Next Article in Journal
Control of Silica Gel Formation in the Acidic Leaching of Calcium Aluminate Slags with Aqueous HCl for Al Extraction
Previous Article in Journal
Food Waste and Environmental Sustainability of the Hotel Industry in Taiwan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/su152115461
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Often-Forgotten Innovation to Improve Sustainability: Assessing Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula as Interventions in Uganda

by
Robert Strong
1,
Mitchell Baker
2,
Kim Dooley
1,* and
Nicole Ray
3
1
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2
Simmons Foods, Siloam Springs, AR 72761, USA
3
Agricultural Education, and Communication Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15461; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115461
Submission received: 21 September 2023 / Revised: 25 October 2023 / Accepted: 25 October 2023 / Published: 31 October 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Needs to improve educational access for women in the Global South have been well documented throughout the literature. The need and impact of non-governmental organizations for food security improvement, educational access, and community sustainability work in the Global South has been heightened since the pandemic. Our study focused on several sustainable development goals (SDGs) where we utilized experiential learning and the Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) model to assess participants’ needs in developing, implementing, and evaluating the adoption of food and agricultural sciences curricula. We utilized a case study method and semi-structured interviews with primary stakeholder groups to answer each research objective. Most participants had increased confidence in growing food for their families due to the knowledge they gained and the practices they learned by participating in the food and agricultural sciences curricula. TOP indicators aligned with reducing hunger and improving sustainable agriculture are identified in SDG 2. Data regarding knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations revealed that participants wanted to pursue careers in agriculture due to the food security and financial advantages the industry offered. Program graduates indicated their desire for food and agricultural sciences curricula to be provided more to improve girls’ self-independence, as well as to address the feasibility and entrepreneurial solutions to reduce poverty, promote learning, and increase community sustainability and vitality.

1. Introduction

Despite substantial advancements for women beginning with the 1960s feminist movement, gender equality has been delayed in the last two decades throughout the world [1]. Goal 5 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [2] underscores the necessity of inspiring women and girls’ participation in all levels of society. Negative impacts on nations’ long-term progress are products of gender inequality in women’s education [3]. Diverse scholarship underscores the dismal educational opportunities for girls in Sub-Saharan Africa, accentuated by the scarcity of opportunities and barriers to engagement. Rural Ethiopian, Rwandan, and Zimbabwean girls lack education accessibility [4]. The authors of [5] found that Zimbabwean boys had more accessibility to formal educational experiences than girls. Additional inquiries are necessary to examine girl’s accessibility and participation in Sub-Saharan food and agriculture programs. In a Kenyan agricultural education study, negative cultural views toward agriculture caused girls not to participate in the programs [6]. Ugandan girls experienced external and internal obstacles prohibiting their involvement in formal education [7]. A case study from [8] revealed that Ugandan school fees were too high for girls’ accessibility to earn an education. Young females need protective and positive environments to flourish and develop into self-independent and self-confident adults [9].
Uganda has been referred to as “The Pearl of Africa” according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Africa, Uganda is home to the largest freshwater lake on the continent and the spring of the continent’s longest river. Over 80% of Uganda’s agricultural industry consists of smallholder farmers who grow food primarily for their families [10]. Ugandans’ access to healthy food is limited by the poverty that citizens in the eastern and northern districts experience [11]. Uganda is home to more refugees than other nations in Africa, including individuals who fled Burundi, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo [12].
Ugandan smallholder farmers endure diverse risks in food production [13]. Rural advisory services and agricultural extension systems provide information to change agents that are transferred to Ugandan smallholder farmers [14,15,16,17]. However, the knowledge transfer of new information and skills is a significant element of change in behavior among smallholder farmers, which is often taken for granted by existing agricultural extension programs [18].
Ugandan women are essential vessels in promoting agricultural production within communities, improving rural development, and advancing economic growth [19]. In a study of Ugandan women smallholder farmers, the authors of [20] found that women had less access to accurate pesticide use information. In [21], the authors recommended that to improve Ugandan food production and family’s nutritional outcomes, women must be empowered to lead and have equal access to agricultural information as men. The authors of [22] provided bean production and marketing gender issues training for smallholder farmer inclusivity. Additional research is needed to better understand how knowledge transfer interventions may improve gender inequities with respect to information on food and agricultural sciences and the impact of knowledge transfer on women smallholder farmers [23].
Studies indicate that some African youth were taught about food and agricultural sciences. The current curricula for African youth need potential updates to underscore the importance of food and agriculture sustainability [24]. In another study [25], the authors implemented food and agricultural sciences curricula for Nigerian youth. Climate-smart agriculture curriculum was taught to Nigerian youth to prepare them as the next generation of food and agricultural leaders and producers [26]. The lack of agricultural knowledge and experiences for youth has led to their decreased involvement in food and agricultural production as adults [27]. Female youth in Uganda need a supportive and developmental environment to motivate their interest in opportunities in food and agricultural sciences [28,29].
The Just Like My Child Foundation (JLMC) has provided education, healthcare, leadership, social justice, empowerment, and entrepreneurial programming to more than 200,000 rural children and women located in central Uganda [30]. The JLMC started sustainability programs for adolescent girls to improve self-independence and self-sustainability in 2015 to reduce their poverty cycle and occurrences of disease. Today, the impact of the JLMC revolves around the foundational education experiences that empower Ugandan girls to sustain themselves and local communities. The goals of the JLMC align with SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, as reported by [31].
The JLMC developed the Girl Power Project (GPP) specifically to empower and improve the lives of vulnerable adolescent girls to remain in school programs and to avoid disease, forced marriage, and early pregnancies. A goal of GPP educational empowerment is to enable girls to have a life with education, self-independence, and delayed marriages. The GPP offers over 60 hours of life and leadership skills training for two years to meet their objectives [32]. Furthermore, the impacts of the GPP include a greater understanding of community gender roles, advocating education for girls, women’s equality discussions, and responses to girls’ experiences with violence [33,34]. Prior to the pandemic, the JLMC had provided programs to more than 6000 Uganda girls since the organization’s inception.
For this study, we examined the extent to which food and agricultural sciences curricula are achieved in the GPP. Our study’s purpose was accomplished through the examination of the following specific objectives:
  • Discern actors’ reactions to the extent to which food and agricultural sciences curricula could be implemented in the GPP;
  • Investigate actors’ existing food and agricultural sciences programmatic instructional needs in developing, implementing, and evaluating curricula in the GPP.

2. Conceptual Framework

Kolb’s [35] experiential learning theory encompasses four domains that highlight the learning process cycle. Kolb believes experience is foundational in one’s knowledge development due to moving from discovery to an individual’s active participation. In their seminal work, the authors of [36] postulated that learning is essentially a series of processes based on experiences. The first domain in the learning cycle, concrete experience, provides a new or revised experience. Students must engage in the activity, not simply watch or read it but actively experience the event. Reflective observation is next, and this attribute includes the student pausing at the conclusion of the concrete experience and “reflecting” by discussing their experiences with others as well as asking questions. Third, abstract conceptualization involves students developing concepts and conclusions based on their experience. Abstract conceptualization is the stage in the learning cycle where students make connections in their comprehension of new knowledge, such as food and agricultural sciences curricula. The fourth and last stage in the experiential learning cycle is active experimentation. Kolb refers to this domain as the testing stage. Active experimentation should enable students to use their new knowledge and teach them how the new knowledge is relevant to their lives. These active experimentation attributes will encourage student retention in programs that implement the food and agricultural sciences curricula (Figure 1).
Following the study in [37], the Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) model was our study’s operational framework. TOP can serve as an assessment tool that focuses on the evaluation plan, implementation, and evaluation for sustainability program developers and evaluators [38]. Seven layers constitute the TOP model’s hierarchy, and those levels navigate our program development, educational implementation, and evaluation while integrating evaluation into program development.
In the program development phase, the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions are referred to as “SEE”. Practices are the existing behaviors the target audience is using or conducting. Knowledge, attitudes, skills, or aspirations (KASAs) refer to existing competency levels of the target audience. TOP reactions in the program development phase are meant to understand stakeholders’ positive or negative beliefs on issues for program improvement. Participation includes all groups, individuals, communities, and organizations that could elevate the SEE conditions based on the program focus. Activities are a series of opportunities to develop or educate participants. Finally, in the program development phase, Resources include inputs such as personnel, finances, and time to develop, market, implement, and evaluate the educational program.
Program performance is measured using the same hierarchy but by answering different questions. SEE outcomes seek to answer the extent of the social, economic, and environmental impacts due to the program’s implementation. Practices highlight the resulting behaviors implemented based on enhanced or altered knowledge, attitude, skill, or aspirations. Practices delineate “What has the participant put into practice or done since the KASA stage?”.
Evaluating the KASA outcomes is more multidimensional than the other stages. The degree to which the participants improved their problem-solving ability or awareness of the phenomena is examined in the knowledge (K) category. The extent to which the participants altered their viewpoints or beliefs due to the program are designated as attitudes (A). Skills (S) seeks to answer how participants enhanced their performance or abilities due to the program intervention. Answering how and to what extent the participants change their goals based on the program would be delineated in aspirations (A).
Reactions provide evidence of an individual’s satisfaction with the program. Participation would assess the number of individuals and the individual’s degree of participation in program activities. Assessing if the curricula were used, the extent to which activities were utilized, the success or setbacks of program promotions, and instructional delivery is the activity stage of program performance. Evaluating whether and to what extent the allocated resources were used in the program development phase refers to the assessment of the resources of program performance.
The TOP model examines the initial visible improvements immediately at the conclusion of an educational program [39]. Program planning and program evaluation objectives and goals should transpire synchronously in the hierarchy [40]. Data collection and data analysis become more complex as the layers of the TOP model move from SEE conditions to SEE outcomes. Program developers should examine the desired outcomes in all layers and program planning steps for the TOP model to be the most impactful (see Figure 2).
The TOP model has been improved over the 45-plus years the framework has been established [41] to underscore the necessity of the identified target outcomes prior to developing an educational program. Program evaluators and researchers have incorporated the TOP as an instrument in diverse contexts. The authors of [42] assessed the costs of the TOP in US extension programs as a program evaluation moves up the hierarchy. The TOP model was utilized to assess Bangladesh's social programming [43]. In another study, the TOP was used to develop the public sector evaluation capacity of Australian agencies [44]. The authors of [45] evaluated MOOC outcomes in five Japanese institutions using the TOP as the conceptual framework. Evans et al. [46] implemented the TOP model to understand programming impacts on Australian crop producers. In [47], the authors studied Australian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills due to participation in climate risk workshops that were developed and evaluated with the TOP. In Nigeria, the TOP model was incorporated as a logic model to illustrate integrated weed management assessments considering short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes [48].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

We utilized a qualitative case study method [49] with primary stakeholder groups and semi-structured interviews to explore each research objective. Case studies provide researchers with a deeper look within a bounded system (GPP) to explore how well the curriculum is serving girls and women [50]. The authors of [51] described Yin’s case study methodological approach as maximizing the optimal levels of reliability and external, internal, and construct validity to ensure a quality case study assessment. Case studies should not be assessed with generalizability thresholds but on methodological foundations of compatibility and transferability [52].
Case studies were the most widely utilized empirical research design to understand social learning in education and natural resources reported in [53]. The recommendations from this article were used by our research team because the context was in Sub-Saharan Africa. In [54], the suggested case studies offer social science research avenues to better understand participant values, individual interests, and self-ideologies that motivate existing or future decisions. The authors of [55] described case studies as methodologies to solicit deep insights and potential groundbreaking information generated from the resulting empirical data. Case study data provided sustainability impacts of agroforestry practices in Honduras, Indonesia, Peru, and Uganda [56]. A case study was more advantageous to address the research objective versus a Delphi given the length of the investigation, the regional location of the inquiry, and the purposive sample described below.
In [57], the authors defined interviews as an ideal method to cultivate understanding regarding one’s perspective and experiences toward a set of values or societal issues. Ugandan women were interviewed to comprehend the extent women developed their entrepreneurial identity [58]. Studies indicate that semi-structured interviews can be used in food and agricultural sciences to understand knowledge and information adoption. In [59], Yin’s case study approach was used to understand food producers’ participation in Mexican food supply chains. In England, the authors of [60] implemented semi-structured interviews to examine farmers’ capacity to adopt sustainable soil management recommendations. The authors of [61] investigated Turkish farmers’ potential adoption of agrivoltaics. Swiss farmers’ knowledge of the diverse nature of crop protection practices was assessed in [62]. English farmers’ knowledge and adoption of no-till practices were studied in [63]. Other researchers have successfully used case study research design with interviews for primary data collection to access food and agricultural curricula as interventions.

3.2. Sample

Purposive samples provide researchers with the selection of individuals who have the most experience and knowledge to provide insight into the investigated phenomena [64]. The purposive sample for this study comprised GPP graduates who were taught food and agricultural sciences curricula, ranging from 20 to 40 years old, and who also had at least one year of experience as a GPP instructor. Researchers kept participant identities confidential.

3.3. Data Collection

Data were collected in the districts of Kiboga, Nakasongola, and Luweero in central Uganda (see Figure 3). Over 127 interviews were conducted with graduates of the GPP from 2018 to 2023. The authorship team examined the experiences as a case study and asked questions related to GPP graduates’ food and agricultural sciences curricula, which were aligned with the TOP model based on their individual experiences during and after program participation. Data were transcribed for coding, and an audit trail was used to calculate the percentages to clearly report findings. A summary of narrative analysis is included for each finding related to the interview question.
The authorship team asked the participants specific agricultural sustainability questions based on their experiential learning and the TOP model per the research objectives (see Table 1).

3.4. Data Analysis

We used the constant comparative method to analyze the emerging trends, contradictions, and impacts after the interviews were completed. The authors used thematic analysis [65] to search for patterns and themes in the data. We followed the thematic analysis principles presented in [65], starting with open coding [66] and then axial coding to define the thematic codes. All interviews were thematically analyzed and the constant comparative method developed in [67] was utilized to compare the codes and assess new codes among data. The selective coding established the core themes to assess GPP graduates’ responses and assist the research team in answering the research objectives. Four reoccurring TOP program performance themes were identified from the constant comparative method: attitudes, KASAs, practices, and SEE outcomes. Due to the large number of participants, we considered percentages to represent frequencies of responses to show changes in the narrative data from the interviews.

3.5. Trustworthiness

Case study research applies to a bounded system within a particular context. The GPP in Uganda is that ‘system’, and the objective of the single case was to evaluate the reactions and needs of the participants after training based on food and agricultural science curricula. Because the case is context-dependent, it cannot be generalized to a broader population. However, the results are provided with rich descriptions, so the reader can make judgments about transferability. The data were collected via interviews and transcribed to ensure referential adequacy and credibility. The analysis stage included a team of researchers for peer debriefing with the use of a dependability and confirmability audit. The results were further triangulated with the conceptual and theoretical lenses of Kolb’s experiential learning model and the TOP evaluation outcomes. The use of these trustworthiness measures provides a rigorous approach to ensure the truth value of the data. The researchers were evaluation specialists who did not directly collaborate with the GPP program. We assumed that answers were truthful and that our team analysis limited bias in the findings.

4. Results

The participants provided descriptive quantitative responses to research objectives 1 and 2 (see Table 2).
When participants were asked about how their food and agricultural KASAs and practices changed due to experiences in the GPP, emerging themes were theoretically triangulated using the TOP framework, namely skills, attitudes, aspirations, and practices, which are described below.

4.1. KASAs—Skills

Almost half (~50%) of the GPP graduates reported that their confidence in smallholder agriculture skills was due to learning from the food and agricultural sciences curricula. The former students in all interviews described the diverse crops and animals they had grown. The participants identified the crops as beans, cassava, and maize and the livestock as cows, goats, and poultry as family food sources or sold for income.

4.2. KASAs—Attitudes

Data indicated that the majority of the students (n = 101, 79.52%) exhibited improvement in their appreciation and comprehension of agriculture’s role in sustaining their familial needs. The participants described agriculture as a set of experiences relying on growing fruits and vegetables when their family lacked money for meat and fish. Some participants denoted the increased appreciation of agriculture as a field with timeless and relevant skills necessary to overcome obstacles such as hunger or malnutrition. The identification of agricultural knowledge and skills as “evergreen skills” to sustain individuals and families was an attitude change due to instructors teaching the food and agricultural sciences curricula. Graduates expressed their newfound love and passion for agriculture. Less than 5% of the participants indicated not enjoying agricultural work or pointed to the economic risks associated with food and agricultural production. Most participants reported that they believed agriculture was important or good for their community’s sustainability. The participants reported positive changes in attitudes toward reducing hunger and suffering after the curriculum was implemented. Also, due to participation in the GPP’s food and agricultural sciences curricula, girls exhibited an enhanced perception of Uganda as a nation with great natural resources and opportunities to improve food sustainability for Ugandans.

4.3. KASAs—Aspirations

Due to food and agricultural sciences interventions, most of the study’s participants (n = 97, 76.37%) wanted to become more involved in agricultural careers due to learning and witnessing income and entrepreneurial opportunities. GPP graduates stated their future agricultural goals as “planting coffee seedlings”, “to be the best farmer in the country”, “caring for sick animals”, and for “agriculture to be their professional career”. Half of the participants indicated aspirations to learn more about food and agricultural marketing. Over 20% of GPP graduates indicated a desire to own land and use the property to grow food for consumption and additional income based on the information learned from the curricula. Nine percent of the participants showed an interest in pursuing higher education opportunities in food and agricultural sciences, developing agricultural entrepreneurship skills, and learning other approaches to generate income from food and agriculture. Those participants indicated that their desire to pursue agriculture as a career was to be able to feed their families in the future. Less than 4% of the participants reported a lack of desire for a career in food and agriculture. In that group, the participants indicated that they wanted to earn more money than food and agricultural careers could provide. For practices, approximately 12% of the participants said they had used newly generated agricultural funds for fees, school registrations, and school supplies.
When we posed the hypothetical question “If food and agricultural sciences curricula was a permanent feature of the GPP, what resources would a teacher need to be successful?”, the emerging themes based on the theoretical triangulation of the TOP model were resources, activities, KASAs, practices, and SEE outcomes, as described below.

4.4. Resources

The JLMC students reflected on the required teaching pedagogy and lesson plans needed to be successful food and agricultural sciences instructors in the GPP. Lesson topics provided to be included in the food and agricultural sciences curricula were microbe’s role in soil health, growing vegetable beds, and annual crops juxtaposed to perennial crops. The need to include lessons that provided hands-on learning experiences and visuals and to be more outside versus in a formal classroom with only lecture-based instruction was supported by most (n = 93, 73.22%) GPP students.

4.5. Activities

Also, a majority (n = 67, 54.47%) of GPP graduates indicated that teaching supplies are essential for instructors prior to becoming a successful food and agricultural sciences teacher. GPP graduates suggested that schools should provide small plots for demonstration gardens, nonformal instruction locations, or test plots for edible crop varieties and that the plots be accessible to water. Instructors did report the need for crop inputs at school locations to assist GPP instructors in teaching smallholder agriculture knowledge and practice. Instructors did not indicate a need for livestock as curricula inputs on school property.

4.6. KASAs

Researchers asked GPP graduates what training and equipment would be needed for their successful teaching of food and agricultural sciences curricula to girls. Seventy-two (n = 72, 58.53%) instructors reported their need to be trained in the foundational aspects of sustainability and production in food and agricultural sciences. GPP educators indicated the need for specific professional development of recommended edible crops successfully grown in the region, livestock sustainable production practices, knowledge of foods with higher value or higher consumer demand, and marketing agricultural products to improve entrepreneurial skillsets. Additionally, GPP facilitators recommended the inclusion of food and agricultural sciences specialists to not only develop the instructors but also provide more robust instruction to girls with desires for more advanced knowledge or needs to build upon previous knowledge and experiences. Most instructors noted their needs and professional development recommendations for contextually rich field experiences to advance their knowledge and efficacy of the curricula. Additional training was needed to enhance girls’ knowledge, self-independence, and practical applications. Lastly, GPP personnel pointed to not only the necessity to learn more than just sustainable production practices but also approaches to discern appropriate markets for products, promote food products, and manage finances generated from all entrepreneurial food production efforts.
Over eighteen percent (n = 23, 18.11%) of the participants corresponded to specificities of KASAs needed within the food and agricultural sciences curricula. Students should learn investment strategies for the funds generated from food and agricultural products and develop an understanding of reinvesting in agricultural entrepreneurship. Most instructors highlighted the importance of the curricula to teach strategies for identifying a market prior to girls selecting which food or agricultural product to grow. GPP instructors recommended that girls learn to build storage facilities to store agricultural products and sell them at the best times to earn more money and advance their entrepreneurial skills. GPP instructors reiterated their recommendation that experts in food and agricultural sciences provide routine consultations to instructors to ensure that teachers stay up to date and pass new knowledge and skills onto girls.

4.7. Practices

Practices include both objective and subjective indicators. Objective indicators are external, i.e., GPP program staff and observations of practice or skill changes. Subjective indicators would be girls reporting their practice adoption changes or implementation from the curricula. Most JLMC staff indicated their desire for girls to begin, learn, monitor, and be more self-directed in their learning with greater responsibility for their own food and agricultural sciences projects. This recommended practice improvement reported by one hundred and twelve (n = 112, 88.18%) participants is an objective and subjective indicator. The GPP food and agricultural sciences program should begin in GPP club sessions, and girls who graduate become mentors of the new or younger participants. The mentors would meet with the girls monthly and provide more in-depth food and agricultural training and mentorship. This specific recommendation was reinforced throughout the duration of field research by numerous JLMC personnel. JMLC staff underscored their recommendation that agricultural experts regularly monitor and evaluate the food and agricultural sciences curricula for GPP.

4.8. SEE Outcomes

The majority (n = 78, 61.41%) of the instructors reported witnessing or hearing SEE outcomes. Instructors provided a SEE outcome would be a scaled processing plant for girls’ agri-cultural seasonal products to expand their market in the future. Girls’ interest in higher education was also a SEE outcome espoused by the instructors. Becoming an adult entrepreneurial self-independent woman was identified by most participants as another SEE outcome. Girls having a longer life expectancy, a higher socioeconomic status, and more financial independence were also desired SEE outcomes. The participants indicated a desire for JLMC’s GPP program to reach more girls beyond the Kiboga, Luwero, and Nakasongola in the Central District was an additional SEE outcome. The mentorship recommendations provided in the “practices” category would be an example of increased leadership capacity as a SEE outcome. A small percentage of GPP instructors suggested that the curricula help teach girls what better or future conditions could be like as a result of their involvement in the GPP.
We explored whether food and agricultural sciences curricula should be infused with the GPP curricula. Over 93 percent (n = 118) of GPP graduates supported food and agricultural sciences curricula as a permanent component of JLMC’s GPP program. GPP graduates indicated this would be an investment in the community and fit the community’s culture. The participants were already planning the logistics of how such curricula and experiential learning opportunities could occur. Students were already participating in agriculture at fundamental levels in their homes, and the experiences could encourage girls to participate in higher education.

4.9. Resources

The participants varied on how food and agricultural sciences curricula could be included on a permanent basis in GPP. Some participants wanted an agriculture student association or club at different schools. GPP graduates (n = 86, 67.71%) believed such a club would be attractive to students and should have existing school infrastructure and be in an identified location girls and their families already knew.

4.10. KASAs

GPP graduates believed food and agricultural sciences curricula provided girls with new knowledge, skills, attitudinal changes, and potential new aspirations, deeming the curricula worthy of being a foundational component of the GPP. Examples of this new knowledge were the identification of crops and the crops most suited to the Central District’s environment, including crops that would have a higher return on the girl’s investment. The participants also noted the inclusion of new knowledge in the curricula, such as human nutrition, soil science, and marketing of food that GPP participants produce.
The participants conveyed that the rapid pace at which agricultural innovations are being developed necessitates the need for continuous food and agricultural knowledge transfer to girls. This avenue alone underscores the essential nature of teaching technology, sustainability best practices, and innovation to Ugandan girls. GPP graduates indicated that some Central District girls live on large arid land. These girls can learn knowledge and skills to develop and manage smallholder agricultural enterprises to feed their families and generate supplemental income for their experiential agriculture project. Learning the knowledge and skills related to smallholder agriculture opportunities can provide girls with future income sources without being involved in agricultural industries full-time.
It was found that most GPP participants were from agricultural backgrounds but not all. Therefore, girls were able to experience farm work while learning the value of challenging physical and mental work as a result of the food and agricultural sciences curricula. The farm work and the experiential components of the curricula provided girls with transformational knowledge, attitudes, and skills that could result in aspirational changes. These experiential interventions could result in girls discovering new interests or passions, both of which are examples of aspirational changes resulting from the food and agricultural sciences curricula.

4.11. Practices

The participants suggested that opportunities to have demonstration gardens from plots at schools would allow girls to take ownership of their agriculture project, promote the learning of the theoretical attributes of the curricula, strengthen the relationship between the JLMC and schools, and provide exhibits to adults in communities wanting to learn more about sustainable food systems.
Economic and safety were the constructs that the participants indicated as areas where TOP practice change could occur with consistent implementation of food and agricultural sciences curricula in the GPP. Agriculture is a main driver of economic activity in the Central District as reported by GPP graduates. The participants explained further, “food and agricultural sciences teaching should be embedded in GPP to prepare girls to work in a division of our economic staples—agriculture”. Participants said, “Curricular opportunities would provide supplemental income for girls, provide more time on school property, and reduce their dependence on males for livelihood”.
GPP graduates hoped that “the food and agricultural sciences curricula continues in GPP because the experiences give girls another opportunity if dreams to become a doctor, lawyer, or politician do not come true. Girls will have other skills to put into practice for work and livelihoods”.

4.12. SEE Outcomes

GPP graduates indicated that the food and agricultural sciences curricula could provide meaning to the girls’ lives and show them how productive they could be while helping them avoid circumstances that might lead to their abuse.
The participants indicated that the curricula could offer solutions for greater societal issues, for example, climate change, financial literacy, and food security through increased motivation for more agricultural education in the nation’s largest economic sector. The advantages of girls learning smallholder techniques include long-term impacts such as improved family food sustainability and food for other community members.
GPP graduates stated that the subject of food and agricultural sciences was a reason some girls stayed in school through numerous life changes. The study’s participants reinforced the economic outcomes for girls from agricultural information and entrepreneurial offerings. “Agriculture provides more opportunities for individual and community economic growth versus other professions available to girls in the Central District”.
The participants indicated that agriculture productivity provides funds for medical care, education, and other costs associated with standards of living. Most participants believe food and agricultural information would improve girls’ lifestyles. One participant shared, “Teaching food and agricultural sciences curricula fits the agrarian culture and would be a great investment not only in Ugandans but for community development in the Central District”.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this case study was to discern the reactions to the implementation of food and agricultural sciences curricula in the GPP. We investigated existing food and agricultural sciences programmatic instructional needs in developing, implementing, and evaluating curricula in GPP with women who had been teaching for one year. It is plausible that some level of bias exists from GPP instructors’ points of view with respect to the satisfaction or the usefulness of the courses they teach.
According to our data, JLMC program planners and facilitators wanted more food and agricultural sciences curricula provided by the GPP due to the promising results observed in girls’ responses in reactions, KASAs, and practices, as well as the potential for longer-term SEE outcomes. GPP curricula goals seek to empower and educate girls and improve self-independence. Teaching advanced participant levels in the GPP is recommended to progress girls’ knowledge from concrete experience, reflective observation, and abstract conceptualization, to the active experimentation domains identified in [35]. The increased knowledge, through experiential activities, could improve girls’ transformational learning with respect to food systems’ nuances, entrepreneurial opportunities, self-empowerment, and their role in community sustainability. These outcomes adhere to most of the SDGs recommended in [23]. Our data reinforce the results in [28], which assessed gender-sensitive knowledge and the extent to which education as an innovation improves food and agricultural sustainability.
The food and agricultural sciences curricula provided girls with concrete experience and allowed instructors to allocate time for reflective observations and abstract conceptualizations, as recommended in [35]. The synergy between the curricula and instructors leads to active experimentation in the GPP at surface levels. Prior to teaching, an intentional well-planned implementation strategy of experiential learning theory’s attributes is needed by GPP instructors to improve girls’ learning and improve the likelihood of their impacts beyond the participant level. Active experimentation and upper TOP outcomes are representative of the macro-organization, i.e., the community versus the individual.
Our study identified the inputs for TOP program development that JLMC’s GPP program provides. The inclusion of advanced food and agricultural sciences curricula would warrant future TOP program performance assessment, particularly in the practices and SEE outcomes of the model (see Figure 2) to best assist program administrators in understanding and communicating programmatic impacts to donors and collaborators.
Our team utilized a case study research design. We recommend that future scholars implement advanced quantitative inquiries to determine cause-and-effect relationships between the curricula, teaching methods, and instructors, on reactions, KASAs, practices, and SEE outcomes to better understand program impact, generalize findings, and present impact reports to donors with as small statistical error as possible. This approach would assist the JLMC in communicating impacts and potentially enhancing their funding due to the quantitative impact evaluation reporting of the long-term program performance indicators (practices and SEE outcomes).
The authorship team recommends foundational food and agricultural sciences curricula be provided in conjunction with financial literacy, defense, and survival and, hopefully, one day, include faculty specializing in smallholder agricultural practices for under-represented audiences as instructors. The data indicated that the JLMC is an NGO empowerment and education leader in the region with the GPP being one of their most impactful programs. We found that GPP participants desired to learn and GPP instructors and facilitators have a passion for teaching girls. International agricultural institutions, Ministries of Agriculture, agricultural industries, farmer associations, and other NGOs should cultivate collaborative partnerships with those like the JLMC to educate and empower girls in the food and agricultural sciences innovation-decision process to improve individual, family, community, and regional sustainability. Program instructors and facilitators should be provided with routine professional development given their changing role as agents in the teaching and learning process [24]. These recommended synergistic collaborations are necessary to fully develop the nation’s female youth and thus result in the future sustainability and advancement of Uganda.
The JLMC and other NGOs are well positioned to use social media dissemination for sharing organizational impacts with current and potential international donors. LinkedIn, a YouTube channel, and Instagram posts are low inputs that could maximize high outputs of the JLMC’s GPP initiatives, audiences, and impacts to expand donorship. Microblogging, such as X (formerly known as Twitter), would also expand impact dissemination by sharing successes with donors and potentially solicit an increased number of donors, not just donor funding. The ubiquity of social media outlets and their reach to a global populous is too advantageous for not-for-profit organizations to ignore in our digital age and Industry 4.0 technologies. Social media posts could easily link to success stories the JLMC and other NGOs already share on their websites. Using artificial intelligence tools to increase the communications of impact will become more ubiquitous moving forward. Practitioners and scholars collaborating with NGOs should recommend and assist those organizations in maximizing the use of no-cost AI tools in the global marketplace for sustainability innovations, ideas, and solutions to food security and entrepreneurial advancements.

6. Conclusions

The authors found that the higher levels of the TOP model illuminated the programmatic impact of food and agricultural sciences sustainability curricula in the GPP. TOP results, due to their multidimensionality, can be used to solicit additional donor funds for NGOs and GOs. The inclusion of experiential learning activities cannot be overstated to improve youth’s learning with respect to a global societal issue. As supported in our study, and congruent with [36], providing concrete experiences alone will not achieve higher-order learning impact results. The need for organizations and instructors to cultivate youth’s concrete experiences, designate time for focused student reflective observations, provide meaningful knowledge transfer through abstract conceptualization, and address active experimentation by empowering students to apply new knowledge and understand the extent to which the new sustainability knowledge is relevant to them highlights the approaches that are as essential as ever as identified by sustainable development goals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S. and M.B.; methodology, R.S., M.B. and K.D.; software, R.S.; validation, R.S., K.D. and N.R.; formal analysis, R.S. and K.D.; investigation, R.S. and K.D.; resources, R.S. and M.B.; data curation, R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S., M.B., K.D. and N.R.; writing—review and editing, R.S., M.B., K.D. and N.R.; visualization, R.S., M.B., K.D. and N.R.; supervision, R.S.; project administration, R.S.; funding acquisition, R.S. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project TEX09890: The Adoption Impact of Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula on Public Health.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Texas A&M University IRB protocol 2018-0227 approved on 8 May 2018 for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the GPP program.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Scarborough, W.J.; Sin, R.; Risman, B. Attitudes and the Stalled Gender Revolution: Egalitarianism, Traditionalism, and Ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gend. Soc. 2018, 33, 173–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. United Nations. The 17 Goals. 2019. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 2 February 2023).
  3. Nassani, A.A.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Abro, M.M.Q.; Islam, T.; Zaman, K. The impact of tourism and finance on women empowerment. J. Policy Model. 2018, 41, 234–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ndagurwa, P.; Chemhaka, G.B. Education elasticities of young women fertility in sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. Dev. S. Afr. 2020, 37, 921–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Manjengwa, J.; Matema, C.; Tirivanhu, D.; Tizora, R. Deprivation among children living and working on the streets of Harare. Dev. S. Afr. 2016, 33, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gikunda, R.M.; Ooga, D.M.; Okiamba, I.N.; Anyuor, S. Cultural barriers towards women and youth entry to apiculture production in Maara Sub-County, Kenya. Adv. Agric. Dev. 2021, 2, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tukundane, C.; Zeelen, J.; Minnaert, A.; Kanyandago, P. ‘I felt very bad, I had self-rejection’: Narratives of exclusion and marginalisation among early school leavers in Uganda. J. Youth Stud. 2013, 17, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Denov, M.; Piolanti, A. Identity formation and change in children and youth born of wartime sexual violence in northern Uganda. J. Youth Stud. 2020, 24, 1135–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cui, Z.; Oshri, A.; Liu, S.; Smith, E.P.; Kogan, S.M. Child Maltreatment and Resilience: The Promotive and Protective Role of Future Orientation. J. Youth Adolesc. 2020, 49, 2075–2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Agole, D.; Yoder, E.; Brennan, M.A.; Baggett, C.; Ewing, J.; Beckman, M.; Matsiko, F.B. Determinants of cohesion in smallholder farmer groups in Uganda. Adv. Agric. Dev. 2021, 2, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. von Grebmer, K.; Bernstein, J.; Wiemers, M.; Schiffer, T.; Hanano, A.; Towey, O.; Chéilleachair, R.N.; Foley, C.; Gitter, S.; Ekstrom, K.; et al. 2021 Global Hunger Index: Hunger and Food Systems in Conflict Settings. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 2021. Available online: https://www.globalhungerindex.org/pdf/en/2021.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  12. World Food Programme. Uganda. 2023. Available online: https://www.wfp.org/countries/uganda (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  13. Mubiru, D.N.; Radeny, M.; Kyazze, F.B.; Zziwa, A.; Lwasa, J.; Kinyangi, J.; Mungai, C. Climate trends, risks and coping strategies in smallholder farming systems in Uganda. Clim. Risk Manag. 2018, 22, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ronner, E.; Descheemaeker, K.; Almekinders, C.; Ebanyat, P.; Giller, K. Co-design of improved climbing bean production practices for smallholder farmers in the highlands of Uganda. Agric. Syst. 2019, 175, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ssebunya, B.R.; Schader, C.; Baumgart, L.; Landert, J.; Altenbuchner, C.; Schmid, E.; Stolze, M. Sustainability Performance of Certified and Non-certified Smallholder Coffee Farms in Uganda. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 156, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Van Campenhout, B.; Spielman, D.J.; Lecoutere, E. Information and Communication Technologies to Provide Agricultural Advice to Smallholder Farmers: Experimental Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 103, 317–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Strong, R.; Sprayberry, S.; Dooley, K.; Ahn, J.; Richards, J.; Kinsella, J.; Lee, C.-L.; Ray, N.; Cardey, S.; Benson, C.; et al. Sustaining Global Food Systems with Youth Digital Livestock Production Curricula Interventions and Adoption to Professionally Develop Agents of Change. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pincus, L.; Ballard, H.; Harris, E.; Scow, K. Seeing below the surface: Making soil processes visible to Ugandan smallholder farmers through a constructivist and experiential extension approach. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 35, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tukahirwa, L.; Mugisha, A.; Kyewalabye, E.; Nsibirano, R.; Kabahango, P.; Kusiimakwe, D.; Mugabi, K.; Bikaako, W.; Miller, B.; Bagnol, B.; et al. Women smallholder farmers' engagement in the vaccine chain in Sembabule District, Uganda: Barriers and Opportunities. Dev. Pract. 2022, 33, 416–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Andersson, E.; Isgren, E. Gambling in the garden: Pesticide use and risk exposure in Ugandan smallholder farming. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 82, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nabuuma, D.; Ekesa, B.; Faber, M.; Mbhenyane, X. Community perspectives on food security and dietary diversity among rural smallholder farmers: A qualitative study in central Uganda. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 5, 100183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aseete, P.; Barkley, A.; Katungi, E.; Ugen, M.A.; Birachi, E. Public–private partnership generates economic benefits to smallholder bean growers in Uganda. Food Secur. 2022, 15, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chiputwa, B.; Qaim, M. Sustainability Standards, Gender, and Nutrition among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda. J. Dev. Stud. 2016, 52, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Badiru, I.O.; Aluko, B.; Adejumo, A.A. Teachers’ Perception of the Effects of the New Education Curriculum on the Choice of Agriculture as a Career Among Secondary School Students in Oyo State. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2018, 20, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chauke, P.K.; Kabiti, H.M. Teachers’ Perceptions on Agricultural Science Curriculum Evolvement, Infrastructure Provision and Quality Enhancement in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Educ. Sci. 2016, 14, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahmed, A.H.; Ibrahim, O.A.; Agunbiade, M.W. Integrating Climate Change and Smart Agriculture Contents into Nigerian School Curriculum. Indones. J. Curric. Educ. Technol. Stud. 2022, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Egbo, B.N.; Nwaokocha, P.O.; Ifeanyieze, F.O. Curriculum Reforms in Agricultural Trades of Secondary Schools for Corruption Free Society. Niger. J. Curri. Stud. 2021, 27, 145–158. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mukembo, S.C.; Edwards, M.C. Improving Livelihoods through Youth-Adult Partnerships involving School-based, Agripreneurship Projects: The Experiences of Adult Partners in Uganda. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2020, 27, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mukembo, S.C.; Edwards, M.C.; Robinson, J.S. Comparative Analysis of Students’ Perceived Agripreneurship Competencies and Likelihood to become Agripreneurs depending on Learning Approach: A Report from Uganda. J. Agric. Educ. 2020, 61, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, C.-L.; Strong, R.; Briers, G.; Murphrey, T.; Rajan, N.; Rampold, S. A Correlational Study of Two U.S. State Extension Professionals’ Behavioral Intentions to Improve Sustainable Food Chains through Precision Farming Practices. Foods 2023, 12, 2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Just Like My Child Foundation. Our History. 2023. Available online: https://www.justlikemychild.org/our-history-as-uganda-page/ (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  32. Cai, W.; Wang, R.; Zhang, S. Efficient food systems for greater sustainability. Nat. Food 2023, 4, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Coleman, L.; Piña, M.; Hamie, S.; Davis, T. Community-level impact of a female empowerment program in Uganda. J. Univer. Glob. Ed. Issues 2020, 6, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hu, Y.; Qian, Y. Gender, education expansion and intergenerational educational mobility around the world. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2023, 7, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed.; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0-13-389240-6. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1984; Volume 1, ISBN 0132952610. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rockwell, S.K.; Albrecht, J.A.; Nugent, G.C.; Kunz, G.M. Using Targeting Outcomes of Programs as a Framework to Target Photographic Events in Nonformal Educational Programs. Am. J. Eval. 2011, 33, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rockwell, S.K.; Bennett, C. Targeting Outcomes of Programs: A Hierarchy a Hierarchy for Targeting Outcomes and Evaluating Their Achievement. University of Nebraska. 2004. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1047&context=aglecfacpub (accessed on 19 September 2023).
  39. Baú, V. Art, Development and Peace Working with Adolescents Living in Internally Displaced People's Camps in Mindanao. J. Int. Dev. 2017, 29, 948–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Riley, A.H.; Sood, S.; Robichaud, M. Participatory Methods for Entertainment–Education: Analysis of Best Practices. J. Creat. Commun. 2017, 12, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bennett, C. Up the hierarchy. J. Ext. 1975, 13, 7–12. Available online: http://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/75-2-a1.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  42. Radhakrishna, R.; Bowen, C.F. Viewing Bennett’s Hierarchy from a Different Lens: Implications for Extension Program Evaluation. J. Ext. 2010, 48, 23. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dart, J.; Davies, R. A Dialogical, Story-Based Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique. Am. J. Eval. 2003, 24, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McDonald, B.; Rogers, P.; Kefford, B. Teaching People to Fish? Building the Evaluation Capability of Public Sector Organizations. Evaluation 2003, 9, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jung, I.; Lee, J. The effects of learner factors on MOOC learning outcomes and their pathways. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2019, 57, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Evans, K.J.; Terhorst, A.; Kang, B.H. From Data to Decisions: Helping Crop Producers Build Their Actionable Knowledge. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2017, 36, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cliffe, N.; Stone, R.; Coutts, J.; Reardon-Smith, K.; Mushtaq, S. Developing the capacity of farmers to understand and apply seasonal climate forecasts through collaborative learning processes. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2016, 22, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Douthwaite, B.; Alvarez, S.; Thiele, G.; Mackay, R. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: A Practical Method for Project Planning and Evaluation. Institutional Learning and Change ILAC 1–4. 2008. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/70093 (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  49. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Crowe, S.; Cresswell, K.; Robertson, A.; Huby, G.; Avery, A.; Sheikh, A. The case study approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2011, 11, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Yazan, B. Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual. Rep. 2015, 20, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tsang, E.W. Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 16, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cundill, G.; Lotz-Sisitka, H.; Mukute, M.; Belay, M.; Shackleton, S.; Kulundu, I. A reflection on the use of case studies as a methodology for social learning research in sub Saharan Africa. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2014, 69, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Diefenbach, T. Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling? Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Qual. Quant. 2008, 43, 875–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ye, L.; Dai, Y.; Dong, X. The enabling mechanism of shuren culture in ICT4D: A case study of rural China. Technol. Soc. 2021, 68, 101842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zinngrebe, Y.; Borasino, E.; Chiputwa, B.; Dobie, P.; Garcia, E.; Gassner, A.; Kihumuro, P.; Komarudin, H.; Liswanti, N.; Makui, P.; et al. Agroforestry governance for operationalising the landscape approach: Connecting conservation and farming actors. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1417–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Di Cicco-Bloom, B.; Crabtree, B. The qualitative research interview. Med. Educ. 2006, 40, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Masika, R. Mobile Phones and Entrepreneurial Identity Negotiation by Urban Female Street Traders in Uganda. Gend. Work. Organ. 2017, 24, 610–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L.; Hingley, M. Exploring producers’ motivations and challenges within a farmers’ market. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2089–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ingram, J. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 214–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Agir, S.; Derin-Gure, P.; Senturk, B. Farmers’ perspectives on challenges and opportunities of agrivoltaics in Turkiye: An institutional perspective. Renew. Energy 2023, 212, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kaiser, A.; Burger, P. Understanding diversity in farmers’ routinized crop protection practices. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 89, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Urquhart, J. The role of farmers’ social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices. Agri. Syst. 2020, 181, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vollstedt, M.; Rezat, S. An Introduction to Grounded Theory with a Special Focus on Axial Coding and the Coding Paradigm; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 81–100. [Google Scholar]
  67. Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine de Gruyter: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 15461 g001
Figure 1. Kolb’s experiential learning theory [36].
Figure 1. Kolb’s experiential learning theory [36].
Sustainability 15 15461 g001
Sustainability 15 15461 g002
Figure 2. The TOP model [37].
Figure 2. The TOP model [37].
Sustainability 15 15461 g002
Sustainability 15 15461 g003
Figure 3. Map of Uganda illustrating the study’s three region locations in the Central District.
Figure 3. Map of Uganda illustrating the study’s three region locations in the Central District.
Sustainability 15 15461 g003
Table 1. Research questions and the aligned research objectives.
Table 1. Research questions and the aligned research objectives.
QuestionsResearch Objective
What agricultural sustainability knowledge did you acquire from the GPP?#1. Discern actors’ reactions to the extent to which food and agricultural sciences curricula could be implemented in the GPP.
Did your agricultural sustainability attitudes change from your GPP participation? If so, please explain.
What agricultural sustainability skills did you acquire from the GPP?
Did you gain agricultural sustainability aspirations from your GPP participation? If so, please explain.
If food and agricultural sciences curricula were a permanent feature of the GPP, what resources would a teacher need to be successful?#2. Investigate actors’ existing food and agricultural sciences programmatic instructional needs in developing, implementing, and evaluating curricula in GPP.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of participant responses to interview questions aligning with skills, attitudes, aspirations, and practices.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of participant responses to interview questions aligning with skills, attitudes, aspirations, and practices.
Questions/Itemsf%
Objective 1
Did your agricultural sustainability attitudes change from your GPP participation? If so, please explain. 6149.40
What agricultural sustainability skills did you acquire from the GPP?10179.53
Did you gain agricultural sustainability aspirations from your GPP participation? If so, please explain.9776.37
Objective 2
If food and agricultural sciences curricula were a permanent feature of the GPP, what resources would a teacher need to be successful?
Resources9373.22
Activities6754.47
KASAs7258.53
Practices11288.18
SEE Outcomes7861.41
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Strong, R.; Baker, M.; Dooley, K.; Ray, N. The Often-Forgotten Innovation to Improve Sustainability: Assessing Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula as Interventions in Uganda. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115461

AMA Style

Strong R, Baker M, Dooley K, Ray N. The Often-Forgotten Innovation to Improve Sustainability: Assessing Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula as Interventions in Uganda. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21):15461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115461

Chicago/Turabian Style

Strong, Robert, Mitchell Baker, Kim Dooley, and Nicole Ray. 2023. "The Often-Forgotten Innovation to Improve Sustainability: Assessing Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula as Interventions in Uganda" Sustainability 15, no. 21: 15461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115461

APA Style

Strong, R., Baker, M., Dooley, K., & Ray, N. (2023). The Often-Forgotten Innovation to Improve Sustainability: Assessing Food and Agricultural Sciences Curricula as Interventions in Uganda. Sustainability, 15(21), 15461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115461

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop