Using Photovoice to Explore Students’ Experiences With a Hydroponic Shipping Container Farm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hydroponic shipping container farms (HSCFs) are an emerging tool being used in schools to educate and feed students. Purpose: This research explored students’ perceptions of HSCFs as an educational tool. Methodology/Approach: This research utilized a photovoice methodology whereby Canadian students aged 12–15 took photos of aspects of the HSCF, both positive and negative, that they found to be significant. A class presentation and discussion followed the photo taking process where students collaboratively identified common themes. Findings/Conclusions: This research found that students had difficulty engaging with the HSCF due, primarily, to the small size of the HSCF and design features that limited students’ ability to properly use and maintain the HSCF. The nature-like and high-tech appearance of the HSCF increased student engagement but there were also safety concerns highlighted by students in their photos and comments. Implications: The design of the HSCF appeared to be one that was built for efficiency and profit and the physical design did not encourage student usage. Significant redesign in consultation with teachers and students is needed if HSCFs are to be used effectively as an educational tool for students.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".