The effect of the Macdonald farm-to-school summer program on children's agricultural knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the world population continues to rise there is an increased movement of people to urban areas and a greater disconnect from rural life. Children living in urban centers may lack the opportunities to learn about agriculture, which affects their daily lives. Studies on elementary aged children's knowledge and understanding of agriculture demonstrate that children have a low level of agriculture literacy. Interestingly though, many of these same studies show that a great deal of children's information on agriculture is acquired outside of school. Consequently, many education researchers have advocated for the incorporation of informal (out-of-school) learning opportunities in agriculture into the science curriculum. In Canada, there is a growing trend of agriculture education programs at the elementary and higher education levels. However, most of the studies on the impact of these types of programs have been conducted on American (US) and European programs. It was, therefore, decided to evaluate a Canadian program: children's learning from the Farm-to-School summer program located at the McGill University Macdonald Campus Farm.The study period consisted of four 5-day sessions during August, 2016. During this period two thematic programs were offered: Plate-to-Farm and Global Food Security. Both programs were offered in both languages, with one week in English and one week in French. Children and their parents from all four summer program sessions were invited to participate in the study. Five research questions asked were: 1 - Does participation in the 5-day Farm-to-School Program improve children's agricultural knowledge? 2 - Do family demographics impact children's knowledge of agriculture (age, maternal language, ethnicity, gender, etc.) 3 - Do children's agricultural background (previous Farm-to-School experience and family agricultural background) have an impact on their agricultural knowledge? 4 - What are the parents' perceptions on how the summer program improved (or not) their children's agricultural knowledge? 5-What are the parents' perceptions on how the summer program influenced (or not) their children's agricultural behaviours? Children's knowledge was evaluated using a pre-and post-test design. Participants were separated into two age groups (6-8 years old and 9-12 years old), and administered a pre- and post-test using a clicker-based response system. Participants' parents provided demographic information, and completed a post-program survey on perceptions. All data was analyzed using SAS version 9.4.Results for the first three questions, using generalized linear mixed-model (GLIMMX) analyses showed no significant difference between the overall pre- and post-test scores. However, English-speaking children were found to have significantly higher scores compared to French-speaking, bilingual and children who spoke other languages (p<0.1). In addition, 9-12-year-olds scored significantly higher than the 6-8-year-old for pre-and post-test scores (p= 0.0562 and p=0.0628, respectively). Perhaps not surprisingly, previous Farm-to-School summer program experience was also found to have a significant effect on children's test score (p=0.012). For the last two research questions, generalized linear model analyses were conducted via the Likert-scale, using demographic and background data. The results of this study demonstrate that children's demographic and background profile significantly impact their knowledge and understanding of agriculture. As well, the demographic and background data affected parents' perceptions of their children's learning and behaviour changes. These results should be useful for future planning of the Farm-to-School summer program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".