funds

43.2%

30.9%

15.6%

Videos

42.2%

Field trip suggestions

37.3%

40.2%

Experts to teach programs

40.0%

Lesson plans

39.9%

11.5%

30.4%

17.1%

32.9%

16.0%

35.6%

15.4%

Games for tablets

28.5%

29.8%

21.5%

Computer games

28.2%

31.7%

21.5%

Workshops about food, nutrition, and
agriculture education

26.3%

34.3%

22.9%

Workshops about school gardens
Very Interested

Slightly Interested

26.2%
Neutral

29.6%

Slightly Uninterested

22.6%
Very Uninterested

Figure 3. Interest in types of resources
Note: Somewhat Unimportant and Very Unimportant values are all equal to or less than 11.2%;
values are not reported in the figure.

31

The high level of interest expressed toward hands-on activities agrees with most studies.
Teachers perceive hands-on activities to be more effective in teaching compared to didactic
lessons (Diker et al., 2011; Knobloch et al., 2007). Fourth-grade students taking part in a
Cooking with Kids program also expressed excitement in hands-on activities and students in the
cooking program were more likely to consider classmates as friends compared to the control
group (Lukas & Cunningham-Sabo, 2011). Other teachers have perceived agricultural education
to be beneficial because it lent itself to hands-on learning (Knobloch et al., 2007). In contrast,
Trexler and Johnson (2000) found that teachers did not want hands-on activities. Participants felt
hands-on activities were impractical due to limited budgets and time. This suggests a balance
may need to be achieved between the benefit of hands-on learning and the time and cost
associated with the resource. Diker et al. (2011) suggested that resources should be hands-on, be
free or have a trial period, and be easy to implement.
Interestingly, the two resources involving workshops (teacher training workshops about
incorporating food, nutrition and agricultural education into the classroom and teacher training
workshops about starting and maintaining a school garden) received a comparatively low amount
of interest as a resource type. A lack of confidence in teaching about food and agricultural
education has been cited as a barrier to its incorporation (Diker et al., 2011; Graham &
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Shumacher et al., 2012; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). Training can provide
educators with the knowledge and confidence to teach about food and agricultural education.
Teachers who participated in food and agricultural courses or workshops were more likely to
incorporate food and agricultural activities into their classroom (Knobloch & Martin, 2002).
However, similar to hands-on resources, the time and cost associated with workshops may make
them less appealing compared to other resources.

32

Incorporation of Topics into Subjects
Figure 4 indicates the percent of respondents interested in using subjects with topics.
Percentages for interest in subject use is reported here as the combined percent of respondents
who were very interested and slightly interested in subjects. Social studies and science tended to
have the greatest interest as a subject for topic incorporation. Those two subjects, especially that
of science, are frequently linked to food and agricultural education (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005; Jaeschke et al., 2012; Knobloch et al., 2007; Lukas & Cunningham-Sabo, 2011; Moore,
2008; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). However, English language arts received a surprising amount
of interest in many of the topics, which ranged from 3.4% to 11.5% of respondents who were
interested. English language arts is less commonly associated with food and agricultural
education. In focus groups with Michigan teachers, Trexler and Johnson (2000) only selected
science and social studies teachers as participants. The researchers felt science and social studies
teachers were most likely to incorporate agri-food system concepts.
Food and agricultural education can fit within many subjects, including English language
arts, given its broad range of topics (Satchell et al., 2011). In a study of fourth and fifth graders
in 31 California public schools, teachers utilized nutrition education resource kits linked to
California Content Standards for English language arts and math (Keihner et al., 2011). Nutrition
education lessons involved word scrambles, compositional essays, oral reports, listening and oral
communication skills, and journaling. The University of Georgia Extension provides an
extensive list of garden-based lessons relating to English language arts, as well as science, math,
and social studies (The University of Georgia Extension, 2013). Creating resources which
include English language arts, science, and social studies may help to expand the reach of food
and agricultural education.

33

Topic

Percent of teachers (n=1,193)
5%
10%
15%
20%

0%

25%

School gardening
Information about organic food and
farming
Youth entrepreneurial opportunities
Career opportunities in agriculture
Food science
Information about GMOs
Local food and farming
Social impacts associated with food
and agriculture
How food travels from farm to plate
Economic impacts associated with
food and agriculture
Environmental issues associated with
food and agriculture
Agricultural sciences
Healthy eating and nutrition
Science
Social studies
English language arts
Figure 4. Interest in incorporation of topics into subjects

Math

Note: Interest includes respondents who reported to be very to slightly interested in incorporating
the topic on a scale of: 1 = Very Interested, 2 = Slightly Interested, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Slightly
Uninterested, 5 = Very Uninterested.

34

Resource Awareness
Respondents were presented with 17 statewide organizations and programs that provide
food and agricultural education resources. Figure 5 shows respondents were largely unaware of
all the organizations and programs listed in the survey. Over half of the respondents (52.2%)
were unfamiliar with or had never heard of 15 of the 17 resources. The Michigan Model for
Health, a comprehensive kindergarten through twelfth grade curriculum that includes nutrition
sections, was the most widely, currently used (14.5%) and previously used (19.4%) resource.
Michigan State University Extension and Fuel Up to Play 60 were the next two most used
resources. Michigan State University Extension was currently used by 11.4% of respondents at
the time of the survey; it provides a variety of food and agriculture-related services. Fuel Up to
Play 60 was currently used by 9.9% of respondents; it is a health and nutrition program through
the National Dairy Council. Twenty-six respondents provided an additional 27 organizations and
programs in an open-ended “Other” text-box (see Appendix F).
The relatively high use of the Michigan Model for Health is consistent with the findings
from Hammerschmidt et al. (2011). Michigan teachers indicated that a nutrition module within a
comprehensive health curriculum was the second most common method to integrate nutrition
education in the school. The school wellness policy, which did not appear in this study’s survey,
was the top method. Trexler and Johnson (2000) reported that Michigan teachers praised the
Michigan Model for Health and the teachers suggested that a food systems education program
should emulate the model or link food systems material to the Michigan Model for Health
curriculum.
Other studies have also shown teachers are widely unaware of available resources. Yet, a
lack of resources is cited as a barrier and respondents percieve more resources as a facilitator to

35

food and agricultural education (Hammerschmidt et al., 2011; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014).
This suggests that there may be a lack of outreach by organizations with resources.

Organization or
Program

0%

Percent of Respondents (n = 1,099)
20%
40%
60%
80%

100%

Michigan Model for Health
Michigan State University Extension
Fuel Up to Play 60
United Dairy Industry of Michigan
4-H
Rural Education Day
Michigan Farm Bureau
Building Healthy Communities
Michigan Fitness Foundation
Michigan FFA
Michigan Soybean Committee
Agriscience instructor or FFA advisor
Milk Means More
Master Gardener Volunteer Program
Michigan Ag in the Classroom
FoodCorps
Michigan Apple Committee
I have used this for a resource and plan to keep using it
I have used this for a resource but do not anymore
I have heard of this and am familiar with it but have never used it
I have heard of this but am not familiar with it
I have never heard of this before

Figure 5. Awareness and use of resources

FoodCorps and the Master Gardener Volunteer Program are two examples of programs
with room to expand their outreach. Only 27.5% of respondents were familiar with the Master

36

Gardener program and 12.6% of respondents were familiar with FoodCorps. Both can provide
resources for school gardening, which received the greatest interest as a topic for incorporation
(FoodCorps, 2015; Master Gardener Program, 2016). FoodCorps also has resources for nutrition
education, which was the most widely incorporated topic, and hands-on activities, which
received high interest as a resource type. FoodCorps and the Master Gardener program both have
resources that align with the interests of teachers, yet a majority of respondents were unfamiliar
with both, suggesting that there is room to expand their outreach.

Barriers to Food and Agricultural Education
Only 24 respondents indicated that they did not incorporate any food and agricultural
topics and had no interest in doing so. Response bias may have contributed towards the low
number of participants indicating a disinterest in food and agricultural topics. Caution should be
used in drawing conclusions from the small number of respondents. Nonetheless, the responses
can still be useful in shedding light on barriers to food and agricultural education in Michigan.
Respondents were asked about possible reasons for their disinterest in incorporating food
and agricultural topics (n = 23) (Figure 6). The greatest amount of agreement was with the lack
of time in the school day. Nearly two-thirds of respondents strongly agreed that there was not
enough instructional time in the school day to incorporate food, nutrition, and agricultural
education (65.2%) and none of the respondents disagreed with the statement. Eleven respondents
elected to write answers in an “Other” text box. All 11 answers related to subjects or curricula
the teachers taught, suggesting that they did not perceive food and agriculture to align with their
subjects or core curricula. As stated earlier, limited time due to academic standards and topics
that fit with the core curriculum are important issues for teachers.

37

Barriers

Percent of Teachers (n = 23)
17.4%

There is not enough instructional time in the
school day to incorporate food, nutrition and
agriculture education.

17.4%

65.2%

17.4%

4.3%

I do not think food, nutrition and agriculture
education is important.

4.3%

52.2%
13.0%

8.7%

I am not confident in teaching about food,
nutrition and agriculture education.

21.7%

17.4%

21.7% 39.1%

17.4%

4.3%
My administrator would not support food,
nutrition and agriculture education.

4.3%

47.8%

26.1%
13.0%

There are too many food, nutrition and
agricultural resources.

65.2%

Strongly
Agree

Slightly
Agree

13.0%

4.3%

There are not enough food, nutrition and
agricultural resources available to teachers.

4.3%
Neutral

21.7%
17.4%

60.9%
Slightly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Figure 6. Possible barriers of food, nutrition, and agricultural education

Only 8.7% of the respondents strongly to slightly agreed that their administrators would
not support food and agricultural education. Thirty-one percent of respondents strongly to
slightly agreed that they were not confident in teaching about food and agricultural education.
Jones and Zidenberg-Cherr (2014) also found that teachers felt a lack of administrative support
played a minimal role in the incorporation of nutrition education. The teachers felt a lack of time,
relation to subjects, and adequate resources played a larger role. In a qualitative case study by
Shumacher et al. (2012), administrators in a school highly encouraged environmental education
and the use of school gardens. Barriers for teachers in that study included a lack of comfort,
confidence, and interest in teaching about environmental education (Shumacher et al., 2012).

38

Previous research has found that confidence is a barrier to food and agricultural education
(Diker et al., 2011; Shumacher et al., 2012; Trexler & Johnson, 2000). In a focus group of
Michigan teachers, many participants expressed a lack of confidence in teaching about
agriculture. The teachers in the focus groups suggested that resources, including training on how
to incorporate agriculture, educational materials and curricula, lists of helpful websites, a
network of professionals, and monetary assistance, would help overcome a lack of confidence
(Trexler & Johnson, 2000). However, a majority of respondents, who were disinterested in food
and agricultural education in my study, were neutral towards the availability of resources. This
may suggest that they are either not aware of available resources and cannot make a judgement,
or they do not care about the availability because they have no interest in food and agricultural
education.
Teacher training workshops on food and agriculture and workshops that provide
agricultural experiences to teachers may help to overcome a disinterest in food and agricultural
education and improve confidence. Knobloch and Martin (2002) assessed characteristics
explaining the extent to which elementary teachers incorporated agricultural education. They
found that teachers who had taken agricultural classes, workshops, or had agricultural
experiences incorporated agricultural education to a greater extent, compared to teachers who did
not have those experiences (Knobloch & Martin, 2002). Teacher training workshops and preservice training programs have been suggested as a method to provide teachers with agricultural
and environmental experiences, improve comfort and confidence, and spark an interest in
agriculture and the environment (Knobloch & Martin, 2002; Shumacher et al., 2012).

39

Limitations and Assumptions
This study utilized an electronic survey method. Electronic surveys rely on email contacts
and a web-based survey to collect responses (Dillman et al., 2014). They have an advantage of
being a low-cost method for distributing surveys and collecting responses in a short amount of
time from a large population (Dillman et al., 2014). A wide distribution of the survey was
desired to increase chances of identifying local and obscure resources used by teachers. This
information can be used to build a network between organizations with food and agricultural
education resources and allow for collaboration between organizations and programs.
One disadvantage of electronic surveys is typically low response rates compared to a
mixed-method, mail, or phone survey. Response rates can be hindered by a lack of access to the
internet and a lack of comfort in using email and web-based surveys, especially with contacts in
rural areas, older populations, or those who have a lower level of education (Dillman et al.,
2014). It was assumed that this barrier would be minimized in the study population as all
teachers would possess at least a college-level education and a school email address.
An additional disadvantage in this study was a lack of direct access to Michigan school
teacher emails. However, feedback from teachers who reviewed the draft survey suggested that
many teachers would ignore emails coming from an address they did not recognize, and they
would be more likely to read an email from their school principal or an established contact. Due
to indirect access, it is not possible to analyze response rates and this study is not generalizable to
the population of Michigan elementary school teachers, but to those who responded to the
survey.
There is also the potential for response bias, which may play a role in the high interest
respondents expressed in food and agricultural topics and resources. The actual adoption rates of

40

resources and food and agricultural education shaped according to these interests may be much
lower. Additionally, this study did not assess to what extent teachers incorporate or are
interested in incorporating food and agricultural topics. The frequency and length of time
teachers spend, or are interested in spending, on food and agricultural topics may be minimal.

41

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there is interest in food and agricultural education and that
resources shaped according to the interests of teachers may help to expand the incorporation of
food and agricultural education in Michigan K-6 classrooms. It is important that resources have
no fee and that they emphasize hands-on activities. There is room for expansion in many food
and agricultural topics, including school gardening, information about organic food and farming,
and youth entrepreneurial opportunities. In addition to incorporating food and agricultural
education into science and social studies, there is also interest in using English language arts as a
subject. Teachers are unaware of many of the statewide programs offering resources, suggesting
there is room for programs to reach out to teachers.
Based on the findings from this study, several recommendations can be made towards the
development of resources. There is room for resources to expand into English language arts. The
University of Georgia Extension provides an extensive list of garden-based lessons relating to
English language arts, as well as science, math, and social studies (The University of Georgia
Extension, 2013). English language arts lessons on the list include books to read, writing
assignments, and speaking and listening activities with professionals involved in food and
agriculture. All lessons are categorized by grade, subject content, and align with Georgia
educational standards. Similar resource lists adapted to Michigan English language arts content
standards, as well as other subjects, may be useful for teachers.
Respondents indicated an interest in youth entrepreneurial opportunities. However, there
are limited resources for or research regarding youth entrepreneurial opportunities in K-6 food
and agricultural education. Future research can address this gap and search for best practices for

42

implementing youth entrepreneurial opportunity programs. Partnerships with existing Michigan
organizations that offer youth entrepreneurial opportunities may help bring entrepreneurial
programs into more classrooms.
A possible partnership with a youth entrepreneurial program is the Detroit Food
Academy. The Detroit Food Academy is an organization that uses place-based, experiential food
and entrepreneurial opportunities to foster leadership skills and confidence in high school
students (Detroit Food Academy, 2015). The FFA, formerly known as the Future Farmers of
America, provides a supervised agriculture experience for FFA students. Students have the
opportunity to apply what they have learned in the classroom to a workplace environment.
Entrepreneurial opportunities are among the various types of supervised agriculture experience
programs students can choose to pursue (Rank & Retallick, 2016). The Detroit Food Academy
and FFA’s supervised agriculture experiences both focus primarily on high school students. An
opportunity exists to bring similar programs to elementary school students.
Resources can take advantage of the high use of nutrition education. Nutrition was the
most popular topic already incorporated into classrooms. Research into factors contributing to
the greater incorporation of nutrition education may point towards methods that can be utilized to
expand the reach of other topics. Creating resources that link to the Michigan Model for Health
and school wellness policies may also help. Hammerschmidt et al. (2011) suggested that there
was a strong network of professionals available in Michigan to assist with nutrition education.
Collaboration with those networks can strengthen the reach of food and agricultural education
and address gaps and overlaps in the content of programs. Possible networks include Michigan
Team Nutrition, Michigan school health coordinators, the Michigan Nutrition Network, and the
Michigan Fitness Foundation.

43

A partnership is already occurring between FoodCorps and Michigan Team Nutrition. In
January 2016, Michigan State University Extension announced that FoodCorps would be starting
a new partnership with Michigan Team Nutrition. Their partnership illustrates how organizations
can combine school gardens with nutrition education, reduce costs of activities for schools, and
work together to expand their reach. Team Nutrition is an initiative setup by the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service to support efforts that promote healthy food choices and physical activity in
youth. Michigan Team Nutrition is housed within the Michigan Department of Education.
Through the partnership, schools receive mini-grants to offset costs related to school garden
activities. FoodCorps service members are paired up with Michigan State University Extension
health and nutrition staff to implement activities (McLean, 2016).
A small handful of respondents indicated a lack of interest in food and agricultural
education, regardless of resource availability. Pre-service training and workshops that provide
agricultural experiences have been suggested as a method to increase a teacher’s interest in
agriculture, thereby increasing the likelihood that a teacher will incorporate agricultural
education (Knobloch & Martin, 2002; Shumacher et al., 2012). The training and workshops can
also be useful to inform participants about resources and activities that incorporate core content
standards. There is an agriculture, food and natural resource pre-service training program at
Michigan State University. Attracting education students, who are outside of the agriculture,
food and natural resource field, to take classes in the program may help foster a greater interest
in food and agriculture. Workshops may be beneficial to teachers who have completed their preservice training and are already teaching.
Improving the outreach of programs and creating resources that incorporate the interests
of teachers may help to advance goal six of the Michigan Good Food Charter, which is to

44

incorporate food and agriculture education into all Michigan K-12 classrooms. The Charter can
provide a space for organizations to collaborate on food and agricultural education programs and
resources. The Center for Regional Food Systems at Michigan State University is a backbone
organization of the Michigan Good Food Charter and works to build partnerships across
Michigan and coordinate networks. As such, it is well suited to assist in building networks
between existing organizations with food and agricultural education resources.
Respondents in this study expressed interest in many food and agricultural topics and
resources, but a majority of respondents were unaware of existing organizations and programs
that deliver resources. Improving outreach and providing resources that incorporate the interests
of teachers may help to expand the reach of food and agricultural education.

45

APPENDICES

46

Appendix A: Online Survey

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Appendix B: Sources of Resource Characteristics
Table 2. Source of Resource Characteristics
Resource Characteristics

Organization/Program with Resource Characteristic

The resource can easily be
found through a search
engine such as Google.
The resource indicates what Rural Education Days; Michigan Apple Committee;
grade it is appropriate for.
Michigan Farm Bureau; Michigan Fitness Foundation;
Building Healthy Communities; Michigan Ag in the
Classroom
The resource indicates what Rural Education Days; Michigan Apple Committee
state standard it aligns with.

Reference to Characteristic in
Literature
(Trexler & Johnson, 2000)
(Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005)

(Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005)

The resource indicates what Rural Education Days; Michigan Apple Committee; MSUE;
subject it fits in with.
Michigan Fitness Foundation; 4H; Michigan Farm Bureau

(Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005)

The resource is referred by
an expert in the field.

(Diker et al., 2011)

The resource is referred by
another teacher.

(Diker et al., 2011)

There is no fee to use the
resource.

Rural Education Days; Michigan Apple Committee

55

(Diker et al., 2011; Trexler &
Johnson, 2000)

Appendix C: Sources of Resource Types
Table 3. Sources of Resource Types
Resource Type

Organization/Program with Resource Type

Reference to Type in Literature

A searchable database of
educational materials
based on grade, subject
and state standards
alignment
Computer games

Michigan Farm Bureau; Rural Education Days; Michigan
Soybean Committee

(Trexler & Johnson, 2000)

Michigan Apple Committee

Educational videos

Michigan Fitness Foundation; Michigan Soybean
Committee
Fuel Up to Play 60; Michigan State University Extension;
Master Gardener Volunteer Program; Michigan Farm
Bureau; Michigan Ag in the Classroom; Rural Education
Day; Michigan Fitness Foundation; Michigan Soybean
Committee; FoodCorps
4H; Building Healthy Communities; Master Gardener
Volunteer Program; Fuel Up to Play 60; Michigan Farm
Bureau; FoodCorps
FoodCorps; Michigan Farm Bureau; Rural Education Day;
Michigan Apple Committee; Michigan Fitness Foundation;
Michigan Soybean Committee
Building Healthy Communities; 4H; Michigan Farm
Bureau; Michigan Ag in the Classroom; Rural Education
Day; Michigan Apple Committee; Michigan Fitness
Foundation
Michigan State University Extension; 4H; Michigan Farm
Bureau; Rural Education Day; Michigan Apple Committee;
Michigan Fitness Foundation

(Leggette, Rutherford, Sudduth, &
Murphrey, 2012)
(Trexler & Johnson, 2000)

Experts to teach programs

Grants and other funding
opportunities
Hands-on activities
Lesson plans

Resources which state
their alignment to grade,
subject and state
standards.

56

(Trexler & Johnson, 2000)

(Hammerschmidt, Tackett, Golzynski,
& Golzynski, 2011; Jones & ZidenbergCherr, 2005; Trexler & Johnson, 2000)
(Diker et al., 2011; Eliassen & Wilson,
2007; Trexler & Johnson, 2000)
(Diker et al., 2011; Trexler & Johnson,
2000)
(Diker et al., 2011; Eliassen & Wilson,
2007; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005; Jones & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014;
Trexler & Johnson, 2000)

Table 3 (cont’d)
Suggestions for field trip
destinations
Teacher training
workshops about
incorporating food,
nutrition and agriculture
education into the
classroom
Teacher training
workshops about starting
and maintaining a School
garden

Michigan Farm Bureau; Rural Education Day; Michigan
Apple Committee; Michigan Fitness Foundation; Michigan
Soybean Committee; FoodCorps
Building Healthy Communities; Michigan Ag in the
Classroom; Rural Education Day; Michigan Apple
Committee; Michigan Soybean Committee

(Trexler and Johnson; 2000)

Michigan State University Extension; FoodCorps

(Diker, Walters, Cunningham-Sabo, &
Baker, 2011; Hammerschmidt, Tackett,
Golzynski, & Golzynski, 2011; Jones
& Zidenberg-Cherr, 2014; Trexler &
Johnson, 2000)

57

(Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005;
Hammerschmidt, Tackett, Golzynski,
& Golzynski, 2011; Trexler and
Johnson; 2000)

Appendix D: Initial Recruitment Email

Greetings!
As part of its Michigan Good Food Charter work, the Michigan State University Center for
Regional Food Systems is surveying Michigan PreK-12 teachers regarding their interest in,
awareness of, and use of food, nutrition and agriculture resources for education. This
online survey is also designed as part of the completion of a master's degree at Michigan
State University. Your assistance will be vital in informing teachers about the Food,
Nutrition and Agriculture Resources for Michigan PreK-12 Teachers Survey.
Teachers are understandably busy and overburdened. Educational resources should be
shaped to provide as much assistance as possible to teachers. By filling out the survey...


Teachers are providing valuable input about how interested or uninterested they are
in food, nutrition and agriculture resources for education.



Teachers will help shape what topics food, nutrition and agriculture resources focus
on and for which grades and subjects.



Teachers will inform organizations and other interested Michigan school teachers
about what educational resources they are aware of, which ones they use and what
types of resources they would like more access to.

The online survey will take approximately ten to fourteen minutes to complete. Teachers
who complete and successfully submit the survey will be eligible to win one of six $25
amazon gift cards.
You will be sent an email in within a few days with information about the survey and a
link to the survey for Michigan PreK-12 school teachers. Please send that email to the
PreK-12 school teachers in your school. Your assistance will be instrumental in
distributing the survey to teachers!
If you have any questions about the survey, please do not hesitate to contact Samantha
Loscalzo at Loscalzo@msu.edu or 517-721-7010. If you are interested in the findings from
the study or what food, nutrition and agricultural education resources teachers use, please
send an email to Loscalzo@msu.edu with "Interest in FNA survey findings" in the subject
line.

58

For more information about the Michigan Good Food Charter, you can go to this website:
Michiganfood.org. The Michigan Good Food Charter is a roadmap for a food system that
is rooted in local communities and centered on good food. This survey will help with our
understanding of progress on Goal 6: that Michigan schools will incorporate food and
agriculture into the pre-K through 12th grade curriculum for all Michigan students and
youth will have access to food and agriculture entrepreneurial opportunities.
Thank you for your time, assistance and dedication to Michigan youth!
Sincerely,
Samantha Loscalzo
Research Assistant
Center for Regional Food Systems
Michigan State University
www.michiganfood.org
www.foodsystems.msu.edu
---------------------------------Master's Student
Department of Community Sustainability
Michigan State University
---------------------------------Email: Loscalzo@msu.edu
Phone: 517-721-7010

59

Appendix E: Follow-up Survey Invitation for Teachers

Greetings!
As part of its Michigan Good Food Charter work, the Michigan State University Center for
Regional Food Systems is surveying Michigan PreK-12 teachers regarding their interest in,
awareness of, and use of food, nutrition and agriculture resources for education. This
online survey is also designed as part of the completion of a master's degree at Michigan
State University.
Teachers are understandably busy and overburdened. Educational resources should be
shaped to provide as much assistance as possible to teachers. By filling out the survey...


Teachers are providing valuable input about how interested or uninterested they are
in food, nutrition and agriculture resources for education.



Teachers will help shape what topics food, nutrition and agriculture resources focus
on and for which grades and subjects.



Teachers will inform organizations and other interested Michigan school teachers
about what educational resources they are aware of, which ones they use and what
types of resources they would like more access to.

You will find a link below to the Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Resources for Michigan
Teachers Survey. The online survey will take approximately ten to fourteen minutes to
complete. Teachers who complete and successfully submit the survey will be eligible to
win one of six $25 amazon gift cards.
If you have any questions about the survey, please do not hesitate to contact Samantha
Loscalzo at Loscalzo@msu.edu or 517-721-7010. If you are interested in the findings from
the study or what food, nutrition and agricultural education resources teachers use, please
send an email to Loscalzo@msu.edu with "Interest in FNA survey findings" in the subject
line.
For more information about the Michigan Good Food Charter, you can go to this website:
Michiganfood.org. The Michigan Good Food Charter is a roadmap for a food system that
is rooted in local communities and centered on good food. This survey will help with our

60

understanding of progress on Goal 6: that Michigan schools will incorporate food and
agriculture into the pre-K through 12th grade curriculum for all Michigan students and
youth will have access to food and agriculture entrepreneurial opportunities.
Thank you for your time, assistance and dedication to Michigan youth!
Follow this link to the survey:
FNA Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
http://msucarrs.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_brQdAM9WdkLihRH
Thank you for your time, assistance and dedication to Michigan youth!
Sincerely,
Samantha Loscalzo
Research Assistant
Center for Regional Food Systems
Michigan State University
www.michiganfood.org
www.foodsystems.msu.edu
---------------------------------Master's Student
Department of Community Sustainability
Michigan State University
---------------------------------Email: Loscalzo@msu.edu
Phone: 517-721-7010

61

Appendix F: Additional Organizations and Programs with Food and Agricultural Education
Resources
Table 4. Additional Organizations and Programs with Food and Agricultural Education
Resources
Organization/Partnerships
Sustainable Agriculture
Research & Education
(SARE)
Sustainable Agriculture
Research & Education

Program
SARE

Website
http://www.sare.org/

SARE Learning
Center

http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center

Sustainable Agriculture
Research & Education

SARE in
Michigan

YMCA

N/A

http://www.northcentralsare.org/StatePrograms/Michigan?_ga=1.58804266.68
0053882.1455903577
http://www.ymca.net/

National Kidney Foundation
of Michigan

Regie's Rainbow
Adventure

National Kidney Foundation
of Michigan; Michigan
Nutrition Network at the
Michigan Fitness Foundation
Michigan Nutrition Network
at Michigan Fitness
Foundation

PE-Nut

Van Buren ISD

United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)

Nutrition
Enhanced EPEC
(Exemplary
Physical
Education
Curriculum)
Project LEAN
(Linking
Education,
Activity and
Nutrition)
N/A

ChooseMyPlate

62

http://www.nkfm.org/kids-teens/earlychildhood-elementary-educationprograms/regie%E2%80%99s-rainbowadventure
http://www.nkfm.org/kids-teens/earlychildhood-elementary-educationprograms/pe-nut-elementary-schoolprogram
http://www.michigannutritionnetwork.or
g/epec-training

http://www.masb.org/mk-project-leanvanburen-isd-edex2015.aspx

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/

Table 4 (cont’d)
Community - University of
Michigan Collaborative

Project Healthy
Schools

http://www.projecthealthyschools.org/

National Institute of Health

N/A

http://www.nih.gov/researchtraining/science-education#teachers

Crim Fitness Foundation

CrimFit
Programs

http://crim.org/programs/youth/

Crim Fitness Foundation

Garden to
School Teacher
Training
Corn
Marketing
Program of
Michigan
N/A

http://crim.org/programs/youth/garden-toschool-teacher-training/

http://marquettefood.coop/classes/classes/

Lake Superior State
University

N/A

http://www.lssu.edu/arl/outreach.php

Lake Superior Stewardship
Initiative

N/A

http://lakesuperiorstewardship.org/projects.p
hp

Greening of Detroit

N/A

http://www.greeningofdetroit.com/

Detroit Black Community
Food Network Security

http://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/

Washtenaw County Parks
and Recreation

Food Warriors
Youth
Development
Program
County Farm
Park

Detroit Food Policy Council

N/A

http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/de
partments/parks_recreation/horticulturist/hor
t_cfp.html
http://detroitfoodpolicycouncil.net/

Detroit Food Academy

N/A

http://detroitfoodacademy.com/

Michigan Corn Growers
Association
Marquette Food Co-op

63

http://www.micorn.org/corn-education

Table 4 (cont’d)
Central Detroit Christian

N/A

http://centraldetroitchristian.org/

D-Town Farms

N/A

http://www.d-townfarm.com/

Curriculum for Agricultural
Science Education

N/A

http://www.case4learning.org/

Blue Cross Blue Shield
Blue Care Network of
Michigan

Building
http://www.bcbsm.com/index/about-us/whyHealthy
choose-us/healthy-communities/grants-andCommunities
contributions/building-healthyProgram
communities-program.html
Note. Respondents provided either an organization or a program name in an open-ended textbox. An internet search was used to locate the website of the organization or program and to
match the identified organization with food and agricultural education programs they deliver, or
vice versa.

64

REFERENCES

65

REFERENCES

ASCD. (2014). Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child: A Collaborative Approach to
Learning and Health. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Bagdonis, J. M., Hinrichs, C. C., & Schafft, K. A. (2009). The emergence and framing of farmto-school initiatives: Civic engagement, health and local agriculture. Agriculture and
Human Values, 26, 107–119. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9173-6
Bissonnette, M. M., & Contento, I. R. (2001). Adolescents’ perspectives and food choice
behaviors in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: Application
of a psychosocial model. Journal of Nutrition Education, 33(2), 72–82.
Briggs, M., Fleischhacker, S., & Mueller, C. G. (2010). Position of the American Dietetic
Association, School Nutrition Association, and Society for Nutrition Education:
Comprehensive school nutrition services. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
110, 1738–1749. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2010.08.007
Calabrese Barton, A., Koch, P. D., Contento, I. R., & Hagiwara, S. (2005). From global
sustainability to inclusive education: Understanding urban children’s ideas about the food
system. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1163–1186.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069467
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results.
Retrieved from
www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2013MIH_Trend_Report_459009_7.pdf
Colasanti, K., Cantrell, P., Cocciarelli, S., Collier, A., Edison, T., Doss, J., … Smalley, S. (2010).
Michigan Good Food Charter. East Lansing, MI.
Darnton-Hill, I., Nishida, C., & James, W. (2004). A life course approach to diet, nutrition and
the prevention of chronic diseases. Public Health Nutrition, 7(1A), 101–121.
http://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2003584
Davis, J. W., & Bauman, K. (2013). School enrollment in the United States: 2011. U.S. Census
Bureau. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED520731&site=ehostlive
Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). School-based obesity prevention strategies
for state policymakers. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/policy/pdf/obesity_prevention_strategies.pdf
Detroit Food Academy. (2015). Detroit Food Academy annual report 2014. Detroit, MI.
Diker, A., Walters, L. M., Cunningham-Sabo, L., & Baker, S. S. (2011). Factors influencing

66

adoption and implementation of Cooking with Kids, an experiential school-based nutrition
education curriculum. Journal of Extension, 49(1), 1–13.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
The tailored design method [electronic resource] (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Eliassen, E. K., & Wilson, M. W. (2007). Selecting appropriate elementary school nutrition
education resources. American Journal of Health Studies, 22(4), 224–227.
Esters, L. T. (2007). Factors influencing postsecondary education enrollment behaviors of urban
agricultural education students. Career and Technical Education Research, 32(2), 79–98.
http://doi.org/10.5328/CTER32.2.79
Esters, L. T., & Bowen, B. E. (2005). Factors influencing career choices of urban agricultural
education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 26–35.
http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02024
Food and Nutrition Service. (2010). Nutrition education and promotion : The role of FNS in
helping low-income families make healthier eating and lifestyle choices; A report to
Congress. Food and Nutrition Service. Alexandria, VA.
FoodCorps. (2015). FoodCorps 2015 annual report. Portland, OR. Retrieved from
https://foodcorps.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/08/FY15-Annual-Report-Small.pdf
Freeland-Graves, J. H., & Nitzke, S. (2013). Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
Total diet approach to healthy eating. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
113(2), 307–317. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.12.013
Graham, H., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005). California teachers perceive school gardens as an
effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 105(11), 1797–1800. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.034
Hammerschmidt, P., Tackett, W., Golzynski, M., & Golzynski, D. (2011). Barriers to and
facilitators of healthful eating and physical activity in low-income schools. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(1), 63–68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2009.11.008
Hess, A., & Trexler, C. (2011). A qualitative study of agricultural literacy in urban youth: What
do elementary students understand about the agri–food system? Journal of Agricultural
Education, 52(4), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04001
Jaeschke, E. M., Schumacher, J. R., Cullen, R. W., & Mardell, W. A. (2012). Perceptions of
principals, teachers, and school food, health, and nutrition professionals regarding the
sustainability and utilization of school food gardens. The Journal of Child Nutrition &
Management, 36(2), 2–12.
Jones, A. M., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2014). Exploring nutrition education resources and
barriers, and nutrition knowledge in teachers in California. Journal of Nutrition Education

67

and Behavior, 47(2), 162–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.06.011
Joshi, A., Azuma, A. M., & Feenstra, G. (2008). Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a
Difference? Findings and Future Research Needs. Journal of Hunger & Environmental
Nutrition, 3(2–3), 229–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/19320240802244025
Joshi, A., & Ratcliffe, M. M. (2012). Causal pathways linking Farm to School to childhood
obesity prevention. Childhood Obesity, 8(4), 305–14. http://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2012.0073
Kavey, R.-E. W. (2010). How sweet it is: Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, obesity, and
cardiovascular risk in childhood. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(10),
1456–1460. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.028
Kavey, R.-E. W. (2016). Management of Moderate Hypertriglyceridemia in Childhood and
Adolescence. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 10(1), 6.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-016-0484-7
Keihner, A. J., Garbolino, T., Mitchell, P., Backman, D., Meigs, R., & Sugerman, S. (2011). The
Power Play! Campaign’s school idea & resource kits improve determinants of fruit and
vegetable intake and physical activity among fourth- and fifth-grade children. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(4S2), S122–S129. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2011.02.010
Kim, S. A., Moore, L. V., Galuska, D., Wright, A. P., Harris, D., Grummer-Strawn, L. M., …
Rhodes, D. G. (2014). Vital signs: Fruit and vegetable intake among children: U.S., 200310. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(31), 671–676.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506200710779521
Knobloch, N. A. (2008). Factors of teacher beliefs related to integrating agriculture into
elementary school classrooms. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(4), 529–539.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9135-z
Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. (2007). The benefits of teaching and learning about
agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3),
25–36. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03025
Knobloch, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2002). Teacher Characteristics Explaining The Extent Of
Agricultural Awareness Activities Integrated Into The Elementary Curriculum. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 43(4), 12–23. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.04012
Knobloch, N., & Martin, R. (2000). Agricultural Awareness Activities And Their Integration
Into The Curriculum As Perceived By Elementary Teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 41(4), 15–26. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.04015
Knudson, W. A., & Peterson, H. C. (2012). The economic impact of Michigan’ s food and
agriculture system economic impact of the system (No. 01–0312). East Lansing, MI.
Kovar, K. A., & Ball, A. L. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy research: A synthesis of

68

the literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 167–178. Retrieved from
http://www.jae-online.org/attachments/article/1732/54.1.pdf#page=168
Leggette, H. R., Rutherford, T., Sudduth, A., & Murphrey, T. P. (2012). Using Second Life to
educate in agriculture: A review of lirature. NACTA Journal, 56(2), 29–37.
Lukas, C. V., & Cunningham-Sabo, L. (2011). Qualitative investigation of the Cooking with
Kids program: Focus group interviews with fourth-grade students, teachers, and food
educators. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(6), 517–524.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2011.05.009
Lytle, L. (1995). Nutrition education for school-aged children. Journal of Nutrition Education,
27(6), 298–311. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(12)80090-2
Lytle, L., & Achterberg, C. (1995). Changing the diet of America’s children: What works and
why? Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(5), 250–260. http://doi.org/10.1016/S00223182(12)80793-X
Master Gardener Program. (2016). Program overview. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/program/master_gardener_volunteer_program/program_overview
McLean, T. (2016, January 11). The Michigan FoodCorps program partners with Michigan
Team Nutrition. Michigan State University Extension News, pp. 1–3. East Lansing, MI.
Retrieved from
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_michigan_foodcorps_program_partners_with_michigan_
team_nutrition
Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, L., & Palermo, C. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of multistrategy nutrition education programs on health and nutrition of adolescents. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(9), 631–646.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.07.015
Mercier, S. (2015). Food and agricultural education in the United States. Washington, D.C.
MI School Data. (2015). Statewide career and technical education basic grant student
enrollments: 2014-2015. East Lansing, MI. Retrieved from
https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/CareerAndTechnicalEducation.aspx
Michigan Department of Education. (2016). Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress Spring 2016: What it is, What it means - and What it offers. Retrieved January 1, 2016,
from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Parent_Guide_to_MSTEP_Final_10.5.15_502457_7.pdf
Michigan Good Food. (2016). Signatures. Retrieved November 10, 2016, from
http://www.michiganfood.org/get_involved/signatures
Michigan State Board of Education. Model Local Wellness Policy (2005). USA.

69

Moore, J. R. (2008). Numbers, numbers, numbers : The role of population studies in social
studies and global education. The Social Studies, 99(4), 155–160.
Morris, J. L., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2002). Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum improves
fourth-grade school. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(1), 91–93.
Murimi, M. W., Kanyi, M., Mupfudze, T., Amin, M. R., Mbogori, T., & Aldubayan, K. (2016).
Factors influencing efficacy of nutrition education interventions: A systematic review.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 49(2), 142–165.e1.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.09.003
National Agriculture in the Classroom. (2010). A trend analysis of national agriculture in the
classroom program data: 2006-2010. Retrieved from
https://www.agclassroom.org/affiliates/doc/trend_analysis_poster.pdf
National Research Council. (2009). Transforming agricultural education for a changing world.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Pense, S. L., Leising, J. G., Portillo, M. T., & Igo, C. G. (2005). Comparative assessment of
student agricultural literacy in selected Agriculture In The Classroom programs. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 46(3), 107–118. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.03107
Rank, B. D., & Retallick, M. S. (2016). Synthesis of contemporary SAE research 1994 – 2014.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 131–145.
Robinson, C. W., & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing minds : The effects of a one-year school
garden program on six constructs of life skills of elementary school children.
HortTechnology, 15(3), 453–457.
Satchell, I., Scott, A., & McClendon, B. (2011). Youth engagement and oppportunity. Michigan
Good Food Work Group Report Series. East Lansing, MI.
Shumacher, S. L., Fuhrman, N. E., & Duncan, D. W. (2012). The influence of school culture on
environmental education integration: A case study of an urban private school system.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 141–155. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04141
Smith-Hollins, C. M. (2009). Barriers to enrollment in colleges of agriculture: Perspectives of
currently enrolled students at 1862 land-grant institutions. The Pennsylvania State
University.
Snelling, A., Belson, S., & Young, J. (2012). School health reform: Investigating the role of
teachers. The Journal of Child Nutrition & Management, 36(1), 6.
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., & French, S. (2006). The role of schools in obesity prevention.
Future of Children, 16(1), 109–142. http://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2006.0007
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O’Brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008). Creating healthy food
and eating environments: Policy and environmental approaches. Annual Review of Public

70

Health, 29(1), 253–272. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090926
Strieter, L. A., & Hughes, L. J. (2009). The youth farmstand: A model program for workforce
preparedness, lifeskills education, and economic development. Journal of Extension, 47(4),
1–5.
Team Nutrition. (2016). Local School Wellness Policy. Retrieved November 8, 2016, from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/local-school-wellness-policy
The Farm to School Program. (2016). School gardens: Using gardens to grow healthy habits in
cafeterias, classrooms, and communities.
The University of Georgia Extension. (2013). School garden curriculum. Retrieved February 9,
2017, from http://extension.uga.edu/k12/school-gardens/curriculum/index.cfm
Thielen, S. L. (2012). Factors influencing urban students to major in agriculture. Kansas State
University.
Trexler, C. J., & Hikawa, H. (2001). Elementary and middle school agriculture curriculum
development: An account of teacher struggle at countryside charter school. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 42(3), 53–63. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.03053
Trexler, C. J., & Johnson, T. (2000). Elementary and middle school teacher ideas about the agrifood system and their evaluation of agri-system stakeholders’ suggestions for education.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(1), 30–38.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). The Farm to School Program 2012-2015: Four years in
review. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/f2s/Farm-to-School-at-USDA--4-Years-inReview.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Executive
summary. No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Nutrition and the health of young
people. Healthy Youth. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/nutrition/facts.htm
Wall, D. E., Least, C., Gromis, J., & Lohse, B. (2012). Nutrition education intervention improves
vegetable-related attitude, self-efficacy, preference, and knowledge of fourth-grade
students. Journal of School Health, 82(1), 37–43.
Watts, S. O., Piñero, D. J., Alter, M. M., & Lancaster, K. J. (2012). An assessment of nutrition
education in selected counties in New York state elementary schools (kindergarten through
fifth grade). Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44(6), 474–480.

71