AGRICULTURAL : CLARIFYING A VISION FOR PRACTICAL APPLICATION

David Powell, Doctoral Research Assistant David Agnew, Associate Professor Arkansas State University Cary Trexler, Assistant Professor University of California – Davis

Abstract

“Agricultural literacy” is a working concept with considerable range in meaning and impact. An overview of agricultural literacy curricula shows complementary deductive and inductive approaches to the systematic incorporation of agricultural education in K-12 classrooms. Based on positions discussed at the 2005 Agricultural Literacy Special Interest Group meeting of the American Association for Agricultural Education, the authors identified three curricular approaches to promote agricultural literacy: (1) a deductive approach based on programmed frameworks, (2) an inductive approach based on the application of knowledge and process skills, and (3) a utilitarian, values-based approach promoting evaluation of agri-food system issues. The authors provide an original conceptual model underscoring points of possible synergy between these approaches. The model points out interactions imposed on the system by cognitive-constructivist expectations for learning, which conflict with political and social pressures for a “traditional” curriculum assessed through “high-stakes” tests. The authors suggest capitalizing on the strengths of each approach to lever change within the current public education environment. The authors offer a systematic plan that may resolve the external conflict between the expectations of agricultural educators and political/social advocates of standardized curricula and high stakes testing, turning these pressures into forces to promote agricultural literacy.

Introduction such as Fast Food Nation (Schlosser, 2002) and The Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan, Issues related to agricultural literacy 2006), calling attention to the lack of public have become more compelling in recent understanding of “the moral and ecological years, for both the general public and the repercussions” (Kuh, 2006, para. 3) of the agricultural education profession. The decisions we make when producing food. historical focus among agricultural Project 2061 of the American Association professionals has emphasized the for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) development of a consensus definition of also has raised many long-term agricultural agricultural literacy. However, as literacy issues related to management of and agricultural literacy efforts have shifted policies in food production, resource use, toward integration into academic curricular and sustainability (AAAS, 2006). content in the current climate of public Since agricultural literacy first became a education policy, perceived differences in concern, the agricultural education philosophical approaches have resulted in profession has responded by defining what new points of perceived conflict or is meant by agricultural literacy, identifying opportunity. modes of delivery, and developing a During the past few years, the agri-food knowledge base linked to standards with a system has come under strong criticism. As valid, reliable means of assessment. Within a result, perceptions of the general public the agricultural education profession, Frick, have been challenged dramatically by books, Kahler, and Miller (1991) outlined the

Journal of Agricultural Education 85 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying… widely accepted definition of agricultural Premise: Agricultural literacy revolves literacy. Efforts to fully articulate this around the ability to think critically and definition and to assess the outcomes of make value judgments about the impact of agricultural literacy efforts, however, have agriculture as an economic and produced much discussion with very limited environmental activity and the concurrent consensus due to perceived philosophical, societal and political pressures that result political, and epistemological differences. from those judgments. An agriculturally In May 2005, and again in 2006, discussions literate person should be able to analyze and of the Agricultural Literacy Special Interest evaluate “trade-offs” to individuals and to Group meeting of the American Association society resulting from agricultural for Agricultural Education focused on three enterprises. The nature of the decisions and distinct approaches based on the value judgments drive the agricultural philosophical and epistemological positions content. Understanding of agriculture is of the participants. demonstrated by the ability to enter into discourse about and make decisions in Approach # 1: Programmed Agricultural response to choices facing society. Literacy (Deductive Model) Premise: Agricultural literacy should be Purpose Statement viewed as a driving force in the K-12 curriculum, monitored and fostered through The purpose of this paper is to foster a a formal agricultural literacy framework dialogue to promote a common vision for with its own multi-disciplinary curriculum, literacy by identifying and defining values, and agenda. The primary goal of approaches to agricultural literacy this approach is to meet the standards of an curriculum development, implementation, agricultural literacy framework through and assessment. The authors offer a infusion with academic content, thematically dynamic graphical model that underscores weaving agricultural materials through the interconnections between these academic courses, to establish agricultural approaches and points to areas of synergy. literacy as a content area within the The authors then use this model to identify curriculum without a designated leverage points for change and articulate “agriculture” class. steps to further promote a shared vision to achieve agricultural literacy. Approach #2: Emergent Agricultural Literacy (Inductive Model) Definition of terms Premise: Agricultural literacy results A definition of terms facilitates from integrating interdisciplinary academic understanding of the model presented in this and process skills in context while focusing paper and clarifies the contrasting on an agricultural issue. Emergent implications for promoting change that can agricultural literacy is an outgrowth of the be attributed to philosophical and simultaneous development of generalized epistemological differences between academic skills and the specific contextual “cognitive constructivist” and “traditional” learning inherent in the agricultural problem perspectives. Posner (1995) defined these to be solved. The integration of academic positions relative to schools: skills and their application to an agricultural problem relies in actual practice on the Cognitive constructivist – Schools ability to “justify” curriculum decisions in emphasize rote learning too much and do lesson plans through correlation to academic not put enough emphasis on real frameworks. Agricultural contexts serve as understanding and thinking. Curricula vehicles to promote academic performance need to allow students to construct their and agricultural literacy “emerges” as an own knowledge based on what they end-product. already know and to use that knowledge in purposeful activities requiring Approach #3: Agriculturally Literate Value decision making, problem solving, and Judgments (Evaluative Model) judgments.

Journal of Agricultural Education 86 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

Traditional – Schools need to return to difference in conditions defining the the basics, that is, to a mastery of basic discontent, and voluntarily associating to literacy and computational skills, to a advance the ideals of the group in opposition knowledge of basic facts and to the identified discontent. A growing terminology that all educated people perception of agricultural illiteracy led to the should know… (p. 65). identification of a common discontent that generated pressure to combat this illiteracy A Shared Vision for Change in various segments of society such as the agricultural industry, portions of the In the past, a close identification with a education establishment (e.g., agriculture, common agrarian culture and heritage science, nutrition), environmental and resulted in a shared sense of agricultural sustainability activist groups, and literacy, arising from intimate familiarity government agencies with an agricultural with the production, distribution, and use of focus. Such pressure, however, often has agricultural products. As the United States been disconnected and largely unheeded. has become more urbanized, this connection The push for agricultural literacy also has become more tenuous. Lack of has suffered somewhat from a perceived knowledge about agricultural issues could lack of utility outside of the agriculture field, be misperceived as apathy, attenuating the which makes problematic the identification perception of need for agricultural literacy. of a common sense of discontent. In As a 2000 report by Roper Starch World contrast, and mathematics literacy Wide (as cited by Arkansas Foundation for have been considered essential to almost any Agriculture, 2006, para. 2) stated, job, as well as for basic functioning in “Agriculture must do a better job of taking society (Lowell, n.d.). Many functions in its message to American consumers… [who] daily society, however, seem to have little haven’t heard, or don’t know about many direct dependency on a generalized farm technologies [and] …would actually agricultural literacy. Businesses have not welcome agriculture’s side of the story.” depended on agricultural literacy to make The diffusion of interests and agendas sales and few if any jobs outside of the under the broad umbrella of agriculture agricultural sector have depended on a compounds the challenge posed by lack of generalized application of agricultural awareness, making it difficult to gain knowledge. There appears to be, however, support for a common vision of agricultural growing concern from consumer and literacy. Yet, a common vision is necessary environmental groups not commonly for systematic change. Communicating a associated with agricultural interests for a shared vision creates a “field of shared functional level of agricultural literacy to meaning” and mutual understanding that is understand food safety concerns and “profoundly different from [merely] environmental trade-offs associated with the a vision statement” (O’Neil, 1995, p. 22). structure of the agri-food system. Without shared vision, progress is severely Timing and opportunity also have impeded. A firm theoretical framework is become important issues in promoting fundamental to establishing systematic agricultural literacy. In most states, public working goals to implement a vision, school agricultural content at the lower provides a roadmap to chart progress and grades has been largely non-existent, except evaluate outcomes, and is essential to as infused into core subjects at the discretion prevent duplication of efforts. of the individual teacher. At the secondary and post-secondary level, agricultural Barriers to the Development of a Shared content is often focused on technical Vision for Agricultural Literacy knowledge and skills in a career-oriented According to Morrison (as cited in context. Agricultural knowledge acquired Lauer, 1976), social movements—such as by the vast majority of public school the agricultural literacy movement—depend students not enrolled in an agriculture on a large number of people experiencing an course, is somewhat limited (Bowers & identified discontent, communicating a clear Kohl, 1986; Horn & Vining, 1986; Williams

Journal of Agricultural Education 87 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

& White, 1991). The low agricultural The National Research Council (NRC, knowledge scores of students not enrolled in 1988) devoted considerable attention to agriculture courses leads one to suspect that identifying and describing the essential what agricultural knowledge they do have elements and ideals of “agricultural has not been integrated into a larger literacy.” The initial definition linked perspective that could be termed “literacy.” agricultural literacy to the historical, Ironically, the key to integrating this body of economic, social, and environmental disparate facts may well be in place already, significance of the food and fiber system, in the form of the current “high stakes encompassing “practical knowledge needed testing” environment driving school to care for…outdoor environments,” curriculum decisions toward a traditional complementing instruction in academic curriculum focused on basic skills. To subjects with “enough knowledge of provide a clearer focus on basic skills, “high nutrition to make informed personal choices stakes testing” may unwittingly encourage about diet and health” (p. 9). After the NRC teaching academic concepts in report, academics in agricultural education specifically agricultural and environmental began to more clearly define agricultural context. literacy. The consensus definition for Within education, there has sometimes agricultural literacy established by Frick et been a dichotomy of purpose regarding al. (1991) added the ability to “synthesize, agricultural literacy. Some academic core analyze, and communicate basic information content teachers have been willing to teach a about agriculture.” (p. 52) They described curriculum that promotes agricultural as “basic agricultural information” such literacy if correlated with state standards concepts as the economic impact and (Blackburn, 1999). In contrast, agriculture societal significance of agriculture, its teachers have been more likely to view relationship with natural resources and the agricultural literacy as an outgrowth of environment, public policies, the global career-centered context goals (Agnew & significance of agriculture, and the McJunkin, 2005). Academic teachers have distribution of agricultural products. not always treated agricultural literacy with In more recent times, the National the same degree of depth or quality as Council on Agricultural Education included agriculture teachers. The long-term conversational literacy in agriculture, food, consequences of this disparity in vision may fiber, and natural resource systems as a goal have tended to increase the perception of in Reinventing Agricultural Education for agricultural literacy as a specialized the Year 2020 (Team Ag Ed, 2000). To interest and ultimately increase the meet this goal, action items included the lack of awareness within the general development of an education network and population. age-appropriate competencies reflecting conversational literacy in agriculture, food Historical Perspectives on and fiber systems, and natural resource Agricultural Literacy systems along with the development of an “appropriate agricultural literacy course and According to Kruger and Mundt (1991) materials” with “strategies to ensure the agricultural education must continue to successful completion of the course” (p. 8). evolve to meet the needs of students in the To clarify further what conversational 21st century. Throughout the past twenty literacy would entail, Trexler (2000) traced years, efforts to define agricultural literacy how the definition of literacy has changed have moved from the mostly technical over time in the American lexicon. He aspects of production and distribution of argued “if the agricultural education agricultural goods to include a sense of profession and its stakeholders are to foster broader environmental and global social agricultural literacy, then we must look to significance. More recently, there have been the policies and values we hold as we define efforts to define agricultural literacy in terms the depth and breath of conversational of conversational knowledge, ” (p. 5). In an empirical study analysis, and value-based judgment. published in 2003, Meischen and Trexler

Journal of Agricultural Education 88 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying… articulated a linguistic development of agricultural education into existing literacy built around “culturally based classroom settings. beliefs, values and attitudes” leading to “the In 1981, the United States Department of ability to make judgments based on Agriculture sponsored Agriculture in the culturally based norms” and asserted that Classroom (AITC), a “grass-roots” effort “[a]griculture is a culture unto itself” (p. 43). initiated by coalitions of state departments Synthesizing this linguistic definition of of agriculture and education, individual literacy with the previously described colleges of agriculture, local cooperative threads of scientific, agricultural, and extension services, and farm organizations environmental knowledge-based literacy, such as the Farm Bureau (B. Wolanyk, Meischen and Trexler proposed an personal communication, July 27, 2004; “updated” definition of agricultural literacy. Leising, Pense, & Portillo, 2003). Their definition entailed “knowledge and Throughout the 1980s, AITC gradually understanding of agriculturally-related consolidated in many states under the scientific and technologically-based administration of the Farm Bureau (Agnew concepts and processes required for personal & McJunkin, 2005). Some states have little decision-making, participation in civic and more than teacher training in a menu of cultural affairs, and economic productivity” activities embedding agricultural content (p. 44). into elementary school courses. Other states According to Meischen and Trexler have fully developed curricula, (2003), agricultural literacy would go systematically infusing agriculture into beyond familiarity with generalized academic subject areas complete with concepts and processes and even beyond teacher in-service training. conversational literacy with agricultural In 1988, Project Food, Land and People facts and issues. They stressed the ability to (FLP) began the development of a make judgments and apply them to personal curriculum applying academic subject area and public decision-making, which would knowledge and process skills in agricultural focus the discussion of agricultural literacy and environmental contexts. More than onto an entirely different plane of deliberate 1,600 professionals in science, social values education. This education for values studies, math, agriculture, and the would become uniquely agricultural through environment worked together for 10 years to the recognition and cultivation of a culture develop and pilot-test lessons for an with a system of beliefs and values inherent integrated curriculum (Project Food, Land, to agriculture. A shift to values-based and People, 2003). Although the 55 FLP education for literacy would suggest the lesson units systematically integrate need for a move away from the traditional academic core subjects, fine arts, physical essentialist view of curriculum to one education, and health in a thematic study of based more on a cognitive constructivist agriculture, these lessons can also be approach. implemented selectively to fit the scope and sequence of individual classroom Overview of Three Agriculture Literacy curriculum. Initiatives Relevant to the In 1998, Leising, Igo, Heald, Hubert, Conceptual Model and Yamamoto (1998) developed a systematic Food and Fiber Systems Literacy While the agricultural education (FFSL) curriculum framework identifying establishment has been grappling with the five thematic areas of agricultural literacy. task of defining agricultural literacy and Each theme was further subdivided into attempting to build a consensus of need, standards and benchmarks by grade-level several groups have forged ahead with groupings. This systematic curriculum programs to bring agricultural education into framework included a companion series of the classroom, especially at the primary sample lesson units and a pilot-tested Food grade levels where the need is great. and Fiber Systems for Three notable efforts stand out as assessing levels of agricultural knowledge exemplary systematic efforts to incorporate against the benchmarks.

Journal of Agricultural Education 89 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

These three curricula represent What are the conceptual relationships complementary, rather than competitive, between knowledge and process skills, approaches to the common problem of values structures, and frameworks foci systematically incorporating agricultural within the evolving agricultural literacy literacy in existing non-agricultural classes. movement? If the end goal is to produce a AITC and FLP both attempt to reinforce an critical and analytical thinker capable of emergent body of agricultural literacy discourse about, evaluation of, and decision- through the application of academic skills in making in uniquely agricultural issues, does an agricultural context. The agricultural that, therefore, imply a linear or hierarchical knowledge and skills become real-life model? In such a scheme, agricultural vehicles for academic learning. The FFSL literacy resulting from a programmed curriculum framework takes the opposite infusion of agricultural knowledge into tack of systematically infusing agricultural academic classes would appear to be of a knowledge to build a programmed body of lesser order of complexity and even agricultural literacy. In this approach, the desirability (Figure 1), while literacy academic classes become the vehicles for “emerging” from application, analysis, and agricultural learning. synthesis of academic skills in thematic units would appear to be of a “higher order;” Modeling the Interaction of the Elements: and agriculturally literate value judgments Building a Vision would appear to be of the highest order.

Approach 3: Ag Literate Value Judgments

Approach 2: Evaluation Emergent Ag Literacy Synthesis

Approach 1: Analysis Programmed Ag Literacy Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Figure 1. Linear/hierarchical model of agricultural literacy (modeled after Bloom, 1965).

Journal of Agricultural Education 90 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

The development of agriculturally used to “build” emergent agricultural literate value judgments, however, literacy provide the foundation for represents both an end goal and the means agriculturally literate value judgments that toward a goal in the epistemological in turn influence the selection of knowledge process. Despite the taxonomic convenience and process skills. Value judgments are of labeling sequential “levels” of cognitive used to develop agricultural literacy skills, the actual cognitive process is neither frameworks that define programmed linear nor hierarchical. It is more useful to literacy, which in turn are used to consider these three elements as mutually assess and prioritize value judgments, interactive and synergistic rather than placing them in a larger context. Similarly, sequential. This interactive relationship frameworks unify and give perspective to would be more accurately portrayed as in knowledge and skills that build Figure 2. Knowledge and process skills competencies.

Ag Literate Value Judgments

are used influence to teaching choices provide the prioritize foundation

build competencies measured by Ag Literacy Knowledge & Frameworks Process Skills unify and give perspective to Programmed Ag Literacy Emergent Ag Literacy

Figure 2. Interactive relationship between agricultural literacy values, knowledge, and frameworks.

Deductive and Inductive Curricular arising from the needs of students and Approaches to Agricultural Literacy society for knowledge related to agriculture, Both the use of agricultural literacy objectives are filtered through the frameworks (“programmed literacy”) and educational and social philosophy of the the application of knowledge and process school and pedagogical methods. Using skills (“emergent literacy”) can build pre-designed agricultural literacy agricultural literacy. The mechanism of each frameworks incorporates part of the general approach, however, works in an opposite academic core program and part of the direction. Programmed agricultural literacy career-technical program—including the built from a unified framework through overlapping portion where academic skills standards and individual benchmarks, are applied to specifically agricultural follows a deductive model (Tyler, 1949). topics—into a comprehensive programmed After identifying the general objectives agricultural literacy curriculum (Figure 3a).

Journal of Agricultural Education 91 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

Ag Literacy Knowledge & Frameworks Process Skills

include include

Programmed Voca- Ag Emergent Core Applied Core tional Topics Ag Literacy Content Program Academics Program

Ag Literacy

Figure 3a. Deductive model of developing Figure 3b. Inductive model of emergent agricultural literacy through frameworks. agricultural literacy.

Figure 3. Models for agricultural literacy.

Alternatively, an emergent agricultural associated with agriculture. Either approach literacy arises inductively through the may or may not include behavioral application of knowledge and process skills objectives on the “synthesis” or “evaluation” from the core content into agricultural topics level (Bloom, 1965), but the primary focus in contextual learning (Brown, 1998) is to build a foundation of agricultural (Figure 3b). This “grass-roots” curriculum content. development model, described by Taba Deliberate education for agricultural (1962), follows an entirely different process, values integrates the agricultural content beginning with the production of pilot units foundation into a deep understanding that tested to establish their validity and “transforms factual information into usable practicality before being revised and knowledge” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, consolidated into blocks of units. Only 2000, p. 16). Deep learning “always then is a framework developed to involves moving back and forth between a provide the rationale for scope and domain of thinking and a domain of action” sequence before installing and disseminating (O’Neil, 1995, p. 20) Evaluative new units. Both AITC and FLP agricultural literacy arises by cultivating a show the characteristics of this kind of system of beliefs and values (Meischen & evolution. Trexler, 2003) in which to “conditionalize” otherwise inert knowledge by the Evaluative Agricultural Literacy: A Process “specification of contexts in which it is of Integration useful” (Bransford et al., p. 43). However, a Agricultural literacy arises both critical, analytical value system that is inductively and deductively. Inductively, uniquely agricultural is interactive and agricultural literacy emerges from the synergistic, constructed through the application of knowledge and process skills application of knowledge and process skills to agricultural topics. Deductively, a unified and given perspective through the programmed literacy framework emphasizes scaffolding of an agricultural literacy the infusion of agricultural topics throughout framework. the academic subject areas. Both approaches are simply process models for External Pressures: The Politics of the identification, organization, and Agricultural Literacy application of facts and issues Regardless of the process used for

Journal of Agricultural Education 92 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying… curriculum development, the promotion of perspectives and resulting epistemological agricultural literacy does not occur in a approaches act on this system from vacuum. Two conflicting philosophical the outside (Figure 4).

Cognitive - Academic Content Constructivist conflicts with & “High Stakes” Expectations TestingFocus

may amplify may diminish inhibited by the impact of the impact of perceived builds demands of concepts Ag Literate using Value Judgments forms a justifies theoretical isolated basis for teaching of

Ag Literacy Knowledge & Frameworks Process Skills

Figure 4. External pressures affecting the development of agricultural literacy.

According to King (2007, p. 44), “the development of agriculturally literate value single greatest impact [of No Child Left systems by inhibiting a perceived need for Behind] … is mandatory testing for the programmed frameworks to help provide academic proficiency in key subject areas a conceptual scaffold of an agriculturally [of reading and mathematics].” As King literate perspective. stated, the power this policy gives “to In contrast, cognitive-constructivist punish, reorganize or close schools whose theory has attempted to set up an test scores do not meet the standard of expectation for interdisciplinary instruction ‘adequate yearly progress,’ test preparation to build concepts using knowledge and trumps all other aspects of classroom process skills in context. This cognitive- activity” (p. 44). The current emphasis on constructivist ideal is especially conducive “traditional curriculum” with its attendant to building agriculturally literate values high stakes testing has been used to justify systems, but it is constantly undermined by the short-term academic subject focus on the necessity to meet mandated criterion- core content knowledge and process skills. referenced testing goals in basic skills, This external pressure arises from the resulting in a continuing conflict of interests public’s desire to see immediate, measurable between the agricultural literacy movement “progress,” thereby devaluing non-core and the politically motivated requirements subject areas and topics that promote of public education. agricultural literacy. Because instructional time is already filled, this traditional Leverage Points for Change essentialist focus may prevent the Although emphases in practice may

Journal of Agricultural Education 93 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying… differ, any of the three approaches— the synergy of the common vision and the programmed, emergent, or evaluative— resultant effectiveness of its impact on would be capable of promoting increases in agricultural literacy. agricultural literacy levels. Figure 5 shows two key leverage points, Combining all three approaches could A and A', where the broader system’s build a literacy base that is more internal and external influences on comprehensive and more completely agricultural literacy appear to be integrated into the larger body of most susceptible to change. Both points understanding acquired in a student’s involve strengthening cognitive- scholastic career. This is not a closed constructivist theory and practice in the core system, however. The disparate content area classroom As with the philosophical assumptions behind the public previous discussion of emergent and demand for traditional essentialist basic programmed agricultural literacy, these two skills and the cognitive-constructivist leverage points represent deductive expectation of “best practices” give rise to and inductive approaches to curricular conflicting external pressures that disrupt change.

Cognitive - A Academic Content & Constructivist “High Stakes” conflicts with Expectations E Testing Focus D may amplify may diminish inhibited by the impact of the impact of build perceived Ag Literate B concepts demands of Value using Judgments C forms a justifies A' theoretical isolated basis for teaching are used to influence of develop Ag teaching choices assess Literacy provide the Vision foundation for

build competencies measured by Ag Literacy Knowledge & Frameworks Process Skills unify and give perspective to

include include

Programmed

Voca- Ag Emergent Academic Applied Core Projects Ag Literacy Skills tional Academics Program Program Ag Literacy

Figure 5. Agricultural literacy: Leverage points for change.

Journal of Agricultural Education 94 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

The deductive path to change begins at agriculturally literate value judgments. Not feedback loop A. This solution is more only could this improve the teaching and direct, but much more difficult to achieve, learning of basic skills, it could also because it starts with a shift away from a gradually change the culture and curriculum traditional essentialist curricular focus and of the K-12 classroom, thereby would necessitate a change in the testing concomitantly promoting agricultural paradigm. High-stakes testing does not, in literacy. and of itself, conflict with cognitive- An increasingly integrated knowledge constructivist teaching practices associated base could erode the potentially negative with agricultural literacy. If professional impact of a traditional essentialist testing and political pressure urged changes to align focus on the ability to formulate and express the content and method of testing with agriculturally literate value judgments (B). cognitive-constructivist theory, then Improved performance on tests, brought negative feedback loops that impede about by more refined constructivist agricultural literacy would tend to become teaching methodologies, could also erode positive. Testing and instruction conducted the justification for teaching basic skills in from a constructivist perspective, stressing isolation (C). As testing performance the use of integrative and evaluative improves, the perceived need for expressions of knowledge could reinforce programmed agricultural literacy might the impact of value judgments that are become more important (D), and the conflict central for conversational agri-food system between essentialist public demands and literacy (B). Instead of teaching basic skills cognitive-constructivist teaching practices out of context, a constructivist approach could eventually dissipate (E). could promote the use of integrated The traditional essentialist testing multidisciplinary methods (C) increasing the paradigm tends to suppress innovative perceived need for programmed agricultural teaching methods in favor of an exclusive literacy (D). focus on basic skills. Successfully The inductive path beginning at integrating agricultural content into the feedback loop A' has the potential for long- curriculum within the existing testing term changes by working within the existing paradigm, however, has the potential to raise essentialist testing philosophy, promoting a test scores in basic skills. Improvements in change in the testing paradigm by a student’s ability to make agriculturally strengthening core content outcomes. This literate value judgments could further “grass-roots” approach utilizes contextual strengthen the ability to analyze, synthesize teaching and learning in academic classes to and evaluate information. Improved test promote agricultural literacy. A lesson-by- scores resulting from the incorporation of lesson integration of agricultural topics into more contextual teaching methods could the academic curriculum presents a natural actually reverse the formerly negative context for the application and feedback from external testing pressure reinforcement of basic skill instruction. (Figure 6), making agricultural literacy more Systematic application of constructivist valuable as a curriculum in its own right. theory to basic skills instruction in the core This would justify a shift to a testing content area classroom would incrementally paradigm based on constructivist theory, change the way these skills and processes assessing and reinforcing an integrative, are integrated into a learner’s schema, evaluative construction of knowledge in forging the connections needed for context.

Journal of Agricultural Education 95 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

Cognitive - Academic Content Constructivist & “High Stakes” Expectations assesses and TestingFocus validates improve may amplify test scores promotes the impact of builds perceived concepts need for Ag Literate using Value innovative Judgments forms a methods theoretical integrate basis for knowledge, raising test scores

Ag Literacy Knowledge & Frameworks Process Skills

Figure 6. Paradigm shift promoting a shared vision of agricultural literacy.

Conclusions and Implications changing the testing paradigm might appear simpler, it would be more difficult to This analysis identified three approaches accomplish because national, state, and local (inductive, deductive, and evaluative) to a political and social pressures would have to shared vision that promotes the cultivation be overcome. Working to change the and communication of a common curriculum and testing process from a “grass knowledge base linked to agricultural issues. roots” classroom level, although more time- A conceptual model of the interactions consuming and less coordinated, could be between these aspects revealed the potential accomplished incrementally within existing for positive, synergistic feedback that could political and academic structures. As the build strong support from any one aspect for educational establishment continues to each of its counterparts. Conflicting external evolve, the key elements of the shared vision pressures exerted by public demands for a are dynamic and could adapt to societal and traditional essentialist curriculum with its cultural changes. Just as the use of a variety attendant testing of basic facts and of teaching methods in the classroom is cognitive-constructivist expectations of considered to be effective in teaching, the “best practices” in educational methodology use of multiple approaches to the delivery may have worked at cross-purposes, of agricultural literacy content can also be inhibiting the full potential of agricultural effective and mutually reinforcing. literacy efforts. The conceptual model offered in this References paper reveals two key leverage points for change by more fully integrating the use of Agnew, D. M., & McJunkin, M. (2005). constructivist methodologies. Although Evolution of the agricultural literacy

Journal of Agricultural Education 96 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

movement: Impact on the environment and Education, 32(2), 49-57. student learning. The International Journal of Learning, 11(1). Horn, J., & Vining, B. (1986). An assessment of students’ knowledge of American Association for the agriculture. Manhattan, Kansas: Center Advancement of Science. (2006). Programs: for Extended Services and Studies, Education. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from College of Education, Kansas State http://www.project2061.org/ University.

Arkansas Foundation for Agriculture. King, J. (2007, May 9). The high stakes (2006). Farm families of Arkansas: in science education: Risking the roots of Background. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from American productivity. Education Week, http://www.growingarkansas.org/backgroun 26(36), p. 34, 44. d.asp Krueger, D., & Mundt, J. (1991). Blackburn, D. A. (1999). Ag science Change: Agricultural education in the 21st fairs: The text wave in agricultural literacy. century. The Agricultural Education [Electronic version]. Journal of Extension, Magazine 64(1), 7-9. 37(4). Kuh, P. (2006). [Review of the book The Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of educational objectives: The classification of four meals]. Los Angeles Times [Electronic educational goals. New York: David reprint]. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from McKay. http://www.michalpollan.com/press.php?id= 36 Bowers, G. A., & Kohl, D. M. (1986). A study of 244 fourth grade teachers in Lauer, R. (Ed.). (1976). Social Virginia for application to agriculture in the movements and social change. Carbondale: classroom. Report prepared for an honors Southern Illinois University Press seminar, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Leising, J. G., Igo, C., Heald, A., Hubert, D., & Yamamoto, J. (1998). A guide to food Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & and fiber systems literacy. Stillwater, OK: Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people W.K. Kellog Foundation and Oklahoma learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school State University. Retrieved July 13, 2005, (Expanded edition). Commission on from http://food_fiber.okstate.edu/FINAL1. Behavioral and Social Sciences and PDF Education National Research Council. Washington: National Academy Press. Leising, J. G., Pense, S. L., & Portillo, Retrieved September 2, 2006, from M. T. (2003). The impact of selected http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309070368/ht agriculture in the classroom teachers on ml/1.html student agricultural literacy: Final report. Stillwater, OK: Department of Agricultural Brown, B. L. (1998). Applying Education, Communications, and 4-H constructivism in vocational and career Development, Oklahoma State University. education. Information series no. 378. ERIC Retreived July 13, 2005, from Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and http://www.agclassroom.org/consortium/pdf Vocational Education: Columbus, OH. 120 /finalreport.pdf p. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428298) Lowell, W. E. (n.d.). Every month should be national literacy month. Frick, M. J., Kahler, A. A., & Miller, W. [Electronic reprint]. The Honor Society of W. (1991). A definition and the concepts of Phi Kappa Phi. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from agricultural literacy. Journal of Agricultural https://www.phikappaphi.org/ObjectAssets/

Journal of Agricultural Education 97 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008 Powell, Agnew, & Trexler Agricultural Literacy: Clarifying…

FileLibrary/1/1/Lowell.pdf Schlosser, E. (2002). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Meischen, D. L., & Trexler, C. J. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. (2003). Rural elementary students’ understandings of science and agricultural Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum education benchmarks related to meat and development: Theory and practice. New livestock. Journal of Agricultural York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Education, 44(1), 43-55. Team Ag Ed. (2000). The national National Research Council. (1988). strategic plan and action agenda for Understanding agriculture: New directions agricultural education: Reinventing for education. Washington, D.C.: National agricultural education for the year 2020: Academy Press. Creating the preferred future for agricultural education. Retrieved July 17, 2005, from O’Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning http://www.teamaged.org/plan2020/plan202 organizations: A conversation with Peter 0.pdf Senge. Educational Leadership 52(7), 20- 23. Trexler, C. J. (2000). Agricultural literacy: A word that is yet to be defined. Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s The Agricultural Education Magazine, dilemma: A natural history of four meals. 73(3), 1-5. New York: Penguin Press HC. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of Posner, G. J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum and instruction. Chicago: curriculum. New York, McGraw Hill. University of Chicago Press.

Project Food Land and People. (2003). Williams, G., & White, J. D. (1991). Food land and people chronology: 1988 to Agricultural literacy in agriculture’s 2003. [Brochure]. Chandler, AZ. heartland. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 63(8), 9- 10.

DAVID POWELL is a Doctoral Research Assistant in the Center for Excellence in Education at Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 1270, State University, AR 72467-1270. E-mail: [email protected].

DAVID AGNEW is an Associate Professor of Agricultural Education at Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 1080, State University, AR 72467-1080. E-mail: [email protected].

CARY TREXLER is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of California – Davis, 2031 Academic Surge, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Agricultural Education 98 Volume 49, Number 1, 2008