ERIC EJ839893: Description of the Use of Greenhouse Facilities by Secondary Agricultural Education Instructors in Arizona

2008·0.15 MB·English

by  ERIC

DESCRIPTION OF THE USE OF GREENHOUSE FACILITIES BY SECONDARY
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTORS IN ARIZONA

Edward A. Franklin, Assistant Professor
University of Arizona

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the status and use of greenhouse laboratory facilities
by secondary agricultural education instructors in Arizona. Specific objectives were to determine
the number of programs with operating greenhouses, types of operating systems, how the
facilities are used in the local program, level of preparation of instructors to use greenhouses,
use of greenhouse to meet science standards, and barriers to the use of greenhouses. Findings
suggest that 75% of agricultural education programs in Arizona have a greenhouse. Teachers
are more likely to use the greenhouse for classroom instruction, SAE, and fundraising and less
likely to use it for CDE training and agriscience research. Teachers are likely to use a
greenhouse to teach to state science standards. Most teachers have little or no postsecondary
preparation or previous work experience in horticulture prior to entering teaching and are not
satisfied with quantity or quality of use of their greenhouse. Teachers are supportive of a
university-level course to prepare preservice teachers to use a greenhouse for education. Lack of
funding and experience are perceived barriers to not having a greenhouse as part of the local
agricultural education program.

Introduction/Theoretical Framework Newcomb et al. write, “Laboratories are a
crucial component of the teaching-learning
The application stage of teaching is program for education in agriculture” (p.
where the student engages in the 214). The authors posit that much of the
psychomotor task to reinforce the effectiveness of agricultural education
connection of what was learned in a instruction is lost without the use of a
cognitive domain (Newcomb, McCracken, laboratory. Talbert, Vaughn and Croom
Warmbrod, & Whittington, 2004). (2005, p. 182) define an agriscience
McCormick (1994, p. 171) summarized the laboratory as “a facility used in teaching the
application of learning to assure a positive science and math principles and concepts
education experience: “Effective teachers associated with agriculture.” Use of a
stress the application of what was taught specialized laboratory can make a difference
because they realize that application in student achievement and promote a
promotes learning effectiveness, and positive attitude toward science
provides a more positive educational (Rothenberger & Stewart, 1995). The
experience for the students.” theoretical framework for this study is tied
Successful student performance requires to cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins,
the appropriate learning environment. In & Duguid, 1989). “Cognitive apprenticeship
agricultural education, this environment may supports learning in a domain by enabling
be a specialized laboratory such as an students to acquire, develop, and use
agricultural mechanics shop, school farm, cognitive tools in authentic domain activity”
biotechnology laboratory, computer (Brown et al., p. 30). The teacher verbalizes
technology center, or greenhouse laboratory the activity while they are modeling
facility. The purpose of laboratories is to (demonstrating) it and coaches the student
provide organized and systematic instruction during completion of the task or activity.
of two types: individualized instruction and The theory suggests that instructors teaching
group instruction (Newcomb et al., 2004). a skill often fail to take into account the
Journal of Agricultural Education 34 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
“implicit processes” involved in carrying out determining the viability of teaching
complex skills when they are teaching technical skills related to specific job titles.
novices. According to Duncan (1996, p. 67), Ornamental horticulture has emerged as
“the most appropriate instructional method one of the rapidly growing areas of
is one that incorporates both (a) realistic production agriculture across the nation. In
presentation of the knowledge, procedures, 2005, there were 10,563 growers in the
and skills and (b) opportunities for students United States using a total of 550 million
to apply the knowledge and practice the square feet of greenhouse space (United
procedures and skills in a realistic context.” States Department of Agriculture [USDA],
Brown et al. found that when authentic 2002). According to the USDA, wholesale
situations are created during learning that receipts of greenhouse and nursery crop
are similar to the situations in which the producers edged up less than 1% to $15.7
knowledge will ultimately be applied, the billion in 2004, boosted by the 2% gain in
closer the match between the learning floriculture sales from 2003. The total
situation and the ultimate workplace wholesale crop value of growers (with
situation and the easier the transfer of $10,000 or more in sales) was $5.36 billion.
learning will be. In this study, the presence Horticulture is one of the agriculture
and use of a greenhouse by teachers to teach career areas with the greatest opportunity for
hands-on activities related to concepts jobs and future importance as perceived by
introduced in lecture is how teachers make students, stakeholders, and school
use of contextualized learning and cognitive administrators (Foster, Bell, & Erskine,
apprenticeship when effective 1995; White, Stewart, & Linhardt, 1991).
demonstrations take place. According to the Arizona Nursery
Laboratories in agricultural education Association (ANA, 2006), sales of nursery
programs serve as a means to provide the products topped $1.2 billion. The number of
application of the instruction taught in the jobs related to horticulture in Arizona
classroom (McCormick, 1994). Several exceeded 24,000. The number of
researchers in agricultural education have commercial growers in Arizona with a
reported findings that support the theory that reported gross value of sales between
students learn best when an application $50,000 and $99,999 increased from three in
experience follows lecture and instruction 2004 to nine in 2005 (ANA, 2006). In
(Enderlin & Osborne, 1992; Oen & Arizona, nursery, greenhouse, floriculture
Sweany, 1971; Rothenberger & Stewart, and sod ranks sixth in the state in total
1995). market value (USDA, 2002). In the teacher
With the exception of Rothenberger and preparation program at the land-grant
Stewart’s (1995) study of a greenhouse University of Arizona, a course in the
laboratory experience, few researchers have Department of Agricultural Education is
discussed the greenhouse facility as an offered that prepares students to teach
effective teaching laboratory in agricultural psychomotor skills in laboratory sciences.
education. In their 1995 study, Rothenburger Though the discussion of preparing effective
and Stewart sought to determine the demonstrations applies to all areas of
effectiveness of instruction in horticulture agricultural education, the main emphasis of
using a greenhouse combined with the course is on preparing students to teach
traditional classroom instruction. They in agriculture mechanics laboratories. Little
found that students with a greenhouse emphasis is placed on other instructional
laboratory experience scored significantly laboratory facilities (i.e. greenhouses,
higher on a knowledge exam than students nurseries, aquaculture, and biotechnology)
who were taught the same lessons but had that may be found at the local agricultural
no greenhouse laboratory experience. education program.
In agricultural education, specialized
facilities are used to provide students with Purpose and Objectives
necessary skills to prepare for specialized
careers (McCormick, 1994). Understanding The purpose of this study was to
the local and state economy is important for describe the status of use of greenhouse
Journal of Agricultural Education 35 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
facilities by high school agricultural based on a review of the literature and
education programs in Arizona. This study informal discussions with horticulture
provided information that facilitated faculty from two universities. A web-based
direction of horticulture content knowledge survey instrument was developed by the
and skills of preservice student teachers researcher and reviewed for face and content
prepared by the University of Arizona. validity by a committee of community
Specific objectives of the study were: college and university faculty with expertise
in plant science, controlled environmental
1. Determine the status of greenhouse agriculture, ornamental horticulture, and
facilities by agricultural education greenhouse operation and management. The
programs in Arizona. instrument was composed of yes/no
2. Describe how teachers use categorical questions, fixed-response, and
greenhouse facilities in relation to Likert-type scale questions. The constructs
their agricultural education program. measured using a greenhouse to teach state
3. Determine the horticulture standards, confidence in managing
backgrounds and level of preparation greenhouse components, use of greenhouse
of agricultural education teachers to in the total agriculture program, and
teach with a greenhouse. perceived barriers. The instrument was
4. Determine barriers to the effective piloted with 13 agricultural education
operation of greenhouses by teachers from a neighboring state known to
agricultural education teachers. manage greenhouse facilities. Instrument
reliability was established using Cronbach’s
Methods and Procedures Coefficient Alpha. Reliability coefficients
ranged from .72 to .96. Notes of clarification
This research was descriptive in design were returned on the questionnaire to the
and sought to establish baseline data for researcher. Noted problems were corrected
identifying how high school agriculture by the researcher prior to administration to
programs use their greenhouse laboratories. the target population.
Because of limited funding, the focus of this
study concentrated on agricultural education Data Collection
programs in Arizona. An electronic cover letter explaining the
purpose of the study with an active link to
Population the online survey was e-mailed to 85
The target population for this study teachers on June 1, 2007. The first question
consisted of all agricultural education requested the respondent to check off the
teachers currently working in 2005-2006 name of their school from a drop-down list.
(N = 90) representing all Arizona high This information would be used to track
T
school agricultural education programs (N respondents by programs and responses by
P
= 70). Names of teachers, their schools, and programs with multiple teachers. By the end
e-mail addresses were obtained from the of the 1st week, a total of 45 teachers
2005-06 Arizona Agricultural Education representing 38 schools completed the
Directory. Because the size of the total survey instrument for a response rate of
population was manageable with available 53%. A second e-mail letter was sent out 1
resources, a census of the population was week later. Ten additional electronic
taken. At the time of the study, five teachers questionnaires were completed by teachers
retired or left their teaching position (N = representing four additional schools for a
T
85); this left four of the high school teaching response rate of 65%. A third e-mail follow-
positions vacant, so accessible information up yielded 14 additional responses for a
from these schools was not available. response rate of 69 of 85 (81.1%) teachers
Therefore, data was to be collected from the representing 48 of 66 agricultural education
accessible population of agricultural programs. After 2 weeks, a paper and pencil
education programs of (N = 66). version of the instrument with a self-
P
Instrument addressed stamped return envelop was
The survey questionnaire was developed mailed to 19 teachers not responding to the
Journal of Agricultural Education 36 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
e-mail invitation. Eight complete and usable Findings
surveys were returned and were coded as
“late responding.” Objective 1: Determine the status of
Threat to external validity is common to greenhouse facilities by agricultural
survey researchers when less than a 100% education programs in Arizona.
response rate is obtained. To correct for non- To complete the first objective,
response error, non-responding teachers (n = respondents were asked to answer a
11) were contacted by telephone and series of yes/no categorical questions and
requested to complete the instrument with closed response questions describing
the aid of an interviewer. A total of 75 greenhouse facility use. Questions
teachers representing 55 (83.3%) included the presence of a greenhouse, a
agricultural education programs completed plant nursery, duration of use, use of
the survey for a final response rate of 88.2%. greenhouse in the total agricultural
According to Wiersma and Jurs (2005, p. education program, use of greenhouse to
175), “when surveying a professional teach curriculum, size of the greenhouse,
population, 70 percent is considered a and type of environmental systems and
minimum response rate.” Because both control systems found in the greenhouse.
teacher response rate and program response Of the 75 (100%) teachers responding
rate exceeded 70%, the acquired response to the question “Does your agricultural
rate for this study was deemed acceptable. education program have a greenhouse
Because late respondents are similar to facility?” 57 (76%) replied in the
non-respondents, according to Ary, Jacobs, affirmative and 18 (24%) in the
and Razavieh (1996, p. 461), negative. Teachers responding “no” to the
question were directed to complete the
If no significant differences are found section of the questionnaire regarding
between early and late respondents, and perceived barriers to having a greenhouse
late respondents are believed typical of facility as part of their local program.
nonrespondents, then the researcher can As a follow-up to the positive responders of
assume that the respondents are an the first question, a similar inquiry was
unbiased sample of the recipients and made of the local agriculture program
can thus generalize to the total group. having a plant nursery facility. Fewer
teachers responded in the affirmative.
A comparison of early and late respondents Only 17 teachers (28.8%) said a plant
was conducted to determine if significant nursery was present; 42 (71.2%) said their
differences occurred between the two program did not have a plant nursery
groups. Summated Likert-scale scores for facility. Teachers were asked to provide
three constructs were examined using t-tests. the square footage of their greenhouse.
No significant differences were found, Responses ranged from 240 square feet to
suggesting that late respondents were no 3,600 square feet. The reported mean
different than early respondents (Linder, size was 1,300 square feet. The
Murphy & Briers, 2001). median response was 1,128 square
feet. Teachers were asked to report the
Analysis duration of use of their greenhouse.
Descriptive statistics were used to Choices provided ranged from “All year
analyze the data. Data were downloaded to long” to “Only when I/we teach a specific
an Excel spreadsheet and checked for errors. unit.” Twenty (35.1%) teachers
Responses were recoded and entered into the reported their greenhouse was used
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences all year long; two teachers (3.5%)
(SPSS v.14) for statistical analysis. indicated using their facility only for
Descriptive statistics were used to specific units. Teachers were given an
summarize and organize data. Frequencies, opportunity to check “other” and
percentages, and measures of central provide additional information
tendency were used to describe data. (Table 1).

Journal of Agricultural Education 37 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
Table 1
Duration of Use of Greenhouses as Reported by Agriculture Teachers (n = 57)
Duration f %
All year long 20 35.1
Only when school is in session 18 31.6
Not in use at present time 6 10.5
Only during selective growing seasons 2 3.5

Only when I/we teach specific units 2 3.5
Other: 9 15.8
“Not in use because it was not maintained”
“The greenhouse is being built right now and has not been is use at this time”
“Being overhauled not in use at this time”

“All year long(a) lack in summer to lack of extended contract”

For agricultural education teacher bottom heat (20%). Figure 1 illustrates the
education faculty to better understand the findings.
greenhouse facility needs of the
secondary agriculture teachers, it was Objective 2: Describe how teachers use
important to know what the typical greenhouse facilities in relation to their
greenhouse in the local agriculture agricultural education program.
program has in terms of equipment and A set of questions focused directly on
operating systems. To determine the recently adopted plant science standards for
complexity of the typical greenhouse agricultural education in Arizona was
found in the agricultural education developed. Teachers were asked about their
programs, teachers were asked to check perception of their ability to teach specific
which operating systems were found in plant science standards using a greenhouse.
their greenhouse. The majority of the The question was phrased as “I feel I am
teachers reporting their greenhouses are well prepared to teach the following
equipped with fans (94%), cooling curriculum standards using a greenhouse or
systems (93%), ventilation (89%), nursery” followed by a list of 12 curriculum
heating (86%), and irrigation (68%). standards related to plant sciences. A 5-point
Over half the respondents indicate rating scale with descriptors of “Strongly
having misters (58%), sensor controls agree” to “Strongly disagree” was
(55%), lighting (54%), and a fertilizer provided. The highest mean response was
injection system (51%). Less than a quarter 4.41 (SD = 0.57) and the lowest was 3.33
of the teachers said their greenhouses are (SD = 0.97). All responses fell in the
equipped with retractable shade (24%) or “Agree” category (Table 2).

Journal of Agricultural Education 38 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…

Fans 52, (94%)
Cooling 51, (93%)
Ventilation 48, (89%)

Heating 47, (86%)

Irrigation 36, (68%)

Misters 29, (58%)
Sensor controls 26, (54%)

Lighting 26, (54%)

Fertilizer injection system 25, (51%)

Retractable shade 11, (24%)
Bottom heat 9, (20%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 1. Percentage of greenhouses equipped with specific operating systems.

Table 2
Teacher’s Perceptions of Use of Greenhouses to Teach Plant Science Standards
Curriculum Standard M SD
Demonstrate laboratory procedures and safety practices 4.41 0.57
Describe basic principles of nutrition 4.04 0.68
Describe principles of plant growth production 4.21 0.68
Analyze the relationships within living systems 3.85 0.88
Examine the interaction of biological systems within the environment 3.81 0.86
Apply fundamentals of production and harvesting to produce plants 3.80 0.90
Investigate approved nutritional practices 3.74 0.89
Analyze interaction among environmental and natural resource sciences 3.62 0.93
Address taxonomic or other classifications to explain basic plant anatomy 3.62 0.84
and physiology

Apply principles of anatomy and physiology to produce and manage plants in 3.60 1.00
both a domesticated and a natural environment

Investigate environmental and economical impacts of integrated pest 3.59 0.99
management options

Investigate approved practices of disease control 3.33 0.97
Note: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.
Journal of Agricultural Education 39 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
Another series of questions sought to = 2.40, SD = 1.27). Teachers also disagreed
determine the teachers’ perceptions of use of that instruction in the use of greenhouses to
their greenhouse in teaching horticulture and teach plant sciences and horticulture was
plant sciences. Teachers were in strong included in their teacher preparation
agreement with the statement, “A specific program (M = 2.40, SD = 1.22). Teachers
college course in greenhouse use for agreed that a greenhouse could be effective
education should be developed” (M = 4.60, for teaching math and science, and they
SD = 0.67). Teachers disagreed with would receive administrative support for
statements that they could teach plant using a greenhouse for teaching hands-on
science standards without a greenhouse (M instruction (Table 3).

Table 3.
Perception of Use of Greenhouses in Teaching Horticulture and Plant Science Concepts
Statement M SD
A specific college course in greenhouse use for education should be 4.60 0.67
developed.

A greenhouse can be an effective tool in teaching math and science concepts 4.57 0.61
to students.

My administration supports the use of a greenhouse as a tool for teaching 4.45 0.68
hands-on instruction.

The greenhouse is an effective teaching tool used in my/our agricultural 4.42 1.03
education program.

I need assistance in using a greenhouse to teach the state framework for 3.75 0.97
horticulture and plant science.

I am able to effectively teach plant science without the use of a greenhouse. 2.68 1.30

I can teach the horticulture and plant science standards of the Arizona CTE 2.40 1.27
curriculum framework without a greenhouse.

My teacher preparation program included instruction in the use of 2.40 1.22
greenhouses to teach horticulture and plant science.
Note: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

Journal of Agricultural Education 40 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
A series of questions were developed to agriscience fair student projects/research (n
describe how teachers use the greenhouse = 17, 33%).
laboratory in their agricultural education Lastly, teachers were asked about their
program. According to the National FFA level of satisfaction with the quantity and
Organization (2006), the complete or total quality of use of their greenhouse in relation
agricultural education program includes to their total agriculture program. Quantity
classroom instruction, student leadership of use was defined as the number of days of
development activities (FFA), and instruction using the facility, or the number
experiential learning activities (Supervised of students served. Over one-third of
Agriculture Experience [SAE]). Other areas respondents stated they were not satisfied
may include Career Development Event with the quantity of use of their greenhouse
(CDE) training, fundraising, (Figure 3), as opposed to 10% who cited
recruitment/public relations, and agriscience they were “Very Satisfied” with quantity of
fair/research activities. Respondents were use.
asked to check from a list of all that apply. Quality of use was defined as the
Most cited use of a greenhouse was for number plants produced, amount of money
classroom instruction (n = 53, 95%), with raised, or the number of classes using the
student SAE ranking second (n = 44, 81%) facility. More than 40% of teachers
and fundraising (n = 33, 73%) was third expressed their level of dissatisfaction with
(Figure 2). According to teachers, the quality of use of their greenhouse,
greenhouses are less likely to be used for whereas less than 5% were very satisfied
FFA activities, CDE training, and with the quality of use (Figure 4).
Classroom Instructon 95%
Student SAE's 81%
Fundraising 73%
Recruitment/Public Relations 64%
Career Development Event Training 57%
FFA Activities 42%
Agriscience Fair/Student Research 33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 2. Percentage of use of greenhouse in total agricultural education program (n = 57).

Journal of Agricultural Education 41 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…
Very Satisfied Very Satisfied
Not at All 10.7% 4%
Satisfied Not at All Satisfied
33.9% Somewhat Satisfied 26%
42%
Satisfied
26.8%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
28.6% 28%
Figure 3. Level of satisfaction of quantity of
Figure 4. Level of satisfaction of quality of
use of greenhouse in agriculture program.
use of greenhouse in agriculture program.

Objective 3: Determine the horticulture college. Less than a quarter (22.8%) of
backgrounds and level of preparation of teachers reported completing 7-12 hours.
agricultural education teachers. Approximately 10% completed 13-18 hours,
Two questions were posed to measure 8% completed 19 or more hours, and two
the horticulture background and level of teachers reported having completed more
preparation of agricultural education than 25 hours/units (Figure 5).
teachers. These questions would serve to To determine previous horticulture
assist the researcher in determining the level experience, teachers were asked to identify
of confidence teachers would have in the number of years of horticulture work
working with greenhouses. Teachers were experience prior to teaching. Over half
asked to indicate the number of hours/units (54%) the respondents reported having no
in horticulture they completed in college previous work experience in horticulture.
(either community college or university- Thirty-three percent reported from 1 to 5
level). Over one-half (57.9%) of the teachers years experience, and 7% said they worked
completed 6 or fewer hours of horticulture. between 6-10 years. One respondent claimed
Nearly 30% of responding teachers said they 11 or more years of experience prior to
completed “0” hours of horticulture in teaching (Figure 6)
31 to 36 1.8%
25 to 30 1.8%
19 to 24 5.3%
13 to 18 10.5%
7 to 12 22.8%
1 to 6 28.1%
0 Hrs/Units 29.8%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Figure 5. Postsecondary horticulture hours (units) teachers report completing (n = 57).
Journal of Agricultural Education 42 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Franklin Description of the Use…

11+ Years
Experience
1.8%
6 to 10 Years
Experience
11.0%
0 Years Experience
1 to 5 Years
54.0%
Experience
33.2%

Figure 6. Reported years of horticulture work experience before teaching (n = 57).

Objective 4: Determine barriers to the irrigation including misters. The facility is
effective operation of greenhouses by used primarily for classroom instruction,
agricultural education teachers. student SAEs, local program fundraising,
The survey questionnaire directed and public relations or recruitment, and used
teachers who responded negatively to the by one to five class periods. Greenhouses
question of whether or not their program are not typically used to train CDE teams or
included a greenhouse facility (n = 19, for agriscience fair research projects.
25%), to complete the section of the Teachers agree they can use a greenhouse to
questionnaire that asked respondents to effectively teach to 12 state plant science
check a list of existing barriers that standards. Teachers agree a greenhouse can
prevented the program from operating a be an effective tool to teach math and
greenhouse. Funding associated with the science concepts to students and feel they
cost to purchase a greenhouse (f = 8; 42.1%) have administrative support for using a
was the most frequently cited barrier. greenhouse. Unfortunately, agricultural
Maintenance cost (26.7%) and a lack of education teachers in Arizona have a limited
knowledge or experience of the instructor horticulture background in terms of the
(26.3%) were frequently cited barriers. number of college hours completed, and
Lesser named barriers included the years of horticulture work experience
perception that a greenhouse does not “fit” obtained before they enter teaching. Also,
with the local program (15.8%), limited use they were not likely to receive instruction
in the local program (15.8%), and time during their teacher preparation to use a
required to operate and maintain (10.5%). greenhouse to teach horticulture and plant
One respondent cited “cost to repair” as science. This may translate as to why they
barrier. No respondents indicated a lack of are not satisfied with quantity or quality of
student interest as a possible barrier. use of their greenhouses.
A lack of funding is the number one
Conclusions perceived barrier to existing agricultural
education programs from constructing or
This study examined the status of use of operating a greenhouse, followed by
greenhouse facilities by agricultural maintenance costs, and a lack of knowledge
education teachers in Arizona. Greenhouse and experience. This finding appears logical
facilities are a common laboratory teaching from the point that very few teachers have
facility in the majority of agricultural previous horticulture experience, and have
education programs in Arizona, but plant completed few horticulture-related college
nurseries are not as common a horticulture courses. However, teachers at new
feature. The typical greenhouse facility in an agricultural education programs without a
agricultural education program in Arizona is greenhouse indicate having plans to
1,300 square feet in size and is equipped construct and operate a greenhouse as part
with heating, cooling, ventilation, fans, and of their local program.
Journal of Agricultural Education 43 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008