A Systematic Review of the Emergence and Utilisation of Agricultural Technologies into the Classroom
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“A management strategy that gathers, processes and analyses temporal, spatial and individual data and combines it with other information to support management decisions according to estimated variability for improved resource use efficiency, productivity, quality, profitability and sustainability of agricultural production” [2].
- What type of research into the use of agricultural technologies in secondary school classrooms has been conducted globally?
- What findings and conclusions were produced?
- What are the barriers to utilising agricultural technology in secondary school agricultural education programmes?
2. Methods
- Studies conducted on samples of school students, teachers or a combination of the two.
- Empirical studies engaging with the concept of agricultural technology by secondary school students and/or teachers.
- Studies conducted either within or outside of the normal school setting.
- Peer reviewed research articles and conference proceedings published between 2000 to 2020, inclusive.
- Published in the English language.
3. Results
3.1. RQ1: What Type of Research into the Use of Agricultural Technologies in Secondary School Classrooms Has Been Conducted Globally?
3.1.1. Aim/Purpose of Studies
Aim a: Determine or Increase Teachers’ Knowledge, Awareness or Attitude towards AgTech
Aim b: Evaluate the Effectiveness of Teacher PD
Aim c: Evaluate the Effectiveness of Classroom Activities
3.1.2. Study Methodologies
3.1.3. Participant Demographics
3.2. RQ2: What Findings and Conclusions Were Produced?
3.2.1. Aim a: Determine or Increase Teacher Knowledge, Awareness or Attitude towards AgTech
3.2.2. Aim b: Evaluate the Effectiveness of Teacher PD
3.2.3. Aim c: Evaluate the Effectiveness of Classroom Activities
3.3. RQ3: What Are the Barriers to Utilising Agricultural Technology in Secondary School Agricultural Education Programmes?
4. Discussion
4.1. The Role of the Pre-Service Teaching Curriculum
4.2. The Role of Professional Development
4.3. The Cost of Agriculture Technology Education
4.4. Recommendations for Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Appendix A
Reference, Location | Aim 1 | Detailed Aim | General Method/s | Sample Size and Participants | Findings | Recommendations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boone Jr, Gartin, Boone and Hughes [20], USA | a | Determine teacher knowledge and attitudes to biotechnology. | Single survey (paper-based) Details: Likert-scale questions to gauge knowledge and attitudes of biotechnology | N = 62 high school AgEd teachers | 90% agreed biotechnology should be included in AgEd Overall limited knowledge on biotechnology topics | Biotechnology should be included in curriculum Funding required for training and resources to support inclusion Support for teachers with PD and changes to pre-service teacher training to ensure sufficient topic knowledge |
Cosby, Trotter, Manning, Harreveld and Roberts [17], Australia | b | Evaluate university-developed learning resources—teacher PD. | Post-intervention focus groups Intervention: Lectures and practical sessions on livestock GPS tracking | N = 10 high school AgEd teachers | Teacher self-identified barriers: low technical skills and access to class computers High teacher willingness to engage with content to ensure their teaching programme is industry relevant Perceived student engagement with learning resources would be high | Teachers need ongoing support of the PD team with resources and scaffolding of lessons |
Cosby, Manning and Trotter [25], Australia | a, b | Increase awareness of Ag industry and teacher understanding of, and barriers to, Ag technology use. | Pre- and Post-intervention survey (Online) Intervention: Two-day PD including overnight on-farm showcasing technologies including livestock tracking | N = 27 teachers (K-12), multiple disciplines | 62% of teachers incorporate food and fibre content Post-intervention: 82% wished to increase food and fibre content Programme successful at increasing engagement between farmers, teachers and industry professionals Knowledge and industry perception improvement post-intervention | Need to overcome teacher barriers to increase food and fibre lesson content Teachers require more PD, online resources, industry networking, internet and computer resources and funding for equipment |
Duncan, Ricketts, Peake and Uesseler [24], USA | a | Determine AgEd teacher in-service needs including technology. | Single survey (Paper-based and online) Details: BNAM; Likert questions regarding competency and perceived importance; MWDS calculated | N = 212 middle and high school AgEd teachers | Limited findings specifically related to technology Teachers have high perceived need to learn methods of motivating students to learn | Pre-service teaching curriculum modifications to include current advances in agriculture and how to integrate technology into curriculum Industry professionals to attend teacher seminars and PD to improve teacher understanding of student pathways post-secondary |
Hanley, Davis and Davey [26], USA | b | Conduct and evaluate university-developed teacher PD of geospatial technologies and classroom application. | Pre- and post-intervention survey (unknown format) Additional post-intervention survey (unknown format) and interview Intervention: Two-week PD followed by school community projects (12 months) | N = 105 middle and high school teachers, multiple disciplines (mainly science) | Improvement in teacher knowledge in 17/21 areas following PD, although knowledge of GPS still low Hands-on activities highly rated Teacher readiness for community projects rated 5.9/10 following PD Students engaged and motivated by activities | Ongoing support by PD team required Financial support for field trips and classroom equipment required Involvement of school IT personnel recommended to overcome teacher limitations with technology |
King, McKim, Raven and Pauley [21], USA | a | Explore current needs and adoption of 15 new and emerging agricultural technologies within the curriculum to determine teacher PD needs | Single survey (online) Details: Needs assessment using Likert questions; MWDS calculated; other questions regarding current engagement, teaching methods and student engagement | N = 47 high school AgEd teachers | Rated importance of AgTech inclusion in curriculum higher than their competence to teach Student engagement high Lectures were the most common teaching method | Curricular review to include AgTech to prepare future learnersFuture studies to review impacts on student learning, not only student engagement Stakeholder involvement in teacher PD, including demonstration of teaching methods other than lectures |
Mueller, Knobloch and Orvis [28], USA | c | Evaluate student knowledge outcomes’ passive versus active learning groups using Apple Genomics genetics and biotechnology focused programme. | Pre- and Post-intervention survey of student knowledge (unknown format) Post-intervention survey of teacher perceptions (unknown format) Intervention: two parallel teachings: passive learning (lecture only) and active learning (computer modules and lab activities). | N = 8 teachers, 200 high school students | Post-test student knowledge scores not significantly higher in active learning group Active learning group demonstrated higher knowledge application and critical thinking Teachers perceived content too advanced and required support and background materials and learning | Programme should provide support materials to teachers for student pre-learning |
Paulsen, Polush, Clark and Cruse [29], USA | c | To test the impact of university-developed precision soil and water conservation curriculum on student knowledge and attitude. | Pre- and Post-intervention survey (unknown format) Intervention: 2–4-week precision soil conservation curriculum. Surveys used to determine attitudes and knowledge | N = 52 high school students | Teachers needed more training prior to implementation Limitation: only one lesson dedicated to AgTech (LiDAR) | Teacher training to include methods to adapt content to cater for background knowledge and abilities of students |
Sami, Sinclair, Stein and Medsker [30], USA | c | Determine knowledge and skill improvement following 2-week university-led agricultural data analytics summer camp | Pre- and Post-intervention survey (unknown format) Intervention: two-week summer camp using real-world data | N = 25 students, mean age 16 years | Demonstrated Excel knowledge and skill improvement 92% of students enjoyed the camp Limitation: self-report did not provide definitive proof of learning and skill development | Skill challenge testing to determine actual rather than perceived skill improvement External industry stakeholder involvement was valued in the course design and activities |
Simonneaux [18], France | a | To determine whether teacher traits influence knowledge and opinion on biotechnology topics. | Single survey (paper-based) Details: level of agreeance with various statements regarding biotechnology | N = 105 teachers, multiple disciplines | Overall agree with use of biotechnology in human medicine and raw material production Limitation: focused on attitudes towards technology and not on use of technology | Limited |
Smalley, Hainline and Sands [22], USA | a | Determine PD needs of AgEd teachers in areas including technical agriculture. | Single survey (online) Details: BNAM; Likert questions regarding competence and perceived importance; MWDS calculated. 13/20 items assessment regarding AgTech | N = 147 AgEd teachers | Need for teacher PD for all items in technical agriculture category Highest perceived need in teaching biotechnology, agribusiness and integrating advances in AgTech into the curriculum Current reliance on Ag teaching organisations, university and industry professionals for PD | More teacher PD across multiple areas, with curriculum integration support |
Weeks, Lawver, Sorensen and Warnick [23], USA | a | Examined AgEd teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of 21st century skills agriculture skills to help determine PD needs. | Single survey (online) Details: BNAM; Likert questions regarding competence and perceived importance and ability to teach; MWDS calculated | N = 98 AgEd teachers | Majority perceived 21st century skills important Self-rated technical literacy knowledge as somewhat knowledgeable Self-rated ability to teach 21st century technical skills as somewhat competent Lacked knowledge to teach specific skills | Further research into how the AgTech skills are being taught in schools and teacher self-efficacy More teacher PD focused on emerging technologies |
Whannell and Tobias [27], Australia | b | Teacher PD workshops to understand role of maths, science and IT in future farming to encourage teacher promotion of industry to students. | Post-intervention survey (unknown format) Intervention: four-day workshop using online resources | N = 195 science and AgEd teachers | 70% self-rated ability to use computers Females significantly higher computer self-efficacy, attitude and intention to use digital classroom Teachers identified potential challenges being computer access in rural schools and engagement of students with lower literacy | PD should consider targeting student literacy levels Limited access to technology is a barrier for teaching, particularly in rural schools |
Wilson, Kirby, Flowers and American Agricultural Economics Association [19], USA | a | Determine teacher intent to adopt specifically designed biotechnology curriculum and determine teacher knowledge and barriers to adoption. | Single survey (paper-based) Details: Likert questions regarding perceived knowledge, importance, intention to adopt and barriers for adoption; MCQ of actual knowledge | N = 126 high school AgEd teachers | Teachers perceived inclusion of biotechnology curriculum as important, with self-perceived knowledge being ‘somewhat knowledgeable’ Teachers with fewer years of experience and past biotechnology training were more likely to show willingness to adopt the curriculum Actual knowledge score: mean 69% Almost half of teachers not meeting the expected passing score of assessment designed for students Identified barriers to adoption of biotechnology curriculum being lack of equipment, funding, low teacher knowledge | Future studies should compare the knowledge of teachers in competency areas against the value they place on those competencies Areas of lowest competency to be determined for future training Pre-service teaching courses to address shortfall in knowledge |
References
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Population Division. World Population Prospects, the 2019 Revision. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 30 March 2022).
- International Society of Precision Agriculture (ISPA). Precision Ag Definition. Available online: https://www.ispag.org/about/definition (accessed on 22 June 2021).
- Ferguson, D.; Colditz, I. What Does the Future Hold for Livestock Production in Australia? Available online: https://blog.csiro.au/what-does-the-future-hold-for-livestock-production-in-australia/ (accessed on 30 March 2022).
- Trotter, M. PA Innovations in livestock, grazing systems and rangeland management to improve landscape productivity and sustainability. Agric. Sci. 2013, 25, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
- Fogarty, E.S.; Swain, D.L.; Cronin, G.M.; Trotter, M. A systematic review of the potential uses of on-animal sensors to monitor the welfare of sheep evaluated using the Five Domains Model as a framework. Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 407–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotter, M.; Cosby, A.; Manning, J.K.; Thomson, M.; Trotter, T.; Graz, P.; Fogarty, E.S.; Lobb, A.; Smart, A. Demonstrating the Value of Animal Location and Behaviour Data in the Red Meat Value Chain P.PSH.0835; Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd.: North Sydney, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cosby, A.; Manning, J.; Fogarty, E.S.; Wilson, C.; Islam, N.; Trotter, M. Assessing Real Time Tracking Technologies to Integrate with Identification Methods and National Traceability Requirements; Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd.: North Sydney, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, H.; Rose, D.C. Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: What’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociol. Rural. 2020, 62, 162–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, J.; Maye, D. What are the implications of digitalisation for agricultural knowledge? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caffaro, F.; Cavallo, E. The effects of individual variables, farming system characteristics and perceived barriers on actual use of smart farming technologies: Evidence from the Piedmont Region, Northwestern Italy. Agriculture 2019, 9, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- GHD; AgThenic. Consumer Perceptions around Emerging Agtech; AgriFutures Australia: Wagga Wagga, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lockie, S.; Fairley-Grenot, K.; Ankeny, R.; Botterill, L.; Howlett, B.; McBratney, A.; Probyn, E.; Sorrell, T.; Sukkarieh, S.; Woodhead, I. The Future of Agricultural Technologies; Australian Council of Learned Academies: Melbourne, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, W.; Dawson, D.; Fleming-Munoz, D.; Schleiger, E.; Horton, J. The Future of Australia’s Agricultural Workforce; CSIRO Data 61: Canberra, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kovar, K.A.; Ball, A.L. Two decades of agricultural literacy research: A synthesis of the literature. J. Agric. Educ. 2013, 54, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Checklists. Available online: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- Cosby, A.; Trotter, M.; Manning, J.; Harreveld, B.; Roberts, J. Opportunities and barriers perceived by secondary school agriculture teachers in implementing the GPS cows learning module. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonneaux, L. Influence of cultural and disciplinary identity on the way teachers in agricultural education in France relate to knowledge in biotechnology. New Genet. Soc. 2000, 19, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.; Kirby, B.; Flowers, J.; American Agricultural Economics Association, L.K.Y. Factors Related to the Intent of Agricultural Educators to Adopt Integrated Agricultural Biotechnology Curriculum; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2002; Volume 43. [Google Scholar]
- Boone, H.N., Jr.; Gartin, S.A.; Boone, D.A.; Hughes, J.E. Modernizing the agricultural education curriculum: An analysis of agricultural education teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of biotechnology. J. Agric. Educ. 2006, 47, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, L.G.; Mc Kim, A.J.; Raven, M.R.; Pauley, C.M. New and emerging technologies: Teacher needs, adoption, methods, and student engagement. J. Agric. Educ. 2019, 60, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smalley, S.; Hainline, M.S.; Sands, K. School-based agricultural education teachers’ perceived professional development needs associated with teaching, classroom management, and technical agriculture. J. Agric. Educ. 2019, 60, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weeks, K.J.; Lawver, R.G.; Sorensen, T.J.; Warnick, B.K. Do teachers have the skills: 21st century skills in the agricultural education classroom? J. Agric. Educ. 2020, 61, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, D.W.; Ricketts, J.C.; Peake, J.B.; Uesseler, J. Teacher preparation and in-service needs of Georgia agricultural teachers. J. Agric. Educ. 2006, 47, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosby, A.; Manning, J.; Trotter, M. TeacherFX—Building the capacity of STEM, agriculture and digital technologies teachers in Western Australia. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, C.D.; Davis, H.B.; Davey, B.T. The impact of professional development in natural resource investigations using geospatial technologies. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 41, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whannell, R.; Tobias, S. Educating Australian high school students in relation to the digital future of agriculture. J. Econ. Soc. Policy 2015, 17, 61–80. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, A.L.; Knobloch, N.A.; Orvis, K.S. Exploring the effects of active learning on high school students’ outcomes and teachers’ perceptions of biotechnology and genetics instruction. J. Agric. Educ. 2015, 56, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulsen, T.H.; Polush, E.; Clark, T.; Cruse, R. Introducing a precision soil conservation curriculum: A pre- and post-evaluation. J. Agric. Syst. Technol. Manag. 2017, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Sami, J.; Sinclair, K.; Stein, Z.; Medsker, L. Data science outreach educational program for high school students focused in agriculture. J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res. 2020, 21, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
- Bastos, S.; de Oliveira, H.; Silva, M.M.; Azevedo, L. Soft-Digital Skills in Higher Education Curricula. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on e-Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7–8 November 2019; pp. 70–77. [Google Scholar]
- Gill, L.; Dalgarno, B.; Carlson, L. How does pre-service teacher preparedness to use ICTs for learning and teaching develop through their degree program. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2015, 40, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozer, M.A.; Latorre, J.; Rutledge, D.; Mansour, T.; Altamirano, A. Digital native pre-service teachers’ perceptions of using commercial and open source online applications in future praxis after completing technology integration course. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2019, 18, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vickrey, T.; Golick, D.; Stains, M. Educational technologies and instructional practices in agricultural sciences: Leveraging the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework to critically review the literature 1. NACTA J. 2018, 62, 65–76. [Google Scholar]
- Di Benedetto, C.A.; Willis, V.C.; Barrick, R.K. Needs Assessments for school-based agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. J. Agric. Educ. 2018, 59, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, E.; Mueller, J.; Willoughby, T.; Specht, J.; Deyoung, T. Teachers’ perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Educ. Commun. Inf. 2005, 5, 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Australian Commonwealth Government. Regional Telecommunications Review 2021; Australian Commonwealth Government: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. A Case for Rural Broadband: Insights on Rural Broadband Infrastructure and Next Generation Precision Agriculture Technologies; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
- Stewart, R.M., Jr.; Moore, G.E.; Flowers, J. Emerging educational and agricultural trends and their impact on the secondary agricultural education program. J. Vocat. Educ. Res. 2004, 29, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cosby, A.; Patison, K.; Manning, J.; Trotter, M.; Ferguson, S.; Harreveld, B. Best Practice Guide for Effective Engagement between Teachers and the Agricultural Industry. 2020. Available online: http://agri-techeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Women-in-Agri-Tech-Best-Practice-Guide.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- Cosby, A.; Manning, J.; Power, D.; Harreveld, B. New decade, same concerns: A systematic review of agricultural literacy of school students. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borich, G.D. A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. J. Teach. Educ. 1980, 31, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Manning, J.K.; Cosby, A.; Power, D.; Fogarty, E.S.; Harreveld, B. A Systematic Review of the Emergence and Utilisation of Agricultural Technologies into the Classroom. Agriculture 2022, 12, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060818
Manning JK, Cosby A, Power D, Fogarty ES, Harreveld B. A Systematic Review of the Emergence and Utilisation of Agricultural Technologies into the Classroom. Agriculture. 2022; 12(6):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060818
Chicago/Turabian StyleManning, Jaime K., Amy Cosby, Deborah Power, Eloise S. Fogarty, and Bobby Harreveld. 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Emergence and Utilisation of Agricultural Technologies into the Classroom" Agriculture 12, no. 6: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060818