Teacher Differences in Beliefs and Perceptions About Sustainable Agriculture: Influence on the Teaching of High School Agriculture Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine agriculture teacher differences in beliefs and perceptions about sustainable agriculture (SA) and the associations of these with the teaching of SA in the 12 states of the Midwest US. A descriptive design using self-administered structured questionnaires with Likert measurements was adopted. A stratified random sample of 844 teachers were self-administered the questionnaires. Data were analyzed by ANOVA by comparing means and conducting post-hoc tests. Teachers who agreed and those who disagreed about SA beliefs had no statistically significant difference in their mean ratings of beliefs about SA. Those who were neutral and those who disagreed about SA beliefs had similar mean ratings. Teachers who agreed with SA beliefs and those who were neutral about SA beliefs had a statistically significant difference in their mean ratings of SA beliefs. All three of those groups taught SA topics to a moderate extent. This was not the case for teachers who differed about their perceptions of SA topics/practices. Therefore, teacher differences in beliefs about SA may or may not influence the teaching of SA topics. Teacher perceptions of selected SA practices only influenced the extent to which teachers taught SA. SA goals can be achieved via teaching to influence teacher knowledge, affect, cognition, behavior, and actions towards SA. Teacher professional development needs can be identified from their differences in perceptions about SA practices. An education approach promoting the building of bridges among different perspectives about SA and systems teaching-learning can help to achieve SA goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".