Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural Literacy Through Innovative Technology): The Efficacy of a Project-Based Curriculum for Upper-Primary Students

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agriculture can serve as a unifying and contextualizing topic that connects science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects through similar knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs (KSABs) exhibited in each. Agriculture can be an integral part of students’ primary-level curriculum, providing authentic and relevant material for STEM exploration. A technology-enhanced, project-based, STEM-integrated agriculture curriculum for fourth-grade learners was developed and implemented in a large urban school district in the northeastern U.S. Ninety-five students and four fourth-grade teachers participated in a study that sought to (1) add to the existing knowledge about the nature of upper-primary urban students’ agricultural literacy, (2) create a fully STEM-integrated agricultural literacy curriculum that educators can easily embed in existing curricula to increase literacy in agriculture and STEM fields, and (3) test the efficacy of that curriculum. The curriculum included valid and reliable pre- and posttest knowledge and attitudes instruments and eight performance tasks designed to help students prepare for a farmers’ market. The findings revealed that students in the treatment group gained knowledge and had more positive attitudes/beliefs following the curriculum’s implementation compared to a control group. Implications for creating integrated STEM and agriculture curricula using technology-enhanced, project-based learning strategies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Farm Bureau Federation. (2017a). Fast facts about agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts

  • American Farm Bureau Federation. (2017b). Addressing misconceptions about agriculture. Retrieved from. http://www.agfoundation.org/resources/addressing-misconceptions

  • Ashcraft, M., & Moore, A. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance, Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balschweid, M., & Thompson, G. (2000). Agriculture and science integration: A pre-service prescription for contextual learning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Luehmann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcelona, K. (2014). 21st century curriculum change initiative: A focus on STEM education as an integrated approach to teaching and learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 862–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. (1995). Introduction: What is a coherent curriculum? In J. Beane (Ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum: The 1995 ASCD yearbook (pp. 1–12). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah, K., & Dyer, J. (2009). Attitudes and stages of concern of elementary teachers toward agriculture as a context for teaching across grade level content area standards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chumbley, S., Haynes, J., & Stofer, K. (2015). A measure of students’ motivation to learn science through agricultural STEM emphasis. Journal of Agricultural Education., 56(4), 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews, J. (2008). Impacts of a teacher geospatial technologies professional development project on student spatial literacy skills and interests in science and technology in grade 5–12 classrooms across Montana (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1905). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. USDA Economic Information Bulletin, 3, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, S., & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Overview. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.fossweb.com/delegate/ssi-wdf- ucm-webContent?dDocName=G3794234.

  • Etim, J. (2005). Curriculum integration: The why and how. In J. Etim (Ed.), Curriculum integration K- 12 theory and practice (pp. 3–11). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for windows. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, J. (2000). Assessment—a new way of thinking about learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(6), 415–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., Golan Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem- based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igo, C., Leising, J., Frick, M., Hubert, D., & Malcolm, A. (1999). Food and fiber systems literacy test—Grades 4–5. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., Peters-Burton, E., & Moore, T. (2016). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Tweeten, L. (1987). Public perceptions of farm problems: Research Report P-894. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellough, R., & Kellough, N. (1999). Middle school teaching: A guide to methods and resources (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, N., & Martin, R. (2002). Teacher characteristics explaining the extent of agricultural awareness activities integrated into the elementary curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4), 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, N., Ball, A., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, D. (1990). Implementing agricultural literacy programs. Agricultural Education Magazine, 62(9), 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. (2004). Promoting learning through inquiry. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 15(3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leising, J., Igo, C., Heald, A., Hubert, D., & Yamamoto, J. (1998). A guide to food and fiber systems literacy. Stillwater, OK: W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Oklahoma State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, C., Israel, G., & Toro, E. (2004). Using “Ag in the classroom” curricula: Teachers’ awareness, attitudes and perceptions of agricultural literacy. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A., & Hochbein, C. (2012). The consequences of “school improvement”: Examining the association between two standardized assessments measuring school improvement and student science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 804–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • McReynolds, G. (1985). Mr. Jay and farmland. Agricultural Education Magazine, 58(4), 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meischen, D., & Trexler, C. (2003). Rural elementary students’ understandings of science and agricultural education benchmarks related to meat and livestock. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Museum of Science, Boston. (2010). Engineering is elementary. Engineering attitudes instrument reliability report. Boston, MA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Museum of Science, Boston. (2014). Research and evaluation results for the engineering is elementary project: An executive summary of the first decade. Boston, MA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGACBP]. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21stCentury Skills Framework. Retrieved from: http://youngspirit.org/docs/21stcentury.pdf.

  • Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, D., Agnew, D., & Trexler, C. (2008). Agricultural literacy: Clarifying a vision for practical application. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmaker, D. (2013). National agricultural literacy outcomes. Logan, UT: Utah State University Retrieved from http://agclassroom.org/teacher/matrix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stofer, K., & Newberry, M., III. (2017). When defining agriculture and science, explicit is not a bad word. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture. (2016). Farm labor overview/background. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/background/

  • Vahoviak, G., & Etling, A. (1994). Agricultural education and environmental education: Collaboration for global sustainability. Agricultural Education Magazine, 67(5), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallera, F., & Bodzin, A. (2016). Knowledge, skills, or attitudes/beliefs: The contexts of agricultural literacy in upper-elementary science curricula. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 101–117.

  • What is FOSS? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.fossweb.com/what-is-foss

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Lehigh University, 111 Research Drive, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

    Farah L. Vallera & Alec M. Bodzin

Authors
  1. Farah L. Vallera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alec M. Bodzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farah L. Vallera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vallera, F.L., Bodzin, A.M. Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural Literacy Through Innovative Technology): The Efficacy of a Project-Based Curriculum for Upper-Primary Students. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 419–439 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09979-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09979-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation