Attitudes of Arizona Secondary Agricultural Education Students’ Interests in
Environmental Science Topics for a Career Option
By
Cassandra Carrera Fausel
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
WITH A MAJOR IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2013
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced
degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be
made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis
are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of
source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of
this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department
or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the
material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must
be obtained from the author.
SIGNED: Cassandra Carrera Fausel
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my committee:
Dr. Ryan Foor: Without you this master’s degree would have not been possible.
Thank you for seeing the potential I had as an agricultural educator, and a master’s degree
candidate. I could not have done this without you!
Dr. Robert Torres: Your humor and support made this novel possible. Thank you
for continually guiding me along the path to graduation, and helping me learn a few things
along the way.
Dr. Jeffrey Silvertooth: You opened the door to many opportunities and helped
me determine my place in life. Thank you for always taking time out of your schedule to
assist me in new endeavors and absorb as much of your knowledge as possible.
You are all amazing mentors, teachers, and friends and I look forward to our continued
work together.
Mom and dad, you were as much apart of my committee as any professor. I cannot put in
words how grateful I am to have your support, love, and mentorship throughout this
masters degree process, and of course life in general.
iii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 10
PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 12
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 14
DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.................................................................................... 18
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................. 19
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 21
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 22
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY .................................................................................... 22
THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR ........................................................................... 24
MEASURING STUDENT BEHAVIOR .......................................................................... 26
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE CURRENT STUDY ................................. 27
CHAPTER III: PROCEDURES ................................................................................................. 30
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 30
RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 31
POPULATION AND SAMPLING .................................................................................. 31
ERROR CONTROL ......................................................................................................... 32
INSTRUMENTATION .................................................................................................... 33
VALIDITY PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 37
RELIABILITY PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 37
DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 40
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 40
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE ...................................................................................... 44
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE TWO ..................................................................................... 49
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE THREE ................................................................................. 69
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE FOUR .................................................................................... 80
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE FIVE ..................................................................................... 88
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE SIX ...................................................................................... 102
iv
CHAPTER 5:.............................................................................................................................. 108
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....... 108
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 108
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 109
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ONE .................................................................................... 109
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE TWO ................................................................................... 109
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE THREE ............................................................................... 110
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE FOUR .................................................................................. 110
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE FIVE ................................................................................... 110
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE SIX ...................................................................................... 111
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 111
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 118
v
Appendices
Appendix A: List of and Evaluation Form to Panel of Experts…………………..……73
Appendix B: Pre-Notice Email……………………………………………………..….75
Appendix C: Cover Letter……………………………………………….….………….77
Appendix D: Follow-up Email ………………………………………………………...80
Appendix E: Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………82
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Figure 1: Social Cognitive Theory…………………………………………….21
Figure 2: Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985)……………………………...……23
Figure 3: Conceptual framework for the study……………….……………...…………..26
vii
LIST OF TABLES- Introductions
Table 1: Population Parameters Explained………………………………………………31
Table 2: Abbreviated Attitude Items Comprising Each Construct………………………32
Table 3: Classroom Environmental Science Topics Construct……………….………….32
Table 4: Data Collection Timeline…………………………………………...……….….36
LIST OF TABLES- Results
Table 5: Population Demographics………..……………………………………………37
Table 6-6D: Students Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related
CDE..............................................................................................................................51-58
Table 7-7D: Students Average Level of Interest for Future Participation in Environmental
Science Related CDEs………………………………………………………..………55-58
Table 8-8D: Students Level of Importance of Environmental Science Relater CDEs for
Future Career Plans……………………………………………………………..……63-67
Table 9-9D: Students Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in
Environmental Science Related CDEs……………………………………………….73-77
Table 10: Students Level of Participation, Interest, Importance, and Potential Career
Option in Regards to Environmental Science Related CDEs Between Rural and Urban
Areas……………………………………………………………………………...……..78
Table 11-11D: Students Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their
Agricultural Education Classroom, and in Other Subject Areas Outside of Agricultural
Education………………………………………………………………………………...52
viii
LIST OF TABLES- Results Continued
Table 12-12D: Students Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned
Topics in Environmental Science………………………………………………………..56
Table 13-13D: Students Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned
Topics in Environmental Science………………………………………………….…….57
Table 14-14D: Students Average Level of Understanding, and Interest Towards Higher
Education and Future Career Plans in Regards to Environmental Science Related Learned
Topics Among Rural and Urban Areas……………………………..……………………58
Table 15-15D: Students Attitudes Towards Environmental Science Related
Statements…………………………………………………………………………….….60
ix
Chapter I: Introduction
“Within the past 50 years, the United States has become a predominately urban nation,
both in thought and in physical character” (Stapp & Havlick, 1969, 33). Written in 1969, Stapps’
statement became all too truthful with 80.7% of people living in urban areas, and 19.3% living in
rural areas, as determined by the 2010 United States census. In Arizona specifically, 80.1% of
the population lives in urban areas while 19.9% live in small to rural cities, and three of the 36
new urbanized areas for the 2010 Census are found within Arizona being Casa Grande, Sierra
Vista, and Lake Havasu City (U.S. Census, 2010). With urbanization on the rise, and ruraloriented living on the decline, association and interaction with the environment declines, along
with its awareness and understanding (Stapp et al., 1969). Ramsey & Rickson (1978) described
that the basis for many environmental problems and issues is irresponsible environmental
behavior. With more people living out of touch with the environment they do not necessarily
recognize effects on the environment, as they do not see it on a daily basis. Stapp et. al. (1969)
stated: “there is a vital need for an educational approach that effectively educates man regarding
his relationship to the total environment” (p. 35). It will be future generation’s job of providing
solutions to environmental problems arising from present-day activities, and “young people’s
environmental attitudes are particularly important because young people ultimately will be
affected” (Bradley, Waliczek, Zajicek, 1999, 214). A concept developed on Environmental
Education as adopted by the world community at the Tbilisi Intergovernmental conference on
Environmental Education in 1977, adheres to the principles of:
Developing a world population that is aware of and concerned about the total
environmental issues, and their associated problems, and has the attitudes, motivations,
10
knowledge, commitment and skills to work…towards solutions of current problems and
the prevention of new ones. (Tbilisi ,1977)
One educational branch that applies the concept of Environmental Education is the land
grant university, which honors the intent and purpose of the Morrill and Hatch Acts by serving
the people. With the introduction of these acts were expanded with the Smith-Lever Act to
include Cooperative Extension. Cooperative Extension is used to battle the growing lack of
knowledge within urbanized areas by focusing on topics such as animal and veterinary science;
citizen and leadership training; communications; art; family and consumer science; natural
resources and environmental science; nutritional and plant science. Extension aims to connect
research at local, state, and national levels to educate on current research issues, in hopes to solve
problems and put knowledge to use (University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, 2012).
Trickling down from higher education into a high school setting, a comparative to
cooperative extension is career and technical education (CTE). CTE provides secondary students
with hands on learning skills that are applicable for the workforce after high school. Like
Extension, topics range from communications, art, family and consumer science, and agricultural
education. Focusing on the agricultural education CTE program, their curriculum standards
adhere to the goals of Tbilisi definition on environmental education previously defined.
The concern researchers within agricultural education have identified that students have
misunderstandings about the agricultural industry and agricultural careers, in which
environmental science is included (Newsom-Stewart, & Sutphin, 1994). Today, approximately
94% of public school students receive no formal in-school instruction regarding agriculture and
natural resource systems (Talbert et Al., 2007).
11
High school students are unaware of the range of agricultural careers, and may think
agriculture is strictly farming. Croom and Flowers (2001) found that people who did not
participate in The FFA Association or agricultural education, would not join the program as they
believed they would not fit in with the farmer-type image. Once introduced into the variety of
options for agriculture, students expressed an interest in pursuing higher education or careers in
the topic (Mallory & Sommer, 1986). Student acceptability of agricultural topics is not new, as
increased recruitment in high school and college agriculture programs have been studied over the
past half-century (Riesenberg & Lierman, 1990). Overall, successful recruitment comes from
advisors, parents, and teachers providing awareness to students about the options in agricultural
careers and colleges of agriculture majors for a future career (Osborne & Dyer 2000). Betts and
Newcomb’s (1986) study of urban students indicated the perception of agriculture as scienceoriented, but students lacked the knowledge of its importance as an industry and the career
potential. Also, cities expansion into less developed rural areas make a need for change in
agricultural programs within high schools to reflect the changing communities (Predmore, 2004)
Problem Statement
The shift to urbanization allows for the forgetfulness and misunderstanding of how
agriculture can protect the environment, and providing students, urban and rural, with
educational training allows them to learn more about environmental career fields. Agricultural
education courses within the state of Arizona provide standards across urban and rural areas that
should stimulate environmental science topics both in the classroom and in career development
events due to the nature of the courses offered. Therefore, much can be learned about students’
12
interests in environmental science within their classroom experiences and if this interest
continues into a career option. Osborne and Dyer (2000) recommended an incorporation of
environmental science into classrooms in the following statement:
Students and their parents perceive that agriculture can help protect the environment and
resolve environmental concerns…given their positive attitude towards agriculture and
agricultural technologies, a good opportunity may exist to incorporate more
environmental science as it relates to agriculture in the high school agriculture
curriculum. (p. XX)
Typical student classification of agricultural jobs does not include the actual depth of careers that
are employed in the agricultural industry. Informing youth on a greater depth on agricultural
careers is critical to inform youth on the vast opportunity that is broadly defined as agriculture,
food, fiber, and natural resources. (Conroy, 2000). A relationship between topics learned in
Arizona agricultural education standards for both urban and rural areas exists.(XXX) An
understanding of students’ attitudes based on topics learned within their agricultural education
program, both classroom and in career development events, is critical to identify if students from
different areas in Arizona are learning the importance of environmental science, and choosing it
as a career option.
Many topics covered in FFA, especially Career Development Events (CDEs), represent
specific components of environmental science programs, yet these students are not moving
towards a degree or career in environmental science. The question to answer is: How are students
shown the principles of college majors or entry-level jobs within environmental science through
CDEs, and understanding the interest level for continuing CDE topics for higher education or a
career. As The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that between 2010
13
and 2015, there will be 54,400 annual employment openings for individuals with baccalaureate
or higher degrees within the agriculture, food, and renewable natural resources sectors, creating a
large demand for anticipated graduates with college degrees or related work experiences to enter
the realm of agriculture and environmental science (Goecker, et al., 2010). Knowing this, the
problems statement is as follows: What are the attitudes and interests of secondary school
agricultural education students towards environmental science as higher education or a career
option?
Purpose and Research Objectives
The aim of this study is to evaluate secondary agricultural education students’ interest in
environmental science and how population demographics vary their opinions. The purpose of
this study is to describe the difference in urban versus rural secondary agricultural education
students understanding and attitudes of environmental science, and if they express an interest in
pursuing a future in the subject area. Specifically, the following research objectives guided the
study:
Research Objectives:
1. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of participation and interest
in environmental science related Career Development Events (CDEs).
2. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of the importance of
environmental science related CDEs.
3. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in fields similar to environmental science related CDEs.
14
4. Describe the environmental science topics learned by secondary agricultural
education students in rural and urban communities.
5. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in an environmental science learned topic among rural and urban students.
6. Describe the attitudes toward environmental science related statements among rural
and urban secondary agricultural education students.
Definition of Terms
The following terms will be used throughout the research study. Becoming familiar with these
terms is essential to understanding this study.
Attitudes. A representation of a person’s general feeling of favorableness or
unfavorableness toward some stimulus object. A person’s attitude toward the object is a function
of his evaluations of these attributes (Fishbein &Ajzen, 1975).
Agricultural education. Formerly referred to as “vocational agriculture”, it has three
parts; The FFA Association, the supervised agricultural experience (SAE), and classroom/
laboratory skills. Students are prepared for higher education; and learn about the science,
business, and technology of plant and animal production and/or about the environmental and
natural resources systems (Dailey, Conroy, & Shelly-Tobert, 2001).
Career Development Event. Also referred to as a CDE. CDEs are a part of the FFA
program to aid student development in skilled topic areas, and learn to think critically,
communicate clearly, and perform effectively in a competitive job market. There are 24 CDEs
within FFA, ranging from communications to mechanics. For this study, CDEs were determined
based on students learning a skill that relates to the environment. See Environmental Science
Related CDE. (https://www.ffa.org/programs/awards/cde/Pages/default.aspx)
15
Career option. The choice in forming an ideal and expected working or academic roles
internalized by a young person based on a personal and societal frame of reference (Conroy,
2000).
Environmental education. Form of study creating a citizen base that is knowledgeable
in the topics of biophysical environment. Specifically, its problems, how to help solve the
problems, and a motivation to work toward an environmental solution, “should be an integral
part of the educational process, aimed at practical problems of an interdisciplinary character,
build a sense of values, and contribute to public well-being” (Belgrade, 1975; Snapp et. Al, 1969,
35).
Environmental science. The branch of biology concerned with the relations between
organisms, and their environment. Environmental science is interdisciplinary; it embraces a wide
variety of topics from different areas of study. (College Board AP Environmental Science Course
Description, 2010)
Environmental science learned topics. Items taught to students that were considered
need to know based from Tilburt (2006) in regards to topics of environmental science.
Environmental science related CDE. CDE events that are concerned with the relations
between organisms and their environment, aiding student development in skilled topic areas, and
learn to think critically, communicate clearly, and perform effectively in a competitive job
market (College Board AP Environmental Science Course Description, 2010).
The following environmental CDEs were chosen, and definitions were provided to teachers for
students (FFA.org):
Agriculture Communications: Agricultural Communications CDE is a competitive
activity that tests students' skills in all areas of the agricultural communications field and
16
evaluates how well they can apply classroom knowledge to real-life situations.
Agronomy: Participants' knowledge of botany, chemistry, and biology in a series of tests
through several levels of competition including developing solutions for problematic scenarios;
identification of seeds, insects, soil and crops; and other management practices.
Aquaculture: The aquaculture CDE consists of several tasks completed on a daily basis
at aquaculture farms. Tasks include water quality tests, weighing fish and determining feed
amounts, basic plumbing skills, harvesting filleting and packaging fillets, identification of
common species and a written exam covering basic principles.
Environmental and Natural Resources: This event focuses on testing students' problem
solving and decision making skills in environmental and natural resources. These areas
concentrate on soil profiles, water and air quality, waste management, environmental analysis,
and use of global positioning units.
Entomology: FFA members are able to recognize some of the more important beneficial
and destructive species of insects and their relatives. In addition to proper identification of the
pest, it is important to be aware of control strategies and know how to properly apply pesticides
safely should chemical control be required.
Floriculture: Participants must complete a general knowledge exam on the floriculture
industry. They must identify plant materials, and demonstrate problem solving and decisionmaking skills, employment and customer service skills, technical floral skills and the ability to
work as a team.
Forestry: Event components include a general forest knowledge exam, tree and
equipment identification, tree/forest disorders identification, a chainsaw practicum, forestry
issues interview, and a team activity.
17
Nursery- Landscape: Within this CDE, FFA members test their knowledge and skills in
nursery practices and landscaping. Contestants must complete a general knowledge exam testing
horticultural principles including plant anatomy, production, marketing, turf, landscape design
and maintenance. Each participant must also complete practicums involving a landscape
drawing, landscape estimating, plant propagation or potting, identification of plants, disorders
and equipment.
Range Management: Students involved in this event identify range plants from a given
list using plant mounts. They are also required to figure current use of range sites and determine
best management practices for these sites. Students prepare to take a test over range management
practices and history of range management.
Soils: Students will be able to recognize soil factors and to assess soil characteristics that
affect agricultural production practices and suitability.
Wildlife: Students will understand and utilize practices and techniques used in wildlife
management.
Limitations of the Study
The findings of this study were limited to the sample of students selected to participate in
the study. Therefore, the results may not be generalized to students beyond the sample. Another
limitation of the study is the extent to which reported attitudes, and interest in environmental
sciences as career option can be generalized. Different measures of students’ attitudes and
interests will provide skewed results depending on how students’ perceptions of their own
attitudes and beliefs are measured, and how the questionnaire items were constructed.
18
The time at which data were collected served as a limitation as well. Students’ attitudes
and interest in environmental science, and as a career option, were measured during summer,
when students had just begun classes. This may result in uninformed new students who may be
confused by terminology not learned. A different time line may yield differing results.
In addition, the supported of agricultural education programs from the various high
schools involved in the study will vary and may possibly increase or decrease the levels of
efficacy in the subjects depending on the levels of support in the classroom provided (materials,
instructional aides, class sizes).
Basic Assumptions
Due to the nature of this study, the investigator made several assumptions. These assumptions
were:
1. That agriculture and environmental science are directly related applied sciences.
2. The data will be sent, received, and processed in a timely manner.
3. All students reported their data in the same format and that they accurately completed the
questionnaire.
4. All students responded truthfully to the administered questionnaire.
5. All students had a basic knowledge of their future ambitions.
6. All students had enough experience in agricultural education to evaluate their attitudes
towards CDE events, and what environmental science topics they learned inside and
outside their agricultural classroom.
7. All students understood when explained what environmental science careers, and colleges
have to offer.
19
Significance of the Research
Identifying how to get more students with an agricultural background involved in
environmental science. An additional goal is educating students on future careers and higher
education within the field of Environmental Science.
The results of this study will add to the understanding of agricultural education students’
interests for higher education or a career in environmental sciences. It will aid high school
students’ within the surveyed schools understand their interests in topics found within the
questionnaire, as well as a guide to compare what is currently taught in the classroom versus
graduating students’ interests. It will also aid University of Arizona Agricultural Education
program to see to whom to market their recruitment.
The implications of this research will reach both student education in agricultural
education and The University of Arizona. Schools will benefit from gaining a better
understanding of a growing topic and how to use the expertise of educators for teaching students.
20
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The aim of this study is to evaluate secondary agricultural education students’ interest in
environmental science and how population demographics vary their opinions. The purpose of
this study is to describe the difference in urban versus rural secondary agricultural education
students understanding and attitudes of environmental science, and if they express an interest in
pursuing a future in the subject area. Specifically, the following research objectives guided the
study:
Research Objectives:
1. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of participation and interest
in environmental science related Career Development Events (CDEs).
2. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of the importance of
environmental science related CDEs.
3. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in fields similar to environmental science related CDEs.
4. Describe the environmental science topics learned by secondary agricultural
education students in rural and urban communities.
5. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in an environmental science learned topic among rural and urban students.
6. Describe the attitudes toward environmental science related statements among rural
and urban secondary agricultural education students.
21
Historical Background
Attitudes were defined by a representation of a person’s general feeling of favorableness
or unfavorableness toward some stimulus object. A person’s attitude toward the object is a
function of his evaluations of these attributes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). These attitudes infuse a
feeling while perceptions bring out how someone sees a representation. The importance of this
study is to see the attitudes on students’ decision making for higher education or careers. For the
purpose of this study we will focus on the third (3) definition as it connects perceptions and
attitudes behavioral, which is the end sought for determining secondary AgriScience students
futures. Having a basic understanding for students attitudes and perceptions is crucial for
supporting the advancement of agricultural and environmental sciences, producing future
scientists, and aiding the advancement in FFA/ 4-H subjects.
Social Cognitive Theory
The evolution of the Social Cognitive Theory is developed from the ideals that behavior is
regulated by self-interest from cost and benefit (Bandera 2005). Social Cognitive Theory deals
with learning from observing others actions and consequences (Woolfolk, 2007). Additionally,
Social cognitive theory is the interaction of variables on the process of learning. These
interacting variables are: behavior, environment, and personal (Evans, 1989). The relationship
among the variables is known as reciprocal determinism. In an educational setting, behaviors
include goal progress, motivation, and learning. Environmental variables include models,
instruction, and feedback. Personal variables include goals, outcome expectations, attributions,
progress self-evaluation, self- regulatory progress, and self-efficacy (Woolfolk). The image
below depicts the three structures:
22
Figure 1: Social Cognitive Theory
The (E) represents external environmental structures, which can be developed into three types
including, imposed environment, selected environment, and constructed environment. (Bandera
1997) Imposed environment is rarely controlled for individuals as it forced upon people as it is
an unchangeable setting. Selected behavior is the way one behaves in regards to their imposed
behavior. Constructed environment is adding onto selection environment by imputing personal
factors into the behavioral and environmental. These different environments are increased or
decreased based on levels of personal agency (Bandera, 1999).
The (P) represents personal factors, which break down into cognitive events, affective
events, and biological events (Bandera 1986). While the (B) represents behaviors towards an
attitude or action.
Overall, the Social Cognitive Theory supports student’s perceptions and creates a
conceptualization of subject matter from individual’s pervious experiences and understandings.
Bronfenbrenner (1979).
23
Theory of Planned Behavior
The way perceived behaviors control is measured by direct questions “ about capability to
perform a behavior, on the basis of beliefs about ability too deal with specific inhibiting or
facilitating factors” (Ajzen 1975). Perceived behavior control is added into Ajzens' theories to
deal with subjects whom may lack volitional control over their interests, which lead to their
behavior. The perceptions affect behavior indirectly by impact and intention (Ajzen 1985) To
account for participants perceptions of behavioral control they will be asked perceived likelihood
of a given control and the extent this control will account for performance on a given behavior.
Another model Azjen develops is a chapter on attitude formation , which introduces the
expectancy-value model. This model divulges into a person’s understanding of the attribute
directly effects his/hers attitudes in proportion to the strength of his/her beliefs. It connects ones
attitudes to beliefs, as beliefs are the basis for creating a positive/neutral/negative attitude. A
person’s attitude can be calculated from a formula of “ multiplying evaluation of each attribute
and then summing the products for the total set of beliefs…but ultimately defines the relationship
between beliefs about a topic leading to an attitude toward a topic”. (Ajzen pg. 223) The
formation of an attitude is a pivotal role in Ajzens other Theory of Planned Behavior.
The Theory of Planned Behavior is influenced by favorable or unfavorable evaluation of
behavior, perceived social pressure to preform or not preform the behavior, and perception of
behavioral control, which is explained above (Ajzen 1985; Bandura 1997). These factors all
come from influences calculated in the expectancy-value model, formation of an attitude and
personal intentions, which all lead to a behavior. The model can be seen below:
24
Figure 2: Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985)
Behavioral
Belief
Attitude toward
the Behavioral
Belief
Normative
Belief
Subjective
Norm
Control
Belief
Intentions
Behavior
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
To understand this model a few definitions will be implemented. Ajzen depicts beliefs as “likely
consequences or other attributes of the behavior (behavioral beliefs), and beliefs about the
normative expectations of other people (normative beliefs)” Normative beliefs then result in
subjective attitudes or subjective “norm” which is perceived social pressure; control beliefs lead
to perceived controlled behavior driven by the difficultly of the task at hand; and behavior beliefs
lead to attitude toward the behavior. These in combination connect with attitudes then intentions,
and ultimately lead to ones behavior on a topic. (Ajzen 1988) The idea that beliefs are the
foundation for an attitude is found in Ajzens expectancy-value model, which examines the
strength of a belief proportionally affecting an attitude (1975). Greenwald (1989) supports
Ajzens model and reported that individuals with positive attitudes toward a subject tend to
evaluate them positively.
Using the Theory of Planned Behavior and Expectancy-Value Model, we can suggest that a
person’s beliefs about Environmental Science can predict whether a person intends to pursue a
career or higher education in the field (Dyer, Breja, Andreasen 1999). Since “there is a general
25
agreement that most social attitudes are acquired”, examining perceptions and attitudes in this
study will identify a gap in a persons beliefs which may suggest why students are not going into
Environmental Science from a high school agriculture program (Ajzen 1975). Or it can identify
that there is no gap, and students are just not interested in the field of study.
Measuring Student Behavior
The Social Learning Approach to Career Decision Making provides insight into the career
choice process as well as factors that theoretically influence career choice (Rotter 1954). Social
Learning Theory is associated with Banbura’s work and an “outgrowth of the general social
learning theory” (Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1990). It explains how educational and occupational
preferences and skills are acquired. (Esters & Bowen 2005) The three major types of learning
experiences, which ultimately result in ones’ skills and behavior, are instrumental learning
experiences, associative learning experiences, and vicarious experience. (Mitchell & Krumboltz,
1990) These learning experiences are based off the premise of interactions of genetic factors,
environmental conditions, learning experiences and performance skills. (Esters & Bowen 2005)
The social learning theory suggests three factors that influence interactions, preferences, career
decision-making skills, and entry behaviors into educational and occupational alternatives.
(Esters 2005)
Only Instrumental learning experiences will be used in the conceptual framework, along
with entry behaviors into education and occupational alternatives, will be examined in this study
to help understand why a student may or may not go into the study of Environmental Science. As
vocational agriculture is hands on learning, a student will learn from positive reinforcement and
deducing from Krumboltz Theory, students involved in activities in agricultural education
26
courses that are similar to environmental science should have an interest in pursuing a career in
this field due to one of the following learning experience, instruction, SAE, or FFA. Having a
positive experience and reinforcement from FFA, 4-H or agricultural education classes in a high
school lead to an interest in the subject matter and pursuing a career in this field. Also, by using
testable propositions of entry behaviors into education and occupational alternatives, student’s
decision making into a career or higher education in Environmental Science can be explored.
(Ester & Bowen 2005; Esters 2005)
Conceptual Framework for the Current Study
From a theoretical and practical perspective, this study has important implications for
improving our understanding of how students perceive subject of environmental science and
attitudes towards the subject matter. The review of literature related to the study on perceptions
and attitudes of student interest in environmental science as a career or for higher education is
based from the idea of perceived behavioral control from the social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1997), the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985), and attitudes and prediction of behavior
(Ajzen & Fishbein 1975) were included in the conceptual framework for the current study.
By students working within The FFA curriculum their environment should encompass
topics on environmental science as they relate to agricultural education standards. This is turn
should connect with their behavior, either positive or negative, towards these topics and allow for
personal life to reflect this attitude. Once students have a perceived behavior on said
environmental science topics, it is hoped that they will use their beliefs and attitudes to in turn
have a planned behavior of carrying out environmental science topics within The FFA
curriculum. From this learned interest, importance, and value on environmental science topics
27
within The FFA, students will decide if they would like to pursue environmental science for a
career or higher education.
28
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework for this study
Social Cognitive
Theory
Behavior
s
Environmental
Personal
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Theory of Planned
Behavior
Beliefs
Attitudes
Careers in
Environmental
Science
Intentions
29
Higher Education
in Environmental
Science
Chapter III: Procedures
Purpose and Research Objectives
The aim of this study is to evaluate secondary agricultural education students’ interest in
environmental science and how population demographics vary their opinions. The purpose of
this study is to describe the difference in urban versus rural secondary agricultural education
students understanding and attitudes of environmental science, and if they express an interest in
pursuing a future in the subject area. Specifically, the following research objectives guided the
study:
Research Objectives:
1. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of participation and interest
in environmental science related Career Development Events (CDEs).
2. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of the importance of
environmental science related CDEs.
3. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in fields similar to environmental science related CDEs.
4. Describe the environmental science topics learned by secondary agricultural
education students in rural and urban communities.
5. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in an environmental science learned topic among rural and urban students.
6. Describe the attitudes toward environmental science related statements among rural
and urban secondary agricultural education students.
30
Research Design
The design used for this study was descriptive-correlational research, which examines
multiple variables of information provided by individuals to identify present overlap. (Ary,
Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2010). Survey research methods were implemented for the data collection
process, and the results will not be generalized beyond the population. Population parameters
were used to determine if there is a difference between the characteristics (secondary agricultural
education students on a career in environmental science, and secondary agricultural education
students on pursuing higher education in environmental science) in their attitudes. Demographic
data were collected to describe the sample of urban and rural students.
Population and Sampling
The target population was based on Arizona high school agricultural education programs
that were located within Arizona cities that coincided with United States Census classification of
urban and rural areas. The 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification defined areas as
Urbanized Areas, Urban Clusters, and Rural Areas. Specific guidelines include: “Urbanized
Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than
50,000 people. “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an
urban area.” (U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division). This study examined two different
Urbanized Areas with one just over 50,000 people in population, and the other with over 100,000
people in population. The population consisted of four high school agriculture programs in which
stratified sampling was used. Schools were chosen for participation based on U.S. Census data,
which divided members of the population into homogeneous subgroups before sampling. The
target population was secondary agricultural education students at Benson High School Buckeye
Union High School, Chandler Unified High School, and San Simon High School. The table
31
below explains the population demographics within each high school’s city. The frame of
population was determined from the U.S. Census Urban and Rural Classification of Arizona
cities that had active agriculture education programs provided from the Arizona Agriculture
Teachers Association (AATA) website.
Table 1:
Population Parameters Explained
School
Town/City
Population*
U.S. Census Data Classification
Benson High School
5,163
Urban Cluster 2,500-50,000 persons
Buckeye High School
51,649
Urban Area 50,000-100,000 persons
Chandler High School
240,101
Urban Area >100,000 persons
San Simon High School
1651
Rural Area 0- 500 persons
* Population based off of 2011 U.S. Census Data
1
Population database from 2010 U.S. Census Data
Error Control
Frame and selection error was address by obtaining an up-to-date list of agricultural
education programs for the current year from the AATA, and 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data on
cities population to maintain the target population. The frame was purged of duplicates and with
selected schools list of students within each agricultural education program. Two teacher
programs were instructed to only administer the questionnaire once if they had students listed in
multiple classes between each teacher. Students from all programs in the target population were
used in the study, while averages for each school were used to deduce variations in results.
Finally, the researcher controlled for non-response error by ignoring non-respondents passed the
cut off date of October 15th, 2012.
32
Instrumentation
Data were collected using an instrument adapted to Arizona, originally developed from
Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek (2010), and Tilbury (2006). Specific components relating to
CDEs were created for the purpose of this study. Environmental attitudes statements were
incorporated to measure students’ attitudes toward protection of the environment (Bradley,
Waliczek, and Zajicek, 2010), combined with Tilbury (2006) instrument, which identifies topics
taught on the environment topics within classroom set by the North American Association for
Environmental Education.
The research developed and adapted instrument from Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek
(2010), and Tilbury (2006) consisted of 4 parts, and 97 items. The first part included 44 items to
identify the interest and importance of CDE events to high school students, their future career
and education paths. Scaling of the instrument was adapted from the Likert Scale, using a sixpoint to seven-point summated rating scale. Students responded to Attitude Items Comprising
Each Environmental Science CDE with their level of participation, interest, and or importance
from 6= Already Participated, 0= No participation, interest, and or importance, 1= Slightest
participation, interest, and or importance, 2= Below Average participation, interest, and or
importance, 3= Average participation, interest, and or importance, 4= Above Average
Importance participation, interest, and or importance, 5= Utmost participation, interest, and or
importance. A list of all items in part one are listed in Table 1.
Part two of the instrument consisted of 36 items adapted from Tilburt (2006) in regards to
topics of environmental science students should learn in high school. Students responded to
Environmental Science Learned Topics with yes or no if they had learned the given topics inside
their agricultural education program or outside their agricultural education program. The last 18
33
items examined students’ attitudes of pursuing a career or higher education in the Learned
Environmental Science Topics. Participants reported their level of interest using a 6-point
summated scale from (0= No interest, 1= Slightest interest, 2= Below Average interest, 3=
Average interest, 4= Above Average Importance interest, 5= Utmost interest). A list of all items
in part one are listed in Table 2.
Part three of the instrument examined Environmental Attitudes Statements, as an
Attitudes Means Test adapted from Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek (2010). The instrument for
this study was created to examine attitudes of environmental science to secondary agricultural
education students. Instrument environmental attitudes statements were phrased in terms of “yes”
or “no” for understanding of protection of the environment.
The fourth part of the instrument included questions designed to collect demographic
characteristics. Specifically, the instrument collected information on participants‟ sex, age,
number of years in FFA/ taking agricultural classes, highest degree of schooling planned to
completed, plan to pursue higher education in environmental science, and plan to pursue a career
in environmental science. The demographic data were used to describe the sample of students
from rural and urban areas.
34
Table 1
Abbreviated Attitude Items Comprising Each CDE Environmental Science Construct
CDE Interest for
CDE Interest to
CDE Importance for
College Major or
CDE Participation
Participate In
Future Career Plans
Career Option
1. Agriculture
1. Agriculture
1. Agriculture
1. Agriculture
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
2. Agronomy
2. Agronomy
2. Agronomy
2. Agronomy
3. Aquaculture
3. Aquaculture
3. Aquaculture
3. Aquaculture
4. Environmental &
4. Environmental & 4. Environmental & 4. Environmental &
Nat. Resource
Nat. Resource
Nat. Resource
Nat. Resource
5. Entomology
5. Entomology
5. Entomology
5. Entomology
6. Floriculture
6. Floriculture
6. Floriculture
6. Floriculture
7. Forestry
7. Forestry
7. Forestry
7. Forestry
8. Nursery &
8. Nursery &
8. Nursery &
8. Nursery
landscape
landscape
landscape
&landscape
9. Range
9. Range
9. Range
9. Range
Management
Management
Management
Management
10. Soils
10. Soils
10. Soils
10. Soils
11. Wildlife
11. Wildlife
11. Wildlife
11. Wildlife
Table 2
Classroom Environmental Science Topics Construct
Attitude of Pursuing
Learned Within
Learned Outside
for Future Career
Agriculture Program Agriculture Program
Plans
1. Conserving
1. Conserving
1. Conserving
Energy
Energy
Energy
2. Recycling and
2. Recycling and
2. Recycling and
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
Waste Mgmt
3. Water Quality
3. Water Quality
3. Water Quality
4. Air Quality
4. Air Quality
4. Air Quality
5. Population
5. Population
5. Population
Growth
Growth
Growth
6. Forests and
6. Forests and
6. Forests and
Wetlands
Wetlands
Wetlands
7. Acid Rain
7. Acid Rain
7. Acid Rain
8. Global Warming
8. Global Warming
8. Global Warming
and Ozone Layer
and Ozone Layer
and Ozone Layer
9. Endangered
9. Endangered
9. Endangered
Species
Species
Species
35
Attitude of Pursuing
a College Major or
Career Option
1. Conserving
Energy
2. Recycling and
Waste Mgmt
3. Water Quality
4. Air Quality
5. Population
Growth
6. Forests and
Wetlands
7. Acid Rain
8. Global Warming
and Ozone Layer
9. Endangered
Species
Table 3
Environmental Attitudes Statement Construct
Statement
1. Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
2. Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
3. Animals that provide meat for people are the most important animals to protect.
4. Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be killed.
5. Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for agricultural industrial uses
6. It is important that each individual be aware of environmental concerns.
7. Hunting and fishing are important environmental management activities.
8. Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife habitat.
9. Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
10. Some wilderness areas should be preserved from development no matter how much it
costs.
11. Industries should be held financially responsible for any pollution they cause.
36
Validity Procedures
Content validity based on the researcher-created questionnaire was established using a
panel of experts of three faculty members in the Agricultural Education, and Soil, Water,
Environmental Science program at The University of Arizona. Additionally, the panel was
utilized to establish face validity of the questionnaire. The experts were instructed to evaluate
each item for appropriateness in regards to the respective construct, as well as item clarity.
Modifications were made to the instrument for each item based on the recommendations of the
panel of experts. Statistical procedures were used for construct and criterion-related validity.
Reliability Procedures
Ary et al., stated reliability of a measuring instrument is the degree of consistency with
which it measures whatever it is measuring (2010). To determine the degree on consistency, a
pilot study was completed to determine the instruments reliability. Reliability for the instrument
was determined with a sample size of n = 29. The pilot sample was students participating in the
AgriScience Fair at the 2012 State Leadership Conference in Tucson, Arizona. These
participants were not a part of the population, but they were approximate in characteristics of
those who were studied. AgriScience Fair students were selected because of their knowledge of
environmental science, age ranges in comparison to the population, and active participation
within Arizona FFA. This allowed for like results similar characteristics to the population.
Within the questionnaire there are four constructs represented: past participation in
environmental science CDEs (11 items), CDE future interest to participate in (11 items), CDE
importance for future career plans (11 items), and CDE interest for college major or career
option (11 items). The four constructs were then analyzed using SPSS where a Cronbach alpha
37
was calculated, which is used to measure the reliability of the instrument. When reliability
measures personality variables, results are harder to obtain; thus, these measures typically have
only moderate reliability yielding values from .60 to .70 (Ary et al., 2010).
The past participation in environmental science CDEs construct yielded a Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of 0.65. The CDE future interest to participate in construct yielded a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.74. The CDE importance for future career plans construct
yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.88; and the CDE interest for college major or career
option construct yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.69. These results further asserted the
instrument was reliable since all computed coefficients were higher than the suggested 0.60 to
0.70 minimum alpha level. Due to the low coefficients another answer option was added into the
Likert-scale of “slightest interest, importance, or participation” relating to the specific construct.
Data Collection
Four points of contact were made to maximize response rates. June 20th, 2012, teachers
were be contacted via email to determine interest in the research project, number of students
within their classrooms, and practicality of completing the research. A copy of the pre-notice
email is found in Appendix A.
On August 1st – 16th teachers received data collection packets which included: cover letter
explaining the process, instructions to read to students, definitions for student clarification,
printed questionnaires for their students, and a prepaid envelope to return the questionnaires.
(See Appendix E) Additionally, a gift card to Target, and Expo markers, were included as a
token of appreciation for their participation and cooperation.
38
On September 5th, 2012 , all teachers who have not returned their packets will be sent a
reminder email to return the completed questionnaires at their earliest convenience. Data
collection concluded on October 15th, 2012. The last point of contact will be in March 2013, to
follow up with teachers, and share the results of the study with them.
Table 4.
Data Collection Timeline
June 20th, 2012
Email contact to teachers requesting participation
August 1st-16th, 2012
Teachers received data collection packets
August 16th- September 5th, 2012
Teacher timeline to complete instrument within their classroom
September 5th, 2012
Teachers sent reminder email to return completed
questionnaires
October 1st, 2012
Second reminder email sent for teachers to return on completed
questionnaires
October 15th, 2012
Cease data collection
Five out of the six teachers returned students completed instruments, which yielded an
83% response rate for teacher participation. Instruments that were missing responses on more
than 11 items related to interest, important, or participation constructs were deemed unusable by
the researcher. Therefore, 32 questionnaires were deemed usable for data analysis (90% usable
response rate).
39
Chapter 4: Results
Purpose and Objectives
The aim of this study is to evaluate secondary agricultural education students’ interest in
environmental science and how population demographics vary their opinions. The purpose of
this study is to describe the difference in urban versus rural secondary agricultural education
students understanding and attitudes of environmental science, and if they express an interest in
pursuing a future in the subject area. Specifically, the following research objectives guided the
study:
Research Objectives:
1. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of participation and interest
in environmental science related Career Development Events (CDEs).
2. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of the importance of
environmental science related CDEs.
3. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in fields similar to environmental science related CDEs.
4. Describe the environmental science topics learned by secondary agricultural
education students in rural and urban communities.
5. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in an environmental science learned topic among rural and urban students.
6. Describe the attitudes toward environmental science related statements among rural
and urban secondary agricultural education students.
40
Agricultural education students’ within Arizona who responded to the study reported a
mean age of 15.3 years (SD = 1.09; n = 305), with a range of 13 to 18 years. Among the 304
Arizona secondary agricultural education students, 53.1% were female (n = 162) and 46.9% were
male (n = 143). The 305 Arizona secondary agricultural education students reported a mean
years belonging to FFA or being in agriculture classes of 1.66 years (SD = 1.16) with a range of
zero years to five years. In terms of interest of continuing into an environmental science field,
Arizona secondary agricultural education students (n = 305) reported a mean of 0.80 of interest
in pursuing higher education in the topic (SD = 0.89) with a range of undecided to yes. Students
(n = 302) reported a mean of 0.88, in regards to continuing into a career within environmental
sciences (SD= .93). The rating scale students interest in higher education or a career in
environmental science is as follows: 0 = undecided, 1 = No, 2= Yes. Results for each construct
are reported in this chapter respective to the corresponding objective (See Table 5).
41
Table 5
Students Population Demographics of Arizona Secondary Agricultural Education Students (n =175)
Demographic
f
Sex
Female
93
Male
77
Age
13
6
14
32
15
62
16
49
17
18
18
3
Years in FFA
0
31
1
60
2
40
3
30
4
5
Highest Degree of Education Planned
%
53.1
44.0
3.4
18.3
35.4
28.0
10.3
1.70
17.7
34.4
22.9
17.1
2.90
HS/ GED
Some College
Associates
Bachelors
Masters
Doctorates
Other
20
10
12
31
59
26
6
11.4
5.7
6.9
17.7
33.7
14.9
3.50
Yes
No
Undecided
34
45
91
19.4
25.7
52.0
Interest in pursuing environmental science as a college major
42
Interest in pursuing environmental science as a career
Yes
No
Undecided
43
16
60
92
9.1
34.3
52.6
Research Objective One
Research objective one sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of participation, and interest in environmental science related CDEs (Career Development
Events) among rural and urban students. Frequencies were reported for each of the six points on
the Likert-type scale for the 11 items related to students’ participation within environmental
science related CDEs, and the 11 items related to students interest in environmental science
related CDEs found in Table 5 and Table 6. For Table 5, the Likert-type rating scale ranged
from 0 to 5 with 0= “No Participation”; 1= “Slightest Participation”; 2= “Below Average
Participation”; 3= “Average Participation”; 4= “Above Average Participation”; 5= Utmost
Participation.
The modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with all students yielding
percentages over sixty-nine percent. Two items, Agronomy and Forestry CDE, resulted with “No
Participation” as the modal category followed by “Below Average Participation.” Agronomy
represents 79% (n = 251) for “No participation”, and four percent (n = 12) for “Below Average
Participation. Within Forestry CDE, 79.7% (n = 252) answered “No Participation”, followed by
four percent (n =11) “Below Average Participation”. The following items yielded “No
Participation”, followed by “Slightest Participation”: Aquaculture (75.3%, n = 238; 6%, n = 19)
Entomology (77.8%, n = 246; 4.1%, n = 13); Floriculture (70.6%, n = 223; 7.9%, n = 25);
Nursery & Landscape (73.1%, n = 231; 7.3%, n =23); and Soils (72.5%, n = 229; 6.6%, n = 21).
The modal category was “No Participation” followed by “Average Participation” for the
following: Agriculture Communication (69.3%, n = 219; 9.5%, n = 30), Environmental &
Natural Resources (71.2%, n = 225; 8.9%, n = 28), Range Management (75.9%, n = 240; 6.0%, n
= 19), and Wildlife (68.7%, n = 217; 7.6%, n = 24). (See Table 6).
44
CDE topics where “Utmost Participation” was reported greater than one percent of the
population included: Agricultural Communication (1.6%; n = 5), Aquaculture (1.6%; n = 5),
Floriculture (1.9%; n = 6), Soils (1.3%; n = 4), and Wildlife (1.3%; n = 4). (See Table 6).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated past participation in
CDE’s of 0.45 (SD= 0.67) on the six point Likert-type scale. Therefore “No Participation” within
the items related to past participation in CDEs is the modal category (See Table 10).
Table 6 shows the interest levels of participating in environmental science related CDEs
to examine if students are entertaining the idea of future participation within these topics.
Frequencies were reported for each of the six points on the Likert-type scale for the 11 items
related to levels of interest in participating in environmental science related CDEs. The Likerttype rating scale ranged from 0 to 6 with 0= “No Interest”; 1= “Slightest Interest”; 2= “Below
Average Interest”; 3= “Average Interest”; 4= “Above Average Interest”; 5= “Utmost Interest”;
6= “Already Participated In”.
“No Interest” was the modal category, for 10 of the 11 topics. The modal category for
Wildlife was “Average Interest” with 27% (n = 84) sharing interest in this CDE. The seven items
that yielded “No Interest” as the highest followed by “Slightest Interest” are as follows:
Agriculture Communication (40.8%, n = 129; 19.2%, n = 62), Agronomy (48.4%, n = 153;
17.4%, n = 55), Entomology (50.9%, n = 161; 15.8, n = 50), Floriculture (34.5%, n = 109;
16.5%, n = 52), Nursery & Landscape (43.4%, n = 137; 14.9%, n = 47), Range Management
(47.5%, n = 150; 15.2%, n = 48), and Soils (44.3%, n = 140; 17.4%, n = 55). (See Table 7).
Three items yielded “No Interest” as the modal category, followed by “Average Interest”:
Aquaculture (28.5%, n = 90; 20.9%, n = 60), Environmental & Natural Resources (34.2%, n =
108; 19.0%, n = 60), and Forestry (36.1%, n = 114; 15.5%, n = 49).
45
Secondary agricultural education students reported “Above Average Interest” greater
than five percent were Aquaculture (9.8%, n = 31), Environmental & Natural Resources (6.0%, n
= 19) Floriculture (8.9%, n = 28), Forestry (8.5%, n = 27), Nursery & Landscape (6.3%, n = 20).
Those who reported “Utmost Interest” greater than five percent were Aquaculture (5.7%, n =
18), Floriculture (6.6%, n = 21), and Wildlife (14.9%, n = 47) (See Table 7).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated interest in
participation in environmental CDE’s of 1.49 (SD= .95) on the six point Likert-type scale, and
therefore students have “Slightest Interest” in participating in environmental science related
CDEs (See Table 10).
46
Table 6.
Students Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n =305)
0
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
219
69.3
16
5.1
9
2.8
30
9.5
9
2.8
5
1.6
251
79.4
10
3.2
12
3.8
6
1.9
7
2.2
2
0.6
238
75.3
19
6.0
12
3.8
10
3.2
4
1.3
5
1.6
225
71.2
18
5.7
12
3.8
28
8.9
3
0.9
2
0.6
246
77.8
13
4.1
9
2.8
12
3.8
5
1.6
2
0.6
223
70.6
25
7.9
16
5.1
12
3.8
5
1.6
6
1.9
252
79.7
10
3.2
11
3.5
10
3.2
2
0.6
3
0.9
Nursery &
Landscape
231
73.1
23
7.3
12
3.8
14
4.4
6
1.9
2
0.6
Range
Management
240
75.9
11
3.5
11
3.5
19
6.0
5
1.6
1
0.3
229
72.5
21
6.6
13
4.1
16
5.1
5
1.6
4
1.3
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
217
68.7
14
4.4
15
4.7
24
7.6
14
4.4
4
1.3
Wildlife
Note. 0= No participation; 1= Slightest participation; 2= Below average participation; 3= average participation; 4= Above average
participation; 5= utmost participation.
47
Table 7.
Students Average Level of Interest for Future Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n = 305)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
129
40.8
62
19.6
26
8.2
60
19.0
6
1.9
12
3.8
10
3.2
153
48.4
55
17.4
32
10.1
36
11.4
6
1.9
5
1.6
15
4.7
90
28.5
60
20.9
28
8.9
68
21.5
31
9.8
18
5.7
6
1.9
108
34.2
60
19.0
36
11.4
63
19.9
19
6.0
6
1.9
10
3.2
161
50.9
50
15.8
31
9.8
30
9.5
10
3.2
4
1.3
16
5.1
109
34.5
52
16.5
30
9.5
50
15.8
28
8.9
21
6.6
17
5.4
114
36.1
49
15.5
32
10.1
58
18.4
27
8.5
15
4.7
10
3.2
Nursery &
Landscape
137
43.4
47
14.9
42
13.3
41
13.0
20
6.3
6
1.9
11
3.5
Range
Management
150
47.5
48
15.2
32
10.1
41
13.0
13
4.1
12
3.8
8
2.5
140
44.3
55
17.4
34
10.8
42
13.3
10
3.2
10
3.2
14
4.4
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
57
18.0
43
13.6
27
8.5
84
26.6
42 13.3
47
14.9
8
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.
48
2.5
Examining research objective one by each demographic area Urban Area 50,000100,000 persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with
percentages ranging from 74% to 86%. Seven items, Agriculture Communication, Aquaculture,
Environmental & Natural Resources, Entomology, Floriculture, Nursery & Landscape, and Soils,
resulted with “No Participation” as the modal category followed by “Slightest Participation.”
The CDE topical results are as follows: Agriculture Communication (73.7%, n = 129; 5.1%, n =
9), Aquaculture (77.7%, n = 136; 7.4%, n = 13), Environmental & Natural Resources (76.0%, n
= 133; 6.9%, n = 12), Entomology (82.3%, n = 144; 4.0%, n = 7), Floriculture (68.6%, n = 120;
9.7%, n = 17) Nursery & Landscape ( 74.3%, n = 130; 10.3%, n = 18), and Soils ( 80.6%, n =
141; 7.4%, n = 13) (See Table 6A).
The remaining four items fell into the category with a mode of “No Importance” followed
by “Below Average Participation”. Students found “No Participation” in Agronomy for a future
career option yielding seventy three percent (n = 129) , and 3.4% (n = 6) for “Below Average
Participation”. Students’ importance in Forestry resulted in 85.7% (n = 150) for “No
Importance”, 3% (n = 5) for “ Below Average Participation”. Range Management CDE yielded
86.3% (n =151) for “No Participation”, 3% (n=5) for “Below Average Participation”. Wildlife
CDE yielded 76% (n =151) for “No Participation”, 5.1% (n=9) for “Below Average
Participation” (See Table 6A).
Examining research objective one by each demographic area Urban Area 50,000-100,000
persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with percentages ranging
from 74% to 86%. Eight items, Agronomy, Aquaculture, Environmental & Natural Resources,
Entomology, Floriculture, Nursery & Landscape, and Soils, resulted with “No Participation” as
the modal category followed by “Slightest Participation.” The CDE topical results are as
49
follows: Agronomy (71.6%, n = 48; 1.5%, n = 1), Aquaculture (64.2%, n = 43; 4.5%, n = 3),
Environmental & Natural Resources (65.7%, n = 44; 3.0%, n = 2), Entomology (67.2%, n = 45;
3.0%, n = 2), Floriculture (65.7%, n = 44; 3.0%, n = 2) Nursery & Landscape ( 68.7%, n = 46;
1.5%, n = 1), and Soils ( 67.2%, n = 45; 3.0%, n = 2) (See Table 6B).
The remaining four items fell into the category with a mode of “No Participation”
followed by “Below Average Participation”. Students found “No Participation” in Agriculture
Communication for a future career option yielding sixty seven percent (n = 45) , and 1.5% (n =
1) for “Below Average Participation”. Students’ importance in Range Management resulted in
67.2% (n = 45) for “No Participation”, 4.5% (n = 3) for “ Below Average Participation”.
Wildlife CDE yielded 67.2% (n = 45) for “No Participation”, 3% (n= 2) for “Below Average
Participation” (See Table 6B).
Examining research objective one by each demographic area Urban Cluster persons, the
modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with percentages ranging from 54.4%
to 77.3%. Seven items, Agronomy, Aquaculture, Entomology, Floriculture, Nursery &
Landscape, and Soils, resulted with “No Participation” as the modal category followed by
“Slightest Participation.” The CDE topical results are as follows: Agronomy (70.8%, n = 31;
9.1%, n = 4), Aquaculture (77.3%, n = 34; 4.5%, n = 2), Entomology (70.5%, n = 31; 9.1%, n =
4), Floriculture (72.7%, n = 32; 11.4%, n = 5), Forestry (65.9%, n = 29; 11.4%, n = 5), Nursery
& Landscape (70.5%, n = 31; 9.1%, n = 4), and Wildlife ( 54.4%, n = 24; 9.1%, n = 4) (See
Table 6C).
The remaining four items fell into the category with a mode of “No Participation”
followed by “Average Participation”. Students found “No Participation” in Agriculture
Communication for a future career option yielding fifty six percent (n = 25) , and 15.9% (n = 7)
50
for “Average Participation”. Students’ importance in Environmental & Natural Resources
resulted in 61.4% (n = 27) for “No Participation”, 18.2% (n = 8) for “Average Participation”.
Range Management CDE yielded 61.4% (n = 27) for “No Participation”, 13.6% (n= 6) for
“Average Participation”, and Soils yielded 61.4% (n = 27) for “No Participation”, 11.4% (n= 5)
for “Average Participation” (See Table 6C).
Examining research objective one by each demographic area Rural Area persons, the
modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with percentages ranging from 53.6%
to 89.3%. Five items, Agronomy, Aquaculture, Entomology, Floriculture, Forestry, and Nursery
& Landscape resulted with “No Participation” as the modal category followed by “Slightest
Participation.” The CDE topical results are as follows: Agronomy (89.3%, n = 25; 3.6%, n = 1),
Aquaculture (89.3%, n = 25; 3.6%, n = 1), Entomology (70.5%, n = 31; 9.1%, n = 4),
Floriculture (96.4%, n = 27; 3.6%, n = 1), Forestry (92.9%, n = 26; 3.6%, n = 1), and Nursery &
Landscape (85.7%, n = 24; 3.6%, n = 1) (See Table 6D).
The remaining four items fell into the category with a mode of “No Participation”
followed by “Average Participation”. Students found “No Participation” in Agriculture
Communication for a future career option yielding seventy one percent (n = 20), and 17.9% (n =
5) for “Average Participation”. Students’ importance in Environmental & Natural Resources
resulted in 75.0% (n = 21) for “No Participation”, 18.2% (n = 8) for “Average Participation”, and
Entomology resulted in 61.4% (n = 27) for “No Participation”, 21.4% (n = 6) for “Average
Participation”. Range Management CDE yielded 60.7% (n = 17) for “No Participation”, 25.0%
(n= 7) for “Average Participation”, Soils yielded 57.1% (n = 16) for “No Participation”, 21.4%
(n= 6) for “Average Participation”, and Wildlife yielded 53.6% (n = 15) for “No Participation”,
21.4% (n= 6) for “Average Participation” (See Table 6D).
51
Table 6A.
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs
0
CDE (n=170*)
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Nursery &
Landscape
Range
Management
Soils
1
2
3
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
129
73.7
9
5.1
6
3.4
147
84.0
5
2.9
6
136
77.7
13
7.4
133
76.0
12
144
82.3
120
4
5
%
f
%
f
%
18
10.3
5
2.9
3
1.7
3.4
3
1.7
7
4.0
2
1.1
8
4.6
6
3.4
3
1.7
4
2.3
6.9
8
4.6
13
7.4
2
1.1
2
1.1
7
4.0
5
2.9
8
4.6
4
2.3
2
1.1
68.6
17
9.7
12
6.9
11
6.3
5
2.9
5
2.9
150
85.7
3
1.7
5
2.9
7
4.0
2
1.1
3
1.7
130
74.3
18
10.3
7
4.0
8
4.6
6
3.4
1
0.6
151
86.3
5
2.9
5
2.9
3
1.7
4
2.3
1
0.6
141
80.6
13
7.4
8
4.6
4
2.3
2
1.1
2
1.1
133
76.0
8
4.6
9
5.1
14
8
5
2.9
1
0.6
Wildlife
Note. 0 = No participation; 1= Slightest participation; 2= Below average participation; 3= average participation; 4= Above average
participation; 5= utmost participation.
*Range Management n=167
52
Table 6B.
Urban Area 50,000- 100,000 Students Average Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n=49*)
0
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
45
67.2
1
1.5
1
1.5
2
3.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
48
71.6
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
43
64.2
3
4.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
44
65.7
2
3.0
2
3.0
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
45
67.2
2
3.0
1
1.5
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
44
65.7
2
3.0
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
1.5
47
70.1
1
1.5
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Nursery &
Landscape
46
68.7
1
1.5
0
0.0
2
3.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Range
Management
45
67.2
1
1.5
3
4.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
45
67.2
2
3.0
1
1.5
1
1.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
45
67.2
0
0.0
2
3.0
1
1.5
1
1.5
0
0.0
Wildlife
Note. 0= No participation; 1= Slightest participation; 2= Below average participation; 3= average participation; 4= Above average
participation; 5= utmost participation.*Floriculture n=48.
53
Table 6C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n=41*)
0
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
25
56.8
4
9.1
2
4.5
7
15.9
3
6.8
0
0.0
31
70.8
4
9.1
4
9.1
2
4.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
34
77.3
2
4.5
2
4.5
2
4.5
1
2.3
0
0.0
27
61.4
3
6.8
2
4.5
8
18.2
1
2.3
0
0.0
31
70.5
4
9.1
3
6.8
1
2.3
1
2.3
0
0.0
32
72.7
5
11.4
3
6.8
1
2.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
29
65.9
5
11.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
Nursery &
Landscape
31
70.5
4
9.1
4
9.1
2
4.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
Range
Management
27
61.4
4
9.1
4
9.1
6
13.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
27
61.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
5
11.4
0
0.0
2
4.5
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
24
54.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
3
6.8
5
11.4
2
4.5
Wildlife
Note. 0= No participation; 1= Slightest participation; 2= Below average participation; 3= average participation; 4= Above average
participation; 5= utmost participation.*Entomology n= 40.
54
Table 6D.
Rural Area Students Average Level of Participation in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n = 28)
0
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
20
71.4
2
7.1
1
3.6
5
17.9
0
25
89.3
1
3.6
1
3.6
1
3.6
25
89.3
1
3.6
1
3.6
1
21
75.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
26
92.9
0
0.0
0
27
96.4
1
3.6
26
92.9
1
Nursery &
Landscape
24
85.7
Range
Management
17
16
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
5
%
f
%
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
6
21.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
3.6
1
3.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
60.7
1
3.6
2
7.1
7
25.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
57.1
2
7.1
1
3.6
6
21.4
3
10.7
0
0.0
15
53.6
2
7.1
1
3.6
6
21.4
3
10.7
1
3.6
Wildlife
Note. 0= No participation; 1= Slightest participation; 2= Below average participation; 3= average participation; 4= Above average
participation; 5= utmost participation
55
Table 7A.
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Interest for Participating in Environmental Science Related CDEs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
67
38.3
39
22.3
19
10.91
34
19.4
5
2.9
4
2.3
6
3.4
78
44.6
35
20.0
23
13.11
19
10.9
6
3.4
1
0.6
10
5.7
38
21.7
39
22.3
20
11.4
42
24.0
25
14.3
7
4.0
3
1.7
49
28.0
36
20.6
24
13.7
45
25.7
14
8.0
2
1.1
4
2.3
81
46.3
34
19.4
17
9.7
20
11.4
9
5.1
1
0.6
10
5.7
43
24.6
32
18.3
17
9.7
36
20.6
22
12.6
14
8.0
10
5.7
53
30.3
32
18.3
19
10.9
42
24.0
13
7.4
7
4.0
7
4.0
Nursery &
Landscape
69
39.4
29
16.6
29
16.6
22
12.6
15
8.6
2
1.1
8
4.6
Range
Management
89
50.9
25
14.3
23
13.1
24
13.7
5
2.9
3
1.7
4
2.3
79
45.1
33
18.9
20
11.4
24
13.7
7
4.0
3
1.7
7
4.0
CDE (n=174*)
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental
& Nat.Resource
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
26 14.9
23 13.1
16
9.1
52 29.7
27 15.4
27
15.4
3
1.7
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.*Agronomy & Entomology n=172; Forestry, Range Management, & Soils n=173
56
Table 7B.
Urban Area 50,000-100,000 Students Average Level of Interest for Participating in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n=65*)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
32
47.8
15
22.4
3
4.5
11
16.4
0
0.0
2
3.0
0
0.0
34
50.7
9
13.4
5
7.5
11
16.4
0
0.0
3
4.5
0
0.0
23
34.3
11
16.4
7
10.4
12
17.9
6
9.0
5
7.5
1
1.5
27
40.3
12
17.9
6
9.0
9
13.4
4
6.0
1
1.5
2
3.0
42
62.7
7
10.4
6
9.0
3
4.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
2
3.0
27
40.3
12
17.9
8
11.9
10
14.9
3
4.5
2
3.0
3
4.5
30
44.8
7
10.4
9
13.4
7
10.4
8
11.9
4
6.0
4
6.0
Nursery &
Landscape
32
47.8
9
13.4
7
10.4
9
13.4
3
4.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
Range
Management
38
56.7
7
10.4
2
3.0
9
13.4
5
7.5
2
3.0
0
0.0
28
41.8
10
14.9
4
6.0
14
20.9
3
4.5
4
6.0
1
1.5
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
15
22.4
6
9.0
7
10.4
18 26.9
10
14.9
8
11.9
2
3.0
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.*Agriculture Communication n=63; Agronomy, Entomology, and Nursery & Landscape n=62;
57
Table 7C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Interest for Participating in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n=40)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
17
38.6
4
9.1
2
4.5
9
20.5
0
0.0
4
9.1
4
9.1
21
47.7
6
13.6
3
6.8
4
9.1
0
0.0
1
2.3
5
11.4
17
38.6
7
15.9
1
2.3
10
22.7
0
0.0
3
6.8
2
4.5
13
29.5
9
20.5
5
11.4
7
15.9
1
2.3
2
4.5
3
6.8
21
47.7
5
11.4
6
13.6
3
6.8
0
0.0
1
2.3
4
9.1
21
47.7
5
11.4
4
9.1
2
4.5
0
0.0
4
9.1
4
9.1
15
34.1
7
15.9
2
4.5
6
13.6
4
9.1
2
4.5
3
6.8
Nursery &
Landscape
22
50.0
5
11.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
2
4.5
2
4.5
2
4.5
Range
Management
8
18.2
12
27.3
5
11.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
5
11.4
3
6.8
15
34.1
7
15.9
8
18.2
2
4.5
0
0.0
3
6.8
5
11.4
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
3
6.8
12
27.3
2
4.5
9
20.5
3
6.8
9
20.5
2
4.5
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.
58
Table 7D.
Rural Area Students Average Level of Interest for Participating in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n= 28*)
0
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
13
46.4
4
14.3
2
7.1
6
21.4
1
3.6
20
71.4
5
17.9
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
12
42.9
9
32.1
0
0.0
4
14.3
0
19
67.9
3
10.7
1
3.6
2
7.1
17
60.7
4
14.3
2
7.1
4
18
64.3
3
10.7
1
3.6
16
57.1
3
10.7
2
Nursery &
Landscape
14
50.0
4
14.3
Range
Management
15
53.6
4
18
64.3
5
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental
& Nat.Resource
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
f
6
%
f
%
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
1
3.6
14.3
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
2
7.1
3
10.7
1
3.6
0
0.0
7.1
3
10.7
2
7.1
2
7.1
0
0.0
2
7.1
7
25.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
14.3
2
7.1
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
1
3.6
17.9
2
7.1
2
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
2
13 46.6
2
7.1
2
7.1
5 17.9
2
7.1
3
10.7
1
3.6
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in. *Environmental Science n= 27.
59
Research Objective Two
Research objective two sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
importance of learning environmental science CDE topics in regards to future career plans.
Frequencies were reported for each of the six points on the Likert-type scale for the 11 items
related to students’ level of importance within environmental science related CDEs found in
Table 3. For Table 3, the Likert-type rating scale ranged from 0 to 5 with 0= “No Importance”;
1= “Slightest Importance”; 2= “Below Average Importance”; 3= “Average Importance”; 4=
“Above Average Importance”; 5= “Utmost Importance”; 6= “Already Participated In.”
The modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with percentages ranging
from 36% to 59%. Eight items, Agronomy, Aquaculture, Entomology, Floriculture, Forestry,
Nursery & Landscape, Range Management, and Soils, resulted with “No Importance” as the
modal category followed by “Slightest Importance.” The CDE topical results are as follows:
Agronomy (56.0%, n = 177; 11.4%, n = 36), Aquaculture (47.2%, n = 149; 15.8%, n = 50)
Entomology(58.9%, n = 186; 12.3%, n = 39), Floriculture (55.7%, n = 176; 12.3%, n = 39)
Forestry (47.8%, n = 151; 14.6, n = 46) Nursery & Landscape ( 55.7%, n = 176; 12.3%, n = 39),
Range Management (51.9%, n = 164; 13.9%, n = 44), and Soils ( 52.8%, n = 167; 12.7%, n =
40) (See Table 8).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Importance”
followed by “Average Importance”. Students found “No Importance” in Agriculture
Communication for a future career option yielding forty seven percent (n =146) , and 16% (n =
51) for “Average Importance.” Students’ importance in Environmental & Natural Resources
resulted in 42% (n = 133) for “No Importance”, 17% (n = 53) for “Average Importance.”
Wildlife CDE yielded 36% (n=113) for “No Importance”, 15% (n=47) for “Average
60
Importance.” These three CDEs also yielded above six percent for “Below Average Importance”,
“Above Average Importance”, and “Utmost Importance” as well (See Table 8).
Regarding the low frequency items where environmental science CDEs yielded “Already
Participated In” for students future career option was reported greater than two percent of the
population included: Agronomy (3.2%; n = 10), Aquaculture (2.5%; n = 8), Entomology( 3.8%,
n = 12) Floriculture (3.5%; n = 11), Forestry (2.2%, n = 7), Nursery & Landscape (2.8%, n = 9)
Soils (3.2%; n = 10), and Wildlife (2.8%; n = 9) (See Table 8).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated past participation in
CDEs of 1.03 (SD= 1.08) on the six point Likert-type scale. Therefore “Slightest Participation”
within the items related to past participation in CDEs is the modal category (See Table 10).
Examining research objective two by each demographic area Urban Area > 100,000
persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “Slightest Importance”. Seven items,
Agriculture Communication, Aquaculture, Environmental & Natural Resources, Forestry,
Nursery & Landscape, Range Management, and Soils, and Wildlife resulted with “Slightest
Importance” as the modal category followed by “Above Average Importance.” The CDE topical
results are as follows: Agriculture Communication (48.0%, n = 84; 18.9%, n = 33), Aquaculture
(44.0%, n = 77; 17.7%, n = 31) Environmental & Natural Resources (34.4%, n = 69; 19.4%, n =
34), Forestry (46.9%, n = 82; 13.1%, n = 23), Nursery & Landscape ( 57.1%, n = 100; 6.3%, n =
23), Soils (54.3%, n = 95; 13.7%, n = 24), and Wildlife ( 38.9%, n = 68; 11.4%, n = 31) (See
Table 8A).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “Slightest Importance”
followed by “Below Average Importance”. Students found “Slightest Importance” in Agronomy,
for a future career option yielding fifty eight percent (n =102), and 11.4% (n = 20) for “Below
61
Average Importance.” Students’ importance in Entomology resulted in 60.0% (n = 105) for
“Slightest Importance”, 12% (n = 21) for “Below Average Importance.” Floriculture CDE
yielded 46.9% (n=82) for “Slightest Importance”, 13.1% (n=23) for “Below Average
Importance”, and Range Management resulted in 53.7% (n = 94) for “Slightest Importance”,
15.4% (n = 27) for “Below Average Importance” (See Table 8A).
Examining research objective two by each demographic area Urban Area 50,000100,000 persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “No Importance”. Seven items,
Agriculture Communication, Agronomy, Environmental & Natural Resources, Entomology,
Floriculture, Forestry, Nursery & Landscape, and Range Management resulted with “Slightest
Importance” as the modal category followed by “Above Average Importance.” The CDE topical
results are as follows: Agriculture Communication (44.8%, n = 30; 13.4%, n = 9), Agronomy
(49.3%, n = 33; 11.9%, n = 8) Environmental & Natural Resources (43.3%, n = 29; 17.9%, n =
12), Entomology (53.7%, n = 36; 13.4%, n = 9), Floriculture (53.7%, n = 36; 11.9%, n = 8),
Forestry (43.3%, n = 29; 14.9%, n = 10), Nursery & Landscape ( 52.2%, n = 35; 9.0%, n = 6),
and Range Management ( 53.7%, n = 36; 7.5%, n = 5 (See Table 8B).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Importance”
followed by “Below Average Importance”. Students found “No Importance” in Aquaculture, for
a future career option yielding 46.3% (n =31), and 14.9% (n = 10) for “Slightest Importance.”
Students’ importance in Soils resulted in 49.3 (n = 33) for “No Importance”, 13.4% (n = 9) for
“Slightest Importance.” Wildlife CDE yielded 28.4% (n =19) for “No Importance”, 17.9%
(n =12) for “Slightest Importance” (See Table 8B).
Examining research objective two by each demographic area Urban Cluster persons, the
modal category for all eleven items was “No Importance” followed by “Slightest Interest”. The
62
CDE topical results are as follows: Agriculture Communication (34.1%, n = 15; 22.7%, n = 10),
Agronomy (47.0%, n = 21; 13.6%, n = 6) Aquaculture (52.3%, n = 23; 13.6%, n = 6),
Environmental & Natural Resources (40.9%, n = 18; 15.9%, n = 7), Entomology (56.8%, n = 25;
11.4%, n = 5), Floriculture (56.8%, n = 25; 11.4%, n = 5), Forestry (45.5%, n = 20; 22.7%, n =
10), Nursery & Landscape (52.3%, n = 23; 18.2, n = 8), Range Management ( 36.4%, n = 16;
20.5%, n = 9), Soils (43.2%, n = 19; 18.2%, n = 8), and Wildlife (27.3%, n = 12; 18.2%, n = 8),
(See Table 8C).
Examining research objective two by each demographic area Rural Area persons, the
modal category for all eleven items was “No Importance”. Eight items, Agronomy, Aquaculture,
Environmental & Natural Resources, Entomology, Floriculture, Forestry, Soils, and Wildlife
resulted with “Slightest Importance” as the modal category followed by “Above Average
Importance.” The CDE topical results are as follows:, Agronomy (60.7%, n = 17; 10.7%, n = 3),
Aquaculture (64.3%, n = 18; 14.3%, n = 4), Environmental & Natural Resources (60.7%, n = 17;
17.9%, n = 5), Entomology (71.4%, n = 20; 14.3%, n = 4), Floriculture (71.4%, n = 20; 14.3%, n
= 4), Forestry (71.4%, n = 20; 14.3%, n = 4)), Soils ( 71.4%, n = 20; 10.7%, n = 3), and Wildlife
( 50.0%, n = 14; 21.4%, n = 6) (See Table 8D).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Importance”
followed by “Average Importance”. Students found “No Importance” in Agriculture
Communication, for a future career option yielding 60.7% (n =17), and 21.4% (n = 6) for
“Average Importance.” Students’ importance in Nursery & Landscape resulted in 49.3 (n = 33)
for “No Importance”, 13.4% (n = 9) for “Slightest Importance.” Wildlife CDE yielded 28.4% (n
=19) for “No Importance”, 17.9% (n =12) for “Slightest Importance” (See Table 8D).
63
Table 8.
Students Level of Importance of Environmental Science Relater CDEs for Future Career Plans (n = 300)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
146
46.2
40
12.7
19
6.0
51
16.1
19
6.0
19
6.0
5
1.6
177
56.0
36
11.4
31
9.8
27
8.5
10
3.2
9
2.8
10
3.2
149
47.2
50
15.8
24
7.6
46
14.6
12
3.8
11
3.5
8
2.5
133
42.1
45
14.2
26
8.2
53
16.8
19
6.0
18
5.7
5
1.6
186
58.9
38
12.0
24
7.6
29
9.2
8
2.5
2
0.6
12
3.8
176
55.7
39
12.3
25
7.9
32
10.1
9
2.8
7
2.2
11
3.5
151
47.8
46
14.6
26
8.2
37
11.7
19
6.0
11
3.5
7
2.2
Nursery &
Landscape
176
55.7
39
12.3
21
6.6
35
11.1
10
3.2
8
2.5
9
2.8
Range
Management
164
51.9
44
13.9
24
7.6
34
10.8
12
3.8
16
5.1
5
1.6
167
52.8
40
12.7
24
7.6
37
11.7
10
3.2
12
3.8
10
3.2
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
113 35.8
36
11.4
28
8.9
47
14.9
40 12.7
28 8.9
9 2.8
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Importance; 1= Slightest Importance; 2= Below Average Importance; 3= Average Importance; 4= Above Average
Importance; 5= Utmost Importance; 6= Already Participated In.
64
Table 8A.
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Importance of Environmental Science Related CDEs for Future Career Plans
(n=170*)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
F
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Agriculture
2
1.1
84
48.0
22
12.6
12
6.9
33
18.9
12
6.9
5
2.9
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Nursery &
Landscape
Range Management
Soils
6
3.4
102
58.3
20
11.4
21
12.0
14
8.0
4
2.3
3
1.7
4
2.3
77
44.0
30
17.1
15
8.6
31
17.7
10
5.7
3
1.7
4
2.3
69
34.4
27
15.4
17
9.7
34
19.4
10
5.7
8
4.6
7
4.0
105
60.0
21
12.0
13
7.4
18
10.3
5
2.9
1
0.6
6
3.4
95
54.3
23
13.1
16
9.1
19
10.9
7
4.0
4
2.3
4
2.3
82
46.9
23
13.1
17
9.7
23
13.1
16
9.1
3
1.7
4
2.3
100
57.1
23
13.1
11
6.3
23
13.1
7
4.0
4
2.3
2
1.1
94
53.7
27
15.4
16
9.1
22
12.6
5
2.9
4
2.3
5
2.9
95
54.3
20
11.4
15
8.6
24
13.7
7
4.0
4.0
2.3
3
1.7
68
38.9
10
5.7
20
11.4
31
17.7
24
13.7
14
8.0
Wildlife
Note. 0= No importance 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.
65
Table 8B.
Urban Area 50,000-100,000 Students Average Level of Importance of Environmental Science Related CDEs for Future Career Plans
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
30
44.8
7
10.4
4
6.0
9
13.4
4
6.0
6
9.0
1
1.5
33
49.3
8
11.9
5
7.5
8
11.9
3
4.5
4
6.0
1
1.5
31
46.3
10
14.9
4
6.0
10
14.9
1
1.5
5
7.5
1
1.5
29
43.3
6
9.0
2
3.0
12
17.9
7
10.4
6
9.0
0
0.0
36
53.7
8
11.9
4
6.0
9
13.4
2
3.0
0
0.0
2
3.0
36
53.7
8
11.9
5
7.5
8
11.9
1
1.5
1
1.5
2
3.0
29
43.3
9
13.4
6
9.0
10
14.9
2
3.0
4
6.0
1
1.5
Nursery &
Landscape
35
52.2
6
9.0
6
9.0
6
9.0
2
3.0
5
7.5
2
3.0
Range
Management
36
53.7
5
7.5
5
7.5
5
7.5
4
6.0
6
9.0
0
0.0
33
49.3
9
13.4
5
7.5
7
10.4
2
3.0
5
7.5
1
1.5
CDE (n=62*)
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
19
28.4
12
17.9
5
7.5
9
13.4
11
16.4
6
9.0
1
1.5
Wildlife
Note. 0= No importance 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.*Agriculture Communication n=61.
66
Table 8C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Importance of Environmental Science Related CDEs for Future Career Plans
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
15
34.1
10
22.7
1
2.3
3
6.8
3
6.8
6
13.6
2
4.5
21
47.0
6
13.6
2
4.5
4
9.1
3
6.8
1
2.3
3
6.8
23
52.3
6
13.6
2
4.5
3
6.8
1
2.3
2
4.5
18
40.9
7
15.9
5
11.4
5
11.4
2
4.5
3
6.8
0
0.0
25
56.8
5
11.4
4
9.1
2
4.5
1
2.3
0
0.0
3
6.8
25
56.8
5
11.4
2
4.5
3
6.8
1
2.3
1
2.3
3
6.8
20
45.5
10
22.7
2
4.5
3
6.8
1
2.3
2
4.5
2
4.5
Nursery &
Landscape
23
52.3
8
18.2
2
4.5
2
4.5
1
2.3
1
2.3
3
6.8
Range
Management
16
36.4
9
20.5
3
6.8
2
4.5
3
6.8
5
11.4
2
4.5
19
43.2
8
18.2
4
9.1
4
9.1
1
2.3
1
2.3
3
6.8
CDE (n= 40 )
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
3
6.8
12
27.3
8
18.2
2
4.5
3
6.8
5
11.4
6
13.6
4 9.1
Wildlife
Note. 0= No importance 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.
67
Table 8D.
Rural Areas Students Average Level of Importance of Environmental Science Related CDEs for Future Career Plans
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
17
60.7
1
3.6
2
7.1
6
21.4
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
21
75.0
2
7.1
3
10.7
1
3.6
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
18
64.3
4
14.3
3
10.7
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
17
60.7
5
17.9
2
7.1
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
20
71.4
4
14.3
3
10.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
3.6
1
3.6
20
71.4
3
10.7
2
7.1
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
20
71.4
4
14.3
1
3.6
1
3.6
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
Nursery &
Landscape
18
64.3
2
7.1
2
7.1
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
Range
Management
18
64.3
3
10.7
0
0.0
5
17.9
0
0.0
1
3.6
1
3.6
20
71.4
3
10.7
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
2
7.1
1
3.6
CDE (n= 28 )
Agriculture
Communication
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
NaturalResources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
14
50.0
6
21.4
1
3.6
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
1 3.6
Wildlife
Note. 0= No importance 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest; 6= Already participated in.
68
Research Objective Three
Research objective three sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of the interest for pursuing a career option in of environmental science related CDEs.
Frequencies were reported for each of the six points on the Likert-type scale for the 11 items
related to students’ level of interest within environmental science related CDEs found in Table 4.
For Table 4, The Likert-type rating scale ranged from 0 to 5 with 0= “No Interest”, 1= “Slightest
Interest”, 2= “Below Average Interest”, 3= “Average Interest”, 4= “Above Average Interest”,
and 5= “Utmost Interest”.
The modal category for all eleven items was “No Participation” with percentages ranging
from 36% to 62%. Six items, Agronomy, Entomology, Floriculture, Forestry, Nursery &
Landscape, and Range Management, resulted with “No Interest” as the modal category followed
by “Slightest Interest.” The CDEs results are as follows: Agronomy (60.4%, n = 191; 13.6%, n
= 43), Entomology (62.7%, n = 198; 13.3%, n = 42), Floriculture (52.2%, n =165; 12.0%, n =
38) Forestry (51.3%, n = 162; 13.6,% n = 43) Nursery & Landscape (55.3%, n = 175; 15.8%, n
= 50), Range Management(53.8%, n =170; 13.0%, n = 41), and Soils (59.2%, n = 187; 13.9%, n
= 44). (See Table 9).
The remaining five items fell into the category with a mode of “No Interest” followed by
“Average Interest”. Students found “No Interest” in Agriculture Communication for a future
college major then career option yielding 51% (n =162) , and sixteen percent (n = 50) for
“Average Importance”. Pursuing Aquaculture CDE topics for a college major or career option
yielded 49.4% (n = 156) “No Interest”, and 17.1% (n = 54) for “Average Interest”. Students’
interest in Environmental & Natural Resources resulted in 50.9% (n =161) for “No Importance”,
69
15.8 (n = 50) for “Average Importance”. Wildlife CDE yielded 36.1% (n = 114) for “No
Importance”, 15.5% (n = 49) for “Average Importance” (See Table 9).
Regarding to notable bottom (low frequencies) items where environmental science CDEs
yielded “Utmost Interest” for students future career option was reported greater than two percent
of the population included: Agronomy (3.2%; n = 10), Aquaculture (2.5%; n = 8), Entomology
(3.8%, n =12) Floriculture (3.5%; n =11), Forestry (2.2%, n = 7), Nursery & Landscape (2.8%, n
= 9) Soils (3.2%; n = 10), and Wildlife (2.8%; n = 9) (See Table 9).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated past participation in
CDE’s of 1.03 (n = 1.08) on the six point Likert-type scale. Therefore, “Slightest Participation”
within the items related to students’ interest in pursuing a major and potential career option in a
CDE topic is the modal category (See Table 10).
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Urban Area > 100,000
persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “No Interest”. Six items, Agronomy,
Aquaculture, Entomology, Forestry, Nursery & Landscape, and Range Management, resulted
with “No Interest” as the modal category followed by “Slightest Interest.” The CDE topical
results are as follows: Agronomy (62.9%, n = 110; 12.0%, n = 21), Aquaculture (45.7%, n = 80;
13.1%, n = 23), Entomology (61.1%, n = 107; 14.3%, n = 25), Forestry (52.6%, n = 92; 13.7%, n
= 24), Nursery & Landscape ( 54.3%, n = 95; 16.6%, n = 29), and Range Management ( 56.0%,
n = 98; 12.0%, n = 21) (See Table 9A).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Interest” followed
by “Average Interest”. Students found “No Interest” in Agriculture Communication, for a future
career option yielding 53.7% (n =94), and 17.7% (n = 31) for “Average Interest.” Students’
interest in Environmental & Natural Resources resulted in 49.7% (n = 87) for “No Interest”,
70
18.3% (n = 32) for “Average Interest.” Floriculture CDE yielded 45.7% (n = 80) for “No
Interest”, 14.3% (n=25) for “Average Interest”, Soils yielded 60.0% (n = 105) for “No Interest”,
10.9% (n = 19) for “Average Interest”, and Wildlife resulted in 36.0% (n = 63) for “No Interest”,
18.3% (n = 32) for “Average Interest” (See Table 9A).
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Urban Area 50,000100,000 persons, the modal category for all eleven items was “No Interest”. Five items,
Agronomy, Forestry, Nursery & Landscape, Soils, and Wildlife resulted with “No Interest” as
the modal category followed by “Slightest Interest.” The CDE topical results are as follows:
Agronomy (58.2%, n = 39; 16.4%, n = 11), Forestry (49.3%, n = 33; 11.9%, n = 8), Nursery &
Landscape ( 58.2%, n = 39; 14.9%, n = 10), Soils (56.7%, n = 38; 17.9%, n = 12), and Wildlife
(35.8%, n = 24; 13.4%, n = 9) (See Table 9B).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Interest” followed
by “Average Interest”. Students found “No Interest” in Agriculture Communication, for a future
career option yielding 56.7% (n =38), and 13.4% (n = 9) for “Average Interest.” Students’
interest in Aquaculture resulted in 49.3% (n = 31) for “No Interest”, 17.9% (n = 12) for
“Average Interest.” Environment & Natural Resources CDE yielded 50.7% (n = 34) for “No
Interest”, 16.4% (n =11) for “Average Interest”, Entomology yielded 68.7% (n = 46) for “No
Interest”, 9.0% (n = 6) for “Average Interest”, Floriculture yielded 56.7% (n = 38) for “No
Interest”, 10.4% (n = 7) for “Average Interest”, and Range Management resulted in 55.2% (n =
37) for “No Interest”, 16.4% (n = 11) for “Average Interest” (See Table 9B).
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Urban Cluster persons, the
modal category for seven items was “No Interest” followed by “Slightest Interest”. The CDE
topical results are as follows: Agriculture Communication (31.8%, n = 14; 15.9%, n = 7),
71
Aquaculture (54.5%, n = 24; 13.6%, n = 6), Floriculture (61.4%, n = 27; 9.1%, n = 4), Forestry
(40.9%, n = 18; 15.9%, n = 7), Nursery & Landscape (50.0%, n = 22; 15.9, n = 7), Range
Management ( 34.1%, n = 15; 20.5%, n = 9), and Soils (47.7%, n = 21; 20.5%, n = 9) (See Table
9C).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Interest” followed
by “Average Interest”. Students found “No Interest” in Environmental & Natural Resources, for
a future career option yielding 47.7% (n =21), and 11.4% (n = 5) for “Average Interest.”
Students’ interest in Entomology resulted in 56.8% (n = 25) for “No Interest”, 15.9% (n = 7) for
“Average Interest.” Wildlife CDE yielded 27.3% (n = 12) for “No Interest”, 13.6% (n =6) for
“Average Interest” (See Table 9C).
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Rural Area persons, the
modal category for all eleven items was “No Interest”. Nine items, Agronomy, Aquaculture,
Environmental & Natural Resources, Entomology, Floriculture, Forestry, Nursery & Landscape,
Range Management, Soils, and Wildlife resulted with “No Interest” as the modal category
followed by “Slightest Interest.” The CDE topical results are as follows:, Agronomy (71.4%, n =
20; 21.4%, n = 6), Aquaculture (67.9%, n = 19; 14.3%, n = 4), Environmental & Natural
Resources (67.9 %, n = 19; 17.9%, n = 5), Entomology (71.4%, n = 20; 17.9%, n = 5),
Floriculture (71.4%, n = 20; 10.7%, n = 3), Forestry (67.9%, n = 19; 14.3%, n = 4), Nursery &
Landscape (67.9%, n = 19; 14.3%, n = 4), Range Management (71.4%, n = 20; 14.3%, n = 4),
and Soils ( 53.6%, n = 15; 10.7%, n = 3) (See Table 9D).
The remaining three items fell into the category with a mode of “No Interest” followed
by “Average Interest”. Students found “No Interest” in Agriculture Communication, for a future
72
career option yielding 57.1% (n =16), and 17.9% (n = 5) for “Average Interest”, and Wildlife
yielded 53.6% (n =15) for “No Interest”, 17.9% (n =12) for “Average Interest” (See Table 9D).
73
Table 9.
Students Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in Environmental Science Related CDEs (n = 304)
0
CDE
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
162
51.3
34
10.8
28
8.9
50
15.8
14
4.4
11
3.5
Agronomy
191
60.4
43
13.6
28
8.9
26
8.2
8
2.5
5
1.6
Aquaculture
156
49.4
41
13.0
28
8.9
54
17.1
13
4.1
13
4.1
Environmental &
Natural Resources
161
50.9
38
12.0
32
10.1
50
15.8
11
3.5
10
3.2
Entomology
198
62.7
42
13.3
25
7.9
26
8.2
7
2.2
1
0.3
Floriculture
165
52.2
38
12.0
36
11.4
34
10.8
19
6.0
9
2.8
Forestry
162
51.3
43
13.6
34
10.8
28
8.9
24
7.6
12
3.8
Nursery &
Landscape
175
55.3
50
15.8
23
7.3
31
9.8
16
5.1
7
2.2
Range
Management
170
53.8
41
13.0
28
8.9
31
9.8
14
4.4
16
5.1
Soils
187
59.2
44
13.9
32
10.1
24
7.6
10
3.2
6
1.9
Wildlife
114
36.1
31
10.4
37 11.7
49
15.5
37
11.7
37
11.7
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest Interest; 2= Below Average Interest; 3= Average Interest; 4= Above Average Interest; 5= Utmost
Interest.
Table 9A.
74
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in Environmental Science
Related CDEs
0
1
2
3
4
5
CDE (n= 172*)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Agriculture
94
53.7
18
10.3
16
9.1
31
17.7
8
4.6
2
1.1
Communication
110
62.9
21
12.0
20
11.4
16
9.1
3
1.7
0
0.0
80
45.7
23
13.1
18
10.3
38
21.7
7
4.0
6
3.4
87
49.7
20
11.4
19
10.9
32
18.3
7
4.0
6
3.4
107
61.1
25
14.3
14
8.0
17
9.7
6
3.4
0
0.0
80
45.7
25
14.3
22
12.6
25
14.3
13
7.4
6
3.4
92
52.6
24
13.7
21
12
16
9.1
14
8.0
4
2.3
Nursery &
Landscape
95
54.3
29
16.6
14
8.0
20
11.4
11
6.3
2
1.1
Range
Management
98
56.0
21
12.0
24
13.7
15
8.6
7
4.0
4
2.3
105
60.0
20
11.4
21
12.0
19
10.9
4
2.3
1
0.6
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
63
36.0
14
8.0
26 14.9
32
18.3
18
10.3
19
10.9
Wildlife
Note. NI= No Interest; SI= Slightest interest; BAI= Below average interest; AI= Average interest; AAI= Above average interest; UI=
Utmost interest.*Range Management & Agriculture Communication n=169; Agronomy & Soil n=170;
Table 9B.
75
Urban Area 50,000-100,000 Students Average Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in Environmental
Science Related CDEs
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic (n=63)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Agriculture
38
56.7
5
7.5
7
10.4
9
13.4
3
4.5
1
1.5
Communication
39
58.2
11
16.4
4
6.0
4
6.0
3
4.5
2
3.0
31
49.3
8
11.9
4
6.0
12
17.9
4
6.0
4
6.0
34
50.7
8
11.9
7
10.4
11
16.4
3
4.5
0
0.0
46
68.7
6
9.0
4
6.0
6
9.0
0
0.0
1
1.5
38
56.7
6
9.0
10
14.9
7
10.4
1
1.5
2
3.0
33
49.3
8
11.9
9
13.4
6
9.0
6
9.0
2
3.0
Nursery &
Landscape
39
58.2
10
14.9
4
6.0
6
9.0
3
4.5
2
3.0
Range
Management
37
55.2
7
10.4
1
1.5
11
16.4
3
4.5
4
38
56.7
12
17.9
5
7.5
3
4.5
3
4.5
4
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
6.0
6.0
24
35.8
9
13.4
4
6.0
8
11.9
15
22.4
7
10.4
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2=Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
Table 9C.
76
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in Environmental Science Related
CDEs
0
1
2
3
4
5
CDE (n=40)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Agriculture
14
31.8
7
15.9
5
11.4
5
11.4
2
4.5
6
13.6
Communication
22
50.0
5
11.4
4
9.1
5
11.4
2
4.5
2
4.5
24
54.5
6
13.6
5
11.4
1
2.3
2
4.5
2
4.5
21
47.7
5
11.4
5
11.4
5
11.4
1
2.3
3
6.8
25
56.8
6
13.6
7
15.9
1
2.3
1
2.3
0
0.0
27
61.4
4
9.1
3
6.8
1
2.3
3
6.8
1
2.3
18
40.9
7
15.9
4
9.1
3
6.8
3
6.8
5
11.4
Nursery &
Landscape
22
50.0
7
15.9
4
9.1
3
6.8
1
2.3
2
4.5
Range
Management
15
34.1
9
20.5
3
6.8
3
6.8
3
6.8
7
15.9
21
47.7
9
20.5
6
13.6
1
2.3
2
4.5
1
2.3
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
12
27.3
6
13.6
6
13.6
5
11.4
2
4.5
9
20.5
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.*Floriculture n= 39
Table 9D.
77
Rural Areas Students Average Level of Interest for Pursuing a College Major or Career Option in Environmental Science Related
CDEs
0
Topic (n=28*)
Agriculture
Communication
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
16
57.1
4
14.3
0
0.0
5
17.9
1
3.6
2
7.1
20
71.4
6
21.4
0
0.0
1
3.6
0
0.0
1
3.6
19
67.9
4
14.3
1
3.6
3
10.7
0
0.0
1
3.6
19
67.9
5
17.9
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
20
71.4
5
17.9
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
20
71.4
3
10.7
1
3.6
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
19
67.9
4
14.3
0
0.0
3
10.7
1
3.6
1
3.6
Nursery &
Landscape
19
67.9
4
14.3
1
3.6
2
7.1
1
3.6
1
3.6
Range
Management
20
71.4
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
1
3.6
1
3.6
23
82.1
3
10.7
0
0.0
1
3.6
1
3.6
0
0.0
Agronomy
Aquaculture
Environmental &
Natural Resources
Entomology
Floriculture
Forestry
Soils
15
53.6
4
14.3
1
3.6
4
14.3
2
7.1
2
7.1
Wildlife
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slight interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost interes
78
Table 10.
Students Level of Participation, Interest, Importance, and Potential Career Option in Regards to Environmental Science Related
CDEs Among Rural and Urban Areas
CDE
Urban Area > 100,000
Participationa
M
SD
0.46
0.82
Interestb
M
SD
1.71
1.10
Importancec
M
SD
1.08
1.06
Career Optiond
M
SD
1.09
1.06
Urban Area 50,000- 100,000
0.16
0.43
1.36
1.11
1.09
1.14
1.09
1.14
Urban Cluster
0.61
0.77
1.80
1.52
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
Rural Area
0.57
0.64
1.08
1.06
0.72
0.88
0.71
0.89
Overall Area
0.45
0.67
1.49
1.19
1.03
1.08
1.03
1.08
a
Scale. 1: 0= No Participation; 1= Slightest Participation; 2= Below Average Participation; 3= Average Participation; 4= Above
Average Participation; 5= Utmost Participation.
b
1: 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest Interest; 2= Below Average Interest; 3= Average Interest; 4= Above Average Interest; 5=
Utmost Interest; 6= Already Participated In.
c
1: 0= No Importance; 1= Slightest Importance; 2= Below Average Importance; 3= Average Importance; 4= Above Average
Importance; 5= Utmost Importance; 6= Already Participated In.
d
1: 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest Interest; 2= Below Average Interest; 3= Average Interest; 4= Above Average Interest; 5=
Utmost Interest.
79
Research Objective Four
Research objective four sought to describe the environmental science topics learned by
secondary agricultural education students in rural and urban communities adapted from Tilburt
(2006). Frequencies were reported for the nine items related to students’ understanding of
environmental science topics learned inside and outside of the agricultural education classroom.
participation. For Table 6, the rating scale of “yes” or “no” if participants had or had not learned
these topics in or outside their agriculture classroom.
For topics learned inside the agricultural education classroom, students reported modal
category of “no” inferring they have not learned the specified environmental science topics
within their agricultural education coursework. The highest reported frequency was Acid Rain,
as 75.3% (n = 238) of participants had not learned the topic inside their agricultural education
classroom. Following Acid Rain came: Air Quality (66.8%; n = 211), Global Warming and the
Ozone Layer (62.7%; n = 205), Forests and Wetlands (64.2%; n = 203), Water Quality (61.7%; n
=195), Endangered Species (61.7%, n = 195), Recycling and Water Management (61.4%; n
=194), and Conserving Energy (58.9%, n =186). Population growth (49.7%; n =157) was the
only topic with a split between students with who had or had not learned this topic within their
agriculture class. (See Table 11).
For topics learned outside of the agricultural education classroom, in classes such as
Biology, Chemistry, or Physics, students reported with “yes”, and “no” they have or have not
learned the specified environmental science topics within their coursework. Students reported to
have learned about the following topics with a greater than 55% frequency: Global Warming
and the Ozone Layer (63.9%; n = 202) Endangered Species (63.6%; n =201), Conserving Energy
(63.3%, n = 200), Recycling and Water Management (63.0%; n =199), and Population growth
80
(61.4%; n =194). Three environmental science topics just over the 50% mark were: Water
Quality (50.9%; n = 161) for “Yes”, 44.3% (n = 140) for “no”, Air Quality (47.2%; n = 149) for
“yes”, 48.4% (n = 153) for “No”, and Forest & Wetlands (45.6%; n = 144) for “yes”, 50.3% (n
= 159) for “no”. The largest gap between responses was Acid Rain with 57.0% (n = 180) not
learning the topic, and 38% (n =120) having learned the topic (See Table 11).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated level of topics
learned inside the agricultural education classroom to be of 1.70 (SD= 0.44) on the six point
Likert-type scale. Therefore, it is divided if students learned the topics of environmental science
with slight lean towards “No”. For topics learned outside of the agricultural education classroom
students reported a mean summated level of 1.17 (SD = 0.49) (See Table 15).
Examining research objective four by each demographic area Urban Area > 100,000
persons, students reported modal category of “no” on environmental science topics learned
inside the agricultural education classroom. The highest reported frequency was Acid Rain, as
75.4% (n = 132) of participants had not learned the topic inside their agricultural education
classroom. Following Acid Rain came: Air Quality (61.1%; n = 107), Forests and Wetlands
(60.6%; n = 106), Water Quality (56.6%; n =99), Recycling and Water Management (56.0%; n =
98), Conserving Energy (54.3%, n =95), Endangered Species (53.7%, n = 94), and Global
Warming and the Ozone Layer (52.0%; n = 91). Population growth (57.7%; n =101) was the
only topic in which more students agreed to have learned this topic within their agricultural
education classroom (See Table 11).
For topics learned outside of the agricultural education classroom, in classes such as
Biology, Chemistry, or Physics, students reported with “yes”, and “no” they have or have not
learned the specified environmental science topics within their coursework. Students reported to
81
have learned about the following topics with a greater than 55% frequency: Global Warming
and the Ozone Layer (63.9%; n = 202) Endangered Species (63.6%; n =201), Conserving Energy
(63.3%, n = 200), Recycling and Water Management (63.0%; n =199), and Population growth
(61.4%; n =194). Three environmental science topics just over the 50% mark were: Water
Quality (50.9%; n = 161) for “Yes”, 44.3% (n = 140) for “no”, Air Quality (47.2%; n = 149) for
“yes”, 48.4% (n = 153) for “No”, and Forest & Wetlands (45.6%; n = 144) for “yes”, 50.3% (n
= 159) for “no”. The largest gap between responses was Acid Rain with 57.0% (n = 180) not
learning the topic, and 38% (n =120) having learned the topic (See Table 11A).
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Urban Area 50,000100,000 persons
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Urban Cluster persons
Examining research objective three by each demographic area Rural Area persons
82
Table 11.
Students Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their Agricultural Education Classroom, and in Other Subject
Areas Outside of Agricultural Education (n = 304)
Topics Learned Inside Agricultural Education
Topics Learned Outside of Agricultural
Classroom
Education Classroom*
Yes
No
Yes
No
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
118
37.3
186
58.9
200
63.3
105
33.2
110
34.8
194
61.4
199
63.0
105
33.2
108
34.2
195
61.7
161
50.9
140
44.3
91
28.8
211
66.8
149
47.2
153
48.4
148
46.8
157
49.7
194
61.4
110
34.8
100
31.6
203
64.2
144
45.6
159
50.3
65
20.6
238
75.3
120
38.0
180
57.0
105
33.2
205
62.7
202
63.9
100
31.6
110
34.5
195
61.7
201
63.6
102
Endangered Species
*Outside of Agricultural Classroom refers to classes such as Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics.
32.3
Conserving Energy
Recycling and Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming and
the Ozone Layer
83
Table 11A.
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their Agricultural Education
Classroom, and in Other Subject Areas Outside of Agricultural Education
Topics Learned Inside Agricultural
Topics Learned Outsidea of Agricultural
Education Classroomb
Education Classroomc
Yes
No
Yes
No
Topic (n=170)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming and
the Ozone Layer
76
43.4
95
54.3
126
72.0
44
25.1
73
41.7
98
56.0
124
70.9
46
26.3
71
40.6
99
56.6
103
58.9
66
37.7
62
35.4
107
61.1
96
54.9
72
41.1
101
57.7
70
40.0
123
70.3
47
26.9
64
36.6
106
60.6
88
50.3
81
46.3
39
22.3
132
75.4
78
44.6
89
50.9
79
45.1
91
52.0
131
74.9
39
22.3
77
44.0
94
53.7
126
72.0
44
25.1
Endangered Species
Note: aOutside of Agricultural Classroom refers to classes such as Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics.
b
(Inside Classroom)Water Quality, Forest & Wetlands n=170; Air Quality n=169
c
(Outside Classroom)Water Quality, Forest & Wetlands n=169; Air Quality, Acid Rain n=168
84
Table 11B.
Urban Area 50,000-100,000 Students Average Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their Agricultural
Education Classroom, and in Other Subject Areas Outside of Agricultural Education
Topics Learned Inside Agricultural
Topics Learned Outside of Agricultural
Education Classroom
Education Classroom
Yes
No
Yes
No
Topic (n=64)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming and
the Ozone Layer
17
25.4
47
70.1
35
52.2
31
46.3
15
22.4
49
73.1
32
47.8
33
49.3
12
17.9
52
77.6
19
28.4
45
67.5
10
14.9
54
80.6
21
31.3
44
65.7
18
26.9
47
70.1
32
47.8
33
49.3
13
19.4
51
76.1
22
32.8
43
64.2
13
19.4
51
76.1
19
28.4
45
67.2
10
14.9
54
80.6
36
53.7
28
41.8
10
14.9
54
80.6
36
53.7
28
Endangered Species
*Outside of Agricultural Classroom refers to classes such as Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics.
Table 11C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their Agricultural Education
85
41.8
Classroom, and in Other Subject Areas Outside of Agricultural Education
Topic (n=40)
Conserving Energy
Recycling and Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming and
the Ozone Layer
Topics Learned Inside Agricultural
Education Classroom
Yes
No
f
%
f
%
Topics Learned Outside* of Agricultural
Education Classroom
Yes
No
f
%
f
%
10
22.7
31
70.5
23
52.3
18
40.9
10
22.7
31
70.5
26
59.1
15
34.1
13
29.5
28
63.3
24
54.5
17
38.6
6
13.6
35
79.5
17
38.6
24
54.5
12
27.3
29
65.9
20
45.5
21
47.7
10
22.7
31
70.5
20
45.4
21
47.7
1
2.3
40
90.9
9
20.5
32
72.2
5
11.4
36
81.8
20
45.5
21
47.7
6
13.6
35
79.5
21
47.7
20
Endangered Species
*Outside of Agricultural Classroom refers to classes such as Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics.
86
45.5
Table 11D.
Rural Area Students Average Level of Learned Topics in Environmental Science Within their Agricultural Education Classroom,
and in Other Subject Areas Outside of Agricultural Education
Topics Learned Inside Agricultural
Topics Learned Outside* of Agricultural
Education Classroom
Education Classroom
Yes
No
Yes
No
Topic (n= 28)
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming and
the Ozone Layer
15
53.6
13
46.4
16
57.1
12
42.9
12
42.9
16
57.1
17
60.7
11
39.3
12
42.9
16
57.1
15
53.6
12
42.9
13
46.4
15
53.6
15
53.6
13
46.4
17
60.7
11
39.3
19
67.9
9
32.1
13
46.4
15
53.6
14
50.0
14
50.0
12
42.9
16
57.1
14
50.0
14
50.0
11
39.3
17
60.7
16
57.1
12
42.9
16
57.1
12
42.9
18
64.3
10
Endangered Species
*Outside of Agricultural Classroom refers to classes such as Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics.
87
35.7
Research Objective Five
Research objective five sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
interest towards pursuing a career option in an environmental science learned topics. Frequencies
were reported for each of the six points on the Likert-type scale for the nine items related to
students’ at interest in higher education within environmental science learned topics (Table 7),
and the nine items related to students interest in interest in a future career option within
environmental science learned topics (Table 8). For Tables 7 & 8, the Likert-type rating scale
for each table ranged from 0 to 5 with 0= “No Interest”, 1= “Slightest Interest”, 2= “Below
Average Interest”, 3= “Average Interest”, 4= “Above Average Interest” , and 5= “Utmost
Interest”.
“No Interest” was the modal category, for all of the nine topics (Conserving Energy,
Recycling & Water Management, Water Quality, Air Quality, Population Growth, Forests &
Wetlands, Acid Rain, Global Warming & the Ozone Layer, and Endangered Species). The three
items that yielded “No Interest” in pursuing higher education in environmental science learned
topics as the modal category followed by “Slightest Interest” are as follows: Air Quality (39.2%,
n = 124; 16.5%, n = 52), Forests & Wetlands (34.2%, n = 108; 19.0%, n = 60), and Acid Rain
(44.3%, n = 140; 18.4%, n = 58). The remaining six items yielded “No Interest” as the modal
category, followed by “Average Interest”: Conserving Energy (37.3%, n = 118; 20.6%, n = 65),
Recycling and Water Management (38.0%, n = 120; 19.6%, n = 62), Population Growth (34.5%,
n = 109; 19.9%, n = 63), Global Warming and the Ozone Layer (38.6%, n = 122; 22.5%, n = 71),
Endangered Species (26.9%, n = 85; 22.5%, n = 71), and Water Quality (37.0%, n = 117; 17.1%,
n = 54). (See Table 12).
88
Secondary agricultural education students reported “Above Average Interest” greater
than five percent in all topics except acid rain, and “Utmost Interest” with four percent in higher
in every topic except acid rain. The highest frequencies for “Above Average Interest” to
consider higher education in a learned environmental science topic were Endangered Species
(13.3%, n = 42), Water Quality (9.5%, n = 30), and Air Quality (8.5%, n = 27). Those who
reported “Utmost Interest” were Endangered Species (13.0%, n = 41), Global Warming and the
Ozone Layer (7.6%, n = 24), and Population Growth (5.4%, n = 17) (See Table 12).
Secondary agricultural education students (n=308) reported a mean summated interest in
participation in environmental CDE’s of 1.49 (SD= .95) on the six point Likert-type scale (See
Table 12).
For Table 8, for students’ interest in pursuing a career in environmental science learned
topics, “No Interest” was the modal category for all of the nine topics. The three items that
yielded “No Interest” in pursuing higher education in environmental science learned topics as the
model followed by “Slightest Interest” are as follows: Acid Rain (48.7%, n = 154; 19%, n = 60),
Air Quality (48.1%, n = 152; 19.0%, n = 60), Recycling and Water Management (45.9%, n =
145; 17.1%, n = 54), Water Quality (45.3%, n = 143; 18.4%, n = 58), Population Growth (45.3%,
n =143; 16.5%, n = 52), and Forests & Wetlands (44.3%, n = 140; 17.7%, n = 56). The
remaining three items yielded “No Interest” as the modal category, followed by “Average
Interest”: Conserving Energy (47.2%, n = 149; 15.5%, n = 49), Global Warming and the Ozone
Layer (45.6%, n = 144; 17.4%, n = 55), and Endangered Species (31.6%, n = 100; 17.1%, n =
54). (See Table 13).
Secondary agricultural education students reported a mean summated level of interest in
pursuing a career option in an environmental science learned topic to be 1.50 (SD = 1.56) on the
89
six point Likert-scale. Therefore, it is divided if students learned the topics of environmental
science with a slight lean towards “No”. For pursing a future career within learned topics in
environmental science students reported a mean summated level of 1.30 (SD = 1.26). (See table
15)
90
Table 12.
Students Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science (n = 304)
0
Topic
1
2
3
4
5
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
118
37.3
49
15.5
36
11.4
65
20.6
22
7.0
14
4.4
Recycling and
Water Mgmt
120
38.0
53
16.8
33
10.4
62
19.6
20
6.3
16
5.1
Water Quality
117
37.0
52
16.5
41
13.0
54
17.1
27
8.5
13
4.1
Air Quality
124
39.2
52
16.5
33
10.4
50
15.8
30
9.5
14
4.4
Population Growth
109
34.5
53
16.8
43
13.6
63
19.9
20
6.3
17
5.4
Forests and
Wetlands
108
34.2
60
19.0
46
14.6
53
16.8
23
7.3
15
4.7
140
44.3
58
18.4
34
10.8
48
15.2
13
4.1
12
3.8
122
38.6
45
14.2
25
7.9
71
22.5
18
5.7
24
7.6
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
Endangered
85
26.9
37
11.7
30
9.5
71
22.5
42
13.3
41
13.0
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
91
Table 12A.
Urban Area > 100,000 Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned Topics in Environmental
Science (n = 172)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
61
34.9
26
14.9
23
13.1
46
26.3
12
6.9
4
2.3
64
36.6
21
12.0
22
12.6
47
26.9
11
6.3
7
4.0
66
37.7
23
13.1
23
13.1
39
22.3
16
9.1
5
2.9
70
40.0
22
12.6
22
12.6
32
18.3
19
10.9
7
4.0
58
33.1
24
13.7
27
15.4
41
23.4
15
8.6
7
4.0
59
33.1
32
18.3
29
16.6
33
18.9
12
6.9
7
4.0
81
46.3
29
16.6
21
12.0
28
16.0
7
4.0
6
3.4
64
36.6
19
10.9
15
8.6
51
29.1
12
6.9
11
6.3
Endangered
37
21.1
18
10.3
17
9.7
45
25.7
32
18.3
23
13.1
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
92
Table 12B.
Urban Area 50,000- 100,000 Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned Topics in
Environmental Science (n = 61)
0
1
2
3
4
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
5
f
%
24
35.8
12
17.9
6
9.0
9
13.4
7
10.4
5
7.5
27
40.3
13
19.4
6
9.0
8
11.9
5
7.5
4
6.0
21
31.3
17
25.4
10
14.9
7
10.4
7
10.4
1
1.5
21
31.3
17
25.4
9
13.4
9
13.4
5
7.5
1
1.5
21
31.3
16
23.9
10
14.9
12
17.9
2
3.0
3
4.5
21
31.3
15
22.4
9
13.4
11
16.4
7
10.4
1
1.5
24
35.8
18
26.9
8
11.9
9
13.4
4
6.0
1
1.5
26
38.8
14
20.9
8
11.9
9
13.4
3
4.5
4
6.0
Endangered
22
32.8
10
14.9
6
9.0
13
19.4
8
11.9
6
9.0
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
93
Table 12C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science
(n= 41)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
19
43.2
4
9.1
6
13.6
6
13.6
3
6.8
3
6.8
15
34.1
11
25.0
4
9.1
4
9.1
4
9.1
3
6.8
15
34.1
6
13.6
7
15.9
4
9.1
4
9.1
5
11.4
18
40.9
7
15.9
2
4.5
4
9.1
6
13.6
4
9.1
18
40.9
6
13.6
4
9.1
5
11.4
3
6.8
5
11.4
15
34.1
7
15.9
8
18.2
2
4.5
4
9.1
5
11.4
20
45.5
5
11.4
5
11.4
6
13.6
2
4.5
3
6.8
19
43.2
5
11.4
2
4.5
6
13.6
3
6.8
6
13.6
Endangered
14
31.8
2
4.5
7
15.9
8
18.2
1
2.3
9
20.5
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
94
Table 12D.
Rural Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing a College Major Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science(n= 28)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
14
50.0
7
25.0
1
3.6
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
14
50.0
8
28.6
1
3.6
3
10.7
0
0.0
2
7.1
15
53.6
6
21.4
1
3.6
4
14.3
0
0.0
2
7.1
15
53.6
6
21.4
0
0.0
5
17.9
0
0.0
2
7.1
12
42.9
7
25.0
2
7.1
5
17.9
0
0.0
2
7.1
13
46.4
6
21.4
0
0.0
7
25.0
0
0.0
2
7.1
15
53.6
6
21.4
0
0.0
5
17.9
0
0.0
2
7.1
13
46.4
7
25.0
0
0.0
5
17.9
0
0.0
3
10.7
Endangered
12
42.9
7
25.0
0
0.0
5
17.9
1
3.6
3
10.7
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
95
Table 13.
Students Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science (n = 303)
0
1
2
3
4
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
5
f
%
149
47.2
46
14.6
33
10.4
49
15.5
15
4.7
11
3.5
145
45.9
54
17.1
31
9.8
49
15.5
12
3.8
12
3.8
143
45.3
50
15.8
35
11.1
48
15.2
17
5.4
10
3.4
152
48.1
46
14.6
39
12.3
44
13.9
14
4.4
8
2.5
143
45.3
52
16.5
41
13.0
40
12.7
17
5.4
11
3.5
140
44.3
56
17.7
36
11.4
48
15.2
12
3.8
13
4.2
154
48.7
60
19.0
36
11.4
39
12.3
10
3.2
5
1.6
144
45.6
39
12.3
35
11.1
55
17.4
17
5.4
14
5.4
Endangered
100
31.6
47
14.9
37 11.7
54
17.1
38
12.0
29
9.2
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest
96
Table 13A.
Urban Area >100,000 Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned Topics in Environmental
Science (n= 175)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
78
44.6
24
13.7
21
12.0
31
17.7
12
6.9
6
3.4
73
41.7
31
17.7
17
9.7
34
19.4
8
4.6
9
5.1
76
43.3
25
14.3
23
13.1
31
17.7
13
7.4
4
2.3
83
47.4
23
13.1
24
13.7
27
15.4
11
6.3
4
2.3
74
42.3
30
17.1
24
13.7
27
15.4
11
6.3
6
3.4
76
43.4
33
18.9
22
12.6
27
15.4
6
3.4
8
4.6
86
49.1
34
19.4
23
13.1
21
12.0
4
2.3
4
2.3
73
41.7
20
11.4
18
10.3
39
22.3
14
8.0
8
4.6
Endangered
47
26.9
23
13.1
23 13.1
32
18.3
29
16.6
18
10.3
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
97
Table 13B.
Rural Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science (n = 61 )
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
32
47.8
9
13.4
8
11.9
9
13.4
1
1.5
4
6.0
Recycling and
Water Management
34
50.7
10
14.9
8
11.9
8
11.9
1
1.5
2
3.0
29
43.3
13
19.4
8
11.9
8
11.9
3
4.5
2
3.0
30
44.8
11
16.4
10
14.9
9
13.4
1
1.5
2
3.0
30
44.8
11
16.4
13
19.4
6
9.0
2
3.0
2
3.0
25
37.3
16
23.9
7
10.4
12
17.9
5
7.5
0
0.0
28
41.8
13
19.4
8
11.9
12
17.9
3
4.5
0
0.0
31
46.3
10
14.9
11
16.4
8
11.9
0
0.0
4
6.0
24
35.8
11
16.4
9
13.4
10
14.9
7
10.4
4
6.0
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
Endangered
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
98
Table 13C.
Urban Cluster Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science
(n= 41)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
Recycling and
Water
Management
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
21
47.7
6
13.6
4
9.1
7
15.9
2
4.5
0
0.0
19
43.2
7
15.9
6
13.6
5
11.4
3
6.8
0
0.0
19
43.2
7
15.9
3
6.8
7
15.9
1
2.3
3
6.8
20
45.5
7
15.9
4
9.1
6
13.6
2
4.5
1
2.3
22
50.0
5
11.4
4
9.1
4
9.1
4
9.1
1
2.3
21
47.7
3
6.8
6
13.6
5
11.4
1
2.3
4
9.1
22
50.0
8
18.2
5
11.4
3
6.8
2
4.5
0
0.0
22
50.0
4
9.1
6
13.6
4
9.1
3
6.8
1
2.3
Endangered
16
36.4
6
13.6
4
9.1
7
15.9
2
4.5
5
11.4
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
99
Table 13D.
Rural Students Average Level of Interest in Pursuing Future Career Plans Within Learned Topics in Environmental Science (n = 28)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Topic
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Conserving Energy
18
64.3
7
25.0
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
Recycling and
Water Management
19
67.9
6
21.4
0
0.0
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
19
67.9
5
17.9
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
19
67.9
5
17.9
1
3.6
2
7.1
0
0.0
1
3.6
17
60.7
6
21.4
0
0.0
3
10.7
0
0.0
2
7.1
18
64.3
4
14.3
1
3.6
4
14.3
0
0.0
1
3.6
18
64.3
5
17.9
0
0.0
3
10.7
1
3.6
1
3.6
18
64.3
5
17.9
0
0.0
4
14.3
0
0.0
1
3.6
13
46.4
7
25.0
1
3.6
5
17.9
0
0.0
2
7.1
Water Quality
Air Quality
Population Growth
Forests and
Wetlands
Acid Rain
Global Warming
and the Ozone
Layer
Endangered
Species
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
100
Table 15:
Students Average Level of Understanding, and Interest Towards Higher Education and Future Career Plans in Regards to
Environmental Science Related Learned Topics Among Rural and Urban Areas (n=305)
Urban Area > 100,000
Learned Inside
Agriculture
Classroom
m
SD
1.57
0.49
Learned Outside
Agriculture
Classroom
m
SD
1.27
0.45
Interest for
High Education
m
SD
1.58
1.49
Interest for
Career Option
m
SD
1.35
1.49
Urban Area 50,000- 100,000
1.89
0.31
1.56
0.51
1.81
1.54
1.51
1.38
Urban Cluster
1.75
0.44
1.51
0.51
1.49
1.69
1.15
1.54
Rural Area
1.57
0.51
1.42
0.49
1.11
1.52
1.22
0.64
Interest by Population
1.70
0.44
1.17
0.49
1.50
1.56
1.30
1.26
Overall Averages
Note. 0= No Interest; 1= Slightest interest; 2= Below average interest; 3= Average interest; 4= Above average interest; 5= Utmost
interest.
101
Research Objective Six
Objective six sought to describe the attitudes toward environmental science related
statements among rural and urban secondary agricultural education students adapted from
Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek (2010). Frequencies were reported for each of the six points on
the Likert-type scale for the nine items related to students’ mean attitudes towards environmental
science topics found in Table 10. For Table 10, the Likert-type the rating scale ranged from
“Yes” or “No” if participants had or had not learned these topics in or outside their agriculture
classroom.
Seven out of the nine statements yielded above fifty percent in agreement with the
statement. Participants all agreed positivity that special habitats should be set aside for
endangered species (81.0%, n = 256), that laws regarding water quality should be stricter
(59.5%, n = 188), animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to protect
(50.3%, n = 159), that it is important that each individual be aware of environmental concerns
(81.3%, n = 257), hunting and fishing are important environmental management activities
(68.0%, n =215) government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife habitat (68.7%, n
=217), and management of wildlife populations should be left to nature (52.5%, n =166).
Participants were in disagreement with the following two statements: that poisonous snakes and
insects that pose a threat to people should be killed (69.9%, n = 221), and landowners should be
allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for agricultural industrial uses (62.3%, n = 197). This implies
the participant’s thought that poisonous snakes and insects should not be killed, and landowners
should not be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for agricultural industrial uses (See table 14).
102
Table 14.
Students Attitudes Means Towards Environmental Science Related Statements
Yes
Statement
No
f
%
f
%
Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
256
81.0
48
15.2
Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
188
59.5
116
36.7
159
50.3
141
44.6
80
25.3
221
69.9
104
32.9
197
62.3
257
81.3
45
14.2
215
68.0
85
26.9
217
68.7
87
27.5
166
52.5
137
43.4
Animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to
protect.
Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be
killed.
Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses
It is important that each individual be aware of environmental
concerns.
Hunting and fishing are important environmental management
activities.
Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife
habitat.
Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
103
Table 14A.
Urban Area >100,000 Students Attitudes Means Towards Environmental Science Related Statements (n = 175)
Yes
Statement
No
f
%
f
%
Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
153
87.4
17
9.7
Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
123
70.3
47
26.9
89
50.9
81
46.3
29
16.6
140
80.0
51
29.1
117
66.9
160
91.4
10
5.7
116
66.3
51
29.1
133
76.0
37
21.1
98
56.0
71
40.6
Animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to
protect.
Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be
killed.
Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses
It is important that each individual be aware of environmental
concerns.
Hunting and fishing are important environmental management
activities.
Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife
habitat.
Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
104
Table 14B.
Urban Area 50,000- 100,000 Students Attitudes Means Towards Environmental Science Related Statements
Yes
Statement
No
f
%
f
%
Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
50
74.6
15
22.4
Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
32
47.8
33
49.3
1
1.5
29
43.4
22
32.8
42
62.7
26
38.8
38
56.7
52
77.6
11
16.4
48
71.6
16
95.5
45
67.2
20
97.0
46
68.7
19
28.4
Animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to
protect.
Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be
killed.
Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses
It is important that each individual be aware of environmental
concerns.
Hunting and fishing are important environmental management
activities.
Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife
habitat.
Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
105
Table 14C.
Urban Cluster Students Attitudes Means Towards Environmental Science Related Statements (n= 41)
Yes
Statement
No
f
%
f
%
Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
32
72.7
9
20.5
Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
23
52.3
18
40.9
24
54.5
17
38.6
19
43.2
22
50.0
14
31.8
27
61.4
26
59.1
15
34.1
32
72.7
9
20.5
22
50.0
19
43.2
27
61.4
14
31.8
Animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to
protect.
Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be
killed.
Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses
It is important that each individual be aware of environmental
concerns.
Hunting and fishing are important environmental management
activities.
Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife
habitat.
Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
106
Table 14D.
Rural Students Attitudes Means Towards Environmental Science Related Statements
Yes
Statement
No
f
%
f
%
Special habitats should be set aside for endangered species
21
75.0
7
25.0
Laws regarding water quality should be stricter.
10
35.7
18
64.3
17
60.7
11
39.3
10
35.7
17
60.7
13
46.4
15
53.6
19
67.9
9
32.1
19
67.9
9
32.1
17
60.7
11
39.3
12
42.9
16
57.1
Animals that provide meat for people are most important animals to
protect.
Poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be
killed.
Landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses
It is important that each individual be aware of environmental
concerns.
Hunting and fishing are important environmental management
activities.
Government should regulate the use of land to protect wildlife
habitat.
Management of wildlife populations should be left to nature.
107
Chapter 5:
Summary, Conclusion, Implications and Recommendations
Chapter five includes the summary and conclusion, implications and recommendations
for each of the research objectives. The researcher also offers recommendations for future
research.
Purpose and Objectives
The aim of this study is to evaluate secondary agricultural education students’ interest in
environmental science and how population demographics vary their opinions. The purpose of
this study is to describe the difference in urban versus rural secondary agricultural education
students understanding and attitudes of environmental science, and if they express an interest in
pursuing a future in the subject area. Specifically, the following research objectives guided the
study:
Research Objectives:
1. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of participation and interest
in environmental science related Career Development Events (CDEs).
2. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ level of the importance of
environmental science related CDEs.
3. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in fields similar to environmental science related CDEs.
4. Describe the environmental science topics learned by secondary agricultural
education students in rural and urban communities.
108
5. Describe secondary agricultural education students’ interest toward pursuing a career
option in an environmental science learned topic among rural and urban students.
6. Describe the attitudes toward environmental science related statements among rural
and urban secondary agricultural education students.
Summary of Findings
Research Objective One
Research objective one sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of participation and interest in environmental science related CDEs (Career Development
Events) among rural and urban students. Two constructs were measured to assess if participants
had previously participated within environmental science related CDEs, and rate their level of
interest for future participation in the same environmental science CDEs. For the participation
construct students indicated that Floriculture (n =6) had the utmost participation in past CDE
events. In regards to interest for participating within CDEs Floriculture again had the largest pool
with n = 17 students interested. Overall of the participation and interest constructs, students
reported the mean level of participation of 0.45 (SD = 0.67), and mean level of interest of 1.49
(SD = 1.19).
Research Objective Two
Research objective two sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
importance of learning environmental science CDE topics in regards to future career plans.
Students overall reported the mean level of importance of 1.03 (SD = 1.08) in which
environmental science CDEs are important for their future career goals.
109
Research Objective Three
Research objective three sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of the interest for pursuing a college major or career option in of environmental science
related CDEs. Interest for a CDE as a tool for career building platform reported the mean level of
agreement of 1.03 (SD = 1.08) for students.
Research Objective Four
Research objective four sought to describe the environmental science topics learned by
secondary agricultural education students in rural and urban communities adapted from Tilburt
(2006). For Tilburts’ construct students reported the mean level of learned topics being 1.70
(SD= 0.44) on the six point Likert-type scale. Therefore, it is split if students learned the topics
of environmental science with slight lean towards “No”. For topics learned outside of the
agricultural education classroom students reported a mean summated level of 1.17 (SD = 0.49).
Research Objective Five
Research objective five sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
interest towards pursuing a career option in an environmental science learned topics. This
interest construct towards pursuing a career option in an environmental science learned topics to
be of 1.50 (SD= 1.56) on the six point Likert-type scale. Therefore, it is split if students learned
the topics of environmental science with slight lean towards “No”. For pursuing a future career
within learned topics in environmental science agricultural education classroom students
reported a mean summated level of 1.30 (SD = 1.26).
110
Research Objective Six
Objective six sought to describe the attitudes toward environmental science related
statements among rural and urban secondary agricultural education students adapted from
Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek (2010). Participants were in disagreement with the follow two
statements: that poisonous snakes and insects that pose a threat to people should be killed
(69.9%, n = 221), and landowners should be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for agricultural
industrial uses (62.3%, n = 197). Meaning the participants thought that poisonous snakes and
insects should not be killed, and landowners should not be allowed to drain wetlands/swamps for
agricultural industrial uses.
Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Research objective one sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of participation and interest in environmental science related CDEs among rural and urban
students. Esters and Bowen (2005), explain how learning experiences are based off the premise
of interactions of genetic factors, environmental conditions, learning experiences and
performance skills. CDE participation are learning experiences that teach specific skills within
environmental science fields, and students interest is key not only for a successful CDE
competition, but to create a solid interest base for careers within these topics. These interactions
led into the Social Cognitive Theory in which students interest are generated from selfmotivation and cost benefit (Bandura, 2005). The ties of Floriculture having the highest past
participation and future interest showing self-motivation within a controlled behavior leading
into a positive attitude within this topic. The other ten items within this construct followed
similar suit all having higher interest than past participation. This could be due to number of
freshman or new FFA members, and overall interest in learned topics.
111
Based upon the conclusion and implications it is recommended that for improving more
participation within CDEs, the survey should be implemented at the end of a student’s term as to
have a greater knowledge of environmental science topics, as well as understanding of CDEs
within The FFA. With these recommendations, students will have a better understanding of selfinterest and be able to determine a perceived behavior for participating within CDEs based on
interest, and for future endeavors. It is recommended to focus curriculum on specific CDEs to
gather student interest. Also, more students should participate within CDE events each year as a
FFA member.
Research objective two sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
importance of learning environmental science CDE topics in regards to future career plans.
Agricultural education using hands on learning tactics, a student will learn from positive
reinforcement and deducing from Krumboltz Theory , students involved in activities in
agricultural education courses that are similar to environmental science should have an interest in
pursuing a career in this field due to one of the following learning experience, instruction, SAE,
or FFA. Based upon the conclusion and implications it is recommended more students should
participate within CDE events each year as a member of The FFA. This will expose students to
more situational experiences that can lead to a career or college major. Students showed little
importance regarding environmental science CDE topics for higher education. We can imply that
students are not aware of the availability of higher education topics within environmental
science. As a recommendation a new emphasis on CDEs regarding environmental science should
be utilized within instruction, SAE, or FFA.
Research objective three sought to describe secondary agricultural education students’
level of the interest for pursuing a career option in of environmental science related CDEs.
112
Overall, students lacked interest in environmental science topics for a career option based on the
said results. An implication can be that students may not be aware of career options in said
environmental science CDE topics. For further recommendation it should be encourage to create
incentives or curriculum for agricultural education teachers to implement more career
exploration within The FFA curriculum.
Research objective four sought to describe the environmental science topics learned by
secondary agricultural education students in rural and urban communities adapted from Tilburt
(2006). It was determined that students are more likely to learn environmental science topics
outside of the agricultural education classroom. Agricultural education teachers should focus
more on environmental science topics through the use of daily classroom instruction with
incentive of a CDE recognition. Teachers need to implement and utilize environmental science
topics in their daily classroom instruction as it relates to agriculture.
While research objective five sought to describe secondary agricultural education
students’ interest towards pursuing a career option in an environmental science learned topics.
The idea that beliefs are the foundation for an attitude is found in Ajzens expectancy-value
model, which examines the strength of a belief proportionally affecting an attitude (1975).
Greenwald (1989) supports Ajzens model and reported that individuals with positive attitudes
toward a subject tend to evaluate them positively. Students overall lacked interest in
environmental science topics for a career option, but in further objectives had a positive attitude
towards statements regarding the environment. With this, students may not be aware of career
options in said environmental science topics. Agricultural education teachers need to implement
more career exploration within The FFA curriculum, and identify not only career options, but
also college majors as identified in previous objectives.
113
Research objective six sought to describe the attitudes toward environmental science
related statements among rural and urban secondary agricultural education students adapted
from Bradley, Waliczek, and Zajicek (2010). Another model Azjen develops is a chapter on
attitude formation , which introduces the expectancy-value model. This model divulges into a
person’s understanding of the attribute directly effects his/hers attitudes in proportion to the
strength of his/her beliefs. It connects ones attitudes to beliefs, as beliefs are the basis for
creating a positive/neutral/negative attitude. From our results we can conclude that students had
a positive attitude towards environmental science topics based on Bradley, Waliczek, and
Zajicek (2010). From this and looking at students’ interest and importance levels within other
objectives, it can be implied that students may not connect real life situations with higher
education and career topics. I can be recommended that agricultural education teachers focus on
managerial situations that provide students opportunity to draw connections about the real world,
and classroom topics such as CDEs. This will aid in students making direct connections about
their beliefs, and how that fits in higher education or career goals.
114
Urban versus Rural Conclusions, and Implications
Overall, comparing Urban versus Rural the following implications can be made:
1. Students in Urban Area > 100,000 have participated in more environmental science
related CDEs than that of Urban Area 50,000- 100,000, Urban Cluster, and Rural Area
Students.
2. A trend with students within Urban Area > 100,000, Urban Area 50,000- 100,000, and
Urban Clusters, are most interested in participating in Wildlife CDE.
3. Students’ top choices for career options also share a trend with top majors including:
Aquaculture, Environmental and Natural Resources, Forestry, Wildlife in both urban
areas. As we look at more rural students, Agriculture Communication, Range
Management, and Wildlife became the top career options.
4. Students’ top choices for college major also share a trend with top majors including:
Aquaculture, Environmental and Natural Resources, Forestry, Wildlife in both urban
areas. As we look at more rural students, Agriculture Communication, Range
Management, and Wildlife became the top career options.
5. Students were more likely to learn environmental science related topics outside of their
agricultural education classes, or not at all.
6. Overall, all students are most interested in pursuing a college major that focuses on
Forests & Wetlands, Global Warming and the Ozone Layer, and Endangered Species.
7. Comparing college majors to career interest for learned environmental science topics,
difference arose based on population demographics. Urban Area > 100,000 had the
largest interest in Population Growth, Global Warming and the Ozone Layer, and
Endangered Species. Urban Area 50,000-100,000 had the greatest interest in Forest and
115
Wetlands, Acid Rain, and Endangered Species, while Urban Clusters focused in Water
Quality, Forests & Wetlands, and Endangered Species. Rural Area student were only
really interested in Endangered Species like the rest of the populations.
116
Recommendations for Further Study
While this study was generated to answer select questions there are more questions that should
be approached. The following recommendations are suggested for additional research:
1. Expand the study to multiple agricultural education programs within urban and rural
areas.
2. Examine the differences in curriculum taught at given schools, to urban and rural areas
environmental science focuses.
3. Conduct a study that evaluates teachers, and their perceived effectiveness of teaching
environmental science related topics.
4. Conduct a study that looks at beginning and end of term differences of agricultural
education students to determine topics learned, and changed interest levels on
environmental science topics.
5. Conduct a study to define which type of CDEs are most commonly participated in, have
students interests within the state of Arizona, based on demographics.
6. Examine the difference between agricultural education students and non-agricultural
education students’ interest in environmental science based on topics learned in and
outside of the classroom.
117
References
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, Self‐ Efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Ajzen, I., & Cote, N. G. (2008). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. Attitudes and Attitude
Change, , 289-311.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1969). The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice situation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(4), 400-416.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great Minds in Management, 9-35.
Conroy, C. A. (2000). REINVENTING CAREER EDUCATION AND RECRUITMENT IN
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION FOR THE 21^ S^ T CENTURY. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 41(4), 73-84.
118
Croom, D. B., & Flowers, J. L. (2001). Factors influencing an agricultural education student's
perception of the FFA organization. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2), 28-37.
Dyer, J. E., Breja, L. M., & Andreasen, R. J. (1999). Attitudes of colleges of agriculture
freshmen toward agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(2), 1-10.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students' perceptions of and attitudes toward
science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175186. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300205
Esters, L. T. (2005). Factors influencing the college choice of urban agricultural education
students. Agricultural Education,
Esters, L. T., & Bowen, B. E. (2004). Factors influencing enrollment in an urban agricultural
education program. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 21(1), 25-37.
Esters, L. T., & Bowen, B. E. (2005). Factors influencing career choices of urban agricultural
education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 23-34.
119
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Chapter 6: Attitude formation. In Addison-Wesley (Ed.),
Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. (pp. 216228)
Food and agricultural education information system (FAEIS 2011). academic year 2009 total
college enrollment in agriculture programs at public institutions. blacksburg, VA: Virginia
tech.
Goecker, A.D., Whatley, C.M. & Gilmore, J.L. (1999). Employment opportunities for college
graduates in the food & agriculture sciences, united states, 200-2005. united states
department of agriculture and Purdue university. Retrieved
Herren, C. D., Columbia, M., Cartmell II, D. D., Robertson, J. T., & Stillwater, Perceptions of
influence on college choice by students enrolled in a college of agricultural sciences and
natural resources. Marketing, 1(2), 3.
Krueger, D., & Riesenberg, L. (1991). Careers in agriculture as perceived by high school juniors
and seniors. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual National Agricultural Education
Research Meeting. Los Angeles CA,
120
Lam, Y. L. J. (1982). Determinants of educational plans of the indeterminant high school
graduates. Journal of Educational Administration, 20(2), 213-229.
Mallory, M. E., Sommer, R., Thomsen, C. D., Barbe, G. D., Williams, W. A., George, M. R., . . .
Younce, E. L. (1986). Students show low awareness of agricultural careers. Order,
Marshall, T., Herring, D., & Briers, G. (1992). Factors associated with enrollment in agricultural
science and membership in the FFA in Texas. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(4), 1723.
Mitchell, L. K. (1990). Social learning approach to career decision-making: Krumboltz’s theory.
Career Choice and Development: Applying Contemporary Theories to Practice, 2, 145-196.
Newsom-Stewart, M., & Sutphin, H. D. (1994). How tenth grade students perceive agriculture
and environmental science: Comparison by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 35(3), 50-56.
121
Osborne, E. W., & Dyer, J. E. (2000). Attitudes of Illinois AgriScience students and their parents
toward agriculture and agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education,
41(3), 50-59.
Predmore, S. R. (2004). Meeting the challenges of urban education. Techniques: Connecting
Education and Careers, 79(8), 6.
Sutphin, H. D., & Newsom-Stewart, M. (1995). Student’s rationale for selection of agriculturally
related courses in high school by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Agricultural Education,
36(2), 54-61.
Thompson, J., & Russell, E. B. (1993). Beliefs and intentions of counselors, parents, and
students regarding agriculture as a career choice. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(4),
55-63.
122
Appendix A: List of Panel of Experts
123
Panel of Experts
Dr. Robert Torres, Professor
Agricultural Education
Dr. Ryan Foor, Assistant Professor
Agricultural Education
Dr. Jeffrey Silvertooth, Professor
Soil, Water, and Environmental Science
124
Appendix B: Pre-Notice e-mail
125
Dear «Salu» «LName»;
I am contacting you in regards to « school name » participation with my thesis study. My basis
for choosing « school name » is city population of « City », and according to the U.S. Census
« City » is considered to be an « U.S. Census population determiner ». My study examines the
interest level of high school agriculture student’s attitudes toward environmental science in
higher education or a career based on city population demographics.
The timeline and participation level on your part is as follows:
• As soon as possible or by July 20th, a message to me regarding your classes taught, and
number of students in each, to ensure accurate copies made.
• August 1st delivery of gift basket, and study materials.
• August 8th-10th (your choice) administer the study which should take 10- 15 minutes for each
of your classes
• August 13th-15th administer any make up surveys
• August 16th place envelop provided with all completed surveys in mail
As an incentive for you participation a gift basket will be included on the August 1st delivery.
The contents will include University of Arizona memorabilia, and 2 of the following gift cards:
Starbucks gift card, Home Depot or Office Depot (or any other that would be suitable to aid your
program)
Thank you for your consideration, and I wish you an enjoyable summer! Please let me know if
you are interested in participating, and have any further questions.
Best,
Cassie Fausel
Graduate Student
126
Appendix C: Cover Letter
127
«Salu» «FName» «LName»
«Chap Name»
«Address» _
«City»,A_Z«Zip»
Dear «Salu» «LName»;
You have been identified as a secondary agricultural educator within the state of Arizona, and
are being asked to voluntarily participate in a research study. This research study is intended to
assess your students’ interest, and importance levels on environmental science.
Your students’ responses to this questionnaire will greatly assist in identifying if students have
an interest in pursuing environmental science as a higher education or career option. The
questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. There are no known risks to your
students’ participation in completing this questionnaire. Your participation, and students
participation is voluntary. If you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty
to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your decision or
your students’ will not affect your future relationship with The University of Arizona. There is
no cost to you except your time. You may answer some or none of the questions. Your results
will be kept confidential; your name will not be associated with your responses.
Please complete the enclosed questionnaire, and return in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped
envelope by August 21th, 2012. All answers to this questionnaire are completely anonymous.
There is no identification number of any kind on the questionnaire. However, to let us know that
your questionnaire has been returned, please print your name and return the enclosed post card
separately in the mail so we can check your name off the mailing list. If you choose to
participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits. By participating in the study, you do not give up any personal legal rights you may have
as a participant in this study.
If you have questions concerning your students’ rights as a research subject, you may call The
University of Arizona Human Subjects Protection Program at (520) 626- 6721. Completing this
questionnaire implies that you are giving permission for the investigator to use your response for
research purposes. For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study you may contact
Cassie Fausel at (760) 409-1966.
128
Thank you for your time!
Cassie Fausel
Graduate Assistant
The University of Arizona
Dr. Ryan Foor
Assistant Professor
The University of Arizona
129
Appendix D: Follow-up email
130
Dear «Salu» «LName»;
This is a friendly reminder to return the completed questionnaires at your earliest convenience. If
you have not yet distributed your questionnaires, please email or call the principal investigator at
this time. Contact information is as follows: email: [email protected] phone: (760) 4091966 .
Wishing you a great start of term,
Cassie Fausel
131
Appendix E: Questionnaire
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139