Barton (1987) found that leadership groups are generally more informed about biotechnology than the general public, and are more likely to see that benefits outweigh risks. Hoban (1990) reported in a major study conducted in North Carolina that public knowledge of genetic engineering is generally low. Since agricultural educators will likely serve a vital role as interpreters of biotechnology to their students and to their communities, it is important that teachers of agriculture understand and have appropriate attitudes (e.g., willingness to study the issues, acceptance of new concepts, etc.) toward the subject. At present, not much is known about teacher attitudes toward the new biotechnology. Martin, et. al. (1989) in a national study, and Malpiedi-Kirby (1990) in North Carolina, found generally positive teacher attitudes toward agriscience instruction in agricultural education, of which the new biotechnology is a part. State leaders need reliable data on which to plan preservice and inservice education programs on biotechnology and related curriculum development. Therefore, baseline data such as in this study are needed to fill the void.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of the study was to determine the attitudes of teachers of agriculture toward biotechnology. Specific objectives were to:

a) determine teacher interest in biotechnology; b) assess teacher knowledge of biotechnology; c) learn the information sources teachers used to gain knowledge of biotechnology; d) ascertain teacher acceptance of biotechnology; and e) consider the effects of demographics on teacher attitudes toward biotechnology.

PROCEDURES

This was a descriptive study involving self-assessment on a structured written instrument. The population consisted of teachers of agriculture in the states of Georgia, Maryland and Tennessee. Questionnaires were distributed to those teachers of agriculture aattending their respective summer inservice conferences. Social Security numbers on the returns were used to identify respondents. To insure that the sample was representative of the population, a mailed follow-up was made to a 50% random sample of nonrespondents. Response from the initial mailing was 51.4%. After four weeks, a telephone follow-up was made to a 10% random sample of nonrespondents. When no significant differences were noted on 15 demographic and response variables, the data from those responding to the follow-ups were combined with the returns from the original respondents. Thus, nearly two-thirds (422 or 66.3%) of the teachers of agriculture in the three states provided data for the study.

Data were collected using the Inventory of Biotechnology in Agricultural Education, as developed by the researchers from the literature and their own education/experience. The Inventory was made up of four sections: Introduction/Directions, Personal Interest in and Knowledge of Biotechnology, Professional Preparation/Involvement in Biotechnology, and Demographics. The instrument was reviewed for content validity by a panel of experts from the University who were involved in research, agriculture, education and biotechnology; their suggestions were incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire. The instrument was trial tested for readability with the 26 enrollees in a graduate course in Agricultural Education. Data were collected during the late summer and fall of 1990. Analysis revealed high reliability --a Cronbach's alpha of .87 for all parts.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Primarily descriptive statistics -- count, means, medians, frequencies, percentages and Chi square -- were used to analyze the data. Significant differences in means were determined by using t-tests and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Demographics. Respondents ranged in age from 22-70 years; median age was 39.5 years. Females made up just 7.3% of respondents. Ninety-three percent of the group were Caucasian; the largest minority group was African-American at 4.8%; the next largest minority was American Indian at 1.7%.
Most respondents (50.9%) held masters degrees; 36.5% had bachelors degrees, 8.0% had education specialist degrees and just 2.9% had doctorates. Respondents originated primarily (83%) from the states of Georgia, Maryland, and Tennessee. Experience levels ranged from less than one year to 44 years; the median was 11 years. One-fifth (22.3%) reported experience in teaching other subjects, while eight out of ten (79%) reported other experience, including farming, government, and industry. Most respondents (89.7%) were in A, AA or AAA schools; but 10.3% were in very large systems (AAAA). Median enrollment was 100 students in agriculture. One-half (51.3%) of all participants were in single teacher departments. Agricultural production (50.7%), agricultural mechanics (46.9%) and horticulture (35.3%) were the most common specialties reported. Most respondents (72.5%) were employed for 12 months; however, 16% were on 10 month contracts.

Interest and Knowledge Levels. Mean ratings of perceived interest and knowledge may be viewed in Table 1. In every category mean interest levels were significantly higher (p<.05) than mean knowledge levels.

Sources of knowledge. The major sources of information on the new biotechnology used by teachers of agriculture in the three states were as follows: newspapers, 79.6%; agricultural journals, 79.4%; television, 63.5%; inservice workshops, 34.4%; education journals, 32.9%; radio, 31.3%; graduate courses, 15.6%; undergraduate courses, 14.0%; and employment in biotechnology, 5.7%. The providers of information on biotechnology that were most trusted by respondents are indicated in Table 2.

Table 1
Level of interest in and knowledge of biotechnology held by teachers of agriculture (N=422)

 

Table 2
Most trusted providers of information reported by teachers of agriculture (N=422)

Most respondents (78.9%) reported that modern biotechnology was being incorporated into the agriculture curriculum. The major means of incorporation are detailed, by state, in Table 3.

Table 3
Methods reported by teachers for incorporation of biotechnology into the agriculture curriculum (N=422)

 

Method of Incorporation	All		Georgia		Maryland		Tennessee
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Infused into regular agriculture classes	224	53.1	87	48.9	37	59.7	99	55.3
Units on biotechnology are taught in selected classes	95	22.5	25	14.0	19	30.6	50	27.9
Selected lessons on biotechnology are taught in all classes	87	20.6	27	15.2	18	29.0	42	23.5
Courses in biotechnology are taught on quarter, semester, or annual bases	16	3.8	6	3.4	7	11.3	3	1.7
Other	16	3.8	5	2.8	2	3.2	9	5

  Note: Totals in Table 3 exceed 100% because some respondents checked more than one category.

Respondents indicated that their plans for changes in the curriculum were as follows: a) to add emphasis, 69.4%; b) to keep about the same emphasis, 29.5%; and c) to reduce emphasis, 1%. These data and state totals are indicated in Table 4.

Table 4
Planned changes in the curriculum reported by respondents (N=422)

 

Response	All		Georgia		Maryland		Tennessee
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Add emphasis in biotechnology	275	69.4	118	71.1	51	82.3	105	62.9
Keep about same emphasis	117	29.5	46	27.7	11	17.7	60	35.9
Reduce emphasis on biotechnology	4	1.0	2	1.2	0	0.0	2	1.2

  The extent to which factors affected respondents' decisions to teach biotechnology is reflected in Table 5. Availability of teaching materials and funding for equipment and supplies were leading factors; however, inservice preparation and ability levels. of students were also moderately important

Table 5
Factors affecting respondents' decisions to teach biotechnology. (N=422)

 

Factor	All			Georgia			Maryland			Tennessee			F
	n	M (a)	SD	n	M (a)	SD	n	M (a)	SD	n	M (a)	SD
Availability of teaching materials	327	3.9	1.2	127	3.8	1.2	49	4.3	1.0	149	3.9	1.2	2.45
Funding for equipment/supplies	314	3.9	1.3	120	3.8	1.3	49	4.0	1.2	143	3.9	1.3	0.09
Provisions for inservice/update training	321	3.6	1.4	126	3.7	1.3	50	4.1	1.1	143	3.3	1.4	9.08*
Ability level of students	328	3.5	1.4	126	3.3	1.5	49	3.7	1.5	151	3.6	1.3	2.49
Preparation time	314	3.1	1.3	122	3.1	1.4	49	3.2	1.4	141	3.0	1.2	0.75
Size of class/enrollment	306	2.5	1.4	117	2.4	1.4	49	2.6	1.5	138	2.5	1.3	0.01
Community attitudes toward biotechnology	296	2.4	1.3	115	2.5	1.3	46	1.9	1.3	133	2.4	1.3	3.22*
Other	17	2.9	1.5	7	3.7	1.7	2	1.0	0.0	8	2.6	0.9	3.54

  (a) Means are on a scale of 1 = little... 5 = much.
*Significant at the .05 level.

Respondents' evaluations of the extent to which biotechnology would affect various aspects of the program are displayed in Table 6.
Enhanced student knowledge of agriculture and improved prestige of the program were seen as positive results by a majority of respondents; SAEP and FFA activities were believed to be less affected.

Table 6
Effects of biotechnology in the curriculum on various aspects of the local Agricultural Education program as perceived by respondents (N=422)

Aspects of Program	Perceived Effect
	Little......................................................................................................................................................Much
	n	1	2	3	4	5	M	SD
Student understanding of agriculture	346	42	33	101	109	61	3.3	1.2
Prestige for the program	331	62	39	86	88	56	3.1	1.3
Recruitment of students	340	106	45	90	55	44	2.7	1.4
Student retention	317	70	64	96	59	28	2.7	1.2
Supervised agricultural experience programs	330	112	66	82	55	15	2.4	1.2
FFA Activities	331	116	74	74	37	10	2.2	1.1
Other	12	8	0	0	1	1	1.9	1.4

 
Effects of demographics. Chi square and t-tests were used to determine if the demographic variables -- state of residence, age, years of teaching agriculture, educational level, years of farming, size of school, student enrollment in agriculture, number of agriculture teachers in the school, and length of contract -- affected ratings of the various response variables. Few significant differences were found, and these may have occurred due to the effects of missing data and small cell size or by chance alone because of multiple comparisons (Oliver and Hinkle, 1981).

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Teachers of agriculture in the three states were most interested in and knowledgeable about animal and plant biotechnology; they were only moderately attuned to the other areas. This was most likely due to the teachers' greater preparation and experience in the animal and plant sciences. Teachers were more interested in the seven areas of biotechnology than their perceived knowledge levels would indicate; this shows a need for improved preservice and inservice education relating to this emerging field.

The vast majority of teachers named, as major sources of information on biotechnology, the mass media -- newspapers, agricultural journals, and television. This was consistent with the findings of Malpiedi-Kirby (1990). Thus greater effort should be made by agricultural educators and communicators to provide factual information to the popular press, as well as to increase the availability of information on biotechnology through workshops and formal classes. Because teachers trust colleges and universities the most as providers of information, teacher educators and agricultural communicators should exert leadership in the discovery and dissemination of knowledge about the teaching and communicating of biotechnology in Agricultural Education. They should also involve experts on scientific applications of biotechnology at inservice workshops and classes for teachers of agriculture and for preservice students.

Teachers of agriculture in the three states generally accepted biotechnology, both personally and professionally -- but they indicated a need for help in incorporating the concepts into their programs. Teacher educators and state supervisory staffs should coordinate planning for implementation of instruction, including strategies for overcoming negative factors and capitalizing on the positive attitudes teachers of agriculture have toward biotechnology.

REFERENCES

Barton, G. (1987), December). Ohio and South Carolina business attitudes toward biotechnology. The Ohio Journal of Sciences. 87(5) 169-174.

Hoban, T. (1990, July). An educational needs assessment of agricultural biotechnology. Summary of a cooperative project. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Department of Extension Sociology.

Malpiedi-Kirby, B. (1990). Attitudes, knowledge, and implementation of agricultural science by North Carolina Agricultural Education teachers. In Martin, R. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting (pp. 71-78). Ames, IA: Department of Agricultural Education and Studies, Iowa State University.

Martin, R., Rajasekaran, B., &;Vold, L. (1989). A national study to determine the role of bioscience/biotechnology in the study of agriculture as perceived by vocational agriculture instructors. In Burnett, M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Orlando, FL. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). New developments in biotechnology: Public perceptions of biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.

Oliver, J.D. &;Hinkle, D. (1981). The multiple comparison problem in vocational education research. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 6(4), 39-47.

Sattelle, D.B. (1990). Biotechnology in Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Industrial Biotechnology Association.

Savage, E.N. (1987). What is this thing called biotechnology? TIES. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.

Schneiderman, H. (1987). What biotechnology has in store for us. The Ohio Journal of Science. 87(5), 182-185.

To Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists-Agricultural Communications Section Home Page