Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 48, Number 1, pp. 42 – 51 DOI: 10.5032/jae.2007.01042 BIOTECHNOLOGY: AN ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
Diana L. Mowen, Graduate Assistant T. Grady Roberts, Assistant Professor Gary J. Wingenbach, Associate Professor Julie F. Harlin, Assistant Professor Texas A&M University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore agricultural science teachers’ knowledge levels and attitudes toward biotechnology topics. The average agricultural science teacher in this study was a 37-year-old male who had taught for 12 years. He had a bachelor’s degree and had lived or worked on a farm or ranch. He had not attended biotechnology-related workshops or classes since he graduated from college. Agricultural science teachers in the current study had some knowledge of biotechnology. However, great variation existed between specific topics. Teachers were most knowledgeable about animal reproduction and least knowledgeable about electrophoresis and bioremediation. Significant relationships were found between teachers’ self- perceived knowledge levels of specific biotechnology topics and the likelihood that the topic was taught in the classroom. Agricultural science teachers had favorable attitudes toward biotechnology. A low positive relationship existed between agricultural science teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward biotechnology. When comparing teachers based on experience (those with less than 15 years versus those with 15 or more years) results indicated no differences in knowledge and attitudes.
Introduction Agriculture and Education requested that the National Research Council establish a Effective agricultural science teachers Committee on Agricultural Education in are continuously looking for opportunities to Secondary Schools. The purpose of this continue their learning and improve the committee was to assess the contributions of offerings of their agriculture program instruction in agriculture to the maintenance (Roberts & Dyer, 2004). With the increasing and improvement of agricultural sophistication of science impacting productivity and economic competitiveness agriculture now and in the future, it was here and abroad. The committee was asked necessary for agriculture students to to generate recommendations including understand the risks and benefits associated goals for instruction in agriculture. The with those scientific advancements (Kirby, committee found that much of the focus and 2002). In order to induce more positive content of many agriculture programs attitudes toward science and improve related to production agriculture was student achievement, Roegge and Russell outdated. It was recommended that revisions (1990) recommended using an integrated be made including development of new approach to teaching. As stated by Lankard curriculum components addressing the (1992), the integration of academic and sciences basic to agriculture, food, and vocational education was articulated in the natural resources; agribusiness; marketing; 1990 Carl Perkins Amendments by policy management; international economics; makers. financial accounting; and tools to improve Prior to the 1990 Carl Perkins the efficiency of agricultural productivity Amendments, the U.S. Secretaries of (National Research Council, 1988). This
Journal of Agricultural Education 42 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
strategy for educational reform was soon students in an agricultural biotechnology supported by vocational educators and course. people in industry as the demand increased The principles of biotechnology serve as for youth to have experience with new excellent educational tools, but to determine technologies and higher-level skills to be how effectively biotechnology is being or employable. can be taught, we should learn what Integrating science and agriculture was agricultural science teachers know about shown to have several positive effects on biotechnology. What are their attitudes agriculture programs and participants. toward biotechnology? What biotechnology According to Dyer and Osborne (1999), topics are being taught in Texas agricultural more positive views toward agricultural science classes? education were held by faculty and staff working in a school with an agriculture Purpose and Objectives program that taught applied science concepts. Thompson and Balschweid (2000) The purpose of this study was to explore found that students were better prepared in agricultural science teachers’ knowledge science after completing a course in levels and attitudes toward biotechnology agricultural education that integrated topics. The objectives were to: science. The benefit is twofold as research shows that students learned more about 1. Describe agricultural science agriculture when science concepts are teachers’ knowledge and teaching of included in the instruction (Thompson & biotechnology topics. Balschweid). These findings were strongly 2. Describe agricultural science supported by the research of Chiasson and teachers’ attitudes toward specific Burnett (2001) who found that when taking biotechnology topics. the Graduate Exit Examination, agriscience 3. Determine if a relationship existed students scored significantly higher on the between agricultural science science portion than did non-agriscience teachers’ knowledge and attitudes of students. biotechnology. Strong evidence existed to encourage 4. Determine if differences existed in the integration of science in agricultural knowledge levels or attitudes toward education courses, but the level of biotechnology between agricultural integration was controlled by the instructor. science teachers based on years of Balschweid and Thompson (2002) teaching. discovered that agriculture teachers felt that lack of funding, lack of equipment, and Methods and Procedures increased planning time were barriers to integrating science into agriculture classes. Descriptive survey methods with a Other significant barriers were the lack of correlational design were used to examine science competence among agricultural agricultural science teachers’ knowledge of educators and the lack of in-service learning biotechnology topics and their attitudes opportunities for teachers (Balschweid & toward those topics. The descriptive Thompson). These findings concurred with methods approach was chosen because it the conclusions of Wilson and Flowers was best suited for the population of (2002), who found that agricultural interest: participating agricultural science educators who had a high self-perceived teachers who attended the final session of level of knowledge about biotechnology the 2004 Texas State Agricultural Science were more willing to teach curriculum Teachers Conference. This population was related to biotechnology. In contrast, chosen because the final session of the Wilson, Kirby, and Flowers (2002) reported Texas State Agricultural Science Teachers that nearly half of the agricultural science Conference was a general session with large teachers in their study were unable to pass attendance of agricultural science teachers, the knowledge test created for high school which created an opportunity to collect data
Journal of Agricultural Education 43 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . . from a large number of teachers who may 5, 2004, when 274 responses were collected. have had the knowledge desired for this A modified version of the instrument, study. Selecting this population allowed for Attitudes, Knowledge, and Implementation collection of data from agricultural science of Biotechnology (Boone, Gartin, Boone, & teachers interested in improving their Hughes, 2006; Hughes, 2001), was used to biotechnology knowledge and experience to create the research instrument; wording enhance their classroom teaching. Due to the changes, question sequencing, and layout nature of this population, caution is constituted the modifications. Content and warranted against generalizing the results face validity were established previously by beyond those studied herein. a panel of experts (teacher educators) at For the purpose of this study, West Virginia University. agricultural science teachers were divided The instrument, Agriculture Science into two groups based upon the number of Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of years teaching agricultural science. The Biotechnology, contained three sections: teacher groups consisted of teachers with 15 agriculture science teachers’ self-perceived or more years of teaching experience and knowledge levels (four levels, 18 topics), teachers with less than 15 years of teaching attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology experience. The rationale behind this topics (nine statements), and demographic decision stems from documented changes in information. the teaching of agricultural science in the Responses to the level of knowledge 1980’s. Documentation from the Texas scale (measuring agricultural science Education Agency confirms the teachers’ self-perceived knowledge levels of restructuring of agriculture courses from 18 agricultural biotechnology topics) were production agriculture I, II, III, and IV recorded using descriptors from research courses (Texas Education Agency, 1968) done by Hughes (2001), across four-levels, into a semester-course format with increased with a range of: (1) No knowledge; (2) emphasis on agribusiness and emerging Heard of it, but have very little knowledge; technologies (Texas Education Agency, (3) Read about it, possess some knowledge; 1987). It was anticipated that any teacher or, (4) Applied, and knowledgeable. with less than 15 years of teaching Reliability, as a measure of internal experience would have only taught consistency for the summed level of agricultural science classes using the current knowledge scale, revealed an alpha curriculum model. Teachers with 15 or more coefficient of .86, indicating the summed years of experience taught vocational scale was reliable. agriculture classes in the prior format of Ag Participants were asked to indicate if I, II, III, and IV as well as with the current they had or were teaching one or more of the curriculum model. If differences existed 18 agricultural biotechnology topics. The between teachers’ knowledge levels or topics corresponded to their self-reported attitudes toward teaching biotechnology in levels of knowledge about each respective the agricultural science classroom, it was item. The 18 topics were: (a) Animal expected those differences would occur Reproduction, (b) Bioremediation, (c) between these sub-groups, based on their Biotechnology Ethics, (d) Cloning, (e) preparation for teaching and initial Electrophoresis, (f) Environmental experiences upon entering the teaching Biotechnology, (g) Food Biotechnology, (h) profession. Gene Splicing, (i) Genetic Engineering, (j) Paper-based instruments were used to Genetically-Modified Food, (k) Growth collect the data after obtaining approval to Hormones (bST, pST), (l) Human conduct the study through the Texas A&M Genomics, (m) Hybridization, (n) Microbial University Institutional Review Board. Biotechnology, (o) Plant Tissue Culture, (p) Some descriptions of methods and resultant Recombinant DNA, (q) Resistant Plant demographics, while explained fully in this Species, and (r) Transgenic Species. study, are found in another paper (Mowen, Participants were asked to indicate their Roberts, Wingenbach, & Harlin, 2006). agreement to nine statements that measured All data collection occurred on August attitude toward agricultural biotechnology
Journal of Agricultural Education 44 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . . practices and issues on a four-point questionnaire. Most respondents were male (1 = Strongly Disagree; 4 = Strongly Agree) (78.1%); four respondents did not identify Likert-type scale. Sample statements their gender. Respondents’ ages ranged from included (a) Biotechnology should be a topic 21 to 64 and averaged 37.4 years (SD = in an agriculture science class, (b) I believe 11.04). Teaching experience ranged from that local, state, and federal money should zero to 38 with an average of 12.3 years (SD be spent on teaching biotechnology, and (c) = 10.08) in teaching agricultural science I support using biotechnology for classes. When participants were asked if environmental purposes. Cronbach’s alpha they had lived or worked on a farm or ranch, coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) for the 91% indicated an affirmative response. summed attitude scale revealed an alpha One hundred seventy-nine respondents coefficient of .77. indicated they had Bachelor degrees The demographic section contained (66.8%), while 88 (32.8%) had a Masters seven questions pertaining to education degree and one person indicated that he/she level, age, years of agriculture science had a Doctorate (.4%) at the time of this teaching experience, gender, agricultural study. Thirty percent of respondents background (have you ever lived/worked on indicated that they had attended a a farm/ranch), and attendance in biotechnology class or workshop since biotechnology classes/workshops since graduating from college. When examining college graduation. In addition, respondents teachers based on experience, 26.5% of the were asked to rate (low, medium, or high) younger teachers (< 15 years teaching their level of scientific knowledge. experience) had attended a biotechnology Demographic data were analyzed using workshop, while 36.7% of their more descriptive statistics. Analysis of variance experienced (15+ years teaching) colleagues was used to determine significant had attended a similar workshop. differences between knowledge levels, attitude and teacher experience. Pearson- Objective One product moment correlation was used to Teachers provided a self-assessment of determine relationships between knowledge their knowledge levels related to 18 specific levels and attitude toward biotechnology biotechnology topics using a four-point topics (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). A Likert-type scale (1 = no knowledge; 2 = significance level of .05 was established a heard of it, but have very little knowledge; priori. 3 = read about, possess some knowledge; or Results 4 = applied, and knowledgeable). Additionally, teachers indicated if they Two hundred seventy-four agriculture taught those same topics. A summary of the science teachers completed the findings can be seen in Table 1.
Journal of Agricultural Education 45 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
Table 1 Agricultural Science Teachers’ Knowledge and Teaching of Biotechnology Topics (N = 274) Knowledge Level Taught in Class Correlation Biotechnology Topics M SD % r Animal Reproduction 3.71 .58 85 -.05
Cloning 2.95 .68 54 .48*
Growth Hormones (bST, pST) 2.94 .81 54 .53*
Hybridization 2.93 .87 56 .55*
Genetically Modified Food 2.83 .77 50 .52*
Food Biotechnology 2.82 .79 48 .56*
Resistant Plant Species 2.80 .83 42 .51*
Genetic Engineering 2.66 .75 37 .49*
Biotechnology Ethics 2.62 .86 40 .46*
Plant Tissue Culture 2.59 .89 32 .54*
Environmental Biotechnology 2.49 .89 32 .57*
Gene Splicing 2.49 .79 24 .44*
Recombinant DNA 2.29 .89 17 .55*
Microbial Biotechnology 2.28 .89 12 .14
Transgenic Species 2.13 .92 16 .65*
Human Genomics 2.12 .84 12 .24*
Electrophoresis 1.71 .89 6 .51*
Bioremediation 1.64 .77 5 .52*
Summed Scale Mean 2.62 .61
Note. Scale: 1 = no knowledge, 2 = heard of it, but have very little knowledge, 3 = read about, possess some knowledge, 4 = applied, and knowledgeable. * p < .05.
Journal of Agricultural Education 46 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
Agricultural science teachers were most between the percentage of teachers who knowledgeable about animal reproduction taught each topic and teacher knowledge (M = 3.71, SD = .58). Not surprisingly, 85% levels for all but two topics, animal of the teachers indicated they taught animal reproduction (r = -.05) and microbial reproduction. This group of respondents biotechnology (r = .14). reported having little knowledgeable about two topics, electrophoresis and Objective Two bioremediation (M = 1.71, SD = .89 and M = Teachers indicated their level of 1.64, SD = .77, respectively). These two agreement on nine biotechnology statements topics were least taught (6% and 5%, using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly respectively). Teachers’ knowledge levels disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = varied from very little to some knowledge strongly agree). Mean agreement levels for for the remaining 15 topics. The summed each of the statements are reported in Table scale mean for all biotechnology topics was 2. Teachers were generally in agreement 2.62 (SD = .61) indicating some level of with all the statements (M = 2.91 to M = knowledge. As would be expected, there 3.52). The summed scale mean for attitude were positive correlations (r = .24 to .65) toward biotechnology was 3.11 (SD = .39).
Table 2 Agricultural Science Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Biotechnology (N = 274) Statements M SD Cross breeding to produce hybrids is morally wrong.a 3.52 .61
Biotechnology should be a topic taught in agriculture science class. 3.17 .55
I support the genetic engineering of feed crops. 3.15 .51
I support using biotechnology for human medicine. 3.13 .58
I support the genetic engineering of food crops. 3.11 .53
I support biotechnology for environmental purposes. 3.11 .51
Biotechnology should be a class taught by agriculture science teachers. 2.97 .65
I believe that local, state, and federal money should be spent on teaching 2.94 .66 biotechnology.
I support the genetic engineering of animals. 2.91 .65
Summed Scale Mean 3.11 .39
Note. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. aStatement was worded positively on questionnaire and reverse-coded for data analysis.
Journal of Agricultural Education 47 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
Objective Three Table 3 shows agricultural science To determine if a relationship existed teachers with less than 15 years of teaching between agricultural science teachers’ experience had some knowledge of knowledge about biotechnology and biotechnology (M = 2.56, SD = .63). attitudes toward biotechnology, correlation Teachers with 15 or more years of analysis was performed on the summed experience were slightly more scale means for knowledge and attitudes. A knowledgeable (M = 2.70, SD = .56). low, positive correlation (r = .27, p < .01) However, ANOVA results revealed no was found between the two means (Davis, significant difference between the groups 1971). (F(1,259) = 3.30, p = .07). Also depicted in Table 3, agricultural Objective Four science teachers with less than 15 Agricultural science teachers were years of experience had favorable divided into groups, based on years of attitudes toward biotechnology (M = 2.88, teaching (those with less than 15 years, and SD = .33), while their more experienced those with 15 or more years). Based on this colleagues had slightly less favorable division, 171 teachers (62.4%) had taught attitudes (M = 2.84, SD = .42). As with less than 15 years while 98 teachers (36.4%) knowledge levels, there was no significant had 15 years or more years of teaching difference between the groups (F(1,267) = .65, experience. p = .42).
Table 3 Differences in Knowledge Levels or Attitudes Toward Biotechnology Between Agricultural Science Teachers Based on Years of Teaching Experience (N = 274) < 15 Years 15+ Years Experience Experience (N = 171) (N = 98) M SD M SD F p Biotechnology Knowledgea 2.56 .63 2.70 .56 3.30 .07
Attitudes toward Biotechnologyb 2.88 .33 2.84 .42 .65 .42
aScale: 1 = no knowledge, 2 = heard of it, but have very little knowledge, 3 = read about, possess some knowledge, 4 = applied, and knowledgeable. bScale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree.
Conclusions and Recommendations inconsistency between the two samples was the percentage who had attended a The average agricultural science teacher biotechnology workshop (30% in the current in this study was a 37-year-old male who study versus 67% in the Wilson et al. study). had taught for 12 years. He had a bachelor’s The first objective of this study was to degree and had lived or worked on a farm or describe agricultural science teachers’ ranch. He had not attended any knowledge levels of specific biotechnology biotechnology related workshops or classes topics. Agricultural science teachers in the since he graduated from college. The current study had some knowledge of teachers in the current study are similar to biotechnology. However, great variation those examined by Wilson et al. (2002), who existed between specific topics. Teachers were male, 39 years old, and had just over were most knowledgeable about animal 13 years of teaching experience. One reproduction and least knowledgeable about
Journal of Agricultural Education 48 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
electrophoresis and bioremediation. Only variation to explore fully this relationship. It five topics were taught by at least one-half is recommended that this study be replicated of the teachers: animal reproduction, with a true random sample at the state, cloning, growth hormones (bST, pST), regional, and national level to gain insights hybridization, and genetically modified into the relationship between agricultural food. Interestingly, despite a smaller science teachers’ knowledge levels and percentage of teachers who had attended attitudes toward biotechnology. biotechnology workshops, the teachers in Objective four was to determine if the current study had greater self-reported differences existed between teachers’ knowledge levels than did the teachers in the knowledge levels or attitudes toward Wilson et al. (2002) study. This discrepancy teaching biotechnology in the agriculture warrants further investigation. science classroom, based on their teaching Significant relationships were found experience. Results indicated no differences between self-perceived knowledge levels of in knowledge or attitudes, implying that teachers in specific biotechnology topics and respondents who had 15 or more years of the likelihood that said topic was taught in teaching experience (and were prepared in the classroom. Such relationships supported their pre-service programs to teach the idea that teachers were more likely to traditional Ag I, II, III, and IV courses) had teach biotechnology topics if they had more developed and maintained knowledge of personal knowledge of biotechnology emerging technologies, such as principles or that teachers were more likely biotechnology, relating to agriculture. to have greater knowledge if they taught the Accordingly, when it came to these topic. It is recommended that for this group agricultural science teachers, you could of teachers, training be offered in areas that “teach old dogs new tricks.” teachers were least knowledgeable. Such However, only 36% of the more training may offer these teachers an experienced teachers in this group had opportunity to increase their knowledge and attended a workshop on biotechnology. The the likelihood of teaching more discrepancy between knowledge level and biotechnology topics in the classroom. workshop attendance raises the question, if Objective two was to describe teachers’ teachers are not getting new knowledge attitudes toward biotechnology. Based on from workshops, where and how are they the findings of the current study, this group getting it? This important question warrants of respondents exhibited favorable attitudes further investigation. It has implications to toward biotechnology. Given the prevalence countless agricultural education university of biotechnology present in the multi- faculty members who routinely develop and faceted life sciences that agriculture deliver inservice workshops for agricultural encompasses, it is not surprising that these science teachers in their respective states. teachers had favorable attitudes. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of References Wilson et al. (2002) who found that North Carolina agricultural science teachers Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. responded favorably about the importance of (2002). Integrating science in agricultural teaching biotechnology. education: attitudes of Indiana agricultural Objective three was to determine if science and business teachers. Journal of relationships existed between agriculture Agricultural Education, 43(2), 1-10. science teachers’ knowledge levels and attitudes toward biotechnology topics. It was Boone, H. N. Jr., Gartin, St. A., Boone, concluded that a weak relationship existed D. A., & Hughes, J. E. (2006) Modernizing between the knowledge of this group of the agricultural education curriculum: An respondents and their attitudes toward analysis of agricultural education teachers’ biotechnology. However, given that these attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of agricultural science teachers had generally biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural favorable attitudes toward biotechnology, Education, 47(1), 78-89. the data may not have provided sufficient
Journal of Agricultural Education 49 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007 Mowen, Roberts, Wingenbach & Harlin Biotechnology: An Assessment. . .
Chiasson, T. C., & Burnett, M. F. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual National (2001). The influence of enrollment in Agricultural Education Research agriscience courses on the science Conference, Charlotte, NC. achievement of high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), National Research Council. (1988). 61-71. Understanding agriculture: New directions for Education. Washington, DC: National Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha Academy Press. and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Characteristics of effective agriculture Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. 45(4), 82-95.
Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1999). Roegge, C. A., & Russell, E. B. (1990). The influence of science applications in Teaching applied biology in secondary agriculture courses on attitudes of Illinois agriculture: Effects on student achievement guidance counselors at model student and attitudes. Journal of Agricultural teaching centers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31(1), 27-31. Education, 40(4), 57-66. Texas Education Agency. (1968). Basic Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. curriculum for vocational agriculture in (2003). Educational research: An Texas production agriculture. Austin, introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Texas: Author. Bacon. Texas Education Agency. (1987). Basic Hughes, J. E. (2001). Attitudes, curriculums for new semester courses in knowledge, and implementation of agricultural science & technology. Austin, biotechnology and agriscience by West Texas: Author. Virginia agricultural education teachers. Master’s Abstracts International, 40(1), 16. Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. (UMI No.1404634). A. (2000). Integrating science into agriculture programs: Implications for Kirby, B. M. (2002). Science in the addressing state standards and teacher agriculture education curriculum. The preparation programs. Journal of Agricultural Education Magazine, 74(5), 4. Agricultural Education, 41(2), 73-80.
Lankard, B. A. (1992). Integrating Wilson, E., & Flowers, J. (2002). academic and vocational education: Secondary educators’ confidence in Strategies for Implementation (ERIC Digest teaching agricultural biotechnology No. 120). Columbus, OH: ERIC after training. Journal of Natural Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Resources and Life Sciences Education, 31, Vocational Education. (ERIC Document 131-135. Reproduction Service No. ED346317). Wilson, E., Kirby. B., & Flowers, J. Mowen, D. L., Roberts, T. G., (2002). Factors influencing the intent of Wingenbach, G. J., & Harlin, J. F. (2006). North Carolina agricultural educators to Barriers, roles, and information source adopt agricultural biotechnology curriculum. preferences of agricultural science teachers’ Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(1), for teaching biotechnology: A case study. 69-81.
Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007
DIANA L. MOWEN is a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at Texas A&M University, MS 2116, 104A Scoates Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2116. E-mail: [email protected].
T. GRADY ROBERTS is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at Texas A&M University, MS 2116, 104A Scoates Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2116. E-mail: [email protected].
GARY J. WINGENBACH is an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at Texas A&M University, MS 2116, 104A Scoates Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2116. E-mail: [email protected].
JULIE F. HARLIN is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at Texas A&M University, MS 2116, 104A Scoates Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2116. E-mail: [email protected].
Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 48, Number 1, 2007