<%BANNER%>

The Effects of a Socioscientific Issues Instructional Model in Secondary Agricultural Education on Students’ Content Kno...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044027/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effects of a Socioscientific Issues Instructional Model in Secondary Agricultural Education on Students’ Content Knowledge, Scientific Reasoning Ability, Argumentation Skills, and Views of the Nature of Science
Physical Description: 1 online resource (584 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Shoulders, Catherine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: agricultural -- education -- ssi
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a socioscientific issues-based instructional model on secondary agricultural education studentsÂ’ content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science. This study utilized a pre-experimental, single group pretest-posttest design to assess the impacts of a nine-week unit that incorporated a socioscientific issue into instruction on secondary agriculture studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science. The population for this study was FloridaÂ’s secondary students enrolled in agricultural education. The accessible population was students enrolled in Agriscience Foundations classes in Florida. A convenience sample of FloridaÂ’s Agriscience Foundations teachers attending a summer professional development or Chapter Officer Leadership Training session was taken. Paired-samples t tests were conducted to determine the impact the treatment had on studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge on distal and proximal assessments, as well as on studentsÂ’ scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills related to number of argumentation justifications and quality of those justifications, and views of the nature of science. Paired-samples t tests were also conducted to determine whether the treatment yielded results with middle school or high school students. Statistical analysis found significant improvements in studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, and argumentation skills. High school studentsÂ’ scores resulted in significant improvements in proximal content knowledge assessments and argumentation justification quality. Middle school studentsÂ’ scores resulted in significant improvements in proximal content knowledge assessments and scientific reasoning ability. No significant difference was found between studentsÂ’ views of the nature of science before and after the treatment. These findings indicate that socioscientific issues-based instruction can provide benefits for students in agricultural education. Teacher educators should work with teachers to maximize the learning that can occur through the various aspects of socioscientific issues-based instruction. Curriculum focusing on socioscientific issues-based instruction should be developed for specific courses in agricultural education. Finally, further investigation should be conducted to better understand how the aspects of socioscientific issues-based instruction can be altered to further enhance student learning.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Catherine Shoulders.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044027:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044027/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effects of a Socioscientific Issues Instructional Model in Secondary Agricultural Education on Students’ Content Knowledge, Scientific Reasoning Ability, Argumentation Skills, and Views of the Nature of Science
Physical Description: 1 online resource (584 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Shoulders, Catherine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: agricultural -- education -- ssi
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a socioscientific issues-based instructional model on secondary agricultural education studentsÂ’ content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science. This study utilized a pre-experimental, single group pretest-posttest design to assess the impacts of a nine-week unit that incorporated a socioscientific issue into instruction on secondary agriculture studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science. The population for this study was FloridaÂ’s secondary students enrolled in agricultural education. The accessible population was students enrolled in Agriscience Foundations classes in Florida. A convenience sample of FloridaÂ’s Agriscience Foundations teachers attending a summer professional development or Chapter Officer Leadership Training session was taken. Paired-samples t tests were conducted to determine the impact the treatment had on studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge on distal and proximal assessments, as well as on studentsÂ’ scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills related to number of argumentation justifications and quality of those justifications, and views of the nature of science. Paired-samples t tests were also conducted to determine whether the treatment yielded results with middle school or high school students. Statistical analysis found significant improvements in studentsÂ’ agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, and argumentation skills. High school studentsÂ’ scores resulted in significant improvements in proximal content knowledge assessments and argumentation justification quality. Middle school studentsÂ’ scores resulted in significant improvements in proximal content knowledge assessments and scientific reasoning ability. No significant difference was found between studentsÂ’ views of the nature of science before and after the treatment. These findings indicate that socioscientific issues-based instruction can provide benefits for students in agricultural education. Teacher educators should work with teachers to maximize the learning that can occur through the various aspects of socioscientific issues-based instruction. Curriculum focusing on socioscientific issues-based instruction should be developed for specific courses in agricultural education. Finally, further investigation should be conducted to better understand how the aspects of socioscientific issues-based instruction can be altered to further enhance student learning.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Catherine Shoulders.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Myers, Brian E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044027:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL IN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION ON STUDENT CONTENT KNOWLEDGE, SCIENTIFIC REASONING ABILITY ARGUMENTATION SKILLS AND VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE By CATHERINE WOGLOM SHOU LDERS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Catherine Woglom Shoulders

PAGE 3

3 To my son a nd his future classmates

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband, Ben. His unwavering support has been instrumental in helping me complete this work. When I asked him to leave his successful job and move awa y from his family so I could go to graduate school, he started packing. When I was five months pregnant and studying for my qualifying exams on our living room floor, he rubbed my back and qui zzed me on statistical equations When I holed myself up on a ro om for a week to write the final pages of this dissertation, he took on the role of both of us in caring for our four month old son. Even now as I write these acknowledgments, Ben is making dinner. If it were my choice, the degree would have his name on it as well; he has worked just as hard as I have to earn it. I would also like to thank my son, Luke, who has given me renewed purpose in completing my degree. Watching him grow and learn over the past five months has rekindled my desire to make a positive i mpact on secondary education. I hope that my for him and his future classmates. My successful completion of this dissertation is a direct reflection of my upbringing. My mom and dad, Trish and Paul, have devoted the better part of their lives to instilling in me a value of life long learning. Educational theory states that students learn more when they have a great variety of background knowledge, and I have to thank m y parents for exposing me to so many experiences them) Further, their support has enabled me to pursue my love for agriculture, regardless of how little it aligned with their knowledge and interests. Even throughou t my time in graduate school, they have asked about my research with excitement,

PAGE 5

5 although I cannot even fathom how foreign it must sound when I describe to them the tenets of SSI based instruction. I thank both my mom and dad for all they have given me, bo th tangible and intangible; they have made me who I am today. Acknowledgments would be incomplete if they did not include mention of those who have enabled me to put school first my sister, Jen, brother, Mike, and parents in law, Ross and Jannesse. Wheth er they listened to my concerns and offered advice from a distance, sat for countless hours pretending to be one of my students as I honed my teaching skills, or allowed me to park myself and my work on a couch for all of winter break, these individuals ha ve helped me through the daily work of being a teache r and graduate student I both thank them for their past support, and warn them of the future support I plan on soliciting from them as I continue to teach! I would also like to acknowledge the work of m y advisor and mentor, Dr. Brian Myers, and thank him for all he has done to help me succeed in graduate school. He has put forth great effort to expose me to a variety of experiences to help me be a qualified faculty member. Thanks to Dr. Myers, I am confi dent that I can succeed in my hopeful future role as a professor in agricultural education both because I have been well prepared, and because I know he will continue to welcome my questions as he has in the past. He has guided me in my research, teachin g, writing, and even guided me through the trials of balancing parenthood and graduate school. In Dr. Myers, I am thankful to have found a lifelong mentor, and can only hope I live up to his expectations as a graduate under his advisement. The members of m y committee, Dr. Ed Osborne, Dr. Grady Roberts, Dr. Jim Dyer, and Dr. Linda Jones, have displayed a true dedication to the improvement of this work.

PAGE 6

6 Through countless meetings and emails, they have questioned my decisions not necessarily because my choic es were poor, but so I could learn how to defend them. I thank each of them for their care in reading through this dissertation multiple times I know it was tedious work! Finally, I would like to thank my graduate school cohorts. Dr. Andrew Thoron, Dr. A lexa Lamm, Chris Estepp, Christopher Stripling, and Joy Goodwin have each provided support, advice, and comic relief throughout my time at the University of Florida. I admire each of them for their drive and intelligence, and am honored to call them collea gues.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIS T OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 Employment Trends in Agriscience ................................ ................................ ........ 20 The Changing Agricultural Industry ................................ ................................ .. 20 Scientific Agriculture ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 ................................ ................................ .. 25 Scientific Literacy ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 History of Scientific Literacy ................................ ................................ ............. 26 Definitions of Scientific Literacy ................................ ................................ ........ 28 The Need for Scientific Literacy in Agricultural Education ................................ ...... 30 The Need for Educated Consumers ................................ ................................ 31 Preparing Future Consumers through Agricultural Education .......................... 32 Socioscientific Issues Education ................................ ................................ ............. 33 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 36 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 37 Statement of Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 37 Statement of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 39 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 40 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 Assumptions of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 43 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Constructivism ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47 Experiential Learning ................................ ................................ .............................. 49 The Cognitive Aspect of Experiential Learning ................................ ................. 49 The Experiential Learning Cycle ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Problem Solving ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 Problem Solving in K 12 Education ................................ ................................ .. 52 Problem Solving through Socioscientific Issues ................................ ...................... 53

PAGE 8

8 Factors Influencing Learning Experiences ................................ .............................. 56 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 58 Presage Variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 59 Teacher formative experiences ................................ ................................ .. 60 Teacher development experiences ................................ ............................ 60 Teacher properties ................................ ................................ ..................... 65 Context Variables ................................ ................................ ............................. 70 Pupil formative experiences ................................ ................................ ....... 70 Pupil properties ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 Classroom contexts. ................................ ................................ .................. 73 Process Variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 74 Design elements relating to SSI based instruction ................................ ..... 75 Learner experiences relating to SSI based instruction ............................... 81 Constructivist activities/experiential learning ................................ .............. 82 Product Variables ................................ ................................ ............................. 84 Student content knowledge gains ................................ .............................. 85 Views of the NOS ................................ ................................ ....................... 89 Student interest ................................ ................................ .......................... 93 Student creativity ................................ ................................ ....................... 95 Argumentation ................................ ................................ ............................ 96 Questioning skill ................................ ................................ ....................... 100 Student Judgment of Evidence ................................ ................................ 100 Informal reasoning ................................ ................................ ................... 101 Socioscientific reasoning ................................ ................................ .......... 102 Reflective thinking ................................ ................................ .................... 103 Problem solving ................................ ................................ ....................... 104 Scientific inquiry ................................ ................................ ....................... 105 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 105 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 109 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ......................... 110 Research Design and Procedures ................................ ................................ ........ 111 Designed Procedures ................................ ................................ ..................... 112 Practiced Procedures ................................ ................................ ..................... 113 Threats to Internal Validity ................................ ................................ .............. 113 Designed measures to reduce validity threats ................................ ......... 115 Practiced measures to reduce validity threats ................................ .......... 116 Interve ntion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 116 Designed Duration ................................ ................................ .......................... 116 Practiced Duration ................................ ................................ .......................... 117 Instructional Plans ................................ ................................ .......................... 117 Socioscientific issue ................................ ................................ ................. 118 Designed instructional units ................................ ................................ ..... 118 Practiced instructional units ................................ ................................ ..... 119 Lesson Procedures ................................ ................................ ........................ 119 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 121

PAGE 9

9 Content Knowledge Achievement Assessm ent Instrument ............................ 121 Designed assessments ................................ ................................ ............ 121 Practiced assessments ................................ ................................ ............ 122 ................................ ......... 123 Argum entation Quality Rubric ................................ ................................ ......... 123 Views on Science and Education Questionnaire ................................ ............ 124 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 126 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 126 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 131 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 132 Teacher Demographics ................................ ................................ .................. 132 Student Demographics ................................ ................................ ................... 133 Response ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 134 Objective One: Determine the Effects of an SS I based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Agriscience Content Knowledge .. 136 Distal Agriscience Cont ent Knowledge ................................ ........................... 136 Proximal Agriscience Content Knowledge ................................ ...................... 137 Objective Two: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Scientific Reasoning Ability ......... 138 Objective Three: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Argumentation Skills .................... 138 Objective Four: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Views of the NOS ........................ 140 Whether Scientists Accept Multiple Theories to Explain the Same Phenomenon ................................ ................................ ............................... 140 Whether Scientific Investigations are Influenced by Socio cultural Values ..... 143 Whether Scientists Use Their Imaginations ................................ .................... 14 5 Whether Scientific Theories are Tentative ................................ ...................... 146 ........... 147 Whether Scientists Follow a Scientific Method ................................ ............... 149 Tests of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................. 151 Hypotheses Related to Agriscience Content Knowledge Attainment ............. 151 Hypothesis Related to Scientific Reasoning Skills ................................ .......... 153 Hypothesis Related to Argumentation Skills ................................ ................... 154 Hypothesis Related to Views of the NOS ................................ ....................... 156 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 158 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 186 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 187 Null Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 187 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 188 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 191 Objec tive One ................................ ................................ ................................ 191 Objective Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 193

PAGE 10

10 Objective Three ................................ ................................ .............................. 194 Objective Four ................................ ................................ ................................ 195 Null Hypothesis One ................................ ................................ ....................... 198 Null Hypothesis Two ................................ ................................ ....................... 200 Null Hypothesis Three ................................ ................................ .................... 201 Null Hypothesis Four ................................ ................................ ...................... 202 Conclusions of Findings ................................ ................................ ........................ 203 Implications from Findings ................................ ................................ .................... 204 Objective One: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Agriscience Content Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 204 Objective Two: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Scientific Reasoning Ability ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 206 Objective Three: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Argumentation Skil ls ........ 208 Objective Four: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Vie ws of the NOS ............. 209 Conclusions of Research Methods ................................ ................................ ....... 210 Implications from Conclusions of Research Methods ................................ ........... 211 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 214 Differences between Science Education and A gricultural Education ............. 215 Designing Teacher friendly Studies ................................ ................................ 217 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 219 Opportunities for Future Research ................................ ................................ ........ 220 Recommendations for Curriculum Development ................................ .................. 223 Recommendations for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education .................... 224 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 225 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS ................................ ................................ .................... 227 B UNIT CONTENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 482 C STUDENT P ERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................ ......................... 529 D ORDER OF LESSON PLANS ................................ ................................ ............... 531 E CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENTS ................................ ........................ 533 F OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING ........................ 556 G ARGUMENTATION QUALITY RUBRIC ................................ ............................... 563 H ARGUMENTATION SCENARIO ................................ ................................ ........... 564 I VIEWS ON SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INSTRUMENT ................................ .... 565

PAGE 11

11 J TEACHER CON SENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............... 569 K PARENT/STUDENT CONSENT FORM ................................ ............................... 570 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 572 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 583

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Lesson and assessment specifications ................................ ............................ 128 4 1 Teacher demographics ................................ ................................ ..................... 160 4 2 Student demographics and test completion ................................ ...................... 160 4 3 Completion rates for instruments ................................ ................................ ...... 165 4 4 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Distal Content Knowledge Assessments of Middle and High School Students ................................ .......... 165 4 5 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Proximal Content Knowledge Assessments ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 165 4 6 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Proximal Content Knowledge Assessments for Middle and High School ................................ ........................ 165 4 7 Mean scores on LCTSR pretests and posttests of middle and high school students ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 166 4 8 Mean Number and Quality of Justifications on Pretests and Posttests ............. 166 4 9 Justifications on Argumentation Pretests and Posttests ................................ ... 166 4 10 Analysis of Gains in Agriscience Content Knowledge after Treatment ............. 166 4 11 Analysis of Gains in Scientific Reasoning after Treatment ............................... 166 4 12 Analysis of Gains in Argumentation Skill after Treatment ................................ 166 4 13 Analysis of Differences in Views of the NOS Before and After Treatment ........ 167

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 The Food and Fib er System (Majchrowicz, 1990) ................................ .............. 45 1 2 ............. 46 2 1 Model of the Experiential Learning Process (Kolb, 1984). ................................ 107 2 2 Framework for SSI Based Education (Sadler, 2011). ................................ ....... 107 2 3 A model for the study of classroom teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). ............ 108 2 4 Conceptual Model of SSI ba sed Instruction ................................ ..................... 108 4 1 Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 1A and 1B, reflecting agreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phe nomenon ................................ ......................... 167 4 2 Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 1C through 1H, reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon ................................ ......................... 168 4 3 Student pretest and posttest respo nses on Item 1A ................................ ......... 168 4 4 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1B ................................ ......... 169 4 5 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1C ................................ ......... 169 4 6 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1D ................................ ......... 170 4 7 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1E ................................ ......... 170 4 8 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1F ................................ ......... 171 4 9 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1G ................................ ......... 171 4 10 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 1H ................................ ......... 172 4 11 Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 2A and 2B, reflecting agreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon ................................ ......................... 172 4 12 Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 2C and D, reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explai n a phenomenon ................................ ......................... 173 4 13 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 2A ................................ ......... 173

PAGE 14

14 4 14 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 2B ................................ ......... 174 4 15 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 2C ................................ ......... 17 4 4 16 Student p retest and posttest responses on Item 2D ................................ ......... 175 4 17 Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 3A and 3B, reflecting a greement to the notion that scientists use their imagination when conducting research ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 175 4 18 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Items 3C through 3E, reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists use their imaginations when conducting research ................................ ................................ ......................... 176 4 19 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 3A ................................ ......... 176 4 20 Student pretest and pos ttest responses on Item 3B ................................ ......... 177 4 21 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 3C ................................ ......... 177 4 23 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 3E ................................ ......... 178 4 24 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 4 A, reflecting a revolutionary position to the tentative nature of scientific theories .................... 179 4 25 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 4 B, reflecting a cumulative position on the tentative nature of scientific theories. ................................ ....... 179 4 26 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 4 C, reflecting an evolutionary position on the tentative nature of scientific th eories .................... 180 4 27 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 5A ................................ ......... 180 4 28 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 5B ................................ ......... 181 4 29 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 5C ................................ ......... 181 4 30 Student p retest and posttest responses on Item 5D ................................ ......... 182 4 31 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 5E ................................ ......... 182 4 32 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 6A ................................ ......... 183 4 33 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 6B ................................ ......... 183 4 34 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 6C ................................ ......... 184 4 35 Student pretest and posttest response s on Item 6D ................................ ......... 184

PAGE 15

15 4 36 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 6E ................................ ......... 185 4 37 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 6F ................................ ......... 185

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science AFNR Agricultural, Food, and Natural Resources APLU Association of Public and Land gran t Universities IBI Inquiry based Instruction LCTSR NOS NOS NRC National Research Council SSI Socioscientific Issues TAP VOSE Views on Science and Education

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Dis sertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL IN SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE, SCIENTIFIC REASONING ABILITY, ARGUMENTATION SKILLS, AND VIEWS OF THE N ATURE OF SCIENCE By Catherine Woglom Shoulders May 2012 Chair: Brian E. Myers Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The purpose o f this study was to determine the effects of a socioscientific issues based instructional model on secondary agricultural education knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science This st udy utilized a pre experimental, single group pretest posttest design to assess the impacts of a nine week unit that incorporated a socioscientific issue into reasonin g ability, argumentation skills, and views of the nature of science The population for this study was secondary students enrolled in agricultural education. The accessible population was students enrolled in Agriscience Foundations classes in Fl attending a summer professional development or Chapter Officer Leadership Training session was taken. Paired samples t tests were conducted to determine the impact the treatment had

PAGE 18

18 argumentation justifications and quality of those justifications, and views of th e nature of science Paired samples t tests were also conducted to determine whether the treatment yielded results with middle school or high school students. knowledge, s cientific reasoning ability, and argumentation skills. scores resulted in significant improvements in proximal content knowledge assessments significa nt improvements in proximal content knowl edge assessments and scientific nature of science before and after the treatment. These findings indicate that socioscientific is sues based instruction can provide benefits for students in agricultural education. Teacher educators should work with teachers to maximize the learning that can occur through the various aspects of socioscientific issues based instruction. Curriculum focu sing on socioscientific issues based instruction should be developed for specific courses in agricultural education. Finally, further investigation should be conducted to better understand how the aspects of socioscientific issues based instruction can be altered to further enhance student learning.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The nation has been experiencing a shortage of qualified agricultural science graduates to fill the estimated 13,000 annual job vacancies in agr icultural food, and natural resources (AFN R) ( USDA 2005) Approximately 40 45 % applicants have been graduates from biological sciences, engineering, business, health sciences, communication, and U S D A 2005, p. 3) while just over half of the applicants that graduated and pursued careers in AFNR d id so from agriculturally based majors ( U SD A 2005). Recognizing the need for employers to hire scientifically literat e graduates, the USDA recommended that students seekin g future employment in agricultural and USDA 2005, p. 12) The A ssociation of Public and Land grant Universities (APLU) (2009) conclude d that the development of a system wide curriculum model to address the scientifically oriented employment trends of the industry can assist in preparing more students for careers in agricultural scie nces In an effort to better prepare agriculture students for care ers in agricultural science s, this study examined the effect of a socioscientific issues (SSI) based instructional model on four components of Chapter 1 will describe the industrial and employment trend s in the agricultural industry as they have evolved to meet an incre asingly scientific environment, as well as recognize agricultural education's well situated position to teach sc ientific literacy skills using scientifically based agricultural issues Fin ally, SSI based education will be

PAGE 20

20 int roduced as a potential method for enhancing student scientific literacy in agricultural education. Employment Trends in Agriscience The Changing Agricultural Industry The gap between AFNR career needs and agricu lture gr not been without reason; the agriculture industry has changed drastically over the past century, altering the skills and qualifications needed to succeed in AFNR careers Students receiving education in agriculturally based fields and principles traditionally have prepared for careers in production agriculture, as farming was previously the most prominent agricultural career (Drache, 1996) Over the past century, however, technological innova tions have enabled more people to pursue careers outside of production agriculture (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005; Drache, 1996; National Research Council, 2 009) Early 20 th century agricultural production took place on a large number of small, diversified farms, where nearly half of the national population was employed (Dimitri et al ., 2005) Technological innovations have increased the efficiency of farm production over the past century, which required a smaller agricultural production workforce to supply the 1996 U.S. population of 260 million consumers than was required to supply a population of 5.3 million in 1800 (Drache, 1996) Over the past century, the declining demand for workers in agricultural production has allowed for more people to seek employment outside o f production agriculture, as has been seen in employment and residential trends Between 1910 and 1930, the number of people livi ng on U.S. farms decreased by one half million, while the national population increased by 31 million (Hopkins, 1973) By 1985, only 2.2 % of Ameri cans lived on farms, an approximate 28 %

PAGE 21

21 decrease from 1920 (Dimitri et al ., 2005; National Research Council, 1988) I ndividuals holding farming occupations followed a similar declin e; farming has recently represented approximately 1.4 % of the Gross National Product and employed 1.5 % of the national labor force (Drache, 1996) While the prominence of farming as a leading occupation has declined over the last century, the agriculture industry as a whole has continued to be a cornerstone of the U.S. economy (Dimitri et al ., 2005) The agricultural industry has recently made up nearly 16 % of the Gross Nationa l Product; however, only approximately 10.4 % of that industry has been made up of production agriculture (Drache, 1996) to remain a leader in the national economy amid shifting workplace trends has been due to its development into a technologically sophisticated industry (Dimitri et al ., 2005; Drache, 1996; Shelly Tolbert, Conroy, & Dailey, 2000) Between 1975 and 1989, the number of farmers decreased, but the number of farm related workers increased by 5.1 million (Drache, 1996) As scientific and technological advancements have enabled higher yields to be produced with greater efficiency (Dimitri et al ., 2005) various associated professional careers have developed to support production agriculture, requiring more individuals to pursue careers in supporting areas of agricultur e and fewer to engage in production (National Research Council, 1988) As displayed in Figure 1 1 the range of agricultural careers needed to support the national agricultural infrastructure has continu ed to diversify and expand to include bankers, food chemists, ethanol producers, packaging engineers, food safety and quality control experts, agro ecologists, veterinari ans, meat inspectors, risk assessors,

PAGE 22

22 contract negotiators, shippers, grocery and retail suppliers, institutional food buyers, and (National Research Council, 2009 p. 2 ) and has employed a significant amount of the national labor force (National Research Council, 1988) These aspects of the agricultural industry have recently incorporated genomics, ecology, chemistry, engineering, and o ther sciences (National Research Council, 2009) One of the driving forces of change in the agricultural industry has been the trend toward scientific innovations to increase agricultural efficiency and minimize risks to human health and the environment terming this generation the era of scientific agriculture (National Research Council, 2009) Scientific Agriculture Wh ile the agricultural industry has been experiencing an era particularly focused on its scientific aspects, agriculture has always been rooted in scientific principles, as it consists of biological processes (Federico, 2005; Hillison, 1996; National Research Council, 1988; World Developmen t Report, 2008 ). Farmers sought scientific research that could be used to increase agricultural productivity in the 1800s, resulting in the passage of the Hatch Act of 1887 (Hillison, 1996). Through the Hatch Act, agriculturalists were able to rece ive fund ing to develop (Hillison, 1996 p. 8 ) Following the passage of the Hatch Act, those responsible for teaching agriculture were required to have a knowledge of science, as well as teach the science of agriculture in connection with its processes (Hillison, 1996), as a gricultural education

PAGE 23

23 mechanics a science led to the Shelly Tolbert et al 2000), which verbalizes the connection between the scientific concepts and physical practices of agriculture. The evolving scientific research in agriculture has continued improve livestock health, reproduction, and growth; and develop new strategies to (National Research Council, 1988 p. 53 ) From 1945 to 1994, thes e technological developments increased agricultural productivity by 1.6 % annually (Drache, 1996) which have continued to fuel economic growth (Federico, 2005) Beginning in t he 1980 s, advancement in agricultural production has largely been the product of biotechnological research, making the field of biotechnology just as important in agriculture as it is in other fields, such as medicine ( World Development Report, 2008 ; Drache, 1996) The biotechnologies fit into generations: The first generation biotechnologies include plant tissue culture for micropropagation and production of virus free planting materials, molecula r diagnostics of crop and livestock diseases, and embryo transfer in livestock... The second generation biotechnologies based on molecular biology use genomics to provide information on genes important for a particular trait... The most controversial of th e improved biotechnologies are the transgenics, or genetically modified organisms, commonly known as GMOs (World Development Report, 2008 p. 162 163 ) Much of the advancement in agriculture has been fueled t hrough the third generation of biotechnology, focusing on genetic engineering (Federico, 2005) The biotechnological focus of the industry has carried over to legal issues as well; the 1970 U.S. Plant Variety Protect ion A ct and the 1980 decision regarding patent rights, which (Drache, 1996 p. 3 ) have further fueled the scientific advancements in a griculture The American

PAGE 24

24 Association for the Advancement of Science has identifie d (Drache, 1996 p. 378), implying that sc Beginning with the release of the Flavr Savr tomato as the first commercially available genetically engineered variety in 1994 (Federico, 2 005) the use of genetically modified varieties has spread worldwide, with over 100 million hectares of crops (approximately 8 % planted in transgenic crops, and new genetically engineered varieties have been approved for field testing every year (World Development Report, 2008) Many have considered genetic engineering in agriculture to be capable of solving world hunger problems: Biotechnology and information technology have the potential already realized in some cases to improve agricultural productivity and fundamentally alter the characteristics of food and fiber products and production processes Embryo transfers, gene insertion, growth hormones, and other technologies stemming from genetic engineering will result in dairy cows that produce more milk while consuming less feed and livestock that grow faster with fewer pounds of feed By the end of this century, biotechnology will allow some major crops to be altered genetically so that they become naturally resistant to the diseases and insects that now force farmers to treat crops with pesticides Other developments will make possible crops with the ability to produce a higher level or quality of protein, manufacture their own plant nu trients, and suppress weeds and insects (National Research Council, 1988 p. 53 ) and static land resources have impl ied that scientific advancement in agriculture still plays a major role in the development of food production methods capable of feeding the gro wing demand (World Development Report, 2008 ) Scienti fic advancement in agr iculture ha s not been without i ts barriers. While transgenic research holds potential for great strides to be made in overcoming human hunger and malnutrition, the controversial nature of genetic engineering may thwart

PAGE 25

25 scientific agricultural development ( Federico, 2005; World Development Report, 2008 ) Since the 1960 s public concern regarding the impact of agricultural practices on the environment, animal welfare, and human health has influenced t he direction of agricultural research ( Drache, 1996; World Development Report, 2008 ) In recent years, much of this public concern has centered around transgenic technology (World Development Report, 2008) Research and development in agriculture is required in order to continue to meet productivity demands while addressing the multi faceted issues facing the agricultural industry, including environmental and hea lth challenges, all while maintaining the accountability required by the public (Federico, 2005; National Research Council, 2009) Scientific adva productivity, but also its effi ciency. F ewer laborers are needed in production agriculture today while there is increasing need for individuals pursuing careers in supporting areas of agr iculture (Shelly Tolbert et al ., 2000) The supporting areas of agriculture have need ed a different set of skills than was previously sought in agricultural production careers (Drache, 1996; National Research Council, 2009) causing employers to seek graduates with skill sets outside those traditionally taught in colleges of agriculture (National Research Council, 2009) have directly reflect ed the challenges facing agricultural development, requiring employees to have concern for the environment, an interest in global perspectiv es, and rigorous scientific preparation, as well as other transferable skills needed to succeed in non production agricultural fields, solving, critical thinking, team building, leadership, communication,

PAGE 26

26 conflict and financial managemen (National Research Council, 2009 p. 18 ) These skills can be strengthened through education and practice (Phipps, Osborne, Dyer, & Ball, 2008) The current g great need for workers with these skills and the relatively small number of graduates well versed in them has been well documented (Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education Committee on Science Education K 12, & NetLibrary, 1998; Harvard Graduate School, 2011; National Research Counci l, 2009) and has called for 21 st (The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, & Society for Human Research Management, 2006 p. 4 ) Essentially, these reports call ed for the development of scientific literacy. Scientific Literacy History of Scientific Literacy The current definition of scientific literacy evolved from the first organized efforts to promote science education in schools (DeBoer, 2000) In the 19 th century, scientific and technologi cal advancements drove changes in education, much as they drove changes in the agriculture industry E ducation advocates, including John Dewey, con sidered one of the founders of agricultural e ducation philosophy, claimed that students could benefit through (DeBoer, 2000 p. 582 ) equipping them with an attitude of independence necessary to participate effectively in society (DeBoer, 2000; Dewey, 1916/1966) Two influential reports, the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (National Education Association, 1918) and Reorganization of Science in

PAGE 27

27 Secondary Schools (National Education Association, 1920) made a direct connection between science education and t he overall purpose of education, stating that science education should be applicable to daily life activities, which would contribute to the overall purpose of education i (DeBoer, 2000 p. 583) The 1945 report of the Harvard Committee on General Education (Harvard University, Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society, 1945) further developed the purpose of science education following the direction lai d previously by the N ational Education Association reports. The report recommended that science education include comparisons of science between individual sciences and with other modes of thought, the relation of science in human history, and the prevalence of science in problems of human society (DeBoer, 2000) The role o f science in society and the need for public knowledge and support of science continued to be emphasized by science education advocates, spurred on by the technological advancements of the 1960s, in particular the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union (DeBoer, 2000; Laugksch, 1999) Goals of science education became twofold, both providing an adequate supply of qualified scientists needed by society and educating a public on these scien tific advancements that were largely supported through public funding (DeBoer, 2000) These became the goals of scientific literacy (DeBoer, 2000) a term that was prin 1958 publication, Science Literacy: Its Meaning for American Schools (Laugksch, 1999) This notion of scientific literacy was identified as the most important goal of science education by the National Science Teachers Association in the 1970s (DeBoer, 2000) and throughout this period into the 1980s, scientific literacy became more closely

PAGE 28

28 (DeBoer, 2000 p. 588 ) The use of scientific literacy in educational policy statements has led to the notion that scientific literacy is a continuing goal of science education (Laugksch, 1999) Definitions of Scientific Literacy The broad goals of scientific literacy have caused the term to be elusive to precise definition (DeBoer, 2000) Although not universally accept ed, the concept of scientific literacy has usually been related to public understanding of science and how the public interacts with science to live more effectively (DeBoer, 2000; Laugksc h, 1999) Hazen and Trefil (1991) expanded this definition to include application of knowledge to public issues, as has been seen in both the science technology society and socioscientific issues based educational movements Miller (1983) attempted to def ine each of these aspects of scientific literacy through the use of three scientific literacy dimensions, including an understanding of the nature of science (NOS) an understanding of science content knowledge, and an understanding of the relationships be tween science, technology and society More specific definitions of scientific literacy have include d scientifically literate people: (a) u nderstand the nature of scientifi c knowledge; (b) a pply science concepts, laws, principles, and theories to the universe; (c) u se scientific processes to solve problems, make decisions, and further understanding; (d) i nteract with the universe in methods consistent with scientific values; (e) u nderstand and appreciate the relationships between science, technology, and society; (f) c ontinue to develop a rich view of the universe through formal science education and lifelong learning; and (g) d evelop manipulative skills associated with scien ce and technology (Showalter, 1974)

PAGE 29

29 More recent efforts to define scientific literacy have acknowledged that each of the (DeBoer, 2000) and that several factors contribute to the appropriate use of a scientific literacy definition (Laugksch, 1999) Laugksch offered a model depicting how these factors interact to c reate separate but equal def initions of scientific literacy. A consideration of these aspects has led to the development of scientific literacy definitions specifically related to science education in schools Both the American Association for the Advancem ent of Science (AAAS) and the National Research Council (NRC) have delineated the purposes, goals, and necessary aspects of scientific literacy in science education, and as depicted in Figure 1 2 align with one another, allowing schools to consult both re ports for direction in achieving scientific literacy (Laugksch, 1999) The definition of scientific literacy provided by the AAAS was originally published in 1989 through its report, Project 2061: Science f or All Americans This report offered statements regarding the goals of science teaching, and was followed in 1993 with the second Project 2061 report, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy which specified what students should know and be able to do by certain gra de levels in order to progress toward scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993/2009) These benchmarks were then updated in 2009, prov iding one of the most recent directives for achieving scientific literacy The report included 12 areas of benchmarks, each containing subareas for which grade level competencies were offered: (a) t he NOS (b) the nature of mathematics, (c ) t he n ature of t echnology, (d) the p hysical s etting (e) t he l iving e nvironment (f) the h uman o rganism (g ) human s ociety

PAGE 30

30 (h) the designed world, (i) the mathematical world, (j) historical perspectives, (k) c ommon themes, and (l ) habits of m ind. The National Research Co National Science Education Standards has offered a definition of scientific literacy for students through content standards that are separated by grade level (National Research Council, 1996) Sim ilar to the AAAS report, the NRC report included standards that we re broken down into subareas for which grade level competencies we re offered Eight content standards we re offered for grades 9 12: (a ) Uni fying Concepts and Processes; (b) Science as Inquir y, (c) Physical Science, (d) Life Science (e) Earth and Space Science (f) Science and Technology, (g ) Science in Personal and Social Perspectives and (h ) History and NOS These national standards have serve d as the primary source for the development of state level science education standards (Linda Jones, personal communication, 2011) The Need for Scientific Literacy in Agricultural Education As stated previously, the scientific components of the agricultural industry have been increasing in depth and and applied aspects of the traditional STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that the acronym might rightly expand to become STEAM, joining agriculture with the other (National Research Council, 2009 p. 4 ) As the world population has increased agriculture has been expected to increase agricultural production and improve the nutritional statu s of those in need (Federico, 2005) However, the potential agricultural advancements that can allev iate these upcoming problems have also been suspect to scrutiny by an increased number of eyes as the public has begun to hold more weight in agricultural advancements and practices

PAGE 31

31 (Dimitri et al ., 2005; National Research Council, 2009) Controversies regarding agricultural practices and technologies have stem med from perceived environmental, food safety, health, and social risks, which have continue d to persist, even in light of scientific evidence supporting the safety of such practices (World Developm ent Report, 2008) These controversies have led to the rise of two alternate responsibilities: ( a) agricultural production must continue to improve while abiding public demands for decreased environmental, food safety, and health risks (Federico, 2005; National Research Council, 2009) ; and ( b) the public must become scientifically literate in order to make educated decisions regarding agricultural technologies (National Research Council, 2009) The Need for Educated Consumers In the past, American consumers have impacted the practices of certain agricultural industries with their preferences (Drache, 1996; Hopkins, 1973) Demand has shifted toward products that offer convenience and health benefits to consumers (Dimitri et al ., 2005; Hopkins, 1973) and con sumer concerns for food production risks have caused industries to shift from practices aimed solely at increasing production to those that also address environmental protection, animal welfare, and food purity (Dimitr i et al ., 2005) The recent and potential advances in biotechnology have already been thwarted by environmental groups concerned about the possible risks of such science (Drache, 1996) and so the future of agricul tural production and aspects of society impacted by agricultural production rely on the agricultural awareness and scientific literacy of the public (National Research Council, 2009) However, these sam e agricultural advancements have gradually pushed the general public away from agricultural awareness, as fewer people have direct

PAGE 32

32 experience with agriculture (National Research Council, 2009) Previous studies have documented the current lack of scientific and agricultural literacy among students, leading researchers to recommend that materials be developed to aid in the education of agricultural literacy to all students (Pense, Beebe, Leising, Wakefield & Steffen, 2006; Pense & Leising, 2004). This lack of connection with the agricultural industry has impacted both of the goals of sc ientific literacy: students have been generally unaware of the broad opportunities offered by agricultural careers, leadin g fewer to pursue agricultural sciences, and they have been incapable of making educated decisions regarding agricultural practices as scientifically literate citizens ( National Research Council, 1988; 2009) Publications concerned with agri cultural education have met the problem s of an ill prepared workforce and scientifically illiterate consumers next generation of leaders in agric ulture pr critical demands on our (National Research Council, 2009 p. 2 ) Current research on agricultural education, scientific literacy, and workplace needs have sug gest ed not If scientifically based, how can agricultural education graduates be best prepared for that (Hillison, 1996 p. 12 ) These questions have appear ed to mirror those that generated previous science education reform, calling for an educational focus on scientific literacy. Preparing Future Consumers through Agricultural Education As noted previously, scientific literacy ha s been posited to impact policy decisions (Laugksch, 1999) Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education found that students did not receive enough instruction to

PAGE 33

33 prepar e them to be scientifically literate Because the workplace needs in agriculture and the societal needs for educated influence on agricultural policies align with those skills necessary for scientific literacy (National Research Council, 2009) those skills must be emphasized in agricultural education (National Research Council, 1988; 2009; Shelly Tolbert et al ., 2000) This necessitates the inclusion of societal issues into society (National Research Co uncil, 1996) While educators were previously criticized for failing to link educational content with real world events (Conroy & Walker, 2000) the National Research Council (2009) posited that agricultural educa interest in making the world a better place and in responding to such important societal (p. 99). The context of agr iculture provides ample opportunity for teachers to incorporate real world examples and case studies of scientifically based issues, termed socioscientific issues (SSIs), into instruction, and the current outlook of the agricultural industry suggests that SSIs will continue to be the focus of the industry for the foreseeable future (National Research Council, 1988; 2009) providing agricultural educators with prime real world contexts for developing student scientific literacy. Socioscientific Issues Education The notion of SSIs in seco ndary educational settings stemmed from unrest regarding the disconnect between school science, professional science, and science in socie ty While many of the concepts behind classroom science have been derived from

PAGE 34

34 connect ion between classroom concepts and professional science (Sadler, 2009, p. 9) Sadler (2009) recommended that students engage in scientific communities of practice in order to connect classroom concepts with the real world of science; however, a disconnect has also existed between the discourse of professional communities of science and those of real world, societal science, leaving students with a professional science that is still irrelevant and disconnected from their lives Utilizing SSIs connects abst ract classroom science with a context appropriate for making responsibilities as scientifically literate citizens (Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003; Sadler, 2009) Just as these citizen based responsibilities require critical t hinking skills, SSI based instruction requires a problem solving approach to education which enables students to construct their own knowledge et al 2008). SSIs can encompas s a wide variety of concepts and contexts, although they share two common elements a conceptual or procedural connection to science and a level of social significance as identified by the community (S adler, 2004; 2009; Sadler & Ziedler, 2003) While all science is directly tied with the society in which it was established (Sadler & Ziedler, 2003), SSIs hold a unique standing because they are informed by scientific data as well as by economic, social, political, and ethical considerations (Sadler, 2009; Sa dler & Ziedler, 2003) This social significance lends most SSIs to be controversial in nature, and therefore the subject of debate and concern in everyday life (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010; Sadler, 2009) Further, modern advances in technology and sci ence paired with the environmental and

PAGE 35

35 Incorporating SSIs into the classroom is appropriate for many levels of scien ce education, including secondary classrooms (Sadler & Ziedler, 2003), as these students will be responsible for reacting to science in the capacity of scientifically literate, engaged citizens in their future (Albe, 2008) However, in order to incorporate SSIs effectively, researchers have recommend ed various characteristics to identify authentic SSIs Chang Rundgren & Rundgren (2010) developed a collection of agreed upon features of SSIs based on the works of science education researchers (Albe, 2008; Co lucci Gray, Camino, Barbiero, & Gray, 2006; Fensham, 2008; Sadler, Barab, & Scott, 2007; Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009) and identified complexity, multiple perspectives, inquiry, and skepticism as important features The controversial nature of SSIs is als resear chers (Klosterman & Sadler, 2011 ; Kuhn, 1 991 ; Sadler, 2009 ; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ) According to Sadler (2009), ill structured problems of science are unique to SSIs, ot have single correct answers, cannot be meaningfully addressed through memorized or well rehearsed responses and are not subject to relatively simple Rather, students engaging in the ill structured problems of SSIs e ncounter science in the making (Latour, 1987 ), as the uncertainty and disagreement between scientists eliminates the possibility of one correct answer (Albe, 2008) Many of

PAGE 36

36 are agriculturall y based, allowing agricultural education to provi de an ideal environment for SSI based education (National Research Council, 2009) Statement of the Problem Scientific literacy is the educational currenc y by which employment skills are valued and through which individuals can responsibly contribute to societal issues and decisions (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993/2009; National Research Council, 1996) The ever evolving scientific and technological advancements impacting the agricultural industry have call ed for scientifically literate individuals that possess crit ical thinking and decision making skills beyond those needed previously (Harvard Graduate School, 2011; National Research Council, 1988; 2009) In light of the impact these advancements have on consumer choices, these same skills of scientific literacy are needed by consumers in order to make educated decisions regarding agricultural developments, as has become a trend in recent years (Drache, 1996) While agricultural education has been reported to be an ideal setting for the development of scientific literacy skills through applicable contexts (National Research Council, 1988; 2009) the practices in s econdary agriculture classes have been slow to change, as the same problems regarding increasing scientific literacy have been the focus of agricultural education r eform for over 20 years (National Research Council, 1988; National Research Council, 2009) The NRC (2009), APLU (2009), National Science Education Standards (1996) an d the National Research Agenda ( Doerfert, 2011 ) have call ed for changes in teaching practices in order to improve student scientific literacy, and recommend ed the incorporation of real world, societal issues into instruction as a means of improving scienti fic literacy

PAGE 37

37 Numerous researchers in science education have reported student improvement in areas of scientific literacy resulting from SSI based instruction (Albe, 2008; Klosterman & Sadler, 2011 ; Sadler, 2009; Sadler, 2011; Sadler & Z eidler, 2003). Man y of the issues utilized in SSI based instruction are agriculturally based (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simm ons, 2002 ), suggesting that SSI based instruction in secondary The problem skills and those needed to succeed in the workplace and society (Harvard Graduate School, 2011; National Research Council, 1996; 2009) and the search for instructional methods well suited for secondary agricultural education that show evidence of success for improving student scientific literacy skills. Pu rpose of the Study The purpose of this study wa s to determine the effect of an SSI based instructional model on specific aspects of agriscience student scientific literacy, including agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentatio n skills and views of the NOS Statement of Objectives In order to meet the above purpose, several objectives were developed: To determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on middle and high school agriculture student agriscience content k nowledge. To determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on middle and high school agriculture student scientific reasoning ability. To determine the effects of an SSI based i nstructional model on middle and high school agriculture student ar gumentation skills. To determine the effects of an SSI based i nstructional model on middle and high school agriculture student views of the NOS

PAGE 38

38 Statement of Hypotheses Statistical analysis deemed appropriate the use of null hypotheses The null and alter native hypotheses developed for this study included: H 0 1 There is no significant difference between the agriscience content knowledge of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. H A 1 Students experiencing SSI based instruction will display a change in agriscience content knowledge scores on posttests administered after the SSI based instruction from scores on pretests administered before the SSI based instruction. H 0 2 There is no significant difference betwe en the scientific reasoning ability of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. H A 2 Students experiencing SSI based instruction will display a change in scientific reasoning ability scores on posttests administe red after the SSI based instruction from scores on pretests administered before the SSI based instruction. H 0 3 There is no significant difference between the argumentation skills of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based i nstruction. H A 3 Students experiencing SSI based instruction will display a change in argumentation skills scores on posttests administered after the SSI based instruction from scores on pretests administered before the SSI based instruction.

PAGE 39

39 H 0 4 There is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. H A 4 Students experiencing SSI based instruction will display a change in views of the NOS scores on posttest s administered after the SSI based instruction from views on pretests administered before the SSI based instruction. Significance of the Study This study holds significance for secondary agriculture teachers seeking appro priate methods of instruction for integrating science into agriculture classes and potentially enhancing student achievement in agricultural and scientific content SSI based i nstruction is currently a well received instructional method in science education (Sadler, 2009; 2011), but has no t yet been introduced in secondary agriculture classes The results of this study can offer agriscience teac hers an introduction to how SSI Further, secondary agriculture teachers can utilize the in structional materials developed in this study as a starting point for collaboration between themselves and science teachers This study also holds meaning for agriculture teacher educators seeking to introduce preservice teachers to instructional methods t hat can increase student achievement in agriscience The similar goals of agricultural and science education call for integration of science content into agricultural education (Phipps et al 2008; Thoron, 2010), and this study offers an instructional me thod with potential to better integrate scientific content into agricultural contexts Agriculture t eacher educators can also find this study meaningful when working with inservice teachers, who were not exposed to SSI based instruction during their preser vice teacher education due to the When inservice

PAGE 40

40 agriculture teachers are introduced to SSI based instruction they can utilize this study and the above methods specifically related to second ary agriculture teachers. Curriculum developers can also find significance in this study, as several entities currently offer case study scenarios for use in science education (Na tional Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, 2010) This study can be utilized to provide insight in how SSI based instruction in agricultural education utilizes SSIs, allowing curriculum developers to design curriculum and SSI focus according to the se uses. Finally, this study holds significance for advocates of agricultural education Th e National Research Agenda (Doerfert, 2011; Osborne, n.d. ) and National Research Council (1988; 2009) call for agricultural education to identify itself as a contrib uting factor toward student achievement The results of this study can help quantify how agricultural education may contribute to student achievement, as well as link the goals of agricultural education with the overall goals of secondary education. Defini tion of Terms The following terms were operationally defined for use in this study: A GRICULTURAL E DUCATION T he profession of teaching students in the multi faceted A RGUMENTATION S KILL T he ability to develop statements to provide support for a decision or conclusion (Halpern, 1989; Thoron, 2010) Components of argumentation include articulating and justifying claims, considering counter positions and evidence, and the social negotiation of data and th eories (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) In this study, argumentation skill was defined as the score on a scoring rubric developed by Sadler and Fowler (2006) for specific use with SSI based instruction. C ONTENT K NOWLEDGE ubject matter tested following treatment which measures (Thoron, 2010, p. 32) Because agricultural education is responsible for educating students on a broad array of content areas, this study defines content kn owledge as the content presented to students in the lessons leading up to assessment, including both agricultural and science content.

PAGE 41

41 S CIENTIFIC L ITERACY P ublic understanding of science and how the public interacts with science to live more effectively, including the application of this understanding to public issues (DeBoer, 2000; Laugksch, 1999) Because of the multi faceted definition of scientific literacy, student sci entific literac y is not measured in a composite manner (DeBoer, 2000; Laugksch, 1999) Therefore, this study defines scientific literacy as those aspects commonly addressed in SSI based instruction, inc luding argumentation (Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), scientific reasoning (Sadler, 2004; Thoron, 2010), views of the NOS (Zeidler et al 2002), and content knowledge (Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Yaeger, Lim, & Yaeger, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). S CIENTIFIC R EASONING he use of the scientific method, inductive, and deductive Because agricultural education is responsible for developing in students a broad range of scientific reasoni (LCTSR) (1978) was utilized to measure scientific reasoning as defined above S OCIOSCIENTIFIC I SSUES I ssues utilized as a student relevant context in education that have a conceptual or procedura l connection to science and a level of social significance as identified by the community (Sadler, 2004; Sadler, 2009; Sadler & Ziedler, 2003) The SSI utilized for this study is the development of laboratory grown meat for human consumption. S OCIOSCIENTIF IC I SSUES B ASED I NSTRUCTION I nstructional techniques designed around an SSI While SSI based instruction is designed to be flexible rather than developing SSI based instructio nal components, including design elements, classroom elements, learner activities, and teacher attributes. V IEWS OF THE NOS T he particular ways of observing, thinking, experimenting, and validating used to develop interconnected and validated ideas about the physical, biological, physiological, and social worlds (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993/2009) For this study, the Views on Science and Educat ion Questionnaire (VSOE) (Chen, 2006) was utilized to measure seven aspects of views of the NOS deemed to be of particular relevance to K 12 education, including tentativeness of scientific knowledge, nature of observation, scientific methods, hypotheses, laws, and theories, validation of scientific knowledge, and objectivity and subjectivity. Limitations of the Study limitations, including:

PAGE 42

42 convenience sample T he study included a convenience sample of Florida secondary agriculture teachers, and therefore cannot be generalized beyond the sample in this study. experimental design This study does not include a control group, reducing the validity of any claims stating SSI based outcomes, as well as limiting the ability to compare the results of SSI based instruction to outcomes of other methods of instruction The lengthy duration of the study subjects it to the threat of history, as students will continue to attend science classes as well. These historical factors could impact their scientific literacy achievement and must be Maturation is also a threa t start and conclusion of the study. The researcher designed instrument The content knowledge assessments and argumentation scenario were developed by the researcher and therefore pose a The instruments were reviewed by a panel of experts in agriscience and science instruction for face and content validity and the content knowledge assessments were analyzed for reliability in order to reduce this threat. Instrument subjec tivity The level of inference required by researchers when scenario responses limits the reliability of the scores Following Sadler and Fow third of the responses were analyzed by a second researcher to establish inter rater reliability. Fidelity of implementation Lessons were not delivered by the researcher; multiple teachers delivered lessons, and so potential infidelity implementation is a limitation to this study To reduce this threat, teachers were each trained in the use of SSI based instruction, detailed daily lesson plans were distributed, and the researcher instructed teachers to audio tape each les son Taping sessions were intended to be randomly selected for analysis. However, implausible. The use of multiple teachers with different teaching style s, classroom cultures, and relationship dynamics with students could impact student learning, thus limiting the results of this study. Novelty of teaching method Because SSI based instruction and this specific SSI were both new to teachers and students, findings could be caused by a novelty effect This threat was reduced through the nine week duration of the study. Classroom make up Because students in Agriscience Foundations are not enrolled systematically but can be enrolled because of unique schedul ing

PAGE 43

43 situations, the student make up each classroom cannot be assumed to be equal Individual student differences, as well as classroom differences stemming from the These limitations were reduced through the use of a pretest posttest design. Assessment delivery While the lengthy assessments were distributed to teachers in segments, teachers may have been forced to further section off assessments to avoid student fatigue and to coincide with class schedules In tervention delivery Teachers were originally instructed to complete the nine weeks of provided lesson plans within a twelve week time frame. However, teachers were unable to do so and requested an extension to fourteen weeks. Additionally, teachers were only able to complete six weeks of the lesson plans, omitting all Animal Industry lesson plans from the study. The variability of lesson delivery time of each lesson within the fourteen week time frame is a threat to the exposed to uncontrolled learning experiences during the remaining time. Assumptions of the Study The following assumptions were made in order to conduct this study: Students participating in the study exhibited their skill to the best of their ability. Tea chers participating in the study accurately delivered the instructional materials according to the SSI based instructional guidelines. The SSI selected for the instruction in this study adheres to the definition of an SSI, is relevant to all students, and is not the focus of agriculture instruction using other instructional techniques. Teachers had no familiarity with SSI based instruction before the beginning of this study and therefore all have had the same professional development regarding SSI based ins truction. Summary Scientific literacy skills have been a crucial component required of young adults by making components of society However, of these skills has indicat ed that education must better prepare students to be scientifically literate individuals This study addressed

PAGE 44

44 ( Doerfert, 2011; Osborne, n.d. mmitment to promoting scientific literacy and increasing student achievement by evaluating an issues S pecifically, this study assessed the effect of an SSI based instruct ional model the NOS Scientific literacy has been a component of science education throughout its history, essentially being equated with the overall purpose of scien ce education Defin itions of scientific literacy have been multi faceted and depend ent on numerous components, which have led the term to be ill defined and controversial Definitions of scientific literacy provided by the AAAS and NRC have most recently o ffered comprehensive components of scientific literacy, as well as standards for students to meet at specific grade levels Both of these definitions include an aspect relating to how students utilize scientific literacy in real world problems. With the ag increased trend in consumer ownership and constant advancements in science and technology, agricultural education has been considered an ideal setting for teaching science through real wor ld agricultural contexts SSI based instruction, while proven to be a useful method in science education, has not been tested in agriculture classes However, many of the SSIs utilized in science classes have direct ties to a griculture, indicating that SSI based instruction may be an effective method of integrating science into agriculture classes, while focusing this science on components related to scientific literacy.

PAGE 45

45 This study addresse d the need for agricultural education to incorporate science instru ction into agricultural contexts through real world, societal issu es. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an SSI based instructional model on specific aspects of agriscience student scientific literacy, including agriscience content kn owledge, argumentation skills, scientific reasoning ability, and views of the NOS The results of this study are meaningful for secondary agriculture teachers, agricultural educators, curriculum developers, and advocates of agricultural education Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study, operationally defines terms utilized in the study, and identifies assumptions and limitations of the study Figure 1 1 The Food and Fiber System (Majchrowicz, 1990)

PAGE 46

46 F igure 1 2 (Laugksch, 1999)

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter 1 the effect of a socioscientific issues ( SSI ) based instructional model on student learning, including content knowledge attainment, argumentation skills, scientific reasoning ability, and views of the nature of science ( NOS ) The goal of Chapter 2 is to provide the theore tical and conceptual frameworks which guided the study. Also included in Chapter 2 is a review of the salient research pertaining to the various aspects of the conceptual framework guiding this study, including teacher formative and training experiences an d properties that impact SSI based education, student formative experiences and properties that impact their learning during SSI based instruction, the types of experiences had by students during SSI based instruction, and the short term outcomes of SSI ba sed instruction. Constructivism The grand theory supporting this study was constructivism which states that all learning is the product of the construction of knowledge through experience (Fosnot, 1996) Severa l forms of constructivism which differ on the philosophy of reality and social truths exist on a continuum (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). At one end of the continuum, cognitive constructivism focuses on the cognitive processes of the individual learner, and states that the individual can accurately percei ve and know the external knowledge At the other end of the continuum lies radical constructivism, which states that the knowledge constructed by an individual is merely a representation of the external knowledge, but that the external knowledge cannot its elf by known by the individual Between these two extremes lies social constructivism, which states that

PAGE 48

48 knowledge is constructed an d shared socially rather than constructed individually and is therefore bound to the setting and place in which it was socia lly constructed W hile there is debate as to with which constructivist form agricultural education historically has or should be categorized (Doolittle & Camp, 1999), teachers must recognize that learning can occur through both individual and social experi ences (Roberts, 2006). Further, knowledge constructions can present different meanings to different individuals based on the constructivist premise that people interpret experiences differently, regardless of the exp Beard & Wilson, 2006 ; Doolittle & Camp, 1999 ). These premises, amid others, we assumptions of constructivism (1994), stating that : (a) constructivism involves complex, challe nging, and au thentic tasks; (b) learning is a shared responsibility that occu rs through social contexts; (c) individualities lead communities to multiple representations of the same content; (d) th but rather constructed; and (e) learning and assumptions, Knob loch identified benefits of constructivist learning: (a ) s tudents learn to apply and see implications of acquired knowledge (b ) a uthentic learning environments ce ntered around learners and a social context foster invention and creativity, and (c ) students identify that knowledge is organized for appropriate uses in specific contexts (2003) While the benefits and processes of constructivist education seem natural t o learners, providing constructivist instruction has not always been considered. This is not to say, however, that classrooms were void of experience in past instructional settings By human nature, learning and development cannot occur without some sort o f

PAGE 49

49 experience ( Beard & Wilson, 2006; Joplin, 1981 ; Kolb, 1984; Vygotsky, 1978 ). Dewey (1938) expanded on this point in detail, stating that experiences were present in claimed that learners are always experiencing, but not necessarily in the right way, refer ring to traditional methods of inst ruction with which teachers deposited knowledge into passive student receptacles. Experiential Learning In contrast to traditional education, experiential learning, in true constructivist fashion, combines the aspects of experience, perception, cognition, and behavio r (Kolb, 1984) to apply knowledge and practice in real situations while modeling appropriate behaviors and procedures (Randell, Arrington, & Cheek, 1993). Specific dimensions of experiential learning include a concrete, authentic experience to be had by le arners, active experimentation, internal and/or external reflection, observational learning, abstract conceptualization, risk and responsibility, and the role of the te acher as a facilitator (Knobloch 2003). The Cognitive Aspect of Experiential Learning T he premise of experiential learning surrounds the idea of the individual and his or her internalization of experiences to develop unique meaning. This occurs at both the social and individual levels (Vygotsky, 1978). As learners acquire knowledge, they add or change neural connections (Beard & Wilson, 2006). These changes in connections affect future learning as new experiences are connected with previous knowle dge and experiences (Knobloch 2003). Connections can be made with previous experience but must b e coherent with (or altered to fit) an individual I f

PAGE 50

50 there is a discrepancy between established knowledge and new experiences, the individual will revise theories or reflect on past experiences to fit the new information int o established beliefs (Beard & Wilson, 2006). An i ndividual adopt s new ideas through either integration, which allows the idea to become a stable part of his or her world conceptions, or substitution, which produces resistance to adoption due to a conflict or inconsistency between the new idea and previously established beliefs (Kolb, 1984). In substitution, learners must accommodate somehow in order to allow initially conflicting theories to exist in their model s of reality (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). Drawin g out and addressing student beliefs through experience is the responsibility of the teacher, who can utilize these facets of cognition to allow students to adopt new ideas and make accurate connections (Kolb & Kolb, 2006). The Experiential Learning Cycle Numerous researchers, including Dewey (1938), Joplin (1981), Kolb (1984), and others have created models of the experiential learning cycle, all displaying certain recurring characteristics. Roberts (2006) identified the similar traits between these three prominent models as indication of a cyclical process, initial focus being on the learner, development of rules or hypotheses. Each of these similarities can be observed i n 1). The learning cycle can begin at any of the four stages (Roberts, 2006) but in order for learning to occur, the learner must experience a process involving a method of grasping inform ation and then transforming that experience into new knowledge (Kolb, 1984). Either of these aspects of thought and action alone is not sufficient to produce learning (Cuffaro, 1995), and postponement of action until after thought is key in the learning

PAGE 51

51 pr ocess (Dewey, 1938). The cycle involves a learner grasping information, through either a concrete experience (via apprehension) or abstract conceptualization (via comprehension). Once information has been grasped, it is transformed into new knowledge throu gh either reflective observation (via intension) or active experimentation (via extension) (Kolb, 1984) steps of learning progression (1910/1997). These involve experienci ng a felt difficulty (problem or purpose), identifying level of difficulty, suggesting of possible solutions, developing by re asoning, and further observing or exp erimenting The teacher and learner can work through this process through development of a quality purpose, which requires observation of surrounding conditions, the experiences of others, and judgment to combine the observation and past knowledge to determine how they should b e interpreted (Dewey, 1938). Problem Solving A preferred method of experiential learning in agricultural education is the problem solving approach ( Parr & Edwards, 2004; Phipps et al 2008) which aligns with eps During problem solving instruction, students are provided with new experiences that enable them to develop their own questions through their experiences and then test out solutions to answer those questions. The goal of problem solving is to enable st solving process that is widely applicable in academic, personal, and professional et al 2008, p. 240), allowing them to be better decisions makers as citizens. Lancelot (1944) recommended that teachers pu t substantial care into selecting

PAGE 52

52 useful problems for students to solve Phipps et al (2008) recognized that the agriculture industry contains a large number of ill complex scenarios where many possible courses of action ( decisions, solutions) are structured problems can enhance student learning even further by engaging them in SSI based instruction as a method of problem solving (Sadler, 2004). Problem Solving in K 12 Education Instruction uti lizing problem solving methods is not appropriate in every classroom According to Piaget (1981), children are only capable of engaging in problem solving in any manner once they progress into the third stage of his theory of cognitive development, titled Concrete Operations Children entering the concrete operations stage, typically between ages seven and 11, are able to utilize thought processes to solve concrete problems which tangibly exist (Wadsworth, 1996) Once they move into the final stage in cogni tive development theory, termed Formal Operations, students have the capability to solve all manner of concrete and abstract problems through reasoning and logic (Wadsworth, 1996) While students typically develop the structures required to utilize formal substantial proportion of the American adult population never advances much beyond Education has been reported to be a useful tool in aiding in the development of formal operations, and has been reported to be more influential in the development of these higher cognitive skills than in the development of more concrete skills (Wadsworth, 1996) Providing social int eraction and exploration of an SSI can help students in the concrete operations and

PAGE 53

53 formal operations stages develop skills that are in their zone of proximal development, but not yet mastered (Vygotsky, 1978, Wadsworth, 1996). Problem Solving through S oci oscientific Issues Learning experiences can be enriched in order to enhance st udent learning (Dewey, 1938 ) according to the goals of the education (Sadler, 2011). SSI based instruction improves student learning experiences by allowing them to practice usin g scientific principles and concepts in situations similar to those they will experience in the future as citizens in a scientific society (Sadler, 2011). Because SSIs involve multiple facets of learning, including scientific principles and processes, cons ideration of morals and ethics, and political venues (Sadler, 2011), the mere insertion of relevant issues into existing educational practices does not provide students a substantial opportunity for developing scientific literacy. Eilks (2010) offered a fi ve step model fo r the operationalization of SSI based instruction (as cited in Sadler [2009]): 1. Problem analysis. In this step, students are presented with an issue of interest through media reports or other strategies that highlight the reality and rele vance of the issue. 2. Clarification of the science. Teachers help students understand the basic science underlying the issue. 3. Refocus on the socioscientific issue dilemma. Students refocus their attention on the issue and the associated social problem s or controversies. 4. Role playing task. Students assume roles for engaging in the negotiation of SSI. These roles may include parties to the issue debate or creators of media related to the issue. 5. Meta reflective activity. Students are encouraged to r eflect on their overall experiences with the issue and the underlying science. (p. 359) (1984)

PAGE 54

54 experiential learning cycle, as students are offered a concrete experience with the issue in Steps 1 and 3, focus on the abstract concepts connecting with the issue in Step 2, create their own extensions of the issue in Step 4, and reflect in Step 5 SSI based instruction, Sadler contexts, and proposed a framework that highlights considerations when desig ning SSI based instruction rather than a step by step approach. This framework for SSI based education includes four elements: classroom environment and teacher attributes, which impact the learning experience, and design elements and learner experiences, which make up the learning experience. Design elements (Sadler, 2011, p. 361). Essential design elements involve selection of an appropriate SSI and the early incorporation of that SSI into instruction. Also considered essential design elements are scaffolding to develop higher order thinking skills, such as argumentation and decision making, as these are no t expected to be developed without overt and deliberate practice, and the inclusion of a culminating experience, designed to allow learners to come full circle in the experiential learning cycle by tying concepts and reflections back to the original SSI. S adler (2011) recommend ed the use of media to school, as well as the use of technology as an ever current learning tool due to the rapidly changing nature of SSIs.

PAGE 55

55 Le arner experiences experience with the issue is a primary focus of the design elements, the learner experiences in stated essential experiences should allow learners to engage in higher order thinking skills, address the scientific concepts and theories related to the SSI, test ideas by collectin g and analyzing data, and negotiate the social dimensions of the issue. Sadler also recommended that learner experiences consider both ethical dimensions and NOS themes related to the SSI, as these aspects enhance student learning, but are not completely n ecessary in SSI based instruction. framework suggest that both models can be incorporated into the development of SSI based the actions of learning teacher attributes as items that impact these actions. Classroom environment consists of factors that play a role in the successful implementation of SSI Essential features include established high expectations and norms for student participation, a collaborative and interactive culture, a demonstration of respect between teachers and stude nts, and a safe environment in which differing perspectives can be expressed. These factors of classroom environment are crucial to the enrichment of student learning experiences because of the controversial nature of SSIs and the level

PAGE 56

56 of collaboration an d discussion required in order to develop higher order thinking skills (Sadler, 2011). Teacher attributes also impact successful implementation of SSIs into enriched student learning; Sadler (2011) specified four essential teacher attributes necessary whe n incorporating SSI based instruction. These require that teachers are familiar with both the science content and social considerations of the SSI and surrounding issues, as they should help students connect the issue with the science surrounding it. Teach knowledge regarding the SSI, as the evolving nature of SSIs has implied that even the science community does not know everything about the issue. Teachers ought to be willin g to accept uncertainties in the classroom, as the controversial nature of SSIs leads students to discuss alternative opinions, resulting in multiple potential acceptable decisions. Discussions involving students do not lead to one right answer, which may put teachers in a knowledge contributing role, allowing students to develop the discussion as they see fit. Teachers must be comfortable giving up centered control of e knowledge contributors. Factors Influencing Learning Experiences Whi the factors to be considered when designing SSI based instruction, the overall learning experience includes additional factors, as depicted by Dunkin an teaching (Figure 2 3). While several factors, such as teacher attributes and the learning experiences to be had, overlap the two models, Dunkin and Biddle incorporated factors concerning the student and th e overall outcomes of the learning process in their

PAGE 57

57 consideration of classroom teaching factors. Adapting a model proposed by Mitzel (1 model for the theory of classroom teaching grouped thirteen classes of suggested variables into four larger classes, titled Presage, Context, Process, and Product variables. Presage variables are identified as those that teachers bring to the learning experience through their formative experiences, training experiences, and personal properties (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) These variables are able to be controlled by teacher educators and administrators through selection and preparation experiences of teacher experience encountered prior (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974 p. 39 ) Although Dunkin and Biddle offer ed physical attributes as examples of formati ve experiences, these can also include nonphysical attributes, such as the setting s in which teacher s were raised or their previous social experiences. Once pursuing a career in education, individuals encounter teacher training experiences, which encompass all training and practice experiences during preservice, inservice, and post graduate education. The final presage variable, teacher properties, considers how teacher formative and training experiences are expressed by the individual, and surable personality characteristics the teacher takes with her into (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974 p. 40 ) Context variables which are those that are uncontrolled by the teacher, are depicted as pu pil formative experiences and properties, school and community contexts, and classroom contexts. Similar to teachers, students bring formative experiences with them to the classroom, and these can be impacted by aspects such as

PAGE 58

58 home life, socioeconomic sta tus, and physical attributes. Pupil properties, again defined as those measurable personality characteristics which impact a learning experience, are commonly measured when examining impacts of classroom teaching. Context variables also include school and community contexts, which impact the learning experience through the culture and environment of the school and surrounding community, as well as the relationship between the two. Classroom contexts are impacted by the school community relationship, and can include aspects such as class size, equipment available, and classroom culture The presage variables and context variables interact to form process variables those which concern the observable or measurable behaviors of teachers and students in educat ional settings (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) These actions can include those which are intended as well as behaviors which are unintended. The model depicts the interaction of teacher and student behaviors to lead to obs ervable behavioral change because both initial teacher and student behavior, stemming from presage and context variables, as well as reactions t o the behaviors of others, lead to behavioral change. These behavioral changes stemming from classroom interacti on are titled product variables. While most product outcomes focus on immediate student growth, long term effects on students, such as employment and post secondary success, are also products of classroom interaction. Further, these products may be those t hat are intended and desirable or those that are unintended and undesirable. Conceptual Framework orated into based instruction framework, the latter framework can be integ rated

PAGE 59

59 more holistic concept of SSI based instruction and its impact on student learning. attr ibutes, while classroom environment is similar to classroom attributes. The actions of variables, but can be more accurately framed for use in SSI based education through considerations that stem from the community, which may be especially pertinent to S SI based education due to the societal controversy surrounding the issues introduced into the classroom experiences. Finally, the purpose of teaching is expressed through framework. Through the combination of the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) the framework for SSI based instruction ( Sadler, 2011) and the model for the theory of classroo m teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) a holistic model for the evaluation of the SSI based instruction can be conceptualized (Figure 2.4). Presage Variables As stated previously, presage variables are those teacher c haracteristics which may impact learning experiences (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) Although a relatively under utilized component of research in SSI based instruction, presage variables have been the focus of numerous ac ademic integration research endeavors in agricultural education. The blending of SSI based instruction and agricultural education may benefit from a continued focus on these presage variables.

PAGE 60

60 Teacher formative experiences regarding teacher attributes that enhance SSI based learning. While teachers are recommended to consider their own experiences and limitations regarding SSIs, these features have no t yet been the focus of SSI based education research. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) offer several examples of teacher socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity. Additional experiences, such as their personal views of a specific SSI and their subsequent involvement with the SSI, are theorized to have the potential to impact their teaching (Sadler, 2011). Further, many agriculture teachers are thought to e nter the profession due to their personal experiences with the agricultural industry (Shoulders & Myers, 2012 ), which may result in further teacher biases that must be set aside during instruction. Teacher development experiences Teacher development exper iences have been incorporated into both SSI based education and agricultural education research, although more as a component of a research design rather than as an independent variable. The studies of B arab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, and Zuiker (2007); Klo sterman and Sadler (2011); Lee and Erdogan (2007); Roth and Lee (2004); Yager et al (2006); Zeidler, Sadler, A pplebaum, and Call ahan (2009); Osborne, Erduran, and Simon ( 2004); and Sadler, Klosterman, and Topcu (2011) displa yed the value that researchers have held for the inclusion of teacher training in the design of SSI based educational research.

PAGE 61

61 Klosterman and Sadler (2011) involved two teachers in the design of a three week unit focusing on global warming. These teachers then incorporated the SSI ba sed only two teachers as a limitation to the study, but justified their decision by stating that inclusion of teachers into the design was not explicitly included as an independent variable in the study the authors implied that this inclusion was a beneficial aspect of Lee and Erdogan (2007) performed a study with seven Korean physics teachers who participated in a four week professional development program at the University of Iowa. These teachers were chosen for the pr ogram based on established criteria use of this group of teachers was not included as an independent varia ble the authors discussed the potential benefit that ongoing professional development programs could offer for teachers looking to engage in new, SSI based teaching approaches. Roth and Lee (2004) conducted a three year ethnographic cas e study of middle creek and its surrounding problems. During their study, the authors co taught with seventh grade teachers in three classes for between two and four months. As has been seen with several other studies, justification for this method of implementation was not

PAGE 62

62 provided, although the study implied that this co teaching between researcher and teacher was a valuable component of the research design. B arab et al (2007) purposively selected one teacher to deliver learning experiences using a virtual gaming program entitled Quest Atlantis, designed to teach gifted fourth grade students about the multiple facets of water quality and conservation over a ten day with whom the first author had been involved in another project and who was very 64). Further, thi s teacher was chosen because the authors viewed her previous experience with Quest Atlantis combined with her formative experiences regarding research involvement, as a favorable combination to enhance the learning experiences offered by the Quest Atlanti s interface. The study by Yager et al (2006) was the result of teacher involvement from its outset, as the idea for the study was developed by two teachers who had participated in and were interested in conducting action research to compare the impact of SSI based instructional approaches to that of traditional instructional approaches. The teachers technol ogy society] and in terms of ways of collecting information for the study. It was not primarily their established through their established collaborative practices and noncompetitive

PAGE 63

63 relationship, their interest and drive to incorporate innovative teaching metho ds, their previous involvement in action research projects, their desire for ownership in the project, their previous teaching experience, and their involvement in community organizations and causes. Zeidler et al (2009) conducted a study involving high school Anatomy and Physiology classes that were assigned to treatment and comparison groups. Each of the four classes was taught by the same instructor, who was chosen because of his in depth experience with the course standards and traditional methods of instruction, as well as his up to date knowledge regarding the SSIs used in the study. In order to based instructional practices, the ment on daily, weekly, and monthly assessments of the progress of the class, student engagement, class discussion and writing performances, as well as the quality of the ned teacher confidence when incorporating the innovative teaching strategies. Osborne et al (2004) investigated the effect of an SSI based unit on eighth including an e xperimental group, through which students learned content in an SSI based environment, and a comparison group, through which students learned content in a scientific context. Twelve teachers were chosen to participate in the project based on their previous would involve a degree of risk on their part requiring the use of innovative or unfamiliar

PAGE 64

64 consi sted of professional development focused on teaching argumentation skills and the development of teaching materials. During this year, the teachers also taught nine argument based lessons, two focusing on a specific SSI while the rest focused solely on arg selected to repeat the process during the second year, during which student argu mentation skills were measured. Implied through this extensive process of teacher appropriately incorporate SSI based instruction into classrooms. Based on difficulties te achers faced in past SSI based instr uction implementation efforts, Sadler et al [their study] in order to involve them in the design process with the goal of creating materials geared spec training was not an independent variable that was measured, but was purposefully incorporated into the research design. Because one of the goals of the overall project was to design appro priate SSI based instructional materials for specific class needs, the instruction. Aspects that factored into the SSI based instruction included the average level of achiev career, the classes taught (chemistry and environmental science), and the needs of the communities (rural town and university based city). The research team, including the two teachers, met reg ularly throughout a semester to gain an in depth understanding of SSI based instruction and develop the SSI based curriculum.

PAGE 65

65 Teacher properties Dunkin and Biddle describe d teacher properties as those consisting of the teacher takes with her into the teaching experiences are brought into the classroom. While studies regarding teacher properties have been rare in SSI based education res earch, agricultural education research has considered these properties a focus with regard to teacher incorporation of specific practices for some time. An examination of both areas of research can assist in determining how SSI based instruction can be bes t implemented by agriculture teachers. Teacher perceptions of academic integration in agricultural education. into agricultural education, teacher perception of science integr ation has been a prominent area of research in the profession. SSI based instruction is primarily a method incorporated into science based classes ( Klosterman & Sadler, 2011 ; Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Zeidler et al ., 2009 ), and will depend on teacher cooperati on and motivation to improve student scientific literacy through innovative teaching approaches in order for SSI based instruction to be successfully implemented into agriculture classes, as has been seen in science classes already (Zeidler et al 2009). In 2001, Layfield, Minor, and Waldvogel conducted a study designed to science integration. Using a survey design, the authors found that teachers felt prepared to teach inte grated biological concepts, yet perceived numerous barriers to

PAGE 66

66 doing so, including the availability of appropriate equipment, lack of funding, and the scarcity of professional development opportunities. Using the same methods, Balschweid and Thompson (200 2) conducted a study science integration. They reported that respondents agreed with statements supporting science integration into agricultural education. However, thes e teachers reported the same top three barriers as teachers in the Layfield et al (2001) study. Further, 36.6 % time during their teaching day as a result of integrat (p. 7). Warnick and Thompson (2007) distributed a similar perceptions survey to agriculture teachers in one state Again, a majority of the respondents perceived the lack of appropriate equipment as a barrier to scien results is that 30 % of the respondents identified their own lack of science competence as a barrier to science integration. Finally, while a majority of the respondents agreed that collaboration between the school sc ience department and agriculture department would benefit science students, fewer than one half reported participating in such collaboration. Myers and Washburn (2008) conducted a study assessing the perceptions toward science integration of Florida agricu lture teachers, and found that teachers felt students learned more science and agriculture content through integration of the subjects, and that collaboration increased their ability to teach students how to solve problems. Over half of the respondents fel t that science integration required increased

PAGE 67

67 preparation, with over two thirds reporting insufficient planning time as a barrier to science integration Teacher attitudes regarding SSI based instruction. Few studies have examine d garding the incorporation of SSIs into instruction. However, this lack of research could be caused by the large number of studies that included teachers throughout the design process, implying that teachers are proponents of SSI based instruction before th ey participate in SSI based instruction research (Barab et al ., 2007; Klosterman & Sadler, 2011; Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Osborne et al 2004; Roth & Lee, 2004; Sadler et al 2011 ; Yager et al ., 2006; Zeidler et al 2009 ). Contrary to this implication, the following studies began to unearth teacher perceptions of SSI based instruction. Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kaz empour, and Allspaw, ( 2006) conducted a qualitative study using interviews from 22 middle and high schoo l science teachers to gather information regarding teacher perspectives about the use of SSI in science education, specifically focusing on the ethical aspects of instruction. The interviews resulted in the unearthing of five profiles regarding perceptio ns of SSI and ethics: (a) participants view SSI as important aspects of science education, suggest that ethics are involved in SSI curricula, and present SSI in their classes; (b) participants view SSI as important aspects of science education, but the curre nt realities of schooling impede the enactment of SSI based curricula; (c) participants hold ambivalent attitudes toward SSI in science curricula and do not feel their professional responsibilities include facilitating the e xploration of ethics; (d) partic ipants reject the idea that science and ethics are interrelated and is opposed to science classroom treatments of ethics; and (e)

PAGE 68

68 participants suggest that values should be important aspects of all education (p. 261 362). While middle school teachers gave responses that coincided with Profiles A and B, high school teachers gave responses that coincided with Profiles A, B, and C. Only one of the 22 teachers offered responses coinciding with Profile D, indicating that the vast majority of the respondents perc eived the benefits of incorporating SSI and ethics into science curricula, even if they were unsure of how to put that perception into action. Bryce and Gray ( 2004 ) conducted a qualitative study with a group of 10 Scottish teachers who attended a professio nal development session and were in the process of teaching their first class of Advanced Higher Biology The professional development biotechnology and genetics, as well Teachers were interviewed after three months of teaching the new Advanced Higher Biology course to explore their reactions to controversial discussions and ne w aspects of science associated with the SSIs integrated into the class Interview themes revealed that teachers found controversy in and parcel of how science and technology is advancing and should Teac hers also felt that contextualization and human testimony aided in presenting biotechnology content to students in a meaningful way, provided that it was presented from both sides and allowed the teacher to remain neutral on the topic Teachers stated that certain topics, such as animal experimentation, quickly led to heated emotional discussion They indicated that they wanted more instruction on the pedagogy associated with classroom discussion of ethical issues, including the purpose of the discussion, t ime allowed, and the extent of

PAGE 69

69 their own participation Connected to this desire for increased instruction in discussion raised student emotions Lack of confidence in handl rred in the case of particularly challenging subject Teacher opinions regarding specific SSIs. While no studies were found to teachers accept their roles a s inquirers and give up some authoritarian control during SSI based SSI based instruction was the focus of one study, which serves as a starting point in a line of research that should be continued, as teachers are responsible for allowing differing perspectives to be shared openly within the classroom (Sadler, 2011). The study conducted by Sadler et al (2006) explored the perceptions of 22 middle and high school teachers regarding SSI based instructi on and found that all students, and that the primary goal of dealing with ethics in science was to promote 370). A majority of the teachers stressed their perceived responsibility to present alternative viewpoints of controversial topics, and either felt it was necessary to completely avoid sharing their personal views, or would only do so following persisten t student questioning. Other teachers felt that it was their responsibility to share their personal beliefs in order to act

PAGE 70

70 teachers should not explicitly share their values, but that their beliefs and values emerge through their classroom behavior Context Variables Context variables consist of student and classroom aspects to which t he teacher must adjust (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). As with presage variables, these have rarely been the focus of SSI based education research, yet have been incorporated into research designs in most studies. Pupil formative experiences before entering the classroom have widely been ignored in both SSI based and agricultural education research. However, the social focus of SSI based instruction implies that students have experiences outside of the classroom that impact their learning thr ough SSI contexts (Sadler, 2011), causing need for research in the impacts of pupil formative experiences on SSI based instruction in agricultural education. In 2003, Dhingra conducted a study designed to explore the impact of d NOS While the study lacked sex high schools, this sample choice in itself holds meaningful implications for SSI based instruction resear ch. During the process of conducting research, Dhingra could only mediated learning was not a serious enough subject to merit the time that would be lost from 8) After watching four television programs, each of which was

PAGE 71

71 placed into a different program category (News, Documentary, Fictional Programming, and Magazine Format), Dhingra utilized interviews, an open ended questionnaire, small group discussions, and free writing responses to gain a qualitative understanding of NOS Emerging from t he data were several findings: (a ) students questioned the ethics and validity of science of programs in the news category because of the revolutionary nature of the science presented and because of the critical voice used during news reports, (b ) students viewed documentary and magazine format programs as final form science rather than tentative (c ) students felt as though c ertain fictional science practitioners were role models and helped students self identify their own intere sts in scientific careers, and (d ) students had differing views on the degree of connectedness between school science and television science. Dhingra recommended that further research be conducted in order to combine the efforts of free choice education and formal education to increase scientific literacy. Pupil properties While many studies have discuss ed the demographic characteristics of students, fe w have examin ed how SSI based instruction impacts students of varying properties differently. Those that have incorporated pupil properties into research questions have Dori and Herscovitz (1999) examined hig posing capabilities before and after experiencing a unit focusing on the quality of air. Students were divided into three academic levels based on both school placement and pretest scores. High achieving students were sc ience majors and engaged in the Quality of Air Around Us module for extra credit. Medium achieving students, who were of average

PAGE 72

72 capability, and low achieving students, who possessed some learning difficulties, engaged in the Quality of Air Around Us unit through their Science and Technology for All course. During the pretest and posttest, students read case studies and posed questions to the cases which were then analyzed according to the number of pretest and posttest questions posed by each student, the orientation of each question, and the complexity each question. While each academic level displayed improvement in number of questions, question orientation variability, and question complexity, results indicated that the differences varied among academic level, with high achieving students improving the most as a result of the treatment. Further, students were exposed to one topic more thoroughly than other topics, allowing for their level of topic expertise to be compared with their questioning capabiliti the same level of knowledge in their expert topic as in the other topics. The knowledge level of medium and low academic level students declined significantly and proportionately in other topics compared to the Using pretests, posttests, teacher interviews, and student portfolios, Do ri, Tal, and Tsaushu (2003) examined the differences in higher order thinking skills gained by students of differing levels of achievement as a result of exp eriences with a SSI module based on biotechnology. The authors operationalized higher order thinking skills as cognitive activities that are beyond the level of understanding according to and understanding of information are classified as lower order thinking skills. Analyzing information and data presented in case studies, posing questions, providing scientifically grounded arguments, expressing opinions, making decisions, and system think ing would be classified here as higher order thinking skills (p. 771) Students were categorized based on academic level as a result of pretest scores

PAGE 73

73 Students were presen ted with eight assignments, four being considered low level and four being considered high level with regard to the thinking skills required to respond to the assignment. Students then chose three of the four low level and three of the four high level assi gnments to complete a total of six assignments. Student responses were and think in systems. Results indicated that students in all three academic levels (low, inter mediate, and high) displayed statistically significant improvement in higher order thinking skills between pre and posttests. While there was no significant difference between the gains of high and intermediate students, the gains of these two groups combi ned were significantly different from low achieving students. With regard to knowledge and understanding, low achieving students actually displayed higher posttest scores than high achieving students, while high achieving students displayed higher posttest scores in higher order thinking skills. These results led the authors to posit that issues, contributes towards narrowing the gap in the knowledge and understanding ca Dori et al also examined the student assignment choices and found that high achieving students preferred assignments that required question posing while low achieving students preferred those that required system thinking in addition to question posing. Classroom contexts. SSI based education research designs have included a variety of classroom grade levels and subjects. While these have not been the focus of researc h questions, they do provide insight into the range of ages that have been exposed to SSI based instruction,

PAGE 74

74 as well as the content areas through which SSI based instruction has been implemented thus far. Student grade level/age. SSI based instructional re search has been incorporated into classes in many different countries and at many different grade levels. Studies have focused on implementation into upper elementary classes (Barab et al 2007) middle school clas ses (Osborne et al 2004; Roth & Lee, 2004; Yager et al 2006) high school students (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Dori, Tal, & Tsauschu, 2003; Jimenez Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Klosterman & Sadler, 2011; Kolsto, 2001; Sadler, 2004; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Zeidler et al 2009; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) and college students (Eastwood, Schlegel, & Co ok, 2011; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Wong, Hodson, Kwan, & Yung, 2008) Class subject. While SSI based instruction has been incorporated into a wide variety of grade levels, the subjects into which SSIs are included consist of a broad range of sc ience areas. None of the previously conduc ted SSI based studies has be en outside the realm of science based classes. The classes through which SSI based instruction has been taught are Chemistry (Klosterman & Sadler, 2011; Sadler et al Environmental Science (Klosterman & Sadler, 2011; Sadler et al ., 2011) Physics (Lee & Erdogan, 2007) Anatomy and Physiology (Zeidler et al ., 2009) and general science (Dori et al ., 2003; Drache, 1996; Kolsto, 200 1) Process Variables Dunkin and Biddle (1974) stated that the actions occurring in a classroom are the result of teacher and pupil behaviors and interactions, a position that is supported by SSI based instruction framework. The studies i nvestigated below

PAGE 75

75 SSI based instruction. Design elements relating to SSI based instruction Sadler (2011) claimed that a compelling social issue is the foremost priority when d esigning SSI based instruction. Studies utilized varying types of SSIs when designing instruction. Issues in genetics, environmental sciences, animal welfare, and health were frequently utilized, with some authors justifying their use of a particular SSI a nd others assuming that the issue chosen was deemed an appropriate SSI. Genetics. Jimenez Aleixandre et al (2000) studied one class of ninth graders in Spain during six one hour genetics sessions. While the first four sessions did not contain any SSI bas ed implementation, the final two sessions were modified by the researchers and focused on an SSI. The specific SSI explored the economic ramifications of domestic chicken coloring being different than wild chicken coloring, and potential genetic solutions to produce wild looking domestic chickens. The authors defended their use of this fictitious SSI by stating that it mirrored a real local problem of fish farmers producing unmarketable fish due to the color differences between wild and farm raised fish. Do ri et al (2003) designed a module entitled Biotechnology, Environment, and Related Issues which was developed in Hebrew to teach tenth twelfth grade Israeli non science majors about scientific knowledge related to biotechnology and genetic engineering t hrough several case studies. The module included four separa te biotechnology related SSIs: (a ) increasing agricultural productivit y through genetic engineering; (b ) connecting the processes of making wine and bread to process of modern biotechnology, sp eci fically insulin production; (c ) the human genome p roject

PAGE 76

76 and tissue culture; and (d ) gene therapy, changing human genetic traits, and cloning. As is noted in the four units, students learn about the history of traditional biotechnology and then connect tha t historical perspective with recent advancements in biotechnology, finishing the module with a focus on the ethics of more controversial SSIs. Tal, Kali, Magid, and Madhok (2011) utilized the Web based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) to provide eighth tenth grade students in Tel Aviv with an internet based module focusing on genetics, entitled Simple Inheritance Through the module, students were first exposed to the SSI through a story of a boy suffering from cystic fibrosis (CF). They followed the boy inherited, which then was connected to the inheritance of other traits and simple genetic mechanisms. The module utilized online interaction with a CF patient and a field trip to a hospital to increase the real world context of the SSI. Sadler and Zeidler (2004) conducted a qualitative study to assess how college students perceive genetic engineering issues with regard to morality. The participants use to combat Severe Combined Immune Deficiency and cloning as a means to overcome infertility, and were asked questions regarding these SSIs and other related SSIs upon their completion of each of the readings. The authors justified their use of a genetic s based SSI by considering its recent relevance in societal issues, which was thought to increase participant interest. Zohar and n of dilemmas in genetics. This unit, titled the Genetic Revolution Discussions of Moral Dilemmas, was developed

PAGE 77

77 designed to foster higher order thinking skills and scienti fic argumentation are of the 12 hour unit included genetic counseling, traits and inheritance, gene therapy, and cloning. Justification for use of this topic was pr ovided; the authors felt that genetics Health. Through the use of a WISE module, Tal and Hochberg (2003) examined reasoning a nd problem solving abilities of ninth grade Israeli students. After a pilot study in which an SSI focusing on deformed frogs was used, the authors determined that a more socially relevant SSI would be beneficial to the study. The Malaria Project was thus c the disease, where it is prevalent, and how it spreads, and they compare three different e return to the spotlight due to immigrants bringing malaria parasites into the country t only Eastwood et al (2011) examined the impact of SSI based instruction on college year university program designed to integrate biology with social aspects of th e human, scaffolding students to develop their reasoning related While the program contained requirements similar to those of traditional biology majors, it also

PAGE 78

78 included courses in the areas of human environment and ecology, human origins and survival, human health and disease, and human reproduction and sexuality, along with an annual core course designed to focus on the SSIs of these areas. The annual course logical concepts with related social and ethical issues and explicitly addressed epistemological concepts in biology including uncertainty, study, the authors examined the decision making practices of sophomore students who were enrolled in an interdisciplinary course that focused on death and dying, infectious disease, and HIV and AIDS. Kolsto (2001) examined the decision making practices of tenth grade Norwegian stud ents after they experienced two lessons that focused on a local debate about the role of power transmission lines in an increase in childhood leukemia. The author justified the use of this SSI based on its coverage in Norwegian newspapers and its links to science content. Wong et al (2008) conducted a study in Hong Kong that sought to explore how SSI NOS The SSI utilized was the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic as the contex t for teaching student teachers scientific inquiry and aspects of the NOS Authors deemed this an appropriate SSI because it was a meaningful and familiar issue in Hong Kong, and was publicized widely throughout the scientific processes leading to its cont rol. Animal w elfare. Osborne, Erduran, and Simon (2004 ) examined the effect of a contextually based unit, with the first and final lessons focusing on whether zoos should be permitted, on eighth

PAGE 79

79 fo skills were assessed using verbal and written evidence focusing on the pros and cons of zoos and whether or not the students felt that a new zoo should be built. Environmen tal i ssues. In an Israeli class designed to teach scientific literacy through SSI entitled Scienc e and Technology for All, Dori and Herscovitz (1999) incorporated a Quality of Air Around Us, in which five independent topics related to air quality were intr oduced. Through lessons about nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particles, carbon oxides and the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and odor as an inconvenience versus a pollution, students learned a higher order cog nitive skills, critical thinking, asking questions, judging values, solving A study by B arab et al (2007) study using Quest Atlantis immersed fourth grade gifted students in the multiple facets of environmental i ssues through a storyline a fictitious location faced with a decline in fish numbers severe enough to warrant the local fishing company, the source of much of the The SSI was further developed through the population, a logging company, and the fishing company Student objectives during the lesson included learning the concepts of erosion, eutrophicati on, water quality, and Klosterman and Sadler (2011) designed a three week unit focusing on issues surrounding global warming. The seven learning exercises exp osed students to

PAGE 80

80 absorption of radiation by CO 2 and other gases, the process of combustion, and the explanations ng reactions to news articles, evaluation of the perspectives of fictitious organizations, laboratory exercises, and discussion. Roth and Lee (2004) conducted an ethnographic study in a community in which they both live. Through a collaborative effort of c ommunity and academic participation, consistent water to the community. Contributing to this SSI were climate, urban development, citizen practices, erosion, and agricul tural runoff, each of which are components of the overall student learning experiences. While the study by Eastwood et al (2011) examined sophomore decision making practices while enrolled in a health related interdisciplinary course as part of an SSI ba sed four year university program, the study also included program students at the senior level who were enrolled in the appropriate level interdisciplinary course. The senior level course focused on global warming, service learning through the local Parks environmental conservation. Sadler et al (2011) developed a unit of SSI based instruction that focused on global climate change. The goals of the unit were to allow students t understanding of what global climate change is and why various parties think that this is understandings

PAGE 81

81 analyzing web [and] improve their socioscientific reasoning practices in contexts beyond the scope of global climate 52). Through a nine lesson unit, students learned about factors of global climate change that culminated in the creation of a product that promoted a specific action related to climate change. Learner experiences relating to SSI based instruction SSI based education framework includes learner experiences as a main component, and these experiences are thought to provide a vehi cle for learning (Dewey, 1938). As with presage and context variables, these learner experiences were rarely the independent variable in studies, except that the SSI based education provided a learning experience in a specific type of context. However, sev eral studies discussed their use of specific types of learning experiences, such as the incorporation of technology and use of experiential learning strategies. Incorporation of technology. B arab et al (2007) engaged students in decision making regarding water quality through Quest Atlantis a multi user virtual environment through which students are immersed in a simulation of aquatic habitats. Quest Atlantis incorporates multiple users and game based role playing pedagogies into a 3 D virtual environmen t into an online educational module through which students move using avatars. The online environment is introduced and upheld through a storyline pertaining world and simulated, socially and academically

PAGE 82

82 meaningful activities, such as environmental studies, researching other cultures, Tal et al (2011) developed a module focusing on genetic inheritance through the Web student learning, while taking advantage of the innovations that the Internet can bring 13). The WISE library includes dozens of SSI based modules that have been designed by researcher and teacher teams for use in varying grade levels. Tal and Hochberg (2003) also utilized the WISE project during a study of the impact of a malaria focused S chose this learning environment because of its low cost, as well as its ability to allow debating, and critiquing sol Constructivist a ctivitie s/experiential l earning Yager et al (2006) measured the constructivist teaching practices utilized in a SSI based science class and a traditional scien ce class through the use of B urry indicated that the teacher incorporating SSI based instruction engaged in more constructivist teaching practices. To enhance the genetics situated WISE module utilized i n their study, Tal et al (2011) incorporated online interaction with a patient and a field trip to a hospital in the unit, exposing groups of students to each in order to determine whether the two enhan

PAGE 83

83 ended responses indicated that students experiencing the online interaction were able to improve their learning through the ability to ask q uestions and were able to gain a better understanding of patient challenges, while those that experienced the field trip noted a connection between the field trip and online module, developed a greater sense of meaning related to their learning, and felt a field trip addition was more productive than the online interaction addition in enhancing student interest and self e interaction focused mainly on affective aspects in their responses, while those who visited the hospital focused on deeper learning and understanding in addition to affective aspects of the visit. While no significant differences were found between the t wo groups with regard to knowledge gains, students experiencing the online interaction offered more genetics based justifications in responses, while field trip students offered more justifications related to a broader social technological realm. Hogan (2 002) conducted a qualitative study that examined in class and that focused on the development of a watershed management plan The in class group of students experienced m uch of their learning in a classroom setting; the service learning portion of the class consisted of conducting a study in the watershed area The independent study group of students conducted most of their service learning at the partnering environmental agency, participating in the daily activities of the agency Results of interviews found that the groups viewed environmental practitioners differently the classroom based group viewed the environmental practitioner profile as

PAGE 84

84 one focused on knowledge of environmental concepts, while the independent study group described the environmental practitioner profile as one that is more community oriented, less knowledge based, and more connected to the people associated with the environmental issue Hogan conclu ded that both of these profiles are accurate, yet represent one dimension of a truly multi dimensional profile Likewise, the tasks each group participated in were different, yet limiting, as neither group moved beyond a certain set of entry level activiti es typical of the setting Results of this study led Hogan to recommend that the learning culture of the classroom and the doing culture of the service learning be blended in order to increase the success of experiential learning programs. Although not a s pecific objective of the study, Lee and Erdogan (2007) stated that the seven Korean physics teachers incorporating a three week SSI based technology society] teaching, gett ing away from textbooks, and resistance from and recommend partnerships with professional development opportunities in order to help teachers gain more confidence in less traditional teaching approaches, such as SSI based instruction. Product Variables Product variables include those measurable outcomes produced through learner experiences (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). The short history of SSI based education research has led t he vast majority of these studies to focus on immediate pupil growth in an effort to legitimize the use of SSI based instruction in science classes. Again

PAGE 85

85 because of its short history, the long term effects of SSI based education have yet to be examined. S tudent content knowledge gains B arab et al both proximal and distal pre and post intervention measures upon completion of a 10 day interactive online module focusing on water quality. P roximal level measures consisted of two open soci oscientific reasoning and understanding of science content knowledge. Distal level measures were included stakes standardized tests. The 18 distal level items consisted of those releas ed from state standards targeted in the Quest Atlantis module. Students exhibited a statistically significant improvement on the proximal measure, providing evidence that stu dents could transfer their content mastery to traditional classroom tests. While distal measures did not reveal a statistically significant increase in student scores, the authors did note a mean increase in scores, and attributed the lack of significance to a potential ceiling effect. Klosterman and Sadler (2011) also incorporated both proximal and distal level measures into their study of the impact of a three week global warming unit on eleventh and twelfth ns. As in the study by Barab et al (2007) the authors developed a distal level measure assessing specific science standards from a pool of publicly released standardized test items. The

PAGE 86

86 proximal level measure contained five open ended questions regardin g the specific curriculum of focus in the global warming instrument. Proximal level response analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between pre and post assessments on three of the five questions; the final two questions were not analyze d due to the low frequencies in each scoring level. Contrary to the results in the 2007 study, Klosterman and Sadler (2011) found a statistically significant gain with a medium level effect size in level scores. In the study by Yager et al (2006), which compared academic gains between classes taught through an SSI based approach and through a traditional approach, ten weekly quizzes were utilized as a pre post test to measure n concept mastery over the course of a semester. General science achievement was measured through the use of a common science semester exam, which was again administered as both a pre and post test to each group. Because the authors classified their study as action research, no attempt was made to validate the instruments or measure the reliability of their scores. Statistically significant gains were found for students in both groups with both measures. However, the gains between the two groups were not s tatistically significant, implying that the students taught through the SSI based approach mastered science concepts at a level equal to that of students learning through traditional methods. Dori et al (2003) examined the knowledge and understanding gai ns of students in differing academic levels. While both high and low achieving students improved knowledge and understanding of biotechnological concepts between pre and posttests, the low achieving students achieved higher posttest scores than the high ac hieving

PAGE 87

87 students, leading the authors to posit that SSI based education may narrow the gap in knowledge and understanding between high and low achieving students. Tal et al (2011) examined Israeli student scientific and genetics knowledge after exposure to the two week WISE Simple Inheritance module. The science knowledge integration test combined an original WISE knowledge integration assessment with a understandings of the pri nciples of simple inheritance, and lastly, contained a complex question related to how large family exterminations during the Holocaust has influenced simple inheritance, as this situation is relevant to Israeli families. Students were given the test after were online interaction with a cystic fibrosis patient and a field trip to a hospital. The authors examined student responses to find evidence of differences in knowledge acquisition bet ween the two groups, and found no significant differences. Because no pretest was administered, the authors could not determine the impact of the overall module on student knowledge acquisition. Zohar and Nemet (2002) conducted a study designed to explore the effects of a genetics the use of experimental and comparison groups, the authors compared biological knowledge gains between the two groups as evidenced by pretest and postt est questionnaires. While the experimental group learned about advanced genetics concepts through the Genetic Revolution unit, those in the comparison group learned the same genetics concepts through a booklet that presented information in a traditional te

PAGE 88

88 the extent to which students consider biological knowledge while thinking about the item multiple choice genetics knowledge test. With regard to consideration of biological knowledge, the authors found that students in the comparison group did not consider biological knowledge when considering the dilemma as frequently as those in the experimental group. This trend was continued with respect to th e use of false considerations, as those were found more frequently in the comparison group responses. Alternatively, students in the experimental group correctly considered specific biological knowledge more frequently than those in the comparison group. W ith regard to biological knowledge gains, results indicated that students experiencing the SSI based Genetic Revolution unit scored significantly higher than those in the comparison group. Sadler et al (2011) sought to determine the impact of SSI based i nstruction on student scientific content knowledge in two high school classes of average achieving students. The authors posed problems associated with assessments directly aligned with interventions, which are not ideal for use as summative assessments du e to their lack of assessment of knowledge transfer, and those that are broader in scope, which are insensitive to small changes resulting from a short term intervention. To address these issues with types of assessments, this study utilized two different assessments ata were collected through the use of a test with items that related directly to the unit, while distal data were collected through the use of items from state and national exams. The proximal assessment included five open ended questions relating to climate change, which was the SSI focus, and was

PAGE 89

89 analyzed using the constant comparative method. The distal test measured student knowledge in climate and temperature, greenhouse effects and climate change, chemical principles and processes, and graphical creation and analysis. Comparing results for pre and posttests, the authors found that there was a significant in crease between the pretest and posttest responses for the first three items of the proximal assessment, indicating that the SSI proximal responses. Distal measures resulted in a significant increase in stu correct responses from the pretest to the posttest, with a medium effect size, implying that the SSI based instructional unit not only helped students learn scientific content in the SSI context, but also transfer the content to other scientific con texts. Views of the NOS Gaining an understanding of the NOS (NOS) has been a stated educational goal connected with scientific literacy for over a century (Lederman, 2006) Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) argued that an understanding of NOS is cru cial for individuals to be able to understand science and technology in everyday life, make informed decisions on socioscientific issues, appreciate the value of science in culture, understand the moral norms of the scientific community and society, and le arn science as a subject While these supporting statements are generally agreed upon, definitions of NOS vary greatly among research circles In education, however, consensus regarding the components of NOS pertinent to the K 12 setting has been better es tablished (Lederman, 2006) Lederman (2006) stated that NOS is a term generally used to refer While he n oted that

PAGE 90

90 some authors include or remove certain aspects of NOS, the following characteristics are generally considered to be pertinent to an understanding of NOS at the K 12 level: Scientific knowledge : (a) is tentative (subject to change) ; (b) is empiric ally based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world) ; (c) is subjective (involves personal background, biases, and/or is theory laden) ; (d) n ecessa rily involves human inference, i magination, and creativity (involves the invention of explanations) ; and (e) i s socially and culturally embedded (Lederman, 2006, p. 833). Numerous studies have examined how these aspects and others of NOS are grasped by students engaging in SSI based education. Zeidler et al (2009) constructed their study around the differences in reflective judgment, a component of NOS, between high school students experiencing NOS content through SSI based instruction and through textbook driven instruction. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the authors fou nd significant differences In Hong Kong, Wong et al (2008) explored the impact of SSI based instruction NOS through the use of a unit focusin g on the recent SARS epidemic. Through interviews with key scientists involved in SARS research during the epidemic, the authors built a multimedia teaching package that focused on the NOS features present in the SSI. The authors examined the impact of the SSI NOS through the use of a modified version of the Views of NOS Questionnaire (VN OS C) (Lederman et al ., 2002) before and after the SSI based unit, and semi structured interviews with those participan ts who demonstrated improvement in views of NOS between the pre and posttests. Results of

PAGE 91

91 the questionnaire indicated that over 20 % of the student teachers improved their scientific knowledge is tentative, peer review as an important process in the acceptance/validation of scientific ideas, science influences political decisions, science is affected by political decisions, science influences social and cultural practices, science is affected by social and cultural values, and science and technology impact lives, familiarity, transfer of abstract concepts to tangible pieces, links to per sonal experiences of science history, and focus on affective aspects of the SSI were factors In 2009, Callahan examined the impact of a semester long SSI based curriculum on nin The researched used both qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data from pretests and posttests using the Views on Science and Education questionnaire (VOSE) (Chen, 2006 ) Revising the VOSE b tentativeness of scientific knowledge, nature of scientific knowledge, nature and comparison of theories and laws, and the use of imagination in science Chen (2006) recommended that scoring methods represent the goals of the research, as no view is necessarily incorrect views of the NOS with higher scores reflecting more contemporary views of NOS and lower scores reflecti ng more nave views of the NOS Results from the VOSE did not indicate a statistically significant difference in pretest and posttest scores in any of the areas of NOS

PAGE 92

92 views, and that t 105) Callahan speculated that these findings could have been caused by a lack of differentiation between nave and more sophisticated views of NOS on the VOSE or from respondent fatigue o ccurring as a result of completing the questionnaire both before and after the intervention. Using a three phase design, Zeidler et al (2002) examined how high school and SIs when confronted with information that challenged their initial beliefs The participants initially completed a questionnaire that assessed their views of the following four tenants of NOS, each thought to be most closely relate d to the SSI being introd uced: (a ) the tentativeness of scientific claims an d why those claims may change; (b ) the role of empirical eviden ce in the activity of science, (c ) the role of theoretical commitments, social and cultural factors in genera ting scientific knowledge; and (d ) the extent to which human creativity, imagination, and sociocultural embedded factors influence formulation of scientific knowledge (p. 347) After experiencing the SSI based instruction, participants were interviewed in pairs that were arranged accordin g to their levels of conviction regarding certain views of NOS Qualitative data analysis revealed that while and patterns of decision making on a SSI were found, soci al and cultural influences data evaluation when considering alternative perspectives of the SSI In response to limited success in improving student views of NOS through different approaches, Khishfe and Lederman (2006) conducted a study the effectiveness of two explicit instructional approaches in enhancing more informed

PAGE 93

93 The integrated instructional approach taught concepts of NOS through a connection with science and global war ming, while the nonintegrated instructional approach taught separate lessons on the two topics NOS aspects included in the lessons were that scientific knowledge is tentative, derived from observations of the natural world, produced from human imagination and creativity, distinguishes between observations and inferences, and is subjective to individual and societal experiences sophistication regarding these NOS aspects before and after the six week int ervention Both the integrated approach and the nonintegrated approach resulted in an increase in student level of sophistication in their views of ea ch of the NOS aspects However, the integrated group resulted in a slightly greater increase in number of informed responses, while the nonintegrated group resulted in a greater increase in number of transitional responses This slight difference between t he two groups was not warranted to be large enough to make recommendations between the two approaches; rather, the authors recommended that an explicit approach to teaching NOS, regardless of the context in which it was taught, could enhance student views of NOS. Student interest Lee and toward science utilized the Attitudes Toward Science Inventory (Enger & Yager, 1998) to quantitatively measure the differences in gains between those stude nts experiencing a three week SSI based unit and those experiencing a traditional physics unit. Results found that positive attitudes toward science increased among students experiencing the SSI based instruction, while they decreased among traditionally t aught students.

PAGE 94

94 Further, the difference in student attitudes toward science was found to be statistically significant between the two instructional methods. Through qualitative analysis of classroom discourse, Barab et al (2007) level of narrative engagement during a learning module using Quest Atlantis an online virtual environment through which students learned about environmental issues pertaining to water quality and conservation. Analysis of the ten days of classroom discour se displayed evidence of student engagement in the though they were real. The authors offered numerous student quotations that showed he Quest Atlantis narrative rather than simply in the objectives of the lesson. The action research conducted by Yager et al (2006) evaluated middle school based uni t or a traditional science unit using items from the Third Assessment of Science by the National As sessment of Educational Progress (1978). While both groups displayed statistically significant changes in their attitudes toward science, the attitude change for students experiencing the SSI based instruction was positive, while the change for students experiencing the traditional instruction was negative. Dori et al (2003) collected student feedback during their implementation of a module entitled Biotechn ology, Environment, and Related Issues in Israeli tenth twelfth grade Science for All classes. Student responses indicated that the students felt the SSIs discussed in the module were interesting, important, and relevant at both global and personal levels. Further, the students reported an appreciation for the variety in

PAGE 95

95 teaching methods experienced through the module, and a number of students indicated an improvement in teacher student relationships as a result of the SSI based module. Tal et al (2011) utilized student observation to gage student interest during a two week internet based unit on genetic inheritance. The unit allowed students to make connections between their lives and principles of genetics through the use of technology, exposure to a sp ecific scenario involving a fictitious cystic fibrosis patient, and either a field trip to a hospital or online interaction with a CF patient. Student observations revealed that students had an increased interest in genetics and experienced enjoyment throu Student creativity questioning, proposing possible answers to questions, and devising tests for determining the validit y of explanations) Yager e t al (2006) evaluated middle school week unit that was either SSI based or traditional. They found that students learning through the SSI questions, offered more explanations, and propose d more tests for the validation of the Lee and Erdogan (2007) utilized the Assessment of Student Creativity (Enger & Yager, 1998) to determine the impact of SSI based and traditional learni ng Questioning, Reasoning, and Predicting Consequences as three subscales of creativity. The results revealed similar scores for traditionally taught students between the pre and p ost test scores, while those for students taught through a SSI based approach increased in the Reasoning and Predicting Consequences subscales. While there were

PAGE 96

96 no statistically significant differences between the subscale post test scores of the two group post test scores Argumentatio n Kuhn (1991 development of logical explanations and reorganization of opp osing assertions, weights 70) The notion of argumentation as a component of scientific literacy to be developed through formal education has been established by numer ous researchers (Callahan, 2009; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Thoron, 2010; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008) Sadler and Fowler (2006) identified the connection between SSI based instruction and argumentation skills as contextual, statin assumption underlying [SSI knowledge related to the SSI under consideration significantly influences argumentation Utilized in scientific discourse, argumentation includes articulation of justification of claims, offering of counterpositions and evidence, and social negotiation of data and theories (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) works in argumentation and subsequent development of his Argument Pattern (TA P) has provided a framework through which researchers have evaluated argument structure (Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Thoron, 2010) The TAP focuses on argument structure rather than on content (Callahan, 2009), and ranks arguments based on their inclusion of da ta, a claim, warrants, backing, and rebuttals (Toulmin, 1958), and has been utilized as a primary tool in measuring the development of argumentation skills in education

PAGE 97

97 I n their 2003 study, Dori et al operationalized higher order thinking skills as were measured before and after they engaged in an SSI based module focusing on biotechnology and genetic engineering, and were analyzed based on student academic level. All students improved in their argumentation skills, averaging an increase in argument s from pre to posttest of 1.74. Arguments were found to relate with medical aspects, social aspects, and moral aspects most often. Zohar and based Genetic entation skills through an experimental approach. Students in the experimental group, which engaged in the unit through the Genetic Revolution material, and those in the comparison group, which engaged in the same genetic principles through a traditional t extbook approach, were both assessed through analysis of discussions, products developed during the classes, form an argument consisting of argument formulation, argument al ternatives, and rebuttals, along with justification of each. Results indicated that, while students in both groups had similar pretest scores, students in the experimental group significantly improved in their argumentation skills while those in the compar ison group experienced no increase in argumentation score from pretest to posttest. Response analysis also indicated that those in the experimental group were able to transfer their argumentation skills to contexts outside of the genetics dilemmas.

PAGE 98

98 Jimene z Aleixandre et al (2000) examined the argumentation skills of one ninth grade class in Spain during six sessions, two of which were SSI based. Arguments were analyzed according to the argumentative operations and epistemic operations related to the deve lopment of scientific knowledge. Using TAP the authors analyzed arguments for their data, claims, warrants to justify the connection between data and claims, warrants related to theories, qualifiers which state conditions of the claim, and rebuttals, whic h state conditions for discarding the claim. Epistemic operations were analyzed according a framework developed from other fields and scientific philosophy, and included induction, deduction, causality, definition, classification, use of appeals as explana tion, consistency, and plausibility. Qualitative analysis indicated that student constructed arguments, they also experienced unbalanced pa rticipation, wherein certain group members contributed the majority of the argument components. In all discussion, claims were the most frequently used aspects of arguments. Epistemic operations identified in student discussions included causality most oft en, in addition to analogies. Tal and Hochberg (2003) assessed the argumentation skills of ninth grade Israeli students through the use of pre and post open ended, case based questionnaires, portfolios, and classroom observations. Although not analyzed qua ntitatively, the test arguments were longer, included more and better structured justifications, incorporated more knowledge consideration In an experimental study examining the impact of an SSI based unit on eighth grad e student argumentation skills, Osborne et al

PAGE 99

99 discussions using TAP The experimental group was taught argumentation skills through consideration of whether a new zoo should be built while the comparison group was taught argumen tation skills in a scientific context. Each of the six teachers was responsible for teaching one experimental and one comparison class. Results indicated that students in the experimental group engaged in more argumentative discourse than those in the comp context is harder and more demanding both for students and their teachers, whose arguments, res ults indicated that while the shift was not statistically significant, students in the experimental group did exhibit an increase in their use of higher quality arguments. However, the difference in levels of argumentation between the experimental group an d the comparison group was significant, with those in the experimental group exhibiting higher quality arguments after their lessons than those exhibited by the comparison group. Sadler and Fowler (2006) identified several limitations to TAP methodologies in SSI based education research, despite its routine use The main limitation of scoring icky, leaving the reliability of TAP The authors stated that while some researchers have overcome this problem by grouping problematic categories together and focusing on rebuttals, this method is only useful in evaluating group discussions In a study examining the SSI based argumentation skills of high schoo l and college students, Sadler and Fowler (2006) developed an

PAGE 100

100 Similar to the TAP, the rubric evaluated argument structure, but focused on claim justification, Analysis of student arguments using the Argumentation Quality Rubric resulted in a statistically significan t difference between groups; argumentation scores were significantly higher for science majors than for high school students or nonscience majors Questioning skill Dori and varying academic levels of tenth grade Israeli students before and after an SSI based module on air quality was conducted through researcher developed pretests and to read a case questions posed, the orientation of each question, and the complexity of each question. Orientations incl uded a phenomenon and/or problem description, hazards related to the problem, and treatment and/or solution. Question complexity was measured according to its relation to the case study, as well as aspects of higher order thinking skills and problem solvin g criteria. The authors found a statistically significant increase in questioning posing capabilities in all three academic groups between the pretest and posttest. Student Judgment of Evidence grade No rwegian students made decisions with regard to the trustworthiness of information and knowledge claims when considering SSIs, specifically that which approaches the link between power lines

PAGE 101

101 extent to which information and knowledge claims were seen as sufficiently reliable for inclusion in the after students read newspaper articles, research reports, and docum ents focusing on untered by students were aspects that made decision making more difficult, and included disagreement among researchers, levels of research quality, and the potential for researcher bias. Resolution strategies that allowed students to make decisions in ligh t of these problems included the immediate acceptance of specific knowledge claims, evaluation of the content of statements using reliability indicators and autonomous evaluation, acceptance of authority related to researcher confidence and confidence in o ther individuals and groups, and evaluation of authorities based on their opinions of risk, their self serving interests, their level of neutrality, and their perception of competence Informal reasoning Using both quantitative and qualitativ e methods, Ea stwood et al (2011) compared the reasoning abilities of sophomore and senior students enrolled in a four year university program centered around SSI based education to those of biology majors at the same academic levels. Using a modified scale for argume nt analysis and a as whether students explained an underlying reason or mechanism for their

PAGE 102

102 justifications. Results indicated that while both groups of students cited similar factors as contributing to their reasoning, students from the SSI based program cited more factors as contributing to their decisions than the group of biology majors Quantitative analysis displayed a significant difference between reasoning scores of the two majors. The results of reasoning between the two groups differed, as biology majors were more likely to support limits on carbon emissions, which is a commonly o ffered solution to issues of global warming, while SSI based program students were more likely to offer e problem [of global reasoning scores quantitatively, scores were found to be significantly higher for SSI students. Socioscientific reasoning Barab et al (2007) examined socioscientific reasoning during their experiences with Quest Atlantis through student products created during the socioscientific balancing of ecological and e conomic concerns, presentation of strengths and weaknesses, consideration of scientific data, and consideration of multiple lines of evidence. Alternatively, they also found evidence of weaknesses in socioscientific reasoning through inconsistencies betwee n conclusions and solutions, inaccurate scientific assumptions, and underestimations of social impacts. Sadler et al socioscientific reasoning abilities before and after the implementation of a SSI based unit on global climate change in high school environmental science and chemistry classes. A researcher developed rubric

PAGE 103

103 characterized student responses into five different levels of reasoning, the lowest signifying that the student feels no additional inquiry in necessary and th e highest level signifying that additional inquiry is needed in at least three areas. Results indicated that there were no statically significant differences between the pretest and posttest scores of socioscientific reasoning, leading the authors to recom mend that further research be conducted to determine the variable aspects of SSI based instruction that could cause change in student socioscientific reasoning. Reflective thinking Reflective thinking skills are a component of higher order thinking skills and require students to weigh consequences of potential problem s olutions (Tal & Hochberg, 2003) Tal and Hochberg (2003) examined the impact of a WISE module focusing on malaria on the reflective thinking skills of ninth grade Israeli students. The author arguments according to their incorporation of suggestions, ideas, hypotheses, explanations, feelings, and personal views Qualitative analysis revealed that students had not had the opportunity to discuss their feelings in science class previously. Five dimensions of reflective thinking were revea led through student responses: (a ) affective, which ) social, which focused on social aspects of the dilem ma; (c ) cognitive, which focused on the identification of a social need, criticism, an d the suggestion of solutions; (d ) affective social, which focused on the connections between personal feelings and t he difficulties of others; and (e ) cognitive social, which focused on a desire to find a culture related solution. While cognitive social reflection was evident less often than any of the five other dimensions, the authors attributed this to the short scope of the project. Responses also revealed that more c orrect

PAGE 104

104 statements, as well as more statements in cognitive and cognitive social dimensions were expressed toward the end of the project, implying that exposure to the SSI module enabled students to reflect more holistically as time progressed Problem sol ving Us ing a four stage analysis, Tal and Hochberg (2003) assessed ninth grade Israeli based SSI unit focusing on the spread of malaria. The problem o you coherent description of the problem, evaluate alternatives, and suggest a rational/valid the student provided a partial description, incorrect information, irrational, or unpractical solution. At the high level, the student provided a co rrect and supported description of the problem; formulated a creative or innovative solution, or synthesized existing solutions. Results indicated that high complexity solutions were much more common than those of low complexity at each of the four stages of problem solving. The highest skills were found in describing the problem coherently and in evaluating supplied cause of these high skill categories, and suggest that answers were already there, so I did not have to bother too much to come up with my

PAGE 105

105 Scientific inquiry The stud y by Barab et al (2007) investigat ed Quest Atlantis and guided student inquiry through the initial presentation of a problem, forced consideration of the p experience was not simply a scientific process, but one that was very social and involve d understanding people. We would argue that this framing, in part, turned the experience from a purely scientific one to a lived experience that deeply engaged the Summary The goal of Chapter 2 was to provide the theoretical and conceptual frameworks which guided the overall stud y. Also included in Chapter 2 was a review of the salient research pertaining to the various aspects of the conceptual framework guiding this study. The literature review focus ed on teacher formative and training experiences and properties that impact SSI based education, student formative experiences and properties that impact their learning during SSI based instruction, the types of experiences had by students during SSI based instruction, and the short term outcomes of SSI based instruction. Studies have largely focused on the immediate outcomes of SSI based education due to its relatively short history in educational practice. Design elements include d a variety of SSIs, inclu ding those that are related to the environment, health, genetics, and animals. These SSI units have been incorporated into a variety of science subjects at a range of grade levels, yet have not been implemented outside the realm of science

PAGE 106

106 classes. Outcome s of SSI based instruction have included increases and improvement in a variety of aspects related to scientific literacy, including science content knowledge, argumentation skills, views of the NOS student interest, creativity, and higher order thinking skills such as questioning, reasoning, inquiry, problem solving, reflective thinking, and judgment of evidence. While these outcomes have offered promising results indicating the po tential benefits of SSI based education, implementation into agricultural education will require an understanding of the presage variables impacting the instruction, such as teacher formative and training experience s and perceptions regarding SSI based instruction. These variables ha ve rarely been the focus of SSI based educatio n research; the few studies examining them hint ed that teachers appreciate the value of SSI based instruction but may experience barriers that hinder their abilities to successfully incorporate SSI based instruction into their classes.

PAGE 107

107 Design Elements Learner Experiences Classroom Environment Teacher Attributes F igure 2 1 Model of the Experiential Learning Process (Kolb, 1984). Figure 2 2. Framework for SSI Based Education (Sadler, 2011).

PAGE 108

108 Figure 2 3. A model for the study of classroom teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) Figure 2 4. Conceptual Model of SSI based Instruction Design Elements Teacher Attributes Learner Exp eriences Classroom Environment RO Process Variables Classroom Presage Variable s Context Variables Product Variables Teacher Formative Experiences Teacher Training Experiences Teacher Properties Pupil Formative Ex periences Pupil Properties Immediate Pupil Growth Long Term Pupil Effects School and Community Contexts Classroom Contexts CE AC AE Pr ocess Variables Classr oom Classroom Presage Variabl es Context Variabl es Product Variables Teacher Formative Experiences Teacher Training Experiences Teacher Properties Pupil Formative Experiences Pupil Properties Teacher Observa ble Changes in Pupil Classroom Behavior Behavior Immediate Pupil Growth Long Term Pupil Effects School and Community Contexts Classroom Contexts

PAGE 109

109 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 explained the need for the development of scientific literacy among high school agriculture students, as well as introduced socioscientific i ssues ( SSI ) based The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of SSI based instruction on student content knowledge achievement, argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and views of the nature of science ( NOS ) Chapter 2 Theories guiding this study were constructivism, experie ntial learning, and problem solving as well as A review of the literature aligning with t mework focused on teacher, student and context ual aspects that influence SSI based instruction, the design aspects of SSI based instruction, and student gains in knowledge, argumentation, interest in science, reasoning skills, views of the NOS and problem solving ability as a result of SSI based instruction. Chapter 3 In doing so, the chapter provides information on the research design, procedures, population and sample, intervention, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and methods of data analysis. The chapter also distinguishes between the designed procedures of the study and those that were practiced during the study, as the social

PAGE 110

110 nature of this study resulted in some pract ices which deviated from those originally designed. Population and Sample Florida secondary agriscience students The sampling frame consisted of students of a convenience sample of Florida agriscience teachers Teachers had to b e teaching at least one Agriscience Foundations class during the 2011 2012 year These classes could be at the middle or high school level, and could consist of students in eighth through twelfth grades. The student sample size was calculated according to calculating a sample size resulting in practical and statistical significance, while avoiding significance due to inflated sample size: n = 2[Z (1 Z ] 2 2 This formula was used to achieve an alpha level of .05, achieve a p ower of .90, and detect variance associated with the independent variable at a level greater than .10 ( Hays, 1973 ) The formula utilizes the z score for the desired alpha level (Z (1 ), that for the desired power ( Z ), and the effect size in units of st determine the sample size The effect size in units of standard deviation is calculated via the following formula: w 2 w 2 ) In this formula, the amount of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the indepen dent variable ( w 2 ) is utilized to calculate effect size in standard deviation units .10)] = .66 n = 2[1.96 ( 1.64)] 2 / .66 2 = 59.5

PAGE 111

111 Thoron (2010) noted t 50 % (Boone, 1988; Dyer, 1995; Flowers, 1986, & Myers, 2004) Therefore, the calculated sample size ( n = 60) was doubled ( n = 120) An esti mate of 12 students per class has been utilized in similar previous studies involving intact classes of agriscience students (Thoron, 2010), and was therefore deemed appropriate for this study These calculations resulted in a tea cher sample size of 10. T eachers were recruited via convenience sampling methods. Those teachers participating in the Florida Association of Agricultural Educators Summer Conference and regional FFA Chapter Officer Leadership Conferences were recruited to attend training sessions related to the study. The teachers attending the summer conference were offered an in person training session, while those attending the leadership conferences attended one of four online training sessions. Research Design and Procedures This study utilize d a pre experimental, single group pretest posttest design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), illustrated below O 1 X O 2 Because of the theory building nature of this study, a true experimental or quasi experimental design was not deemed appropriate Theory buil 2000, p. 161), is guided in design by the nature and development of the theo ry rather While single group pretest posttest designs are susceptible to numerous threats to internal validity, the use

PAGE 112

112 of a control group to compare the effect of the intervention to other interventions (including no intervention) was deemed preemptive, as SSI based instruction use has not yet been documented in agricultural education Designed Procedures The first observation consisted of a series of pretests administered to students to d etermine baseline content knowledge, argumentation skills, views of the NOS and scientific reasoning ability Following the treatment, the second observation consisted of posttests measuring the same items Student content knowledge was measured at interv als throughout the treatment O CkPreAg O SRPre O ArgPre O NoSPre O PreFS X FS O CkPostFS O CkPreEc X Ec O CkPostEc O CkPreEnv X Env O CkPostEnv O CkPreAn X An O CkPostAn O CkPostAg O SRPost O ArgPost O NoSPost Key: Pre Pretest Post Posttest Ck Content Knowledge Assessment SR Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) Arg Argumentation Nos NOS X Treatment Ag Overall Agriscience Content FS Food Safety ( 6 lessons) Ec Economic Aspects (1 1 lessons) Env Environmental Aspects (11 lessons) An Animal Industry (1 7 lessons) During the first observation, students were administered pretests that measured their overall agriscience content knowledge (O CkPreAg ) scientif ic reasoning ability (O SRPre ), argumentation skills (O ArgPre ), and views of the NOS (O NoSPre ) Their knowledge of food safety was also assessed (O PreFS ) to provide baseline content knowledge data prior to the first treatment unit, Food Safety Students the n experienced the Food Safety

PAGE 113

113 treatment unit (X FS ) knowledge gains in agriscience co ntent related to food safety were measured through a Food Safety posttest (O CkPostFS ) Students were then asses sed on baseline knowledge of agriscience content related to economics through the unit pretest (O CkPreEc ) This cycle of pretesting, treatment, and posttesting was repeated through each of the study units The final observation consisted of posttests to me content knowledge related to animal science, overall agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skill, and views of the NOS Practiced Procedures ng to the designed order, teachers were unable to deliver all lessons to students during the practiced duration of 14 weeks. O CkPreAg O SRPre O ArgPre O NoSPre O PreFS X FS O CkPostFS O CkPreEc X Ec O CkPostEc O CkPreEn v X Env O CkPostEnv O CkPostAg O SRPost O ArgPost O NoSPost All teachers completed the Food Safety, Economic Impacts, and Environmental Impacts units, and no teachers conducted any lessons in the Animal Industry unit. Therefore, pretests and posttests aligned with t he Animal Industry unit were not administered. Additionally, items on the distal content knowledge assessment aligning with the Animal Industry unit were removed. Threats to Internal Validity As mentioned previously, the single group pretest posttest design is susceptible to numerous internal validity threats Campbell and Stanley (1963) identified five threats uncontr olled by this design: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and interaction

PAGE 114

114 of selection and other threats The use of multiple classrooms reduces the threat of occurring within a classroom Historical events with broader geographical impact remained a threat in this study although no events are known to have occur r ed The threa t of maturation was reduced in this study through the selection of a class subject containing a range of student ages, as students did not experience similar maturation based on age Instrumentation m not a threat to the assessments, as they remained identical between the pretest and posttest Finally, interaction of selection and other threats was reduced through the use of multiple classes and the collection of covariate data in order to control for differences between classes Additional threats associated with the study included teacher variables that could potentially impact observed outcomes (Thoron, 2010) This study examined the impact o f an instructional model in more than one classroom, administered by different teachers, thereby controlling for individual teacher differences Fidelity of treatment was established through a professional development session to train teachers in the use o f the intervention (Boone, 1988 ; Hennessey & Rumrill, 2003 ) The session introduced teachers to SSI based instruction, explained the components of SSI based instruction and differences between SSI based instruction and subject matter based instruction Dif ferences between the two types of instruction enabled teachers to focus on how their behavior, teaching style, and classroom management may differ Teachers were also

PAGE 115

115 Fi intervention, which was the production of lab oratory grown meat as a food source Lesson plans were also designed to increase fidelity of treatment by providing easy to access rec ourses and instructions and recommending specified lengths of time for each classroom activity (Lane, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham, 2004) ) The lesson plans, their content, and their strategies were reviewed by a panel of experts in agricultural and science education and were deemed to be appropriate for use in teaching Agriscience Foundations standards and in teaching through SSI based ins tructional methods Finally, the selection of a convenience sample was considered a threat in this study, and generalization of the findings was limited. However, because of the theory building nature of the study, the ability to make generalizations was not considered a primary goal of the research Designed measures to reduce validity threats Teachers were provided with audio recorders and instructions to record each class s ession so a random selection of 25% of the recordings could be analyzed to furth er ensure treatment fidelity (Thoron, 2010) Recordings were to be analyzed by the researcher according to the number of practiced activities that aligned with those provided in the lesson plans. All lessons with 80% alignment were to be deemed to be accep ta ble, and teachers with 90% of their lessons meeting accept able alignment wer e to be included in the study.

PAGE 116

116 During training sessions, teachers were informed of their responsibility to supply the researcher with daily attendance records so tha t students missing over 25% of the instructional time could be removed from the study, as has been recommended in studies of a similar nature (Thoron, 2010). Practiced measures to reduce validity threats A fter weekly reminders in both electronic format an d via telephone contacts, teachers failed to consistently record their classes, citing forgetfulness and technical difficulties as justification. Therefore, recordings could not be utilized to ensure fidelity of treatment. Informal conversations with teach ers during routine contacts and the production of student wo rk required by the lessons implied that teachers fol lowed lesson plans as designed; however, the threat of treatment fidelity was not able to be reduced through measures for monitoring practice in this study. A fter repeated contacts and reminders, teachers also failed to consistently share attendance records. The inability to adjust mortality rate to account for those receiving less than 75% of the instruction is considered a limitation in this stu dy. Intervention The intervention for this study consisted of lessons which taught agriscience content through an SSI context The segment was broken down into five instructional units, each examining the SSI from a different perspective : ( a) food safety, ( b) economic impacts ( c) environmental impacts ( d) the animal industry and ( e) introduction of cultured meat Designed Duration Forty five lesson plans were developed t o accommodate 45 minute classes, leading to a total of nine weeks of lessons. Teache rs teaching on block schedules were

PAGE 117

117 instructed to utilize two lessons per class period, resulting in the same amount of instructional time in all classrooms being devoted to the lessons. Because of both previously known events attended by most secondary ag riscience teachers, such as National FFA Convention, and potential unforeseen circumstances occurring at the various schools, teachers were instructed to complete the nine weeks of lesson plans in a 12 week time period. Practiced Duration Teachers were con tacted on at least a weekly basis via email or telephone, with teachers that appeared to be struggling or unable to be reached being contacted more frequently. Toward the conclusion of the 12 week time period during which teachers were to deliver all 45 lessons, all teachers participating in the study requested more time to complete their lesson plans. In an effort to conclude the study with as much data as possible, teachers were granted two additional instructional weeks, resulting in a final study duration of 14 weeks. Instructional Plans All instructional plans (Appendix A ) were developed according to recommended practices of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), SSI based instruction (Sadler, 2011), and inquiry based instruction (NRC, 2000) Plans were evaluat ed for content validity by a panel of experts in agricultural education, experiential learning, inquiry based instruction, and SSI Agricultu ral Education and Communication and Sch ool of Teach ing and Learning Lessons were accompanied by unit guidelines that included all content intended to be taught in the lessons (Appendix B).

PAGE 118

118 S ocioscientific issue SSI was operationalized for this study as the inclusion of lab grown meat into the foo d source This SSI selected for this nine week instructional component was chosen with consideration of recommended aspects of SSIs By definition, SSIs should confront students with situations in which scientists are seen not to be in agreement (Albe, 200 8) Sadler (2004) recommended that appropriate SSIs be selected based on ended, often contentious dilemma Societal issues focusing on genetic engineering have been utilized in numerous studies examining the use of SSI based instruction (Dori et al 2003; Jiminez Aleixandre et al 2000; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), and was chosen as the overarching SSI area according to its connection with Agriscience Foundations Student Performance Standards Designed i nstructional u nits The instructional units were developed by the researcher and reviewed by a pane l of experts in both agricultural education and SSI based instruction The content was selected based on 22 Student Performance Standards list ed for Agriscience Foundations by the Florida Department of Education The researcher then grouped these standards by topic and selected content appropriate for the grade level of the students, the course description, the purposes of agricultural education, and the context of a specific SSI Five individual units were created according to the groupings of Student Per formance Standards and their rel ationship to the SSI (Appendix C ) Four of the units were taught in consecutive order for specific lengths of time appropriate to their included

PAGE 119

119 content and the content they had learned thus far, and lessons from this unit were dispersed throug hout the other units (Appendix D ) Individual lessons were designed to require 45 minutes of instructional time Teachers were given permission to adjust the recomme nded duration Practiced instructional units Based on student differences and the time constraints of the study, no teachers were able to complete all of the 45 lessons provid ed. Students were exposed to 34, 35, indicated that students were exposed to four of the fiv e units; no student was exposed to lessons from the Animal Industry unit. Lesson Procedures Lessons each began with an interest approach that lasted b etween five and 10 minutes Interest approaches were designed in a manner that allowed students to become lesson, and understand the relevance of the topic in their lives The interest approaches were each supplemented with guiding questions to aid the teacher in the stimulation of app ropriate discussion For example, the first lesson of the Food Safety unit began with webpage begin ning of the school year? What are some common reasons listed for the foods being recalled?

PAGE 120

120 Following the interest approach, the lessons were broken up into one to three learning activit ies ranging in duration from 35 to 35 minutes Activities were designed to introduce students to new concepts, enable reflection about the concepts, allow for practice and application, and encourage decision making Guiding questions supplemented each learning activity to guide appropriate discussion Each lesson plan activity was accompanied by a brief content outline to aid the teacher in adhering to specific content intended to be included in the lesson Th e first day of the Food Safety u nit included a learning activi ty that required students to make decisions about the legitimacy of public safety concerns while they learned about food safety concerns in history justified/unjustified? Why do you think people are concerned if the concern is Upon the conclusion of the learning activities, each lesson ended with a summary activity lasting between five and 15 minutes These activities were designed to review new concepts, encourage reflection, and require decision making by the students For the evaluation of a list of genetically modified organism benefits and drawbacks Students were instructed to indica te whether they thought each ge netically modified organism was more beneficial or detrimental to society based on their listed benefits and drawbacks, which were introduced during the lesson Students defended their choices, and submitted their arguments to the teacher. Each lesson plan also included a section that detailed the evaluation methods of the lesson to aid teachers in assessing students on their knowledge The lessons also

PAGE 121

121 included a section that stated any items to be turned in to the researcher to ease the teacher burden of identifying items to be returned. All supplemental materials, including powerpoints, notes, and worksheets, accompanied each lesson plan Instrumentation Researcher unit specific agriscience content knowledge Argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and views of the NOS were measured through the Argumentation Quality Rubric (Lawson, 1978 as supplied in Thoron, 20 10 ), and the Views on Science and Education Questionnaire (VOSE) (Chen, 2006) Content Knowledge Achievement Assessment Instrument Student agriscience content knowledge was measured through the use of proximal assessments, treatment. Designed assessments F our unit specific assessments were developed by the researcher to align with each of the four consecutive units taught during the treatment : ( a) Food Safety ( b) Economic Impacts ( c) Environmental Impacts, and ( d) the Animal Industry All tests were s imilar in design and difficulty The unit specific assessment s consisted of items appearing on the Florida Agritechnology Industry Certification Exam which aligned with the standards utilized for the intervention (Table 3 1) These were supplemented with researcher developed questions to adequately assess each standard Content kn owledge of the standards from the Animal Industry unit, consisting of three weeks of

PAGE 122

122 lessons, was intended to be assessed with 30 items, while each of the other units, consisting of one or two weeks of lesson plans, was assessed with 20 items. The distal assessment was constructed with questions from the unit assessments, and consisted of 10 items per unit for a total for 40 items. The students were assessed using pretests and posttests, which were identical (Appendix E ) ; students did not receive feedback on their performance on the pretests before taking the posttests. Content and face validity were established through an expert panel of faculty members A pilot test was conducted utilizing 15 University of Florida juniors in Agricultural Education to establish reliability. Analysis of the items resulted in the following Kuder Richardson 20 scores, which is appropriate for dichotomous data (Huck, 2008): Food Safety: .61 Ec onomic Impacts: .37 Environmental Impacts: .60 Animal Industry: .65 Removal of identified questions resulted in the following Kuder Richardson 20 scores which is appropriate for dichotomous data (Huck, 2008) : Food Safety: .77 Economic Impacts: .66 Enviro nmental Impacts: .72 Animal Industry: .77 Practiced assessments Because no students were exposed to lessons from the Animal Industry unit, the Animal Industry pretest and posttest w ere not utilized in this study. Further, all items on the distal assessmen t aligning with the Animal Industry unit were removed, as students

PAGE 123

123 were not exposed to this content. This removal of items resulted in a 30 item distal assessment. ssessed before and after the st of Scientific Reasoning (1978 operational scientific reasoning in secondary and colleg e p. 98) Through the use of 24 questions that require higher order thinking, the LCTSR Validity was established for the original version of the LCTSR (Lawson, 1978) thr ough review of an expert panel, who established that the test items require students to utilize formal reasoning skills During to establish reliability. Because the in strument was designed for post secondary students, the developer also established reliability for grade levels 8, 9, and 10 through a Kuder Richardson 20 calculation, which was reported as .78 (Lawson, 1978). A multiple choice v ersion of the test written b y Lawson (1978) and provided in Thoron (2010) was utilized via paper and pencil administ ration in this study (Appendix F ) Student responses were scored by the researcher through the use of an answer key developed by Lawson. Argumentation Quality Rubric S Rubric (Appendix G ) (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) This rubric was developed for use with students experiencing SSI based Argumentation Rubri c (TAP) (1958) found in similar studies The Argumentation Quality

PAGE 124

124 Rubric overcomes difficulties in categorizing claims, warrants and backings by focusing strictly on the justification of claims, which is critically important to argumentation (Sadler & Fow ler, 2006) Reliability of the rubric was established by Sadler & Fowler (2006) through the use of multiple scorers, which resulted in an inter rater consistency above .9 In the current study, s tudents responded to researcher developed scenarios directly related to th e intervent ) in a paper based op en response format for a pretest and posttest Face and content validity of the scenarios were established through review by an expert panel consisting of faculty members and graduate assistants Agricultural Edu cation and Communication and School of Teaching and Learning Inter rater reliability of response scores was calculated through the use of multiple scorers Education and Co mmunication The primary researcher individually scored each scenario response, and scores on 10% of the responses were analyzed and confirmed Guba, 1985). Views on Science and Education Questionnaire were assessed via pretests and posttests using the VOSE (Appendix I ) (Chen, 2006) This assessment was developed in an effort to overcome limitations by previous quantitative instruments measuring views o f NOS, which forced students to choose between overly generalized, expert produced responses that did not fully encompass all possible viewpoints of NOS (Chen, 2006) These limitations of

PAGE 125

125 previous instruments have caused many researchers to examine views o f NOS through qualitative methods, which reduce researcher objectivity and require participants to fully articulate their views in a limited amount of time (Chen, 2006) The VOSE includes items developed through empirical means rather than from expert reco mmendations, includes Likert type scales for each of the items, and is written in the context of NOS issues taken from a review of literature The VOSE measures stude nt views on seven NOS aspects: (a ) tentativ eness of scientific knowledge; (b ) ob servations are theory laden; (c) varying scientific methods; (d ) the differences between h ypotheses, laws, and theories; (e ) imagination is u sed when generating scientific knowledge; (f ) validatio n of scientific knowledge; and (g ) objectivity and subjectivity in sci ence Content validity was two separate expert panels and interviews with students to verify item clarity Based on fied the English version of the assessment to include language appropriate for American high school students, and established face and content validity through a panel of experts consisting of faculty members and research assistants in the University of Fl Department of Agricultu ral Education and Communication Test retest reliability was established by the developer with a coefficient of .82. Because of the empirical nature of the instrument, the establishment of internal consistency reliability was not appropriate (Chen, 2006). Chen (2 006) recommend ed that the research er analyze data according to the views thought to be superior in the study. Recommendations state d that item responses can be coded in a straight forward fashion or in reverse. Because thi s study did not

PAGE 126

126 explicitly instruct students on superior or inferior views of the nature of science, responses are reported in descriptive fashion and were not coded or indexed. Data Analysis Data were analyzed through SPSS version 20 Data corresponding t o each objective were analyzed through the use of paired samples t tests, which has been deemed appropriate for use in measuring the gains of a group between two tests administrations (Agresti & Findlay, 2009) For the analysis of content knowledge gains, each unit test and the overall test were analyzed separately, as each test includes a pretest and posttest administration Scores were also analyzed based on school level to determine differences between middle school and high school students. The effect s izes of any statistically significant values were calculated and interpreted according to d Summary Chapter 3 detailed the methods utilized in this study through a reporting of the research design and procedures, methods of addressing threats to v alidity and fidelity, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection instruments and procedures, and data analysis Foundations classes The intervention was a nine week unit utilizing SSI based instruction knowledge, argumentation skills, scientific reasoning ability, and views of the NOS Both presage variables and context variables were consid ered antecedent variables and were therefore treated as static attributes.

PAGE 127

127 The study employed a pre experimental, single group, pretest posttest design, which was deemed appropriate due to the theory building nature of the study The population of the st udy consisted of Florida agriscience students Students were accessible through their Agriscience Foundations classes; Agriscience Foundations teachers were recruited through convenience sampling Students in ten classes experienced the treatment, which co nsisted of a nine week unit in the context of an SSI food supply Student gains as a result of the intervention were calculated through the use of pretests and posttest s measuring each of the four dependent variables Agriscience content knowledge was measured through researcher developed instruments, argumentation skill was measured through the Argumentation Quality Rubric, scientific reasoning ability was measured thro Reasoning, and views of the NOS were measured through the Views of Science and Education Questionnaire Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and included the calculation of means, frequencies, standard deviations, and dependent samples t tests.

PAGE 128

128 Table 3 1. Lesson and assessment specifications Lesson#/ Objective# Standard % Unit Instructional Time % of Unit Assessment Questions Food Safety Unit 1.1 1.04 8 15 8, 18, 19 1.2 3.08 5 15 4, 13, 14 1.3 3.08 11 20 1, 17, 3, 5 2.1 4.04 14 10 6, 12 2.2 2.03, 6.05 11 15 11, 7, 20 3.1 6.05 11 10 2, 10 3.2 2.03 14 Arg Arg 4.1 All 8 All All 4.2 All 15 Arg Arg Economic Impacts Unit 1.1 1.02, 6.01 4 5 5 1.2 3.06 2 2.1 3.06 6 Arg Arg 2.2 1.02 6.01 4 5 19 3.1 1.02, 6.01 3 5 1 3.2 6.07 4 15 6, 9, 20 3.3 1.02, 6.01 3 15 8, 10, 11 4.1 1.02, 6.01 2 10 7, 14 4.2 6.07 7 15 2, 12, 13 4.3 6.01, 6.08 1 SSI SSI 5.1 1.2, 6.01 4 5 15 5.2 3.06 6 Arg Arg 6.1 1.02, 6.01 3 5 16 6.2 1.02, 6.01 2 5 17 6.3 3.06 5 5 18 7.1 3.06 7 Arg Arg 7.2 1.02, 6.01 3 Arg Arg 8.1 1.02, 6.01 6 5 3 8.2 6.07, 6.08 4 5 4 9.1 1.02, 6.01 2 SSI SSI 9.2 6.01, 6.07 6 SSI SSI 10.1 A ll 4 All All 10.2 1.02, 3.06, 6.01 6 SSI SSI Environmental Impacts Unit 1.1 1.04 4 5 5 1.2 4.03 2 5 4 2.1 1.04, 4.05 4 5 12 2.2 4.03 6 3.1 1.04, 4.05 3 5 13

PAGE 129

129 Table 3 1. Continued Lesson#/ Objective# Standard % Unit Instructional Time % of Unit Assessment Questions 3.2 4.03, 4.05 7 10 14, 17 4.1 1.04 3 10 15, 16 4.2 1.04, 4.03 7 10 6, 7 5.1 1.04, 4.03 6 5.2 4.03 3 6.1 2.03, 6.02 6 10 2, 3 6.2 2.03, 6.02 4 7.1 1.04, 4.03 8 7.2 1.04, 4.03 2 Arg Arg 8.1 4.04 6 10 1, 19 8.2 1.04, 4.03 4 5 18 9.1 1.04, 4.02, 4.03 6 10 8, 11 9.2 1.04, 4.02, 4.03 4 & 10.1 A ll 4 All All 10.2 A ll 6 SSI SSI Animal Industry Unit 1.1 3.07 1 3 30 1.2 3.07, 6.04 3 SSI SSI 2.1 3.07, 6.04 3 SSI SSI 2.2 3.07 2 SSI SSI 2.3 3.07 1 SSI SSI 3.1 6.02, 6.03 4 7 11, 13 3.1 6.02, 6.03 3 3 9 4.1 6.02, 6.03 2 7 24, 25 4.2 6.03, 6 .04 1 3 21 4.3 6.02 3 SSI SSI 5.1 3.03, 6.04 4 5.2 3.07 2 SSI SSI 6.1 3.03 3 6.2 3.03 4 7 18, 14 7.1 3.03 5 3 16 7.2 3.04 1 8.1 3.03, 3.04 5 7 17, 26 8.2 3.03, 3.04 1 SSI SSI 9.1 3.03, 3.04, 3.07 5 9.2 3.03, 3.04, 3.07 1 10. 1 3.07 2 3 19 10.2 6.02, 6.03, 6.04 4 3 29 11.1 3.07, 6.03 3 7 20, 27 11.2 3.07 4 3 28

PAGE 130

130 Table 3 1. Continued Lesson#/ Objective# Standard % Unit Instructional Time % of Unit Assessment Questions 12.1 6.02, 6.03, 6.04 3 13 2, 3, 4, 7 12.2 3.07 4 13.1 6.06 3 10 1, 5, 21 13.2 6.06 4 10 10, 12, 22 14.1 6.06 3 3 8 14.2 6.06 4 SSI SSI 15.1 A ll 3 All All 15.2 A ll 4 SSI SSI Note. SSI = objectives pertaining to SSI; = objectives with content repeated from previous lessons; All = objectives pertain ing to the entire unit ; Arg = objectives pertaining to the development of argumentation skills

PAGE 131

131 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 scientific literacy through problem based teaching methods This study aimed t o determine the impact of a socioscientific issues (SSI) based instructional unit on student agriculture content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skill, and views of the nature of science ( NOS ) The purpose of Chapter 2 was to provide a theoretical and conceptual framework through which the study was developed. Theoretical underpinnings of the study included constructivism, experiential learning, problem solving, and SSI based instruction. A review of literature included in Chapter 2 examined studies focusing on the presage, context, process and product variables impacting student learning during SSI based instruction. Chapter 3 detailed the methods through which the study was conducted. Using a convenience sample secondary agriculture students enrolled in Agriscience Foundations a pre expe rimental single group pretest posttest design incorporated a nine week SSI based instructional unit into Agriscience Foundations classes. Data was collected through four separate instruments and analyzed through the use of paired samples t tests and descr iptive statistics. Findings of the study are presented in Chapter 4 and hypotheses, results regarding the impact of the SSI based instructional unit on argumentation skills, and views of the NOS are reported.

PAGE 132

132 Sample students ; the accessible population was those students enrolled in an Agriscience Foundations class A convenienc e sample was collected from teachers participating in the Florida Association of Agricultural Educators Summer Conference and regional FFA Chapter Officer Leadership Conferen ces. Approximately 40 teachers attended the training sessions which were provided to inform potential p articipants about the study. Eleven teachers expressed interest in the study and signed consent forms (Appendix J ) leading to a total of 672 students enrolled w ith signed consent forms (Appendix K ) A fter extensive and repeated communication with the rese archer, five teachers asked to be removed from the study after its start due to complications arising during the school year, such as a large number of days out of the classroom, increased responsibilities from administration, and unforeseen time requireme nts while mentoring new fellow teachers. One teacher was removed from the study because of a career change mid semester, and so he was no longer eligible to participate. One teacher was removed from the study after completi ng eight lessons during the 14 week period, which was deemed to participated in the entire study, resulting in 115 total students ( Table 4 1 ) Teacher Demographics Table 4 1 displays demographic informatio n for teachers who remained in the study for its entirety Three of the four teachers were female. The teachers had a range of teaching experience between one and 19 years with all e teachers attended the distance training session while one attended the face to face session. All four of the teachers reported

PAGE 133

133 level of experience with SSI based instr uction was not at all experienced for three teachers and slightly experienced for one teacher. With regard to complementary teaching methods, two teachers reported being very experienced in experiential learning, while one teacher reported being somewhat e xperienced and one reported being not at all experienced. Two teachers reported being very experienced in inquiry based instruction. One teacher reported being neither experienced nor inexperienced in inquiry based instruction, while the fourth reported be ing somewhat experienced. Three teachers reported being somewhat experienced in problem solving instruction, while one reported being neither experienced nor inexperienced. One teacher reported being slightly experienced in SSI based instruction, while the other three teachers reported being not at all experienced. Three of the teachers taught in rural settings, while one taught in an urban setting. Two of the rural settings were high schools, while one middle school was in a rural setting and one was in an urban setting. The teacher in the urban middle school had two Agriscience Foundations classes enrolled in the study, totaling 48 students. The remaining three teachers each had one class participating, with student numbers of 25 (high school), 13 (high sc hool), and 29 (middle school). Student Demographics Table 4 2 displays student demographic data. Eighth grade students made up 67% of the sample ( n = 77), and comprised both classrooms of Teacher A and the classroom of Teacher B. All middle school students were in the 8 th grade. Thirty five

PAGE 134

134 was in 11 th grade and one was in 12 th grade. Ninth gra ders comprised 92% of the high school students. n = 18), while the other had a make up of 43.5% females ( n 37.9% female ( n ale ( n = 10), while females made up 53.8% ( n were female. Response A fter multiple contacts, several teachers failed to send all of the completed instruments. Table 4 2 displays the speci fic assessments each teacher returned, as well as the assessments each student completed. T he number of students reported for each assessment varied. Students were included in each data analysis if they completed a pretest and posttest for that specific instrument; they were not omitted from all data analysis if they were missing a specific pretest or posttest. Teacher A submitted classroom sets of the distal agriscience content, scientific reasoning, argumentation, and views of the NOS pretests, but failed to return posttests for each of these assessments. Therefore, were not included in the data analysis. Teacher A did return both pretests and posttests for each of the three proximal content knowledge assessments, so th each of the proximal exams. Teacher C submitted all proximal pretests and posttests, posttests for distal agriscien ce content knowledge, scientific reasoning, and views of the

PAGE 135

135 B and Teacher D submitted all pretests and posttests; all students who completed the pretests and posttests wer e included in data analysis. Agriscience content was measured through pretests and posttests of overall content knowledge and unit based assessments (Table 4 3 ) Eighty students (69.6 % ) completed the overall content knowledge pretest, while 39 ( 33.9 % ) comp leted the respective posttest leading to a pretest p osttest completion rate of 48.8 % Unit based pretests and posttests were conducted for e One hundred six students (92.2 % ) completed the Food Safety pretest, while 98 (85.2 % ) completed the posttest, resu lting in a pretest posttest completion rate of 92 5 % The Economic Impacts pretest was completed by 109 students (94.8 % ) and the posttest was completed by 102 students (88.7 % ), leading to a 93.6 % pretest posttest completion rat e. Environmental Impacts pretests were administered to 108 students (93.9 % ) while posttests were administered to 99 students (86.1 % ) result ing in a pretest posttest completion rate of 91.7 % Because no teacher was able to begin deliveri ng lessons in the A nimal Industry unit, no related pretests or posttests were administered. The LCTSR pretest was completed by 81 students (70.4 % ) while the p os ttest was completed by 39 students (33.9 % ) leading to a pretest posttest completion rate of 48.1 % The a rgumentat ion pretest was completed by 86 students (74.8 % ) while the posttest was completed by 39 students (33.9 % ) resulting in a pretest posttest completion rate of 45.3 % The VOSE pretest was administered to 78 students (67.8 % ) while the posttest was completed by 37 students (32.2 % ) which resulted in a 47.4 % completion rate. Student responses were removed from analysis in a pairwise fashion so that only gains between pretests and posttests were included in analysis.

PAGE 136

136 A total of 557 students were removed from the study following their initial consent, resulting in a mortality rate of 82.89 % This mortality rate is considerably higher than others that have been reported in previous experimental studies in agricultural education using intact classes (Jurs & Glass, 1 971; Thoron, 2010) reducing the generalizability of this study beyond its participants. Objective One: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Agriscience Content Knowledge nce content knowledge was assessed through pretests and posttests developed by the researcher. Agriscience content knowledge was asses sed distally through a 30 item overall agriscience content knowledge assessment that was administered to the students befo re the intervention began and upon its conclusion, approximately 1 4 was done so through 20 item, unit based pretests and posttests that were administered immediately prior to and following ea Distal A griscience Content Knowledge Overall agriscience content knowledge was assessed through the use of a 3 0 item multiple choice instrument. Only students with both completed pretests and posttests were included in ana lysis, res ulting in data from 40 students. The mean score of the pretest was 1 3.78 ( SD = 3.27 ), while the posttest mean score was 17.70 ( SD = 13.93 ). Pretest and posttest scores were also examined by school level. Table 4 4 displays the mean scores of middle and hig h school students on the distal agriscience content knowledge assessment. While middle school students had a higher mean score on the pretest than high school students, high school students generated a higher mean score on the posttest than middle school s tudents.

PAGE 137

137 Proximal Agriscience Content Knowledge after each unit of instruction, including Food Safety, Economic Impacts, and Environmental Impacts. Each instrument consisted of 20 items. Animal science concepts were not assessed through a pretest or posttest, as no students were exposed to intervention lessons in the Animal Industry unit. Only students completing both pretest and posttest were included in each analysis, resulting in varying numbers of student scores analyzed for each test. Table 4 5 displays mean scores for unit pretests and posttests. Food Safety assessments were collected from 97 students, which resulted in a mean pretest score of 11.24 ( SD = 3.02) and a posttest s core of 13.43 ( SD = 3.04). Economic Impacts assessments were collected from 102 students, resulting in a mean pretest score of 9.76 ( SD = 3.06) and a posttest score of 11.4 0 ( SD = 2.82). Ninety nine students completed pretests and posttests on the Environm ental Impacts unit, resulting in a mean pretest score of 7.41 ( SD = 2.31) and a mean posttest score of 9.46 ( SD = 2.68). Table 4 6 displays the means on pretests and posttests for middle school and high school students for each unit. Both middle and high s chool students generated higher mean scores on the food safety pretest than on any other pretest Additionally, middle and high school students generated higher means on posttests than on pretests for each unit. Middle school student scores resulted in a h igher mean pretest score than that of the high school students on the Food Safety unit assessment. With regard to posttest mean scores, middle school students scored higher than high school students on both the Food Safety and Economic Impacts unit assessm ents.

PAGE 138

138 Objective Two: De termine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Scientific Reasoning A bility of the LCTSR which contains 24 items requiring higher order thinking skills. These items were developed and deemed appropriate to assess formal scientific reasoning. The LCTSR was administered to students before the intervention began and again following the completion of t he intervention lessons. Only students with completed pretests and posttests were included in analysis, which resulted in a sample size of 35. Student scores on the pretest resulted in a mean score of 7.23 ( SD = 2.80) out of a possible 24. Posttest scores resulted in a mean score of 8.77 ( SD = 3.58). Analysis to determine differences between the scientific reasoning scores of middle school and high school students was also conducted. Table 4 7 displays mean scores on pretest and posttest LCTSR s of middle a nd high school students. Both middle to posttest. M = 7.36, SD = 2.74) than ( M = 6.71, SD = 3.20), but high school M = 8.86, SD = 5.18) than middle school students ( M = 8.75, SD = 3.19). Objective Three: D etermine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and Hi gh School Agriculture S tudent Argumentation S kills assessed through the use of a researcher asked to respond to the given scenario befor e intervention lessons began and again scenario responses were evaluated for the number of justifications and the quality of

PAGE 139

139 justification on a five point scale. Mult iple raters were utilized to establish inter rater consistency. SD = .95) (Table 4 8 ). Pretest justification score was 1.67 ( SD = .85). The mean number of justifications decreased t o 2.21 on the posttest ( SD = .97), while the mean justification score increased to 2.40 ( SD = .97). Justification number and quality were analyzed by school level as well. Middle n = 28) mean number of justifications on the pretest was 2 .07 ( SD = n = 30) mean number of pretest justifications was 2.43 ( SD = 1.04) (Table 4 9 1.79 ( SD st justification quality score was 1.57 ( SD = .90). On the pretest middle school students had a lower mean number of justifications, but a higher mean score of justification quality when compared to high school students. On the posttest, middle school stu dents had a mean justification number of 1.86 ( SD = .89), while high school students had a mean justification number of 2.53 ( SD scores on the posttest resulted in a mean score of 1.86 ( SD = .80), while high school posttest scores led to a mean score of 2.90 ( SD = .85). On the posttest, middle school students offered fewer justifications and had lower justification quality than high school students. When comparing means within groups, middle school stude nts offered fewer justifications from pretest to posttest, but wrote justifications of better quality. High school students offered more justification from pretest to posttest, and wrote justifications of higher quality.

PAGE 140

140 Objective Four: Determine the Effec ts of an SS I based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student V iews of the NOS was administered before students were exposed to intervention lessons and again following the completion of the intervention. The VOSE can be scored in different fashions based on the intent of the researcher. B ecause no explicit attempt was made to incorporate NOS instruction in to the intervention, student responses were analyzed d escriptively rather than through the use of summative scores, which implies that some views are more preferred over others (Chen, 2006). Only student with both pretest and posttest scores were included in analysis, leading to a sample size of 35. Whether S cientists Accept Multiple Theories to Explain the S ame P henomenon Items 1A through 1H ask students to consider whether scientists can accept multiple theories to explain the same phenomenon Items 1A and 1B state that scientists can accept multiple theorie s, either because they cannot identify the correct one yet (1A) or because they might both be correct by providing explanations from different perspectives (1B). Items 1C through 1H state that scientists cannot accept multiple theories simultaneously becau se: (1C) scientists accept more familiar theories over less familiar ones; (1D) scientists accept simpler theories over more complex ones; (1E) scientists are influenced by the academic status of people proposing the theories; (1F) scientists accept more t raditional, conservative theories which deviate less from the core scientific theory; (1G) scientists use intuition to make judgments; and (1H) there is only one truth, so no theory will be accepted before one is determined to be best. Figure 4 1 displays they agree or disagree with comments that agree with the notion that scientists can

PAGE 141

141 accept multiple theories simultaneously, regardless of the reason. While trends between the levels of responses remained fairly consistent between the pretest and posttest, more students ( n = 22) were uncertain about the agreement statements on the posttest than on the pretest ( n = 19) Further, fewer students strongly disagreed with the statements following the int ervention ( n = 9) than before the intervention ( n = 12) Figure 4 2 they agree or disagree with comments that dis agree with the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simulta neously, regardless of the reason. Before the interventio n, the majority of student responses displayed uncertain ty about whether they agreed or disagreed with statements reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories si multaneously to explain a phenomenon ( n = 75) Following the intervention, fewer students expressed uncertainty and an increased number of students expressed disagreement to these statements ( n = 62) Figure 4 3 displays student pretest and posttest resp onses to Item 1A, which claims that scientists can accept multiple theories when they cannot identify which is more correct. While pretest responses indicated that the majority of students agreed with the statement ( n = 15) posttest responses indicated th at the majority of students were uncertain about the statement ( n = 12) with almost equal numbers of students responding with agreement ( n = 11) and disagreement ( n = 12) Figure 4 4 displays student pretest and posttest responses to Item 1B, which claims that scientists can accept multiple theories because they may provide explanations from multiple perspectives, indicating that neither is right or wrong. While

PAGE 142

142 responses indica ted more agreement ( n = 16) than responses on the pretest ( n = 13) Figure 4 5 displays student responses on Item 1C, which states that scientists cannot accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain the same phenomenon because scientists accept the t heory they are more familiar with. Responses indicated a decreased frequency of students with uncertain feelings toward the statement (pretest, n = 13, posttest, n = 9) and an increased number of students disagreeing with the statement (pretest, n = 14, p osttest, n = 18) Figure 4 states that scientists cannot accept multiple theories simultaneously because they accept simpler theories in order to avoid complex theories. Results indicate that before the intervention, more students were uncertain about their level of agreement with this statement ( n = 11) whereas after the intervention, more students disagreed with the statement ( n = 25) Figure 4 which states that scientists cannot accept multiple theories at the same time to explain a phenomenon because the acceptance of the theory. Pretest results indicate that the majority of students were uncertain about their level of agreement with this statement ( n = 19) while posttest responses display more students disagreeing with the statement ( n = 18) Figure 4 responses to Item 1F, which states that scientists cannot accept multiple theories simultaneously because scientists accept new theories which deviate less from core scientific theory. On the pretest, more

PAGE 143

143 students offered strong responses of disagreement ( n = 10) while on the posttest, more students offered more mild responses of disagreement ( n = 13) as well as responses of uncertainty ( n = 11) Additionally, fewer students offered responses of agreement on the posttest ( n = 4) than on the pretest ( n = 7) Figure 4 9 dis cannot accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain the same phenomenon because scientists use intuition to make judgments between theories. While trends were similar between the pret est and posttest responses, no students strongly agreed with the statement on the posttest. Figure 4 and posttest responses for Item 1H, which states that scientists cannot accept multiple theories at the same time to explain a phenomenon because there is only one truth and scientists will not accept any theory before determining which is best. More students disagreed with the statement before the intervention ( n = 17) while student responses after the intervention reflected a more normal distribution, with increased numbers of uncertain ( n = 11) and agree responses ( n = 7) Whether Scientific I nvestigations are Influenced by Socio cultural V alues infl uenced by socio agreement with the reasoning that socio cultural values influence the direction and topics of scientific investigation (2A) and that scientists are influenced by socio cultural values (2B). Items 2C and 2D respond in disagreement, with the reasoning that scientists will remain value free when conducting research (2C) or because science requires objectivity (2D). Figure 4 11 displays the level of agreement students had when responding to

PAGE 144

144 statements that responded in agreement to the notion that scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values. While the responses on the pretest and posttest follow very similar trends, more respondents disagreed with the statements on the posttest ( n = 20) while fewer responded with uncertainty ( n = 25) than on the pretest ( n = 30) Figure 4 disagreement to the statement regarding the influence of socio cultural values on scientifi c investigations. As with the agreement statements, trends of responses on pretests and posttests were similar. However, posttest responses revealed a slight increase in uncertainty ( n = 26) Figure 4 13 depicts student responses on Item 2A, which states t hat socio cultural values influence the direction and topics of scientific investigation. While both response sets resulted in normal distributions, more students agreed with the statement ( n = 9) and fewer were uncertain on the posttest ( n = 13) than on t he pretest ( n = 15) Figure 4 14 reports student responses on pretests and posttests for Item 2B, which states that scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values because the scientists themselves are influenced by these values. While mo re students agreed with the statement on the pretest ( n = 11) posttest scores indicated that more students disagreed with the statement after the intervention ( n = 13) Responses to Item 2C, which states that scientific investigations are not influenced b y socio cultural values because scientists are trained to remain value free when carrying out research, are displayed in Figure 4 15. While students responses in each category had little variability on both the pretest and posttest, more students felt

PAGE 145

145 unc ertain about their level of agreement with the statement on the posttest ( n = 10) than on the pretest ( n = 6) Figure 4 states that scientific investigations are not influenced by socio cultural values because science requires objectivity. Both response sets represent normal distributions, and little change was seen in the frequency of responses between the pretest and posttest. Whether Scientists Use Their I maginations Items 3A through scientific research, will they use their imagination? Items 3A and 3B respond in agreement, offering that imagination is the source of innovation (3A) and that scientists use their imagination in research (3B). Items 3C through 3E responded in disagreement, offering that imagination and scientific principles are not consistent (3C), imagination may aid scientists in trying to prove a point at all costs (3D), and that imagination lacks reliability (3E). Figure 4 17 displays student responses to those statements that respond in agreement, regardless of the reason. Student responses were more varied on the posttest than on the pretest, reflecting a more normal distribution following the intervention. Figure 4 18 displays student responses to Items 3C through 3E, which each disagree with the notion that scientists use their imaginations when conducting research. More students offered responses of uncertainty on the pretest ( n = 32) while more students offered strong responses at either end of the spectrum on the posttest (strongly disagree, n = 11, strongly agree, n = 19) Figure 4 19 displays student responses on Item 3A, which states that scientists utilize their imaginations, as imagination is the ma in source of innovation. Fewer

PAGE 146

146 students reported feelings of uncertainty ( n = 10) and more students strongly agreed with the statement ( n = 6) on the posttest than on the pretest ( n = 11, 6 respectively) Responses to Item 3B, which states that scientists use their imagination in scientific research, are displayed in Figure 4 20. While trends between the two response sets were similar, more students strongly agreed with the statement on the posttest ( n = 4) than on the pretest ( n = 2) Figure 4 21 displays student pretest and posttest responses to Item 3C, which states that scientists do not use their imaginations when conducting research because imagination is not consistent with the logical principles of science. Frequency of responses remained fairly cons istent between the pretest and posttest. Figure 4 states that scientists do not use their imaginations when conducting research because imagination may become a means for a scientists t o prove a point at all costs. Fewer students were uncertain about their feelings toward this statement on the posttest (n = 6) and posttest results yielded more students responding in disagreement (n = 16) Responses to Item 3E, which states that scientis ts do not use their imaginations when conducting scientific research because imagination lacks reliability, are displayed in Figure 4 23. Fewer students were uncertain about their level of agreement toward this statement on the posttest (n = 11) and more students strongly agreed with the statement following the intervention ( n = 9) Whether Scientific T heories are T entative Items 4 A, 4 B, and 4 of scientific theories. Each item responds to the stat investigations are carried out correctly, the theory proposed can still be disproved in the

PAGE 147

147 A reflects a revolutionary position, stating that theories undergo drastic change. Figure 4 24 displays student respo nses on the pretest and posttest for this item. Students held relatively similar views regarding this revolutionary position of the tentativeness of scientific theories, with the majority of students either disagreeing (pretest, n = 13, posttest, n = 15) o r being uncertain (pretest, n = 11, posttest, n = 11) with this viewpoint on both the pretest and the posttest. Item 4 B reflects a cumulative position, stating that theories are altered through a gradual, cumulative process. Figure 4 25 displays student r esponses on the pretest and posttest for this item. While the majority of students reported that they agreed with this cumulative position on the pretest (n = 20) posttest results indicate that more students were uncertain of their viewpoints on this posi tion (n = 17) Item 4 C reflects an evolutionary position, stating that the theory is not replaced or disproved, but rather evolves slowly as information is gathered. Figure 4 26 displays responses to this item. B oth responses on both the pretest and posttest reveal that the majority of students are either uncertain or agree with this pos ition. Whether S Observations are Influenced by P ersonal B eliefs to the states that observations will be different because different beliefs influence obser vation. Items 5B through 5E state that observations will be the same, for different reasons: (5B) scientists in the same field hold similar beliefs; (5C) scientists are trained to abandon their personal values in order to conduct objective observations; (5 D) observations are

PAGE 148

148 truth and cannot be observed differently by different people; and (5E) scientists use different methods to verify results and improve objectivity, although subjectivity can never be completely avoided. Figure 4 27 examines student respo nses to Item 5A, which states that observations between scientists are different because different beliefs influence posttest. because scientists in the same field hold similar ideas, are displayed in Figure 4 28. While both response sets follow a normal distribution, student responses on the posttest depict increased feelings of disagreement with th e statement (n = 17) Figure 4 abandon personal values in the interest of objectivity. Posttest results indicate less feelings of uncertainty (n = 8) and increased feelings of agreement (n = 15) toward the statement. because observations are fact and therefore cannot be obs erved differently, are displayed in Figure 4 30. Differences between pretest and posttest scores indicate a shift toward less strong feelings of disagreement with the statement. Figure 4 states that the observations made by scientists are the same because scientists reduce their subjectivity by utilizing methods to verify observations. While the majority of

PAGE 149

1 49 students were uncertain about their level of agreement on the pretest (n = 14) and very few offered feelings of disagreement (n = 4) split evenly between agreement and disagreement. Fewer students felt uncertain about their level of agreement on the posttest (n = 6) than on the pretest. Whether S cientists Follow a Scientific M ethod universal scientific method, step by scientists follow the scientific method because it ensures valid, clear, logical, and accurate results. Item 6B states that scientists utilize the scientific method because it is logical. Item 6C states that while the scientific method is useful in most instances, scientists may need to invent new methods to coll ect appropriate results. Item 6D states that there is no universal scientific method, and so scientists utilize any methods to obtain results. Item 6E states that a lack of one fixed scientific method leads to the accidental discovery of knowledge. Lastly, Item 6F states that while results can be obtained a number of different ways, scientists utilize the scientific method to verify them. Figure 4 32 displays student responses to Item 6A, which states that scientists follow the scientific method because it ensures clear, valid, logical, and accurate results. Frequencies in each response category remained virtually unchanged from pretest to posttest. Student responses to Item 6B, which states that scientists use the scientific method because it is a logical p rocedure, are displayed in Figure 4 33. While trends between pretest and posttest response sets remained similar, more students disagreed

PAGE 150

150 with the statement on the pretest ( n = 9) than on the posttest ( n = 5) while more students agreed with the statement on the posttest ( n = 24) than on the pretest ( n = 21) Figure 4 states that while the scientific method is useful in most instances, scientists may invent new methods to ensure appropri ate results. Fewer students were uncertain about their level of agreement with the statement on the posttest ( n = 9) ; this led to slightly higher frequencies of both students who agreed and disagreed with the statement. Figure 4 st and posttest responses to Item 6D, which states that there is no scientific method, and scientists utilize any methods necessary to obtain results. While a high number of students were uncertain about their level of agreement with this statement on the pretest ( n = 11) fewer students were uncertain following the intervention ( n = 8) Further, the difference between the number of students who disagreed with the statement and the number who agreed with the state ment was smaller on the pretest than on the posttest; more students disagreed and fewer student agreed on the posttest than on the pretest. Figure 4 states that there is no fixed scientific method and that scientific knowledge ca n be accidentally discovered. Fewer students were uncertain regarding their level of agreement with this statement on the posttest ( n = 7) than on the pretest ( n = 12) and more students strongly disagreed with the statement following the intervention ( n = 9) are obtained, scientists utilize the scientific method to verify them, are displayed in Figure 4 37. While the majority of students expressed either uncertainty ( n = 14) or

PAGE 151

151 agreement ( n = 16) to this statement on the pretest, posttest responses saw a growing number of students expressing disagreement ( n = 9) and a reduction in the number of students expressing uncertainty ( n = 7) Tests of Hypotheses The dependent vari ables in this study were knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the NOS Each of these was measured through interval data. was the teaching method utilized in Agriscience Foundations classes Both presage variables and context variables were considered antecedent variables and were therefore treated as static attributes. Hypotheses related to the statistical significance of possible effects of an SSI based reasoning ability, argumentation skills, and views of the NOS were formulated. All hypotheses were non directional. Decisions to retain or reject the null hypotheses at the .05 leve l were made according to the results of paired samples t tests which were conducted to analyze the data. Hypothese s Related to Agriscience Content Knowledge Attainment H 0 1 There is no significant difference between the a griscience content knowledge of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Student agriscience content knowledge was measured distally through an overall agriscience content assessment before the intervention began and again following the interve determine the content knowledge attained by students during the time of the intervention. The mean pretest score was 13.78 ( SD = 3.27 ), while the posttest mean

PAGE 152

152 score was 17.70 ( SD = 13.93 ). While the overall mean posttest s core was higher than the mean pretest score, results from a paired samples t test found that this difference was not significant, t ( 39) = 1.80 p > .05 (Table 4 10 ) Paired sample t tests were also calculated s eparately for middle school ( n = 28) and high school ( n = 12 ) students. Results indicated that there was no significant diffe rence between pretest ( M = 14.07, SD = 3.40) and posttest ( M = 15.25, SD = 4.21 ) scores of middle school students, t ( 27) = 1.28 p > .05, and no significant differenc e between the pretest ( M = 13.08, SD = 2.97) and posttest ( M = 23.42, SD = 24.35 ) scor es of high school students, t ( 11) = 1.53, p > .05 Proximal measurement was conducted through unit based pretests and posttests tha t were administered immediately before and following the Food Safety, Economic Impacts, a nd Environmental Impacts units. Food Safety assessments were collected from 97 students, which resulted in a mean pretest score of 11.24 ( SD = 3.02) and a posttest sco re of 13.43 ( SD = 3.04). Economic Impacts assessments were collected from 102 students, resulting in a mean pretest score of 9.76 ( SD = 3.06) and a posttest score of 11.4 ( SD = 2.82). Ninety nine students completed pretests and posttests on the Environment al Impacts unit, resulting in a mean pretest score of 7.41 ( SD = 2.31) and a mean posttest score of 9.46 ( SD = 2.68). Student gains in each unit were calculated through paired samples t tests. There was a significant increase in student scores between the pretest and posttest of the Food Safety unit, t ( 96) = 6.94, p < .05, d = .72, Economic Impacts unit, t ( 101) = 6.05, p < .05, d = .56, and Environmental Impacts unit, t ( 98) = 7.56, p < .05, d = .82.

PAGE 153

153 Paired samples t tests were also calculated separately for middle and high school students on each of the proximal assessments. Analysis scores resulted in significant gains between pretest and posttest scores on the Food Safety unit assessment, t ( 63) = 5.82, p < .05, d = .82, Econo mic Impacts unit assessment, t ( 72) = 5.86, p < .05, d = .65, and Environmental Impacts unit assessment, t ( 66) = 5.64, p < .05, d = .66. Analysis of high school scores resulted in significant gains between pretest and posttest scores on each unit assessme nt as well: (a) Food Safety, t ( 31) = 3.79, p < .05, d = .56; (b) Economic Impacts, t ( 28) = 2.09, p < .05, d = .33; and (c) Environmental Impacts, t ( 31) = 5.13, p < .05, d = .37. Because each of the proximal assessments resulted in significant gains bet ween posttest and pretest, the null hypotheses of no difference in agriscience content knowledge before and after experiencing SSI based instruction was rejected. However, ply that confo unding variables, such as student maturation, history, or fatigue may affect the impact of SSI based instruction. Hypothesis Related to Scientific Reasoning Skills H 0 2 There is no significant difference between the scientific reasoning abil ity of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Student scientific reasoning skills were measured through the use of the LCTSR which was administered before and after the intervention. Gains in score from pretes t to posttest were measured to determine the scientific reasoning skills developed by students during the time of the intervention. Student scores on the pretest resulted in a mean score of 7.23 ( SD = 2.80) out of a possible 24. Posttest scores resulted in a mean score of 8.77 ( SD = 3.58). A paired samples t test found that the gains between pretest

PAGE 154

154 and posttest scores were statistically significant, t ( 34) = 3.19, p < .05, d = .47 (Table 4 11 ) Student scores on scientific reasoning pretests and posttests were analyzed by score ( M = 7.36, SD = 2.74) than M = 6.71, SD = 3.20), but high M = 8 .86, SD = 5.18) than middle school students ( M = 8.75, SD = 3.19). Paired samples t tests were conducted between LCTSR pretests and posttests were statistically signif icant, t ( 27) = 2.53, p < .05, d = .47. High school gains between pretests and posttests were not statistically significant, t ( 6) = 3.03, p > .05. Because scientific reasoning score gains were deemed to be statistically significant for all students and fo r middle school students, the null after treatment was rejected. However, because no statistical significant difference was reasoning ability pretests and posttests, confounding variables, such as age and teacher, may have impacted the effect SSI based instruction had on students. Hypothesi s Related to Argumentation Skills H 0 3 There is no significant difference between the ar gumentation skills of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Student argumentation skills were measured through the use of a researcher n rubric, which was administered before and after the intervention. Both the number of justifications and the quality of those justifications were evaluated. Gains in score from

PAGE 155

155 pretest to posttest were measured to determine argumentation skills developed by students during the time of the intervention. the pretest scenario was 2.26 ( SD = .95). The mean pretest justification score was 1.67 ( SD = .85). The mean number of justifications decreased to 2.21 on the postt est ( SD = .97), while the mean justification score increased to 2.40 ( SD = .97). A paired samples t test was calculated to determine the significance of differences between number and quality of justifications on the argumentation pretest and posttest. Whi le the difference significant, t ( 57) = .29, p > quality, t ( 57) = 4.13, p < .05, d = .73 (Table 4 1 2 ). Argume ( n = 28) mean number of justifications on the pretest was 2.07 ( SD = .81), while high n = 30) mean number of pretest justifications was 2.43 ( SD = 1.04). Middle sc SD = .79) on the ( SD = .90). On the posttest, middle school students had a mean justification number of 1.86 ( S D = .89), while high school students had a mean justification number of 2.53 ( SD mean score of 1.86 ( SD = .80), while high school posttest scores led to a mean score of 2.90 ( SD = .85). Paired samples t tests were calculated separately for middle and high between the pretest and posttest. With regard to number of justifications, the re was no t ( 27)

PAGE 156

156 = 1.03, p > t ( 29) = .36, p > .05. While there was no significant difference in the quality of mi justifications between the pretest and posttest, t ( 27) = .372, p > .05, there was a pretest and posttest, t ( 29) = 5.53, p < .05, d = 2.72. Bas ed on the statistically significant gain in the argumentation quality of high school students, and overall, the null hypothesis of no difference in argumentation skills due to the intervention was rejected. However, a lack of significant difference in just ification number indicates that certain aspects of argumentation may be impacted by SSI based instruction than more so argumentation quality may indicate that confounding vari ables, such as age and teacher, may impact SSI Hypothesis Related to Views of the NOS H 0 4 There is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students befor e and after experiencing SSI based instruction. NOS VOSE, which was administered before and after the intervention. Frequencies of responses to each item and to each aspect of the NOS w ere evaluated. Differences in NOS that changed during the time of the intervention. following views of the NOS were evaluated: ( a) whether scien tists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explai n a phenomenon, ( b) whether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values ( c) whether scientists use their imaginat ions during scientific research, ( d) whether sc ientific theor ies are tentative, ( e) whether

PAGE 157

157 luenced by personal beliefs, and ( f) whether scientists follow a universal scientific method. With regard to whether scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenome non, the mean difference between pretest and posttest views was .86, which represents less than one category shift (on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignifi cant, t ( 34) = 1.10, p > .05 (Table 4 1 3 ) With regard to whether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values, the mean difference between pretest and posttest views was .29, which represents less than one category shift (on a five po int scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = .55, p > .05. With regard to whether scientists use their imaginations during scientific research, the mean diffe rence between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .20 which represents less than one category shift (on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = 0 27 p > .05. With regard to whether scientific theories are tentative the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .03 which represents less than one category shift (on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paire d samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = 0 .08 p > .05. With regard to the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .74 which rep resents

PAGE 158

158 less than one category shift (on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 3 3 ) = 1.07 p > .05 With regard to whether scientists follow a unive rsal scientific method the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 1.46 which represents over one category shift (on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). A paired samples t test found this difference to be statisti cally insignificant, t ( 3 4 ) = 1.65 p > .05. Because no statically significant differences were found on constructs of views of the NOS views of the NOS before and after th e treatment was retained. Summary Chapter 4 and hypotheses. Objectives included: ( a ) t o determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture studen t agris cience content knowledge (b ) t o determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture student s cientific reasoning ability (c ) t o determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agricultu re student argu mentation skills, and (d ) t o determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture student views of the NOS. The null hypotheses related to eac h of the objectives included: (a ) t here is no significant difference between the agr iscience content knowledge of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction; (b ) t here is no significant difference between the scientific reasoning ability of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencin g SSI based instruction; (c ) t here is no significant difference between the argumentation skills of secondary

PAGE 159

159 agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction; and (d ) t here is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Chapter 5 will discuss these findings in detail, providing conclusions, recommendations, and implications related to the above results. Further, Chapter 5 will detail ho w these findings, in their entirety, can impact student learning in agricultural education, as well as future research in the profession.

PAGE 160

160 Table 4 1. Teacher demographics Teacher Gender Years Teaching Experience Training Session School Level Familiari ty with SSI Level of Experience with EL Level of Experience with I nquiry based Instruction Level of Experience with Problem Solving Level of Experience with Issues based instruction Level of Education School Setting Classes in Study Number of Lessons Compl eted Number of Students A F 12 Distance Middle Not at all None Some Some None B.S. Urban 2 35 48 B F 8 Distance Middle Not at all Great Great Some Slight M.S. Rural 1 35 29 C F 1 Distance High Not at all Some Neither Neither None B.S. Rural 1 34 25 D M 19 In person High Not at all Great Great Some None M.S. Rural 1 37 13 Table 4 2. Student demographics and test completion Student Grade Gender Arg Pre Arg Post Ag Pre Ag Post SR Pre SR Post Nos Pre Nos Post FS Pre FS Post Ec Pre Ec Post Env Pre Env Po st TeacherA 1 8 F Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 2 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 3 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes TeacherA 4 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 5 8 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 6 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No TeacherA 7 8 M No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 8 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 9 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 10 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 11 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 12 8 F Yes No Yes No Y es No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PAGE 161

161 Table 4 2. Continued Student Grade Gender Arg Pre Arg Post Ag Pre Ag Post SR Pre SR Post Nos Pre Nos Post FS Pre FS Post Ec Pre Ec Post Env Pre Env Post TeacherA 13 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Y es TeacherA 14 8 M No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 15 8 F Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No TeacherA 16 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 17 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 18 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 19 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 20 8 M No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 21 8 F Yes No No No No No No N o Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 22 8 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA 23 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 1 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 2 8 F Yes No Ye s No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No TeacherA2 3 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 4 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 5 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Teacher A2 6 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No TeacherA2 7 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 8 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 9 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Ye s Yes Yes TeacherA2 10 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 11 8 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 12 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 13 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 14 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No TeacherA2 15 8 F Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 16 8 F No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

PAGE 162

162 Table 4 2. Continued Studen t Grade Gender Arg Pre Arg Post Ag Pre Ag Post SR Pre SR Post Nos Pre Nos Post FS Pre FS Post Ec Pre Ec Post Env Pre Env Post TeacherA2 17 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 18 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 19 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 20 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 21 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No TeacherA2 22 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 23 8 M Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 24 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherA2 25 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 1 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 2 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 3 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 4 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 5 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 6 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 7 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 8 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 9 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 10 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 11 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye s Yes Yes TeacherB 12 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 13 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 14 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 15 8 F Yes Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 16 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 17 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 18 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PAGE 163

163 Table 4 2. Continued Student Grade Gender Arg Pre Arg Post Ag Pre Ag Post SR Pre SR Post Nos Pre Nos Post FS Pre FS Post Ec Pre Ec Post Env Pre Env Post TeacherB 19 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 20 8 M Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 21 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 22 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 23 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 24 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 25 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 26 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 27 8 F Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No TeacherB 28 8 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherB 29 8 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 1 9 F No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No T eacherC 2 9 F No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 3 9 M No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 4 9 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 5 9 F No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 6 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 7 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 8 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 9 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 10 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No TeacherC 11 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 12 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No TeacherC 13 9 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 14 9 M Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 15 9 M No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes TeacherC 16 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PAGE 164

164 Table 4 2. Continued Student Grade Gende r Arg Pre Arg Post Ag Pre Ag Post SR Pre SR Post Nos Pre Nos Post FS Pre FS Post Ec Pre Ec Post Env Pre Env Post TeacherC 17 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 18 9 F No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No TeacherC 19 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 20 9 M No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 21 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 22 9 M Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Teach erC 23 9 F Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherC 24 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No TeacherC 25 9 M Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes TeacherD 1 9 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y es TeacherD 2 9 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes TeacherD 3 9 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 4 11 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 5 9 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 6 9 F Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 7 9 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 8 9 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 9 9 F Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 10 9 F Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 11 12 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 12 11 M Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes TeacherD 13 9 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Note. ArgPre = Argumentation Pretest; ArgPost = Argumentation Posttest; AgPre = Distal Agriscience Content Pretest; AgPost = Distal Agriscience Content Posttest; SRPre = Scientific Reasoning Pretest; SRPost = Scientific Reasoning Posttest; NosPre = Nature of Science Pretest; NosPost = Nature of Science Posttest; FSPre = Food Safety Pretest; FSPost = Food Safety Posttest; EcPre = Economic Impacts Pr etest; EcPost = Econom ic Impacts Posttest; EnvPre = Environmental Impacts Pretest; EnvPost = Environmental Impacts Posttest.

PAGE 165

165 Table 4 3 Completion rates for instruments Instrument n Response Rate ( n = 115) Pretest Posttest Completion Rate Overall Agriscience Content Pretest 80 69.6 % -Overall Agriscience Content Posttest 40 34.8 % 50.0 % Food Safety Unit Pretest 106 92.2 % -Food Safety Unit Posttest 98 85.2 % 92.5 % Economic Impacts Unit Pretest 109 94.8 % -Economic Impacts Unit Posttest 102 88.7 % 93.6 % Environmental Im pacts Unit Pretest 108 93.9 % -Environmental Impacts Unit Posttest No 86.1 % 91.7 % Animal Industry Unit Pretest 0 0.0 % -Animal Industry Unit Posttest 0 0.0 % 0 % LCTSR Pretest 81 70.4 % -LCTSR Posttest 39 33.9 % 48.1 % Argumentation Assessment Pretest 86 74.8 % -Argumentation Assessment Posttest 39 33.9 % 45.3 % VOSE Pretest 78 67.8 % -VOSE Posttest 37 32.2 % 47.4 % Table 4 4 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Distal Content Knowledge Assessments of Middle and High School Students School Level P retest M Pretest SD Posttest M Posttest SD Middle School 14.07 3.40 15.25 4.21 High School 13.08 2.97 23.42 24.35 Table 4 5 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Proximal Content Knowledge Assessments Content Knowledge Instrument Pretest M Pretest SD Posttest M Posttest SD Food Safety ( n = 97) 11.24 3.02 13.43 3.04 Economic Impacts ( n = 102) 9.76 3.06 11.4 0 2.82 Environmental Impacts ( n = No ) 7.41 2.31 9.46 2.68 Table 4 6 Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores on Proximal Content Knowledge Assessments for Middle and High School Content Knowledge Instrument Pretest M Pretest SD Posttest M Posttest SD Middle School High School Middle School High School Middle School High School Middle School High School Food Safety 11.38 10.97 2.81 3.41 13.77 12.79 3. 03 3.02 Economic Impacts 9.67 10.00 2.94 3.37 11.53 11.07 2.80 2.87 Environmental Impacts 7.40 7.44 2.37 2.21 9.06 10.31 2.62 2.66

PAGE 166

166 Table 4 7 Mean scores on LCTSR pretests and posttests of middle and high school students School Level Pretest M Prete st SD Posttest M Posttest SD Middle School ( n = 28) 7.36 2.74 8.75 3.19 High School ( n = 7) 6.71 3.20 8.86 5.18 Table 4 8 Mean Number and Quality of Justifications on Pretests and Posttests Item Assessed Pretest M Pretest SD Posttest M Posttest SD Justification Number 2.26 .95 2.21 .97 Justification Quality 1.67 .85 2.21 .97 Table 4 9 Justifications on Argumentation Pretests and Posttests Assessment Pretest M Pretest SD Postt est M Posttest SD Middle School High School Middle School High School Middle School High School Middle School High School Justification Number 2.07 2.43 .81 1.0 4 1.86 2.53 .89 .94 Justification Quality 1.79 1.57 .79 .90 1.86 2.90 .80 .85 Table 4 10 Analysis of Gains in Agriscience Content Knowledge after Treatment Assessment df t p d Overall Agriscience Content Knowledge 39 1.80 .08 -Middle School Overall Content Knowledge 27 1.28 .21 -High School Overall Content Knowledge 11 1.53 .16 -Food Safety 96 6.94 .00 .72 Middle School Food Safety 63 5.82 .00 .82 High School Food Safety 32 3.80 .00 .56 Economic Impacts 101 6.05 .00 .56 Middle School Economic Impacts 72 5.86 .00 .65 High School Economic Impacts 28 2.09 .05 .33 Enviro nmental Impacts 98 7.56 .00 .82 Middle School Environmental Impacts 66 5.64 .00 .66 High School Environmental Impacts 31 5.22 .00 .37 Table 4 11 Analysis of Gains in Scientific Reasoning after Treatment Assessment df t p d Overall Scientific Reaso ning 34 3.19 .00 .47 Middle School Scientific Reasoning 27 2.53 .02 .47 High School Scientific Reasoning 6 2.03 .09 -Table 4 1 2 Analysis of Gains in Argumentation Skill after Treatment Assessment df t p d Overall Argumentation Number 57 .29 .77 -Middle Argumentation Number 27 1.03 .31 -

PAGE 167

167 High School Argumentation Number 29 .36 .73 -Overall Argumentation Quality 57 4.13 .00 .73 Middle School Argumentation Quality 27 .37 .71 -High School Argumentation Quality 29 5.53 .00 2.72 Table 4 13 Analysis of Differences in Views of the NOS Before and After Treatment Construct df t p W hether scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon 34 1.10 .28 W hether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cu ltural values 34 .55 .59 W hether scientists use their imaginations during scientific research 34 .27 .79 W hether scientific theories are tentative 34 .08 .94 W beliefs 33 1.07 .29 W hether s cientists follow a universal scientific method 34 1.65 .11 Figure 4 1. Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 1A and 1B, reflecting agreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneous ly to explain a phenomenon

PAGE 168

168 Figure 4 2. Student pretest and posttest responses on Items 1C through 1H, reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon Figure 4 3. Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1A

PAGE 169

169 Figure 4 4. Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1B Figure 4 5 Student pretes t and p osttest responses on Item 1C

PAGE 170

170 Figure 4 6 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1D Figure 4 7 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1E

PAGE 171

171 Figur e 4 8 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1F Figure 4 9 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1G

PAGE 172

172 Figure 4 10 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 1H Figure 4 11 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Items 2A and 2B reflecting agreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon

PAGE 173

173 Figure 4 1 2 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Items 2C and D reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon Figure 4 1 3 Student pretes t and pos ttest responses on Item 2A

PAGE 174

174 Figure 4 1 4 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 2B Figure 4 1 5 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 2C

PAGE 175

175 Figur e 4 1 6 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 2D Figure 4 1 7 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Items 3A and 3B reflecting agreement to the notion that scientists use their imagination when conducting res earch

PAGE 176

176 Figure 4 1 8 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Items 3C through 3E reflecting disagreement to the notion that scientists use their imaginations when conducting research Figure 4 1 9 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 3A

PAGE 177

177 Figure 4 20 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 3B Figure 4 2 1 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 3C

PAGE 178

178 Figure 4 22 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 3D Figure 4 2 3 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 3E

PAGE 179

179 Figure 4 2 4 Student pretest and postt est responses on Item 4 A, reflecting a revolutionary position to the tentative nature of scientific theories Figure 4 2 5 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 4 B, reflecting a cumulative position on the tentative nature of scientific theories.

PAGE 180

180 Figure 4 2 6 Student pretest and posttest responses on Item 4 C, reflecting an evolutionary position on the tentative nature of scientific theories Figure 4 2 7 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 5A

PAGE 181

181 Figure 4 2 8 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 5B Figure 4 29 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 5C

PAGE 182

182 Figure 4 30 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 5D Figure 4 3 1 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 5E

PAGE 183

183 Figure 4 3 2 Student pretes t and posttest r esponses on Item 6A Figure 4 3 3 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 6B

PAGE 184

184 Figure 4 3 4 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 6C Figure 4 3 5 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 6D

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4 3 6 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 6E Figure 4 37 Student pretes t and posttest responses on Item 6F

PAGE 186

186 CHAPTER 5 S UMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study wa s to determine the effect of a socioscientific issues ( SSI ) knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argum entation skill, and views of the nature of science ( NOS ) The intervention was a nine week instructional unit designed according to an SSI based instructional model. Chapter 1 explained offered justification for determining the eff ect of an SSI based instructional model on student learning, including the aforementioned dependent variables. The chapter also offered an overview of the national push for scientific literacy. Further, the provided history and evolving purpose of agricult ural education detail the importance of teaching scientific literacy in secondary agricultural education. Chapter 2 highlighted the importan t research related to the study Theories gu conceptual framework were constructivism, experiential learning, and problem solving as well as A review of the literature aligning with t focused on teacher, student and context ual aspects that influence SSI based instruction, the design aspects of SSI based instruction, and student gains in knowledge, argumentation, interest in science, reasoning skills, views of the NOS and problem solving ability as a result of SSI based instruction.

PAGE 187

187 Chapter 3 detailed the methods utilized in this study to address the objectives, including the research design, procedures, treatment population and sample. Also procedures, and methods utilized to analyze data. Chapter 4 presented findings related to each of the four objectives. Following a full descript ion of the results related to the objectives, justification for retention or rejection of each null hypothesis was also provided. Chapter 5 offer s a summary of the study and provide s conclusions stemming from the findings. Additionally, the chapter will present recommendations for future research, preservice and inservice teacher education, and curriculum development. Objectives Guiding this study were the following objectives and hypotheses: To determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model o n middle and high school agriculture student agriscience content knowledge. To determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on middle and high school agriculture student scientific reasoning ability. To determine the effects of an SSI based in stru ctional model on middle and high school agriculture student argumentation skills. To determine the effects of an SSI based i nstructional model on middle and high school agriculture student views of the NOS. Null Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were made to guide data analysis: H 0 1 There is no significan t difference between the agriscience content knowledge of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction.

PAGE 188

188 H 0 2 There is no significant difference between the scientific reasoning ability of secondary agriculture student s before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. H 0 3 There is no significant difference between the argumentation skills of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. H 0 4 There is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Methods This study utilized a pre experimental, single group pretest posttest design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) Dependent variables include d secondary agriscience argumentation skills, and views of the NOS. Florida secondary agriscience students The sampling frame was made up of students in classes of a convenience sample of Florida agriscience teachers In order to be eligible to participate, teachers had to be teaching at least one Agriscience Foundations class during the 2011 2012 year at either the middle or high school le vel student sample size was calculated at 60. Because of mortality rates of up to 50 % in similar studies (Thoron, 2010), the sample size was doubled to 120. An estimated number of 12 students per class led to a teacher sampl e size of 10. Teachers were recruited through convenience sampling methods. Those teachers participating in the Florida Association of Agricultural Educators Summer Conference and regional FFA Chapter Officer Leadership Conferences were invited to attend t raining sessions featuring the purpose and procedures of the study. The teachers attending the summer conference were offered an in person training session,

PAGE 189

189 while those attending the leadership conferences attended one of four online training sessions. The intervention for this study consisted of one nine week segment of lessons which taught agriscience content through the SSI context of cultured meat. The nine week segment was broken down into five instructional units, each examining the SSI from a differe nt perspective: (a) food safety, ( b) economic impacts ( c) enviro nmental impacts, (d) the animal industry, and ( e) introduction of cultured meat. However, students were exposed to all lessons from the food safety, economic impacts, and environmental impact s units, and three of the introduction of cultured meat lessons. All instructional plans were developed to align with recommended practices of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), SSI based instruction (Sadler, 2011), and inquiry based instruction (NRC, 200 0) All lessons were evaluated for content validity by a panel of experts in agricultural education, experiential learning, inquiry based instruction, and SSI based instruction Treatment fidelity was to be established through the analysis of a random sel ection of recordings taken from recorded class sessions. Teachers were provided with audio recorders in order to supply the research with recordings of the lessons. However, after weekly reminders in both electronic format and via telephone contacts, teach ers failed to consistently record their classes. Therefore, recordings could not be utilized to ensure fidelity of treatment. Informal conversations with teachers during routine contacts and the production of student wo rk required by th e lessons impl ied that teachers followed lesson plans as designed.

PAGE 190

190 Researcher proximal and distal agriscience content knowledge Because no students were exposed to lessons from the Animal Industry unit pretests and posttests aligning with this unit wer e The students were assessed using pretests and posttests, which were identical. Students did not receive feedback on their performance on the pretests before taking the posttests. Content and face validity were establish ed through an expert panel A pilot test was conducted utilizing 15 Un iversity of Florida juniors in a gricultur al e ducation to establish reliability. intervention through the use of ( LCTSR ) (Lawson, 1978, as supplied in Thoron, 2010). Validity was established for the original version of the LCTSR (Lawson, 1978) through review of an expert panel, who established that the test items requir e students to utilize formal reasoning skills During to establish reliability. Because the instrument was designed for post secondary students, the developer also esta blished reliability for grade levels 8, 9, and 10 through a Kuder Richardson 20 calculation, which was reported as .78 (Lawson, 1978). rgumentation skills were evaluated through the use of a researcher 006) Argumentation Quality Rubric before and after the intervention. Reliability of the rubric was established by Sadler & Fowler (2006) through the use of multiple scorers Face and content validity of the scenarios were established through review by an e xpert panel Inter rater reliability of response scores in this study was calculated through the use of multiple scorers

PAGE 191

191 Views of the NOS were assessed using the Views on Science and Education Questionnaire (VOSE) (Chen, 2006) Content validity was establ ished for the through the use of two separate expert panels and interviews with students to verify item clarity recommendations, the researcher established face and content validity through a panel of e xperts. Test retest reliability was established by the devel oper with a coefficient of .82. Because of the empirical nature of the instrument, the establishment of internal consistency reliability was not appropriate (Chen, 2006). Data were analyzed throug h SPSS version 20. Data corresponding to each objective were analyzed through the use of dependent samples t tests to determine whether null hypotheses were retained or rejected (Agresti & Findlay, 2009) Only students with completed pretests and posttests were included in each analysis. Summary of Findings 672 students originally consented to participate in the study, teacher mortality led to a final overall number of 115. Becau se some teachers failed to return each assessment, completion rates varied for each objective. Objective One Objective One sought to determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on middle and high school agriculture student agriscience conten t knowledge both through an overall assessment and three unit based assessments Forty students with completed pretests and posttests were included in analysis of the distal assessment The mean score of the pretest was 13.78 ( SD = 3.27 ), while the postte st mean score was 17.70 ( SD = 13.93 ). Pretest and posttest scores were also examined by school

PAGE 192

192 level. Middle school students had a mean pretest score of 14.07 ( SD = 3.40 ), while their mean posttest score was 15.25 ( SD = 4.21 ). High school students had a lo wer mean pretest score ( 13.08 SD = 2.97 ) than middle school students, but had a higher posttest score ( 23.42 SD = 24.35 ) than middle school students. Ninety seven students completed the Food Safety unit assessment. The mean pretest score was 11.24 ( SD = 3.02), while the mean posttest score increased to 13.43 ( SD = 3.04). Pretest and posttest scores examined by school level found that both SD SD = 3.02) posttest scores were higher t han their pretest scores (middle school = 11.38, SD = 2.81, high school = 10.97, SD = 3.41). Middle school students had higher mean scores on both the pretest and posttest assessments of the Food Safety unit. The Economic Impacts unit assessments were admi nistered to 102 students. The mean pretest score was 9.76 ( SD = 3.06), while the mean posttest score increased to 11.40 ( SD = 2.82). Assessments were also analyzed by school level. Middle school SD = 2.94), while thei r mean posttest score increased to 11.53 ( SD than that of middle school students at 10.00 ( SD = 3.37). Their mean posttest score increased from their pretest score to 11.07 ( SD = 2.87), but this posttest score was Ninety nine students completed the Environmental Impacts unit pretests and posttests. The mean pretest score was 7.41 ( SD = 2.31), while the mean posttest score increased to 9.46 ( SD = 2.68). S chool level analysis indicated that middle school SD = 2.37), while their posttest score increased

PAGE 193

193 to 9.06 ( SD SD = 2.21), while their mean posttest score in creased to 10.31 ( SD = 2.66). High school students scored higher than middle school students on both the Environmental Impacts pretest and posttest. Pretests and posttests indicated that all students increased agriscience content knowledge during the inter vention both overall and on each of the individual units. Further, analysis by school level indicated that both middle school and high school students experienced gains in agriscience content knowledge during the SSI based instructional unit. High school s tudents experienced greater gains than middle school students on the overall test, while middle school students experienced greater gains on the Economic Impacts test. Objective Two The second objective sought to determine the effects of an SSI based instr uctional model on middle and high school five students completed the pretest and posttest, and were included in the analysis. Student scores on the pretest resulted in a mean score of 7.23 ( SD = 2. 80) out of a possible 24. Posttest scores increased to a mean score of 8.77 ( SD = 3.58). resulted in a mean pretest score of 7.36 ( SD = 2.74), while their mean posttest scor e increased to 8.75 ( SD = 3.19). High school students had a lower pretest score (6.71, SD = 3.20) than middle school students, but finished with a higher mean posttest score (8.86, SD = 5.18) than the middle school students. Overall, students experienced an increase in scientific reasoning ability following the intervention. When examined by school level, both middle school and high school

PAGE 194

194 students experienced an increase in scientific reasoning ability, although the increase of s was greater than that experienced by middle school students. Objective Three The third objective sought to determine the effects of an SSI based instructio nal model on middle and high school eight student s completed the pretest and posttest, and were therefore included in the SD = 0 .95), while the mean number of justifications on the posttest scenario decreased to 2.21 ( SD = 0 .97). Pretest justification quality had a pretest mean score of 1.67 ( SD = 0 .85), which increased to 2.40 ( SD = 0 97) on the posttest. justifications was 2.07 ( SD = 0 .81), wh ile their posttest mean number of justifications decreased to 1.86 ( SD = 0 justifications was 2.43 ( SD = 1.04), while their posttest mean number of justifications increased to 2.53 ( SD = 0 .94). Middle schoo score was 1.79 ( SD = 0 .90), while their score increased to 1.86 ( SD = 0 .80) on the 2.53 ( SD = 0 .94), while their score increased to 2.90 ( SD = 0 .85). Middle school students had a lower number of argument justifications and lower quality arguments on both the pretest and posttest than high school students, and their number of justifications decreased from pretest to posttest. High schoo from pretest to posttest. Both middle school and high school students experienced an increase in argument justification quality during the intervention.

PAGE 195

195 Objective Four The fourth objective sought to dete rmine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on middle and high school NOS The pretests and posttests of 35 students were collected and included in analysis. The first viewpoint asked students to consider whethe r scientists can accept multiple theories to explain the same phenomenon. Student responses reflected an increased frequency of uncertain feelings wh en considering the following: (a ) whether scientists accept multiple theories because they cannot identify which is more correct, (b ) whether scientists accept new theories which deviate l ess from core scientific theory, and ( c ) whether there is only one truth and scientists will not accept any theory before determining which is best Student responses reflecte d a decreased feeling of uncertainty when cons idering the following: (a ) whether scientists accept the theory they are more familiar with instead of accepting multiple theories (b ) whether scientists accept simpler theories in order to avoid more complex theories, and (c ) whether the academic status of the individuals propo sing each theory will influence acceptance of a theory. Student responses reflected an increased frequency of agreement wh en considering the following: (a ) whether scientists accept mult iple theories because theories can provide explanat ions from multiple perspectives, and (b ) whether there is only one truth and scientists will not accept any theory before determining which is best Student responses reflected an increase in frequency of feelings of disagreement when considering the following: (a ) whether scientists accept simpler theories in order to avoid more complex theories, (b ) whether scientists accept the theory they are more familiar with instead of accepting multiple theories, an d ( c ) whether the academic status of the acceptance of a theory.

PAGE 196

196 The second viewpoint asked students to consider whether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values. Student responses reflected an increased frequency of uncertai n feelings when considering whether scientists are trained to remain value free when conducting research Student responses reflected a decreased feeling of uncertainty when considering whether socio c ultural values influence the direction and topics of scientific investigation. Student responses reflected an increased frequency of agreement when considering whether socio cultural values influence the direction and top ics of scientific investigation St udent responses reflected an increase in frequency of feelings of disagreement when considering whether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values. The third set of items asked students to consider whether scientists use their imagin ations when conducting scientific research. Student responses reflected a decreased feeling of uncertainty when considering the following: ( a ) whether scientists utilize their imaginations, as imagination is t he main source of innovation; (b ) whether scien tists do not use their imaginations because imagination may become a means for a scientist to pr ove a point at all costs; and (c ) whether imagination lacks reliability Student responses reflected an increased frequency of agreement wh en considering the fo llowing: (a ) whether scientists utilize their imaginations, as imagination is t he main source of innovation; (b ) whether scientists use their imagination s in scientific research, and (c ) whether imagination lacks reliability Student responses reflected an increase in frequency of feelings of disagreement when considering whether scientists do not use their imaginations when conducting research because imagination may become a means for scientists to prove a point at all costs.

PAGE 197

197 The fourth set of items asked students to consider the tentative nature of scientific theories. Student responses reflected an increased frequency of uncertain feelings when considering whether theories are altered through a gradual, cumulative process Student responses reflected a d ecreased feeling of uncertainty when considering whether theory evolves slowly as information of gathered are influenced by personal beliefs. Student responses reflected a decreased feeling of uncertainty when considering the following: (a same because training enables scientists to abandon personal values in the interest of objectivity and (b ) whether scientists reduce their subj ectivity by utilizing methods to verify observations Student responses reflected an increased frequency of agreemen t when considering enables scientists to abandon personal values in the inter est of objectivity Student responses reflected an increase in frequency of feelings of disagreement when considering same field hold similar ideas. The final group of items asked stud ents to consider whether most researchers follow a universal scientific method, step by step, to do their research. Student responses reflected a decreased feeling of uncertainty when considering the following: (a ) whether scientists may invent new method s to ensure appropriate results, ( b ) whether scientists utilize any meth ods necessary to obtain results, (c ) whether there is no scientific method and scientific knowledge can be accidentally discovered, and ( d ) whether scientists utilize the scientific met hod to verify results, regardless of how they

PAGE 198

198 are obtained Student responses reflected an increased frequency of agreement when considering whether scientists use the scientific method because it is a logical procedure Student responses reflected an incr ease in frequency of feelings of disagreement when considering the following: (a ) whether scientists utilize any methods necessary to obtain results ; ( b ) whether there is no scientific method and scientific knowledge can be accidentally discovered; and ( c ) scientists utilize the scientific method to verify results, regardless of how they are obtained. Null Hypothesis One the agriscience content knowledge of secondary agri culture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Differences between mean pretest and posttest scores were analyzed for distal and proximal assessments, as well as separately for middle and high school students. On the distal assessmen t, the mean pretest score was 13.78 ( SD = 3.27 ), while the posttest mean score was 17.70 ( SD = 13.93 ). Results from a paired samples t test found that this increase in score from pretest to posttest was not significant, t ( 39) = 1.80 p > .05 Examination of distal assessment scores for middle and high school students found that the middle school mean pretest score was 14.07 ( SD = 3.40 ), while the posttest score increased to 15.25 ( SD = 4.21 ). Analysis via a paired samples t test did not find this increase in score from pretest to posttest to be significant, t ( 27) = 1.28 p > .05. The mean pretest score of high school students was 13.08 ( SD = 2.97 ), while the mean posttest score increased to 23.42 ( SD = 24.35). A paired samples t test did not find this incr ease in score to be statistically significant, t ( 11 ) = 1.53, p > .05

PAGE 199

199 pretest score of 11.24 ( SD = 3.02), while the mean posttest score rose to 13.43 ( SD = 3.04). A paired samples t test found this increase in score from pretest to be significant with a medium effect size, t ( 96) = 6.94, p < .05, d = 0 72. The mean pretest score of middle school students was 11.38 ( SD = 2.81), while their mean posttest score was 13.77 ( SD = 3.03). A paired samples t test found this increase in score to be statistically significant with a large effect size, t ( 63) = 5.82, p < .05, d = 0 .82 Responses of high school students yielded a mean pretest score of 10.97 ( SD = 3.41) and a mean posttest score o f 12.79 ( SD = 3.02). A paired samples t test found this increase to be statistically significant with a medium effect size, t ( 31) = 3.79, p < .05, d = 0 .56 pretest score of 9.76 ( SD = 3.06) and a mean posttest score of 11.40 ( SD = 2.82). Analysis via a paired samples t test found this increase in score to be statistically significant with a medium effect size, t ( 101) = 6.05, p < .05, d = 0 .56. Middle school o a mean pretest score of 9.67 ( SD = 2.94) and a mean posttest score of 11.53 ( SD = 2.80). This increase in score between pretest and posttest was found to be statistically significant with a medium effect size through a paired samples t test, (72) = 5.86 p < .05, d = 0 .65 Scores of high school students yielded a mean pretest score of 10.00 ( SD = 3.37) and a mean posttest score of 11.07 ( SD = 2.87). A paired samples t test found this gain to be statistically significant with a low effect size, t ( 28) = 2 .09, p < .05, d = 0 .33 Responses on the Environmental Impacts unit assessment resulted in a mean pretest score of 7.41 ( SD = 2.31) and a mean posttest score of 9.46 ( SD = 2.68). A

PAGE 200

200 paired samples t test found this growth to be statistically significant wit h a large effect size, t ( 98) = 7.56, p < .05, d = 0 .82. Middle school responses yielded a mean pretest score of 7.40 ( SD = 2.37) and a mean posttest score of 9.06 ( SD = 2.62). A paired samples t test found this increase to be statistically significant wit h a medium effect size, t ( 66) = 5.64, p < .05, d = 0 .66 Responses of high school students resulted in a mean pretest score of 7.44 ( SD = 2.21) and a mean posttest score of 10.31 ( SD = 2.66). Analysis via a paired samples t test determined this increase i n score from pretest to posttest to be statistically signi ficant with a low effect size, t ( 31) = 5.13, p < .05, d = 0 .37 knowledge before and after the treatment, t hese findings o n proximal content knowledge gains agriscience content knowledge before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. Null Hypothesis Two The second null hypothesis stated that there is no significant difference between the scientific reasoning ability of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction. LCTSR were analyzed collectively and separately for mi ddle and high school. Student responses on the pretest yielded a mean pretest score of 7.23 ( SD = 2.80) and a mean posttest score of 8.77 ( SD = 3.58). Analysis via a paired samples t test found this increase to be statistically significant with a low effec t size, t ( 34) = 3.19, p < .05, d = 0 SD = 2.74) and a mean posttest score of 8.75 ( SD = 3.19). This increase in score was determined to be statistically significant with a low eff ect size through the use of a paired samples t test, t ( 27) = 2.53, p < .05, d = 0

PAGE 201

201 led to a mean pretest score of 6.71 ( SD = 3.20) and a mean posttest score of 8.86 ( SD = 5.18). A paired samples t test found this gain to be not significant, t ( 6) = 3.03, p > .05. Because scientific reasoning score gains were found to be statistically significant for all students and for middle school students, the null hypothesis of no difference between lity before and after experiencing SSI based instruction was rejected. Null Hypothesis Three The third null hypothesis for this study stated that there is no significant difference between the argumentation skills of secondary agriculture students before a nd after experiencing SSI based instruction. Students completed argumentation scenarios before and after the intervention. Both the number of argument justifications and the quality of th ose justifications was assessed. Analysis of data was conducted for a ll number of justifications on the pretest was 2.26 ( SD = 0 .95), while the mean number of justifications on the posttest was 2.21 ( SD = 0 .97). This decrease in number of justi fications was not found to be significant, t ( 57) = 0 .29, p > .05. The mean justification quality score on the pretest was 1.67 ( SD = 0 .85), while the mean score on the posttest increased to 2.40 ( SD = 0 .97). Using a paired samples t test, this increase in justification quality was found to be significant w ith a large effect size, t ( 57) = 4.13, p < .05, d = 0 .73. of 2.07 ( SD = 0 .81) and a mean number of posttest justification s of 1.86 ( SD = 0 .89). This decrease in number of justifications between pretest and posttest was found to be not significant, t ( 27) = 1.03, p > .05. With regard to argument justification quality, middle

PAGE 202

202 school students had a mean pretest score of 1.79 ( SD = 0 .79) and a mean posttest score of 1.86 ( SD = 0 .80). A paired samples t test found this increase to be not significant, t ( 27) = .372, p > .05. High school students had a mean number of pretest justifications of 2.43 ( SD = 1.04) and a mean number of po sttest justifications of 2.53 ( SD = 0 .94). A paired samples t test found justifications before and after the intervention, t ( 29) = .36, p > .05. High school cores yielded a mean pretest score of 1.57 ( SD = 0 .90) and a mean posttest score of 2.90 ( SD = 0. 80). A paired samples t test found this increase in quality of justification to be statistically significant with a large effect size, t ( 29) = 5.53, p < .05, d = 2.72. Based on the statistically significant gain in the argumentation quality of all students and of high school students, the null hypothesis of no difference in argumentation skills due to the intervention was rejected. Null Hypothesis Four The fina l null hypothesis stated that there is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI NOS were assessed through multiple it ems, which were administered to the students before and after the intervention. With regard to whether scientists can accept multiple theories simultaneously to explain a phenomenon, the mean difference between pretest and posttest views was 0 .86. A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = 1.10, p > .05 With regard to whether scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values, the mean difference between pretest and posttest views was 0 .29. A pai red samples t test found this difference to be statistically

PAGE 203

203 insignificant, t ( 34) = 0 .55, p > .05 With regard to whether scientists use their imaginations during scientific research, the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .20 A pair ed samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = 0 .27 p > .05 With regard to whether scientific theories are tentative the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .03 A paired samples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 34) = 0 .08 p > .05 With regard to the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 0 .74 A paired samples t test found this di fference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 3 3 ) = 1.07, p > .05. With regard to whether scientists follow a universal scientific method the mean difference between pr etest and posttest views was 1.46 which represents over one category shift. A paired s amples t test found this difference to be statistically insignificant, t ( 3 4 ) = 1.65 p > .05 views of the NOS before and after experiencing SSI based instruction was re tained. Conclusions of Findings and developments several conclusions can be drawn. First, s tudents experiencing SSI based instruction displayed an increase in agriscience content knowledge on all proximal assessments. B oth mi ddle school and high school students experienced increased content knowledge on the proximal assessments. Next, s tudents experiencing SSI based instruction did not display an increase in agriscience content knowledge on the distal assessment. Middle school students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed increased scientific reasoning ability ; however, h igh school students did not display increased scientific reasoning ability. High school students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed gains in

PAGE 204

204 argumentation quality, while middle school students did not. Students did not display any gains in number of argument justifications. Finally, s tudents experiencing SSI based instruction did not display any changes in their views of the NOS Implications from Findings Objective One: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Agriscience Content Knowledge Conclusion: Students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed an increase in agriscience content knowledge on all proximal assessments. Both middle school and high school students experienced increased content knowledge on the proximal assessments. The finding that students displayed an increase in proximal agriscience content knowledge is not surprising as students engaging in any learning experiences with directed content are expected to gain at least some knowledge of that content (Dewey, 1938). This conclusion implies that SSI based instruction can be utilized to ence content knowledge. Conclusion: Students experiencing SSI based instruction did not display an increase in agriscience content knowledge on the distal assessment. The finding that students did not exhibit an increase in distal content knowledge is disc oncerting, as student performance on distal exams, such as standardized achievement tests, are often viewed as a reflection of teacher quality. At face value, this conclusion would imply that students learned nothing that could impact long term knowledge d uring the study, although their short term knowledge was impacted. Klosterman and Sadler (2011) found that students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed significant gains on distal assessments, which questions the conclusion of the present study. A s with the Barab et al (2007) study wh ich posited that a ceiling effect could have caused the lack

PAGE 205

205 circumstances arising during the study may reveal causes of this l ack of transferred knowledge from short term to long term. The study utilized a convenience sample of teachers rather than the originally intended sample of expert teachers, implying that teachers may not have been well versed in methods of instruction req uired by the study, including inquiry based instruction, questioning methods, and facilitation of discussion. Teach ers also employed a maximum of six weeks of instruction during a 14 week timeframe, implying that students were engaged in other a ctivities d uring approximately eight weeks of the study. While the lessons were organized to be delivered in a manner expertise in utilizing the required teaching methods in the l essons could have reduced the amount of knowledge students were able to gain over an extended span of time. Further, informal conversations with teachers implied that student s were fatigue d toward the end of the study duri ng completion of assessments This student fatigue in completing assessments and declining motivation to participat e in the study could have desire to put motivation theory (1977), grades, novelty, initial interest, and variety each serve to motivate students to perform. Pretests were administered in a situation lending students to high motivation the st udy, class, and teacher were each new and different. After 14 weeks, factors could have elicited less motivation from students the course, teacher, performance on the assessm ents. This confounding variable of student motivation, paired with the increased length of the study and great length of time not pertaining to

PAGE 206

206 causing the lack of a significa nt finding. This position is further supported by the large item assessment, th e standard deviation on the posttest was 13.93, which indicates that level of effort may have been a confounding variable leading to the results, the four investigating the impact of SSI knowledge. O bjective Two: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student Scientific Reasoning Ability Conclusion: Middle school students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed increased scientific reasonin g ability. High school students did not display increased scientific reasoning ability. The impact of SSI based instruction on scientific reasoning ability has been previously measured by multiple instruments, each with different findings. The results of t his study add to the body of knowledge regarding the relationship between SSI based instruction and scientific reasoning, yet are neither fully supported nor fully unjustified by previous research. The finding that students experiencing SSI based instructi on displayed increased scientific reasoning ability is partially supported by qualitative work by Barab et al (2007), who found that students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed high socioscientific reasoning skills. However, Barab et al also

PAGE 207

207 scientific reasoning; these alternate findings were unearthed by methods of qualitative research, and were not able to be explored in the current quantitative study. The study by Sadler et al (2011) found no significant difference in the socioscientific reasoning abilities of high school students before and after engaging in SSI based instruction, increased scientifi c reasoning ability. The finding that middle school students displayed a significant increase in scientific reasoning ability while high school students did not is surprising. Typically, one expects students with more education to be more cognitively adva nced. However, middle school students in this sample could have been cognitively able to utilize formal operations required by scientific reasoning, while the high school students may not have yet progressed past concrete operational reasoning (Piaget, 198 1). While it was expected that individuals in this study would follow the typical cognitive developmental timeline, developing structures required to utilize formal operations around age 11, previous research states that many individuals never develop skil ls to utilize these structures (Wadsworth, 1 No 6). In this study, high school students may not have developed the skills to conduct scientific reasoning, while middle school students may have been cognitively ready to utilize these skills. Also providing i mplications stemming from this finding is the notion of achievement loss. Alspaugh (1 No 8) found that students experience a decline in achievement from middle to high school as a result of alterations in many aspects of the educational environment. Because Agriscience Foundations is a beginning level course, all but three of the high school students in this study were in ninth grade. This achievement

PAGE 208

208 loss may have contributed to the findings in this study. The increase in high school soning scores, although not statistically significant, implies that future studies may employ different circumstances that result in significant scientific reasoning improvement. Objective Three: D etermine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model o n Middle and High School Agriculture S tudent Argumentation S kills Conclusion: High school students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed gains in argumentation quality, while middle school students did not. Students did not display any gains in numb er of argument justifications. The finding that students experiencing SSI based instruction displayed gains in argumentation quality is supported by previous research (Dori et al ., 2003; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ). The finding that middle school students did not display statistically significant gains in argumentation quality is also supported, as research by Osborne et al (2004) found that while eighth grade students who were exposed to argumentation content through an SSI context displa yed gains in argumentation quality, these gains were not significant. The finding that students did not display gains in the number of However, Tal and Hochberg utilized qu alitative means to determine the difference in argumentation skills before and after SSI based instruction, and so the increase in number of justifications found may not have been statistically significant. These conclusions imply that while SSI based inst ruction may be of value in perceived time permitted, writing skills, and student motivation may have impacted middle school f motivation of middle and

PAGE 209

209 high school students has already been discussed previously, argumentation quality was a product of both depth of argument development and writing ability. Time and space to write were not limited to the students; however, the pag e on which the scenario was written and teacher behaviors may have implied limits to either time allowed or space to provide an answer. High school students may have had a higher writing ability than middle school students, enabling them to write higher qu ality arguments more succinctly, while middle school students may have lacked the writing ability to state arguments of quality in the space and time perceived to have been provided. This ons; rather than forgetting about certain argument justifications, students could have chosen to include justifications of greater impact over those of lesser impact, and refrained from including all justifications due to perceived limitations in space and time. These uncontrolled variables imply that while argumentation quality may be positively impacted by SSI based instruction, the cognitive maturity of middle and high school students, paired with student perceptions of assignment limitations, may impact arguments. Objective Four: Determine the Effects of an SSI based Instructional Model on Middle and High School Agriculture Student V iews of the NOS Conclusion: Students experiencing SSI based instruction did not display any chang es in their views of the NOS The finding that students experiencing SSI based instruction did not display any changes in their views of the NOS are challenged by other studies with opposing findings, but supported by findings of studies utilizing the same instrument. Studies using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods conducted by Zeidler et al (2009), and Wong et al (2008) found that students

PAGE 210

210 exposed to SSI based instruction exhibited changes in their views of the NOS However, Callahan (2 009) utilized the VOSE to determine the impact of a semester long SSI differences. Callahan cited a lack of differentiation between nave and more sophisticated views of NOS on the VOSE a nd respondent fatigue as potential reasons for the lack of a difference, which could be the case with the current study as well. Further, Khishfe and Lederman (2006) found that explicit instruction focusing on NOS the NOS. Because explicit NOS instruction was the results of this study would be expected. Conclusions of Research Methods The convenience sample utilized in this stud y and the high attrition rate useful in guiding the development of procedures in future studies of a similar nature. First, teachers displayed high attrition. S even of the eleven teachers originally enrolled Those completing the study did not display common characteristics diffe rent from those that dropped out. Next, teachers dropped out of the study due to their inability to complete lesson plans. However, even those that enrolled in the study were unable to complete the entire 45 week duration. Teachers completed between 34 and 37 lessons. Finally, students displayed fatigue toward the final weeks of the study. Their posttest scores on the distal agriscience conte nt knowledge assessment displayed

PAGE 211

211 great variance which was not present on the pretest. This variance is presumed by the researcher to be the result of varying levels of effort put forth by the students, as many of the posttest scores were drastically lower than the pretest scores. Implications from Conclusions of Research Methods Conclusion: Teachers displayed high attrition. The high percentage of teachers that opt ed to drop out of the study speaks volumes about the challenges of utilizing a convenience s ample of teachers in a study so dependent on teacher performance and effort. The study moved from a purposive sample of expert teachers to a convenience sample of all teachers after numerous teachers contacted the researcher displaying interest in the stud Previous research has identified accessibility to resources as a barrier to integrating science in secondary agricultural education (Myers, Thoron, & Thompson, 2009). Before requesting to participate in weeks of daily lesson plans and materials designed to integrate science concepts into the context of agricultural education. Only by consenting to participate did teachers get access to the lesson plans. Conversations with teachers during the training session obtain pre made, thorough lesson plans that aligned with standards and would be impressive to ad ministrators. Many of these teachers later dropped out of the study, implying that teachers enroll in studies for different reasons, and some of those reasons Conclusion: Teachers could not complete the lesson plans that acted as the Informal conversations with teachers indicated that they were delivering lesson plan activities as designed. However, the entire treatment was not

PAGE 212

212 the lesson plans implies that, to some degree, teachers do not teach according to written lesson plans. Each lesson plan activity was written in detail and included guiding questions to aid in aligning discussion with lesson objectives. Teachers unaccustom ed to utilizing such prescribed plans may have difficulty adhering to those written by someone else. Further each lesson activity was accompanied by a recommended time requirement to ensure that each lesson plan would be approximately 45 minutes in duratio n. Informal conversations with teachers revealed that many of the activities were extended in length, and so lesson plans often took two days to complete instead of one. The increased length of time required to complete lesson activities speaks to the teac ability to carry out activities using methods with which they may be unfamiliar. Each of the teachers reported being at least somewhat familiar with teaching methods considered to be complementary to SSI based instruction, including problem solving, inquiry conduct lesson activi ties in a timely fashion suggests that these teaching methods may not be utilized on a re gular basis in their classrooms. These results imply that re quiring students to practice classroom behaviors different from those to which they are accustomed increases the length of time required by teachers and students to carry out the activities Increased time for lesson activities accounted for a portion of the increased study the amount of time teachers devoted to responsibilities other than teaching in the classroom. Management of agricultural facilities, preparing and accompanying students

PAGE 213

213 to county fairs and National FFA Convention, attending livestock shows, participating in school based professional development, and assisting with standardized test preparation were only a fraction of the reasons teachers gave for fal ling behind in delivering lessons, implying that secondary agriculture teachers have many responsibilities that keep them from teaching. A recent study by Torres, Ulmer, and Aschenbrener (2008 ) found that approximately half of the responsibilities of an ag riculture teacher were those not related to teaching in the classroom. These results, paired with those from the current study, indicate that the large amount of time spent outside of the classroom present a challenge for researchers examining teaching met hods in agricultural education. Co nclusion: Teachers indicated that s tudents displayed fatigue toward the final weeks of the study. This displayed decrease in motivation and interest on the part of the students as shown on posttests implies that factors such as instrumentation, t behavior, and the length of the study can negatively impact forth effor t on a Each of the instruments utilized in this study was lengthy, required considerable effort, and was designed and/or validat ed by individuals outside of validated by a group of college juniors. The LCTSR and VOSE were developed to be utilized by college students. The argumentation rubric has been utilized previ ously in oral assessments rather than written assessment, as was conducted in this study. The instruments were originally selected for use in this study because of the cited appropriateness for these instruments for use with high school students. However, the instruments were never validated for use with middle school students. Because the vast

PAGE 214

214 recently transferring from middle school, the terminology used and level of compre growing fatigue. Because teachers did not audio record their lessons, teacher mood and behavior teachers did not experience success in completing the study or staying on the targeted course throughout the study, their behavior could have di splayed to students their own possible fatigue. During a routine conversation, one teacher mentioned that her students were tired of hearing about cultured meat after the winter break. The students were originally told that the unit would last until the end of November; this increase in duration could h ave caused increased student fatigue. The likely reasons for student fatigue listed here, including inappropriate instrumentation, negative teacher behavior, and the unexpected increase in study duration all provide researchers with guidelines for reducing the potential for student fatigue in future studies. Discussion This study offers findings which indicate that an SSI based instructional model can knowledge, scientific reasoni ng ability, and argumentation skills. However, the

PAGE 215

215 outcomes of SSI based instruction are influenced by numerous factors. Many factors, such as teacher selection, duration, treatment fidelity, and instrumentation altered the results of this study, limiting the practical application of the findings and implications. A discussion of how research in agricultural education can overcome the challenges found in this study is warranted in order for the theory of SSI based instruction to be established a s a practica l, impactful teaching method. Differences between Science Education and Agricultural Education Although widely studied in science education, this study represents the first to examine SSI based instruction in agricultural education. The differences betwee n science and agricultural education merit discussion of how SSI based instruction and related research might be realized differently in the two settings. The teachers in the two disciplines are quite different, and studies utilizing teachers can be impact ed due to these differences. How agriculture teachers identify themselves professionally is often different to the professional identity of other teachers, including science teachers (Shoulders & Myers, 2012). While science teachers often enter the profes sion for reasons related to helping children learn, many agriculture teachers enter the profe ssion because of their love of agriculture rather than for a love of children. The responsibilities of the two teachers contrast as well; science teachers spend mo st of their salaried time either planning for lessons or delivering lessons, most often in a classroom. Their standards and curriculum by which they teach are set for them, and so they have little work in the way of curriculum design. The science teacher m ust display quality teaching to impact

PAGE 216

216 science content knowledge. Finally, the science teacher is a crucial part of all schools, as science classes are part of the core ac ademics required for secondary students. Agriculture teachers design their own curriculum based on standards set by the state, and are not held accountable for their teaching quality by a directly related standardized test. These teachers also spend appro ximately half their salaried time fulfilling respons ibilities unrelated to instruction. When focusing on instruction, agriculture teachers are expected to utilize both formal classrooms and agricultural laboratories, although the type of laboratories avail able to each teacher varies by school. Often, these agricultural laboratories require maintenance and are expected to provide products that turn a profit to sustain at least a portion of the agricultural education program. Further, administrators often exp ect agriculture teachers to fill additional roles as needed; frequently, agriculture teachers grow ferns for proms, welding/mechanics/carpentry laboratory, and cook for scho ol events. Finally, agriculture teachers must recruit students and maintain high enrollment in order to keep their jobs, as agricultural education is not required in school and students must elect to enroll in the program. These differences between scienc e and agriculture teachers and their teaching situations point to some differences in how researchers can best work with teachers in order to realize the benefits of SSI based instruction. Researchers must approach the two types of teachers differently, a s their reasons for participating in studies, and subsequently their ability to adhere to study requirements may vary. In this study, many of the teachers that enrolled did so in an effort to reduce the amount of time they had to

PAGE 217

217 devote to planning for cl assroom instruction. However, s tudies that examine the effects of new teaching methods require that those methods be carried out in a quality fashion; delivering instruction in this format requires active, organized teaching methods. The teachers motivated to participate by the promise of pre made lesson plans may not have shared the same dedication to active, quality, and organized teaching that was required by the lesson plans. This difference in researcher expectations (realized through lesson plan requi rements) and teacher behaviors was fueled by the professional identity of other teachers, and could have been avoided if the study had been designed to accommodate the realities of behaviors Designing Teacher friendly Studies Essentially, the procedures of this study were unable to be carried out as designed because of the and actual teacher behaviors. The researcher expected teachers to be able to deliver lesson plans as designed, record each lesson and upload audio r ecordings onto a file shared with the researcher, record and send attendance each day, and administer all pretests and posttests at the appropriate times during the study. Teachers were made aware of these expectations and fully accepted these terms when a greeing to participate in the study. Many teachers asked to be removed from the study when they realized they were unable to meet these expectations. Those that remained in the study were unable to meet these expectations as well, and submitted what they w ere able to, which led to incomplete data for use in the study.

PAGE 218

218 lesson activities is teacher training. Efforts were made to train teachers in a uniform fashion, whether in person or online, teachers engaged in a one hour training which focused on the tenets of SSI based instruction, discussed differences between the teaching style of subject based instruction and SSI based instruction, and detailed the specific requirements of the study. The training session also enabled teachers to explore one week of lessons and ask related questions. While this training session did not focus on problem based learning inquiry based instruction, or experiential learning, the tenets of these theories w ere present in the lessons. Previous literature indicated that even agriculture teachers who have extensive training in inquiry based instruction report utilizing inquiry based teaching strategies approximately two times per week and only report utilizing student based inquiry activities once per month (Myers, Thoron, & with every lesson. Designing training that has the content and duration needed to impact teache complete study requirements. While study methods aligning with research ideals make for solid studies, those studies are only useful if they are able to be carried out. Research in social science requires a balance between rigorous research methods and those that are practical in make a more rigorous study; however, these increased responsibilities on teachers made the attrition rate much higher than what is typically seen in these types of studies.

PAGE 219

219 n an agricultural education program. By working more closely during the design phase of the study, aspects requiring teacher effort, such as lesson plan delivery, methods to ensure treatment fidelity, and test administration can be developed in a way that better aligns with Teaching has been reported to be an increasingly difficult occupation as increased 1 No 9, p. 59). While a purposive sample of acc urately identified expert teachers may have led to a decrease in the attrition rate of this study, students are taught every year by teachers who are not experts and suffer a decrease in teaching quality due to external pressures. SSI based instruction can provide agriculture teachers with a tool content knowledge in agriscience. SSI based instruction should be designed in a way that can help teachers maintain or improve t eaching quality while meeting the demands Recommendations for Future Research Numerous follow up studies could help the profession gain a more thorough understanding of how SSI based instruction can impact secondary agricu lture students. However, the above discussion warrants several recommendations to guide researchers when developing studies. First, s tudies depending on teachers can only be carried out successfully when the methods are designed in a way that encourages teacher cooperation and success. Therefore, teachers should be included in as much of the design process as their schedules will allow. Partnersh ips between researchers and teachers during the development process can aid in developing and field testing lesson

PAGE 220

220 plans, determining the activities and SSI(s) appropriate for student groups, and designing methods that will be plausible in agricultural edu cation programs. Teachers are responsible for designing their own lesson plans, and therefore may feel more comfortable teaching from treatment lesson plans they have helped develop. This design process can increase the level of understanding and practice teachers have with pertinent teaching methods, increasing the duration and meaning of training they have received. Further, research methods guided by both teachers and researchers can ensure a realistic balance between rigorous and plausible procedures. A t the very least, teachers will gain a sense of the importance of carrying out methods designed to increase the validity of the study. Opportunities for Future Research This study served as the first investigating SSI based instruction in secondary agricu ltural education. Therefore, recommendations impacting future research can be made in an effort to further understand how SSI based instruction can benefit agriculture students. Recommendations highlight the need for future research in the areas of researc h methods, populations and samples, intervention, and instrumentation. This study explored the effects of SSI based instruction in a pre experimental fashion. Future studies are needed to explore the impacts of SSI based instruction compared to other metho ds of instruction. Additionally, longitudinal studies could help determine the impact achievement loss between middle school and high school has on based instruction. Because research in the social sciences cannot be understo od holistically through quantitative methods, qualitative research should be conducted in order to better understand how aspects of SSI based instruction are utilized and impact students.

PAGE 221

221 The different populations and samples of teachers and students in ag ricultural education provide several areas for future inquiry. Studies utilizing SSI based instruction should utilize a variety of teachers and samples, including expert teachers, national samples, and teachers involved in specific training endeavors to be tter understand how teacher variables impact the use of SSI based instruction. Studies utilizing SSI based instruction should also utilize a variety of student samples, including specific grade levels, states, national samples, school achievement levels, s ocio economic status levels, groups of varying ethnicity, and FFA involvement to gain a better understanding of how SSI based instruction is impacted by student variables. Finally, this study represented the first investigating SSI based instruction in agr icultural education. A follow up study involving interviews of the teachers enrolled in this study should be conducted in order to better understand the qualities of the instruction that enhanced or deterred learning. The intervention utilized in this stu dy focused on one SSI and employed specific activities in each of the lessons. The wide array of SSIs requires that studies investigating the impact of different SSI topics be conducted to determine whether certain SSIs are more impactful than others. Addi tionally, the experiential tenets of agricultural education merit exploration into the impact various activities have on student learning in SSI based instruction. The complications agriculture teachers have completing lessons in the classroom appears to be unique to this type of teacher, as science teachers typically utilize only classroom based learning settings. Further research incorporating various agricultural laboratories into SSI based instruction can istently teach SSI based lessons while

PAGE 222

222 maintaining their responsibilities in laboratories. Additionally, SSI based instruction may impact students differently in these agricultural laboratories, and investigation of these laboratories is recommended. The d uration of studies investigating SSI based instruction varies greatly. Further research on the optimal duration of an SSI based instructional unit is warranted. The instruments employed in this study were determined to accurately and completely measure the constructs to which they were aligned by validity and reliability measures. However, the nature of social science research implies that many constructs can be accurately measured in a holistic fashion through multiple instruments. This study utilized spec ific instruments to test SSI agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, argumentation, and views of the NOS. Because these assessments represent the constructs under study, further investigations sh ould utilize these and other instruments to gain a more holistic understanding for how SSI based instruction impacts these learning outcomes. The impact of SSI through oral assessment i n order to eliminate writing ability as a confounding variable. This study examined a limited number of aspects of scientific literacy. Because learning outcomes related to scientific literacy incorporate additional facets, further study should be conducte d to investigate how SSI based instruction impacts other aspects of based instruction in society warrants further study on the impact of societal influence, including media, family discourse, and individual an d family values on decisions made related to SSIs. Previous research stated that SSI based instruction had positive impacts on student interest. Further

PAGE 223

223 research should be conducted to determine how SSI based instruction impacts the subject and toward the class. Finally, among the goals of SSI based instruction is educated decision making. Future studies can be conducted to determine the impact SSI Recommendations for C urriculum Development This study found that SSI based instruction can assist students in increasing agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, and argumentation skills. These results yield several recommendations for individuals responsib le for curriculum development in secondary agricultural education. First, b ased on previous research in SSI based instruction, SSI selection should be the product of student interest. Further, d evelopment of an SSI based instructional unit for use in this study indicated that the SSI should align with course standards that address multiple aspects of the issue. Based on the development of the SSI based instructional lessons, teaching activities should align with tenets of experiential learning, inquiry base d instruct ion, and SSI based instruction. Findings of this study indicate that the use of guiding questions throughout lessons can aid students in developing argumentation and scientific reasoning skills. Based on the findings of this study, more curriculu m materials should be developed to assist teachers in incorporating SSI based instruction into specific courses. Based on the teacher mortality rate of this study and the recommendations of previous studies, teachers should be involved in the curriculum de velopment process. Finally, w hen planning course curriculum, consideration of areas appropriate for SSI based instruction should be identified, as this method of instruction is more appropriate for certain content areas than others.

PAGE 224

224 Recommendations for Pre service and Inservice Teacher Education This study found that student achievement in agriscience content knowledge, scientific reasoning ability, and argumentation quality can be raised through the use of SSI based instruction. Teachers utilizing SSI based instruction can be assisted through recommendations for preservice and inservice teacher education. First, b ased on the findings of this study, t eachers should be encouraged to utilize SSI based instruction in secondary agricultural education. The agricul tural context of many SSIs can offer teachers a means for highlighting the scientific content in agriculture. Teachers engaging in SSI based instruction should focus on a variety of learning outcomes related to scientific literacy. This study shows that st udent learning can be enhanced in a variety of areas outside of content knowledge. The skills regarding decision making and reasoning should also be outcomes of SSI based instruction. T eachers should be educated in methods of holistic curriculum developmen t, as SSI based instruction requires considerable reorganization of course standards, units, and lessons. Based on the tenets of SSI selection, t eachers should be guided in the identification of SSIs appropriate for the context of agriculture. Teachers sho uld be trained in SSI based instruction through methods providing for increased duration beyond one training session. Teacher educators should educate preservice and inservice teachers in complementary teaching methods, such as experiential learning, inqui ry based instruction, and the use of media to aid teachers in appropriately incorporating activities into SSI based lessons. Extensive training in these methods should accompany any development related to SSI based instruction. Partnerships should be made between preservice teachers, inservice teachers, and teacher educators when developing

PAGE 225

225 based instruction. Finally, t eacher educators should observe SSI based instruction in practice and provide reflections to teachers in order to develop an informal list of best practices for SSI based instruction in agricultural education. Summary Chapter 5 presented c onclusions stemming from the findings. Chapter 5 also provided recommendations for teacher educators and curriculum developers seeking to utilize SSI based instruction in agricultural education. Finally, the chapter offered recommendations for future resea rch to enhance the body of knowledge regarding SSI based instruction in agricultural education. The objectives of the study were : (a ) to determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture student agriscience content knowledg e (b ) to determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture stude nt scientific reasoning ability, ( c ) to determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture student argumentation skills and ( d ) to determine the effects of an SSI based instructional model on secondary agriculture student views of the NOS. Null hypot heses for the study included: (a ) t here is no significant difference between the agriscience content knowledge of secondary agricul ture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction, (b ) t here is no significant difference between the scientific reasoning ability of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction (c ) t here is no signif icant difference between the argumentation skills of secondary agriculture students before and after experiencing SSI based instruction and (d ) t here is no significant difference between the views of the NOS of secondary agriculture students before and af ter experiencing SSI based instruction.

PAGE 226

226 based instruction is effective in increasing ability, and argumentation skills. These findin gs, combined with previous research, provided recommendations for preservice and inservice teachers, curriculum developers, and researchers seeking to further expand upon the available knowledge related to how SSI based instruction can impact student learn ing in agricultural education.

PAGE 227

227 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 1 Lesson Title: Cultured Meat An Introduction Unit Title: The Introduction of Cultured Meat Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Argumentation Pretest (classroom set) 3 highlighters per student (optional can be replaced with one writing inst rument) 3 index cards per student Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological control s, etc. ) 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data Essential Question: Daily Objectives: 1. Define cultured meat. 2. Explain the reasons individuals want to introduc 3. Develop an initial position regarding the development of cultured meat.

PAGE 228

228 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes ly, using three highlighters or marks (underline, one color or mark will represent items they believe to be true another w ill represent items they believe to be false and the third will be used to mark items they have questions about or are unsure of. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Before any discussion, students will complete the Argumentation Pretest. This should be turned in. For the pretest, students will n ot be given any guidance in developing their arguments. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline After all pretests are turned in, the teacher will ask students to share item s they think are true or false or have questions about, and ask them why they feel this way. Students should be and questions. Guiding questions Why do you think that is true/false? How might we find the answer to that q uestion? Cultured meat a laboratory environment. Cultured meat does not require the killing of the animal. Synonyms artificial meats, in vitro meats, lab grown meat

PAGE 229

229 Summary (Review) Estimate d Time: 10 minutes Each student should receive 3 index cards. Using the article from the interest approach as a guide, have students fol lowing five categories: Food safety/human health Environmental impacts Economic impacts Animal industry/animal welfare Other Students will write questions on index cards and post on a wall in the classroom under the appropriate heading ( these should alread appropriate heading ). They can write questions in any of the categories, and can write more than one question in a category, but they must use each of th eir three index cards. The teacher should inform students that the class will work to answer some of these questions through the upcoming nine weeks. Evaluation Students will turn in their argumentation pretests to the teacher. Items Students Turn In Argumentation Pretest

PAGE 230

230 Defending Food Safety Posted at 12:30 AM on December 7, 2009 by Shawn Stevens What's A Burger Without A Cow? The burger of the future may soon be here. It will look, smell and taste the same as a burger does today. The only difference is that there may no longer be a need for the cow. Technological advancements across the food industry, along with those in the bio sector, have resulted in recent breakthro ughs which could make artificial (or, in vitro) meats available in grocery stores as early as 2012. Using embryonic cells to grow muscle tissue in a steel tank (imagine growing meat in a test tube), the process will likely be similar in many ways to yogurt production. While the idea of eating artificially grown meat might seem somewhat "distasteful," the breadth of new incentives may eventually outweigh any potential consumer hesitance. For starters, the meat of the future will be made to taste as good or, perhaps, even better than its naturally grown counterparts. In addition to tasting great, it will also likely be healthier because scientists will be able to manipulate the nutritional content to optimal levels. Imagine a burger, for instance, that helps t o prevent, rather than promote, heart attacks. And, while promoting long term health benefits, lab grown meat, whether chicken, beef, pork or lamb, will be inherently safe. According to Jason Matheny of the research group New Harvest, the possibility of pa thogenic contamination should become almost nonexistent. If we could produce meat in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhou ses, added Matheny, we could substantially reduce the number of food borne illnesses an d ancillary costs associated with outbreaks. In a recent interview with CNN, Matheny also stated that Bio meat could substantially reduce other human illnesses as well. These would include ailments "like swine flu, avian flu, and mad cow disease." Beyond f ood safety, the financial benefits for companies producing meat without the expense of raising it are tremendous. It takes 700 calories of feed to produce a 100 calorie piece of beef. And, this does not take into account the other logistical problems of us he whole animal and lose 75 to 95 percent of what we feed it." Ultimately, with lab engineered meat, food companies would no longer have to pay for raising, feeding, housing and providing veterinary treatment to live animals.

PAGE 231

231 Question Wall Headings Environmental Impacts The Production of Cultured Meat and Supply

PAGE 232

232 Food Safety/Human Health Animal Industry/Animal Welfare

PAGE 233

233 Other Economic Impacts

PAGE 234

23 4 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 2 Lesson Title: Food Safety Concerns Unit Title: Food Safety Course: Agriscience Foundations Estim ated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Classroom computer hooked to a projector Food Safety Pretest Food Safety Concerns powerpoint Note please check that all hyperlinks work before class Justification Ev aluation Sheets (classroom set) GMO Products Packets (one per group of 3 students) GMO Benefits and Drawbacks Sheets (classroom set) Index cards ( classroom set ) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agri culture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.). 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: Why are consumers concerned with food safety? Daily Objectives 1. Identify historical events that have led consumers to elicit concern regarding food safety. 2. Identify biological innovations that have impacted the food supply. 3. Evaluate the potential benefits and dra wbacks of advancements in biotechnology.

PAGE 235

235 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes ( http://www.fsis.u SD a.gov/fsis_recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp?src_location=Content&src_page=FSISRecalls ) Explain to students that the webpage is a list of all current recalle d meat and poultry products in the US the recalls can be limited to a certain region or nation wide. Guiding questions How many recalls were there since the beginning of the school year? What about since the beginning of the summer? What are some common reasons listed for the foods being recalled? Do you think you may have eaten any of these products? Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students take the Food Safety Prete st. Appropriate testing conditions should be enforced. These should be turned in upon completion.

PAGE 236

236 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give each student an index card and i nstruct them to draw a checkmark on one side of the card and an X on the other side. Explain to the students that the class will be evaluating some recent major food safety concerns people have had that have impacted the food production industry. Stude nts will take notes on the food safety issue using the attached Justification Evaluation Sheet while the teacher introduces the content through the Food Safety Concerns powerpoint. After each issue is introduced, students will evaluate their notes and hol d up their index cards, showing the checkmark side if they feel the concern was legitimate and justified and the X side if they feel the concern was unfounded and unjustified. After students hold up their cards, briefly ask students to explain why they fe el the concern was justified or unfounded. Guiding questions Why do you feel that concern is justified/unjustified? Why do you think people are concerned if the concern is unjustified? 1. Beef a. E. coli b. Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) c. F oot and Mouth Disease d. Hormone additive controversy 2. Swine a. H1N1 3. Poultry a. Avian Influenza 4. Lettuce a. E.coli 5. Peanut Butter a. Salmonella 6. Sprouts a. E.coli

PAGE 237

237 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outl ine Put students into groups of 3. students, and tell the students that they will be examining how different GMOs and their purposes have impacted food safety concerns. Give each student group a p Tell the students that the GMO products listed are currently in various stages of development not all are commercially available now. Tell the students to arrange the slips of paper into the following categories of goals for food biotechnology: Overcome agricultural limitations Increase food quality Improve human health Minimize environmental impact After student groups have their slips arranged under each of the categories, have a class discussion about why they put certain items in certain categories. Guiding questions What items did you put under this category? Where did you place this GMO? Why do you think that GMO addresses this concern? 1. Terminology a. Biotechnology using organisms and their component s to make products (includes GMOs) b. Genetically modified foods alters the genetic makeup of organisms (plants, animals, bacteria). AKA genetically engineered, transgenic 2. a. Overcome agricultural limitations i. Salt tol erant plants ii. Increase in milk production in dairy cows iii. Increase growth rates with hormones iv. Fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier v. Drought or flood resistant crops b. Increase food quality i. Shelf life Flavr Savr tomatoes ii. Pest resistance Bt corn iii. Dise ase resistance cattle resistant to BSE iv. Taste increase meat tenderness c. Improve human health i. Lactose fortified milk ii. iii. Rice with increased iron and vitamins iv. Bananas that produce human vaccines d. Minimize environmenta l impact i. Detect pollutants easily with use of GloFish ii. Increase nitrogen efficiency, less fertilizer iii. Enviropig iv. Goat with spider silk

PAGE 238

238 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Have students individually evaluate the Benefits and Drawbacks of GMOs sheet. Next to each group of benefits and drawbacks offered on the sheet, have the student circle the checkmark or X indicating whether think that GMOs overall add benefits to that aspect or are overall more detrimental to that aspect Students will then defen This should be turned in as students leave. Evaluation Students will turn in their Benefits and Drawbacks justifications and will be assessed formatively by the teacher throughout the lesson. Items Stude nts Turn In Food Safety Pretest GMO Benefits and Drawbacks Sheet (for classroom use)

PAGE 239

239 Justifications Evaluation Sheet Instructions: safety. Following the information p rovided by your teacher and powerpoint, use the space below to take notes on the aspects of the concern that you feel are justified (people had reason and their fo od safety was not really in danger). Concerns with Beef: The Concern Justified aspects of the concern Unfounded aspects of the concern E. coli Mad Cow Disease (BSE) Foot and Mouth Disease Controversy over Hormone Additives Concerns w ith Swine: The Concern Justified aspects of the concern Unfounded aspects of the concern H1N1 Concerns with Poultry: The Concern Justified aspects of the concern Unfounded aspects of the concern Avian Influenza Concerns with Crop Products: Th e Concern Justified aspects of the concern Unfounded aspects of the concern E. coli in lettuce Salmonella in peanut butter E. coli in sprouts

PAGE 240

240 GMO Products Packet Cut these into slips of paper to create a separate packet for each student gro up. Salt tolerant plants Increase milk production in dairy cows Increase growth rate using hormones in livestock Fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier Drought and flood resistant crops Tomatoes with longer shelf life Plants resistant to ce rtain pests Cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease Increase meat tenderness with gene manipulation Reduce bad fats and cholesterol in meats Increase good fatty acids in plant oils Rice with increased vitamins and irons Bananas that produce huma n vaccines Reduce waste excreted by enhancing Detect pollutants in water with Glofish Increase nitrogen efficiency in plants for less nitrogen fertilizer Enviropig digests phosphorus to produce less phosphorus Goats that produce spider silk to requir e less building materials

PAGE 241

241 X Comments: X Comments: X Comments: X Comments: X Comments: X Comments:

PAGE 242

242 Slide 1 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ _________ __________________________ _________________________________ __ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 2 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ________________________________ ___ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 3 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ______________________________ _____ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________

PAGE 243

243 Slide 7 ___________________________________ ________ ___________________ ________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 8 __________________________ _________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 9 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________________________ _______

PAGE 244

244 Slide 13 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ __________ _________________________ ___________________________________

PAGE 245

245 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Have students watch Beef Production Promoti onal Ad ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y8WVpbdnb8&feature=related ). Note this video is also located in the dropbox folder if you cannot access youtube. Through class discussion create a list of people/organizations responsible for food safety and the actions they take to ensure food safety. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 3 Lesson Title: Agricultural Practices and their Relation to Food Safety Unit Title: Food Safety Course: Agriscience Foundations Esti mated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Production Practices for Safety Worksheet (classroom set) Production Practices for Safety Powerpoint Computer linked to a projector Classroom set of computers with in ternet access Safety Agriscience Foundations Standards: 2.03 Evaluate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain. 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, healt h, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Essential Question: How is food safety impacted by production practices and animal health? Daily Objectives 1. Identi 2. Analyze the impact of current agricultural practices on food safety.

PAGE 246

246 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline ction Practices for inform students of agricultural practices in meat production industries. On the worksheet, the student will list practices that positively impact various industry aspects. Guiding qu estions What is the purpose of this practice? Do you feel this practice is necessary? Why/why not? 1. Beef Industry a. Animal Management b. Processing 2. Swine Industry a. Animal Management b. Processing 3. Poultry Industry a. Animal Management b. Processing 4. Dairy Industry a. Anim al Management b. Processing Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students get into pairs, each with at least one Worksheet, student pai rs will search the organizations on the sheet to determine how each organization contributes to food safety. 1. USDA a. AMS b. APHIS c. ERS d. FSIS e. FAS f. GIPSA g. NASS h. NIFA 2. FDA 3. CDC 4. EPA

PAGE 247

247 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes When the students are finished w Evaluation et. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 248

248 Production Practices for Safety Instructions: For each of the aspects of food production concerns listed below, identify specific practices used in different animal industries that positively impact t he aspect. Animal Welfare: Beef Swine Poultry Dairy Human Health: Beef Swine Poultry Dairy Food Safety/Quality: Beef Swine Poultry Dairy Environmental Impact: Beef Swine Poultry Dairy

PAGE 249

249 Safet y Instructions: a computer, search the internet to determine the responsibilities of each of the following organizations in maintaining a safe food supply. Organization Responsibility __ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service A. agency that monitors consumer illness, identifies foods linked with illness, investigates illness outbreaks and cases, and informs public of food safety action. __ USDA Agricultur al Research Service B. administers variety and seed laws, provides voluntary verification services for GM foods. __ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service C. federal agency that ensures foods are safe. Responsible for food labeling, safety of all food products except meat and poultry. __ USDA Economic Research Service and egg products are safe, wholesome, correctly labeled, and correctly packaged. __ USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service E. p rovides inspection and related services on grains, pulses, oilseeds, and processed commodities. __ USDA Foreign Agricultural Service F. conducts research on economic aspects of using GMOs. __ USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administrat ion F. determines safety and effectiveness of pesticides and establishes tolerance levels for chemical residues on feed crops, raw, and processed foods. __ USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service G. conducts research in new traits and improving ex isting livestock. Assesses the safety of biotechnology products. __ USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture H. provides information and data on the adoption of biotechnology crops. __ Food and Drug Administration I. supports overseas acceptanc e of biotechnology and crops that have been reviewed by governmental agencies __ Center for Disease Control J. regulates field testing, interstate movement, and importation of GMOs. Also determines whether a GMO is safe for the environment. __ Environmen tal Protection Agency K. provides funding and leadership for research in biotechnology and information related to the safety of introducing GMOs to the environment When you have identified the responsibilities of each organization, describe the step by s tep process (identifying the organizations involved at each step) for GMO development and use that you think a GMO would have to go through in order to be used commercially. Your GMO development list can be listed on the back of this paper.

PAGE 250

250 Slide 1 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________ _______________________ Slide 2 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ________ ___________________________ ___________________________________

PAGE 251

251 Slide 7 Slide 9 Slide 8 Slide 10 Slide 9 Slide 11

PAGE 252

252 Slide 12 Slide 15 Slide 13 Slide 14

PAGE 253

253 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Hold a brief class discussion about whether the students feel the public concerns with food safety warrant the development an d production of GMOs. Guiding questions Do you feel GMOs should be developed and produced? What public conc erns with food safety do you think the GMOs alleviate? Are any new concerns developed with the development of GMOs? Are any public concerns alleviated with method s other than GMO development? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issu es Instruction Day 4 Lesson Title: Improvement Areas in Food Safety Unit Title: Food Safety Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Public Concerns with the Food I ndustry Sheets (one set) Crayons, markers, other items to promote creativity (optional) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 2.03 Evaluate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain. 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, health, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Essential Question: How can the animal and food industries improve food safety? Daily Objectives 1. Compare current agricultural practices and consumer concerns to determine areas of improvement in food safety. 2. Evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of possible solutions to current food safety issues.

PAGE 254

254 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Di rections / Materials Brief Content Outline Divide students into eight groups. Give each group one of sheets. The groups should develop a list of current solutions that the food industry is employing in response to the public concerns. The solutions can be written in the appropriate spaces on the sheets (if preferred, you can supply crayons or markers and direct students to draw pictures representing the current solutions or develop dvertise their solutions to the problem). Have each group present the concerns listed on the sheet and the solutions they feel are being used to address those concerns. If students do not list the concerns on the content outline, question them about whet her they think those address the concerns as well. Encourage students to question one another in this manner as well. Guiding questions What about this solution? How do you feel that solution addresses the concerns? Do you think these concerns are le gitimate? Can you think of any other concerns? 1. Food Quality a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 2. Food Safety a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 3. Economic Impacts a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 4. Environmental Impacts a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 5. H uman Health a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 6. Plant and Animal Industry a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 7. Animal Welfare a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions 8. Ethics a. Public Concerns b. Current Solutions

PAGE 255

255 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 15 minutes Usi ng their notes from the week, including biotechnological advancements and their benefits and drawbacks, historical events tha t have led consumers to elicit concerns regarding food safety, agricultural practices addressing food safety, governmental organiza tions involved in food safety, and current solutions to public food safety concerns, have students individually create newspaper articles that convince readers that the food supply is safe or should be a cause of concern for the public. These should be tu rned in as students leave. Evaluation Students will turn in their newspaper articles and will be evaluated through additional questions asked during their presenta tions. Items Students Turn In Newspaper articles

PAGE 256

256 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Food Quality Public Concerns: Inconsistency with product quality Cost versus quality Shelf life of products Current Solutions:

PAGE 257

257 P ublic Concerns with the Food Industry Food Safety Public Concerns: Contamination through p rocessing Allergens Lack of consistent regulation Bioterrorism Lack of knowledge of GMO impacts Current Solutions:

PAGE 258

258 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Economic Impacts Public Concerns: High cost of quality foods World hunger Cu rrent Solutions:

PAGE 259

259 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Environmental Impacts Public Concerns: Current Solutions:

PAGE 260

260 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Human Health Public Concerns: Food safety recalls from food infected with diseases Poor diets that are high in fat and low in nutrition lead to diseases Increasing prevalence of food allergies among children Current Solutions:

PAGE 261

261 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Plant and Animal Industries Public Concerns: Larger farms push out smaller farms Growing world population public perception of food production practices Current Solutions:

PAGE 262

262 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Animal Welfare Public Concerns: public perception of food production practices related to treatment of animals Current Solutions:

PAGE 263

263 Public Concerns with the Food Industry Ethics Public Concerns: so me disagree with the slaughtering of animals for human consumption Current Solutions:

PAGE 264

264 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 5 Lesson Title: Food Safety Assessment Unit Title: Food Safety Course: Agrisc ience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Food Safety Posttest (classroom set) Computer linked to a projector and the internet Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.08 Evaluate advan ces in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.). 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. 2.03 Evaluate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain. 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, health, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencie s that impact agricultural practices. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry address public concerns of food safety? Daily Objectives 1. Display knowledge regarding agricultural industry practices and public concerns of food safety. 2. Evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of cultured meat on food safety.

PAGE 265

265 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Explain to students that they will be taking the Food Safety Posttest. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 10 minute s Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will complete the Food Safety Posttest. Standard testing procedures should be enforced. Tests should be turned in upon completion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Inst ructor Directions / Materials Split students into two groups one advocating for the production of cultured meat and one opposing the production of cultured meat ition regardless of their personal viewpoints). ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W Ou 5TISemU&feature=related ). Note this video is also available in the dropbox folder if you do not have access to youtube. Tell students to pay particular attention to the comments made regarding aspects of food safety. Hold a brief debate between the t requirements include: Must support v iewpoint of assigned side Must focus on the food safety aspect of the controversy The opposing side member facing this first student will offer a rebuttal with a statement (also following the above requireme nts) that omment or offers a new statement. Students will offer statements, alternating turns on each side, down the line until all students have provided a statement.

PAGE 266

266 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes As a class, have a brief discussion about which s caused that side to win. Evaluation Students will submit their Food Safety Posttest. Items Students Turn In Food Safety Posttest

PAGE 267

267 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated T ime: 15 minutes Students will take the Economic Impacts Pretest. Daily Plan Socio Scie ntific Issues Instruction Day 6 Lesson Title: Animal Production and the Economy Unit Title: Economic Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Economic Impact Pretest (classroom set) Classroom set of computers with internet access List of Economic Impacts Websites (one per group, or post on projector) Note teacher is responsible for checking each website for inappropriate content before class Agriscience Fou ndations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essentia l Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Explain the economic importance of meat production. 2. Identify aspects that determine credibility of written sources.

PAGE 268

268 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Arrange students into groups of 2. Ask the groups to develop a well supporte d answer to the following questions: meat alleviate or cause economic problems? Give each student group 1 or 2 computers, dependi ng on computer availability. Have students search the list of economic impacts websites to develop a multi point argument supporting their answer. During their data collection, students should also develop a list of criteria they u sed in determining whe Note websites are associated with organizations, and may be blocked from school servers. Instruct students to search for other resources if necessary. Further, some websites may contain offensive or c ontroversial content due to the controversial nature of the subject. Teachers should view all websites before class to ensure that all co ntent is appropriate for the class. Explain to students that they will be presenting their arguments and their lists of criteria for credibility during the next lesson. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Using their credibility criteria lists, have student groups evaluate the credibility of at least one website opposing their v iewpoint. Reasons for whether th e website is credible or not should be written at the bottom of their lists of credibility criteria to be used in the next cl ass. Evaluation Students will present their arguments and their lists of criteria for credibility, as well evaluate the credibil the following class. Items Students Turn In Economic Impact Pretest

PAGE 269

269 Economic Impact Websites Meat Fuels America: www.meatfuelsamerica.com American Meat Institute: http://www.meatami.com/ o Explore Beef: http://www.explorebeef.org/ New Harvest: http://www.new harvest.org Why Cultured Meat: http://www.whyculturedmeat.org The In Vitro Meat Consortium: http://invitromeat.org

PAGE 270

270 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues I nstruction Day 7 Lesson Title: Debating the Economic Impact of Animal Production Unit Title: Economic Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Criteria for Credibility Sheet (classroom set) Criteria for Credibility powerpoint Economic Impact Reflection Question (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Evaluate the trustworthi ness and credibility of information sources. 2. Develop an argument defending a specific viewpoint regarding the economic impact of the animal production industry.

PAGE 271

271 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes the included aspects of credibility. Reflections should be written in the appropriate place on the sheet. Note each student should complete his/her own reflec tion sheet. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Through lecture, the teacher will use the powerpoint to guide students through the criteria for evaluating sources. Note the powerpoin t evaluates pieces of the Dihygrogen Monoxide website for credibility, and should be used to supplement discussion guided by the Criteria for Credibility sheet. During this time, students should be encouraged to discuss how they found or used aspects of c riteria to evaluate their sources according to their reflections written on their sheet. Students should also write additional notes from the discussion on their sheets. Guiding questions How did you use this piece of criteria? Was the website you ev aluated credible based on this piece of criteria? Did you find anything that told you this piece of criteria was lacking? Where do you think you could find this on a website? Did you have this piece of criteria on your list from yesterday? Why or why n ot? 1. Considerations in evaluation of sources: a. Authority of the author/publisher/speaker b. Objectivity of the author c. Quality of the work d. Coverage of the work e. Currency of the work

PAGE 272

272 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Mate rials Brief Content Outline Student groups will present their arguments developed yesterday. During their presentations, they should include the following: Their viewpoint Supporting evidence from the websites related to their viewpoint (not related to t he credibility of the website) The websites they got their supporting evidence from Note If time is limited, the teacher should select a number of groups to present, either voluntarily or through teacher selection. If this is done, groups should have di fferent viewpoints if possible. During the presentations, students should be instructed to consider the evidence being presented and evaluate its credibility according to their current knowledge on the subject. The teacher should also ask students with o pposing credibility. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Students should respond individually to the Economic Impact Reflection Question and turn in their responses. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through classroom discussion during presentations and through their reflection responses. Items Students Turn In Criteria for Credibility sheet (optional should be returned to students if collected) Economic Impact Reflection Question

PAGE 273

273 Names ___________________ Criteria for Credibility Instructions: Using the criteria listed on the left side of the page, reflect on how you used (or did not use) each piece of criteria when you evaluated website credibility yesterday. Include examples in your reflections from the website you evaluated. Be sure to flip the page over there is a back! Credibility Criteria Example Student Reflection of Use Authority of author/publisher Who is the author? Organization, one person, university, etc. credentials? Educational degrees, institutional affiliation, employment experience, past writings reputation? Cited in articles on the topic, wh at you know from informal conversation or hearsay Who is the publisher? .edu, .gov, .org? Known for scholarly publications, basic values and goals, beliefs or goals of the organization Class Notes regarding Authority of Author/Publisher: Objectivit y of author Goals of the publication? Inform, educate, explain, persuade? Try to sell something? Does the author rant or rave? Does the author exhibit a particular bias? Commitment to a point of view, acknowledgement of bias, presents both sides o r only one side of an issue, language free of emotion arousing words and biases Does the information appear to be valid and well researched? Reasonable assumptions and conclusions, supported by evidence,

PAGE 274

274 opinions are not disguised as facts, sources cited Class Notes regarding Author Objectivity: Quality of work Is the information well organized? Logical structure, clear main points, text flows well, good grammar Are graphics professional and appropriate? Professional layout, website is error f ree Is information complete and accurate? Facts and results agree with your knowledge on the subject and with other things you have read or learned, sources are documented Class Notes regarding Quality of Work: Coverage of work Does the work u se other sources? Includes references Have you found enough information to support your argument Gaps in your argument and evidence (facts, statistics, ect.) Class Notes regarding Coverage of Work: Currency of work When was it published or last edited? Website maintained Does the topic require current information? Information may change based on new developments Has the source been revised or updated? Updates, recent news brief, etc. Class Notes regarding Currency of Work:

PAGE 275

275 Name ________________________ Economic Impact Reflection Question Consider on your work over the past two days, the information you viewed on the websites, and the information you learned in student presentations. Based on these, what is your opinion regard ing the following two questions: economy? Would the use of cultured meat alleviate or cause economic problems? Please support your opinions with appropriate evide nce.

PAGE 276

276 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 277

277 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9

PAGE 278

278 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes On a sheet of paper, have each student list their 5 favorite non processed foods. Then, have the students predict and writ e down the top countries they think are responsible for producing the most of each of those products. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 8 Lesson Title: Products Impacting the US Economy Unit Title: Economic Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: United Nations Statistics Division ( http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.html?lang=en&country=231&year=2005 ) Agricultural Commodities powerpoint Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explai n the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and properties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How does the agricultu ral industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Predict the role of the United States in the global agricultural market. 2. Identify agricultural products that contribute to local, state, national, and global economies. 3. Describe the gl obal relationship of importers and exporters of agricultural products.

PAGE 279

279 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline ( http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.html?lang=en&country=231&year=2005 ) on the computer projector for the class to see. Then the teacher sh left side of the page, the teacher should look up the product with the class to determine the top producers of that product (note: from 2005). If the US is not #1 for a product, show the class where the US ranks for that product. their favorite products. Guiding questions What is your favorite agricultural product? Which country do you think is responsible for the most production? Where do you think the US falls in production for that product? Why do you think that country is ranked so high for that product? Why do you think the US is/is not ranked #1 for that product? Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Following the Agricultural Commodities powerpoint, the teacher should lecture about the top agricultural commodities for the US and Florida. During the lecture, the students should take notes and consider how the mass production of cultured meat would impact the demand and production for the US top com modities. Guiding questions Why is the US capable of being a top producer of this the production of cultured meat impact the need for these products? How do you think that would impa ct other aspects of the economy? 1. US Ranking in World Production (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005) 2. and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005) 3. modities (USDA, 2009) 4. 5.

PAGE 280

280 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instruct students to create a meal that utilizes the greatest number of top US agricultural products. The meal should be complete, and may use products from other countries when necessary. Students should ask the teacher what country is the top producer o f an ingredient if the US is not #1, and the teacher can look it up on the previously used website. If there is time, the class can compete for the student that creates a realistic dish with the most US ingredients. Evaluation Students will be evaluated formatively through in class questioning and the meal creation competition. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 281

281 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Bring in one agricultural commodity and a related value added product (milk and ice cream, yogurt, or cheese; a whole chi cken and frozen, breaded chicken tenders; a whole grapefruit and sliced, packaged grapefruit pieces, etc.). Note: make sure that the value added product has a higher unit price than the less processed product. Tell the students how much each item costs a nd the amount of each item, and ask them to calculate the unit price of each item. Then, hold a brief discussion about why they think the value added item has a higher unit price. Guiding questions Why do you think the value added item has a higher uni t price? Who do you think gets the extra money? How do you think the farmer can get more profit out of their products? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 9 Lesson Title: Increasing the Economic Value of Animal Production Unit Title: Economic Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment References, and Other Resources: One agricultural commodity and one value added product with a higher unit price than the commodity Increasing Agricultural Profit: Value Added and By Products (cla ssroom set) National AFNR Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and p roperties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. 6.08 Explore career opportunities in animal science. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Identify agricultural products that contri bute to local, state, national, and global economies, including byproducts and value added products. 2. Explain h ow the use of certain value added and by products can add economic value to traditional agricultural products. 3. Predict how the use of cultured mea added and by products.

PAGE 282

282 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 30 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain that by products are another method of profit growth for producers. Arrange students in groups of 2 3 and assign each group a type of farm (a variety of plant and animal production businesses should be assigned, and these can be real local businesses if possible). Give each student a copy of the Increasing Agricultural Profit: Value Added and By Products sheet. Have the students create a plan for increased profit for the producers based on the addition of value added and by products possible for the farm to produce. Based preference, the students can be provided with materials to display their plans on posters, with pictures, or a variety of other creative ways. During this time of plan development, the teacher should walk around and discuss the value added and by products content with the groups. Guiding questions What makes this a value added product or by product? How do you think that product additional risks the farmer takes on by prod ucing that listed? Students should then present their plans to the class. The class should be encouraged to offer other ideas about products and ask questions similar to the guiding questions above. 4. V alue added agriculture any activity an agricultural producer performs outside of traditional commodity production to receive a higher return per unit of commodity sold. The value of the product increases per unit sold. a. The producer does more processing in house b. The producer markets directly to consumers c. The producer engages in agritourism and entertainment agriculture d. Benefits could result in more profits for producers e. Drawbacks increases risk for producers, because it involves more labor/production not typically performed by the producer f. Examples of Value Added Businesses in Florida: 5. Agricultural by products items created as a result of food production a. Adds value to waste b. Examples of by products i. Stem and leaf waste ii. Cleaning and washing wastes iii. So rting waste and culls iv. Peeling and coring wastes v. Fruit pit waste vi. Milling waste vii. By products of the Meat Industry 1. Edible by products 2. Inedible by products

PAGE 283

283 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Using a think pair share technique, ask students to co nsider how the supply and demand of value added and by products might be altered by the production of cultured meat. Guiding questions Would all current products still be able to be produced? Could new products be developed? What do you think demand f or value added and by products would do if the supply was altered? Evaluation Students will be evaluated based on their presentations of value added products and by products. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 284

284 Increasing Agricultural Profit: Value Added and By Products What is value added agriculture? Any activity an agricultural producer performs outside of traditional commodity production to receive a higher return per unit of commodity sold. The value of the product increases per unit sold. What ar e some practices that add value to products? The producer does more processing in house, like when a dairy makes cheese or ice cream. The producer engages in agritou rism and entertainment agriculture, like when a farm has hayrides, petting zoos, or pick your own fields. What is the benefit of value added agriculture? Value added products could lead to more profit for the producers. Are there any drawbacks to value a dded agriculture? Producers have to supply more labor and production, sometimes requiring more equipment, which requires more money. Therefore, there is greater risk for producing value added products. What are some value added businesses in Florida? Win eries using tropical fruits. Tropical fruit ice cream and milk shakes. Jams and jellies. Fruit baskets. Bed and Breakfasts. Agritourism (e.g., farm tours, festivals, picnics, catered parties). Bird watching. Fishing. Spice parks. Alligator farms. Direct sa les to restaurants and retailers. Farmers markets. U pick, or pick your own. Roadside markets. Are there any drawbacks to value added agriculture? Producers have to supply more labor and production, sometimes requiring more equipment, which requires more money. Therefore, there is greater risk for producing value added products. What are agricultural by products? Items created as a result of food production. Using by products adds value to items that would otherwise be waste. (Over)

PAGE 285

285 What are some exam ples of by products? Stem and leaf waste (from production of vegetables, fruits, etc) can be used to produce energy (biogas or electricity), banana stem waste is used to make handmade paper (value added byproduct) Cleaning and washing wastes usually hi gh moisture, low organic material. Lactic acid produced in meat packing plants from fermentation can be used in animal feeds or as a flavoring and preserving agent Sorting waste and culls culled apples make apple juice, others are used for animal feed, lotions, vitamins, etc. Peeling and coring wastes orange peels can be made into citrus oil and molasses, papaya makes chewing gum, medicine, toothpaste, and meat tenderizers, others make natural sweeteners Fruit pit waste can be burned as a fuel, grap efruit seed extract can be turned into emergency water treatment product Milling waste wheat byproducts make flour supplements, corn byproducts make corn syrup, starches, ethanol as a gas additive By products of the Meat Industry Edible by products o Unuse d parts variety meat (scrapple, spam, souse, loaves, etc.) o Blood component in sausage o Stomach sausage container, component of cheese making process o Bones gelatin in ice cream and jellied food products o Fats shortening, candies, chewing gum o Intesti nes sausage casings Inedible by products o Hide leather goods, upholstery o Pelts wool, ointments (lanolin) o Fats industrial oils, lubricants, animal feeds o Bones glue, fertilizer, leather preparation o Cattle feet lubricants, neatsfoot oil (leather pr eparations) o Glands medicines Ovaries make estrogen and progesterone Pancreas makes insulin o Lungs pet foods o Intestines surgical sutures and condoms o Liver cortisone o Spinal cord processed into vitamin D o Fetal calf blood used for cancer and AIDS re search o Aorta valves replacement in human heart valves o Fetal pigs teaching biology through dissection

PAGE 286

286 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes hU). After they watch, ask them how they think different populations of people impact the demand of different agricultural products. Hold a brief class discussion ex ploring their perceptions of the link between populations and agricultural demand trends. Guiding questions Who does the milk rap try to attract to drinking milk? Who normally consumes milk? What other products are dependent on certain populations? What population factors do you think impact the demand of certain foods? What products do you think your population (age range) impacts? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 10 Lesson Title: Agricultural Demands of Consumer Populations Unit Title: Economic Impacts Co urse: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Computer linked to a projector with internet access Milk Rap ( http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=vwB4DbKWrhU ) (also located on the dropbox) Agricultural Trends Field Test sheet (classroom set) Agricultural Trends powerpoint Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Identify recent consumer trends in agricultural demand. 2. Create and test a method of surveying population trends.

PAGE 287

287 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain to students that they will be determining the impact that a specific population has on the dem and of agricultural products. They will be conducting might impact based on the background information included in the lecture and powerpoint. Then, the teacher should lecture to the students using the Agricultural Trends powerpoint, giving them a background for how different populations have been seen to impact agricultural products. Students should take notes on the lecture to help guide them in their field test development 1. Demographic Projections between 2002 and 2020 (USDA) 2. Previous trends 3. 2020) Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline to develop a survey or observation method for determining the impact of a selected population on the demand of certain agricultural products. During this time, the teacher should visit each group, asking question s about Guiding questions What product(s) do you want to focus on? Why do you want to focus on those products? What is your hypothesis? How do you plan on determining whether your hypothesis is accepted or r ejected?

PAGE 288

288 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Explain and discuss with students the homework required on the worksheet. Students will be conducting their field tests betw een the end of this class and the beginning of the next class at a place t hey have access to. The group partners will be collecting data separately and combining their data during the next class. Data collection will typically be either through observation (tal ly marks for a specified amount of time) at a specific place and on a specific population (ex. number of ears of corn bought by middle aged women at Walmart between 5 and 6 pm) or through a survey (ex. students in the lunchroom answer questionnaires about their eating preferences). All students should arrive to class the next day with data collected based on the specifications set by the group. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their data collection and reporting during the following class. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 289

289 Agricultural Trends Field Tes t Names of Group Members _______________________________________________________________ impact on the food industry based on their buying preferences. Each group member completes a separate sheet. 1. Population Selected: Select a population you have access to and have an idea about what their buying preferences might be. Examples: Middle school students, high school students, agriculture students, tea chers, mothers shopping after work, men shopping alone, etc. 2. Food Product Selected: Select a specific food product (canned peaches) or area of general food products (fresh vegetables). 3. Hypothesis: Explain what you think you will observe or find out, and why you think this. Example: I think that my population (middle school students) will consume more chocolate milk than regular milk because they prefer sugary foods to those that are nutritious. 4. Setting Selected: Explain where you will go to collect data. Examples: cafeteria, Walmart, McDonalds, etc. 5. Data Collection: Explain how you will collect data. Examples: I will ask students to fill out a survey that I will people that order milkshakes. I will sit in the cafeteria and observe the number of students who get pizza. I will stand in Walmart and observe the number of fresh vegetables that middle aged women put in their carts.

PAGE 290

290 6. Limiting the Data: Explain h ow you will standardize the data collection procedures between you and your partner. This should include collecting data for a specific amount of time, at a specific time of day, and/or from a specific number of people (survey). 7. Below, create the data collection sheet or survey you will be using. A data collection sheet involving observation should include a table format with areas to tally needed data. A survey should include multiple questions and closed ended answer choices (multiple choices, circling a response from strongly disagree to strongly agree, etc.) and should not include open ended questions (participants should not have to create their own answer). Surveys may be asked verbally (like a short interview) and the researcher (you) can tally data based on their answers instead of printing out survey sheets for people to write on. If you decide to tally verbal responses, you should include boxes on your sheet for you to do so.

PAGE 291

291 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 292

292 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 11 Slide 9

PAGE 293

293 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Have students get in their partner groups from the previous day and verbally compare research experiences from their data collection. This discussion should focus on reflection of experiences. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 35 minutes Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 11 Lesson Title: Agricultural Demands of Consumer Populations Par t II Unit Title: Economic Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Classroom set of computers or classroom set of graph paper Student data collected for homewor k from the previous class Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 3.06 Inte rpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Identify recent consumer trends in agricultural demand based on specific populations. 2. Analyze the impact of specific populations on certain agricultural products. 3. Draw conclusions about the impact of specific populations on future agricultural trends.

PAGE 294

294 Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students wil l use Microsoft Excel (if computers are available) or a sheet of paper to combine data collected by partners. After data is combined, students will create graph(s) that represent their data (this will be done in Excel or on graph paper based on the availa bility During this time, the teacher should monitor student progress and ask students questions about their tests and findings. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Going around the room, each student should be asked to give one aspect of their study they found interesting. This should be a statement that would cause others to want to learn more about the study. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their field test results, paragraphs, and Agricultural Trends Results sheet during the nex t class. Items Students Turn I n None.

PAGE 295

295 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Students should be given approximately 5 minutes to finish up any work to their graphs and Introduction and Results/Conclusions paragraphs from the previous class. When all groups are finished, the graphs and the two paragraphs should be displayed around the room, either on the walls or on stud ent desks. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 12 Lesson Title: Agricultural Demands of Consumer Populations Presentation of Data Unit Title: Economic Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Mate rials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Student graphs and paragraphs from the previous class Agricultural Trends Results sheet (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Draw conclusions based on data analysis. 2.

PAGE 296

296 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Each student group should briefly explain their project to the class, highlighting the following features: The population The food The set ting The results and conclusions 2 minutes. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline tudents should individually go around the room to each of the displayed studies and answer questions on the sheet. This should be turned in upon leaving the class. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 0 minutes The summary for the class is combined with Le Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their field test results, paragraphs, and Agricultural Trends Results sheet. Items Students T urn In Agricultural Trends Results sheet Field Test graphs and paragraphs

PAGE 297

297 Agricultural Trends Results Name ________________________ 1. Did anyone do a study similar to yours with regard to population or food type? How do their results compare to your s? 2. Describe the results of one study you found particularly interesting. Explain the parts of the study you found interesting. 3. Explain one study where the results were as you expected. Why did you expect those results? 4. Expla in one study where the results surprised you. What were the results, and why did you expect them to be different? 5. Based on what you learned yesterday about populations and trends and about food ests, make at least two predictions about

PAGE 298

298 Intr oduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students to work independently to develop an outline following a hamburger patty from field to fork. Have selected stude nts share their outlines, and ask students to consider how this chain migh t be different if cultured meat is produced. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 13 Lesson Title: GMOs in the Food Supply Chain Unit Title: Economic Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Six Degrees of Ag. Production sheet Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on th e local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and properties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. 6.08 Explore career opportu nities in animal science. Essential Question: How might GMOs impact our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Describe the food supply chain. 2. Identify the areas of agriculture that could be impacted by the introduction of cultured meat as a food source.

PAGE 299

299 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain to the class what each segment of the food supply chain is responsible for. Arrange students in to nine groups, assigning each group to an aspect of the food supply chain. Have the students develop a list of ways that their food chain segment might change and items they might be responsible for if cultured meat were to be mass produced. Guiding q uestions How would cultured meat production change your responsible for different things? What do you think they would need to do pact the actions of other segments? Have each group present their list. The class should consider how the presented 1. Food supply chain businesses that collectively produce consumable items. The chain involves all aspects of food production from pre production research to post consumption waste disposal a. Pre production research and development b. Inputs feed suppliers, veterinarians, breeders c. producer cow/calf operations, feeder operation d. processor slaughter, packing e. distributor marketers, food distributors. f. wholesaler sells to retailers g. retailer supermarkets h. consumer people that buy the foods i. post consumption waste disposal, recycling Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 m inutes rcussions through the potential relationship between supply and demand and changes to the food supply chain. This sheet wi ll be used at the beginning of the next class. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their presentations and Six Degrees of Ag. Production sheets next class. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 300

300 Six Degrees of Ag. Production Name __________________ __________ Instructions: Consider the avenues between and contributors to the food supply chain. By focusing on these areas, explain how the production of cultured meat might lead to the following impacts on the economy. Try to make the most direct con nection by Example: Cultured meat production more expensive leather cultured meat production_______________ less live cattle needed_______________ ____________ _less live cattle needed_________________ _fewer cattle hides produced as by products_____ _fewer cattle hides produced as by products_ _less leather supplied_________________________ ___ _less leather supplied___________________ _more expensive leather___________________________ Cultured meat production increase in pet calves _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ______________________________________ __ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Cultured meat production decrease in cost of stuffing during thanksgiving _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ___________________________________ _____ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Cultured meat production increase in number of unemployed veterinarians _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ _________________________________ _______ _____________________________________ ________________________________________

PAGE 301

301 _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________ _________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Cultured meat production development of inexpensive field corn products for human consumption _______________ ______________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________ ________________________________________

PAGE 302

302 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes In groups of 3 production of cultured meat and the various economic repercussions. During the discussion, they should be directed to ask on e another about any possible missing steps or actions, or any leaps in logic between the steps that might not be realistic. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 14 Lesson Title: The Impact of GMOs on the Econom y Unit Title: Economic Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Six Degrees of Ag. Production sheet completed last class Paper and pencil for each student Ag riscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and proper ties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. Essential Question: How might GMOs impact our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Describe the links between the production of cultured meat and various economic outcomes. 2. Predict the economic outcomes of potent ial cultured meat introduction scenarios on various groups, including agricultural sectors and consumers.

PAGE 303

303 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Individually, have students choose one of the cultured meat introduction scenarios from the unit content. If s tudents would like to, they can develop their own Students will individually write an essay explaining the potential positive and negative economic outcomes to consumers and various agricultural producers, includin g impacts on by products, value added products, and input products caused by the scenario chosen. The essay should include: 1. Immediate economic impacts on consumers and agricultural producers 2. Long term economic impacts on consumers and agricultural produc ers 3. Economic impacts related to the production of input products necessary to raise traditional meat and/or grow cultured meat 4. Economic impacts related to by products and value added products increased or decreased in supply by the production of cultured m eat 5. economically beneficial overall based on the above four aspects. 1. Cultured meat introduction scenarios: a. Used as a non human foodsource (pet food, animal feeds) b. Introduced to malnour ished countries c. Introduced as a high end product to affluent populations d. Introduced as an ingredient in ground and processed meat products e. Introduced as an animal friendly option for vegetarians Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Students will trade essays and provide comments related to: 1. Grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. 2. economically (is the viewpoint supported by the stat ed impacts?) 3. Logic of the stated economic impacts related to the scenario (are those impacts likely?) The comments should be written directly on the essay. Essays should be turned in upon leaving class.

PAGE 304

304 Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their essays and essay comments. Items Students will Turn In Scenario/Impact Essays

PAGE 305

305 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Exp lain to students that they will be taking the Economic Impacts Posttest. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 15 Lesson Title: Economic Impacts Posttest Unit Title: Economic Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Economic Impacts Posttest (classroom set) Statem ents Sheet (1 teacher copy) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 In vestigate the nature and properties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. 6.08 Explore career opportunities in animal science. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Essential Question: How might GMOs impact our economy? Daily Objectives 1. Display knowledge of economic aspects of animal science through written assessment. 2. Evaluate the arguments of opposing sides regarding the economic benefits and drawbacks of cultured meat.

PAGE 306

306 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will complete the Economic Impacts Posttest. Standard testing proc edures should be enforced. Tests should be turned in upon completion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students read the two economic impacts arguments one promoting tradition ally grown meat based on economic reasons and one advocating cultured meat based on economic reasons. These do not have to be read very carefully reading both articles should take approximately 15 minutes Split the room in half (just the room not the will be making statements based on cultured meat based on its impacts on the economy. Statements are provided on the attache d sheet. After each statement, the stude nts should move to the side of the room that describes their opinion. After the students move to their respective opinion sides of the room for the first statement, ask them questions about their reasons for moving to that side. Do this for each of the q uestions on the sheet. Guiding questions Why do you agree/disagree with this statement? Why do you think other people disagree with that opinion? (ask appropriate questions if any students walk toward the middle of the room indicating their indecision as well) Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 0 minutes The discussion in Learning Activity 2 serves as a summary for this class.

PAGE 307

307 Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their Economic Impacts Posttests. Items Students Turn In Economic Impacts Post test

PAGE 308

308 Statements Sheet 2. Traditionally grown meat is a cost effective food source. 3. Cultured meat has economic benefits that traditionally grown meat does not. 4. Traditionally grown meat supports more employees than cultured meat production would. 5. Cultured meat production is more beneficial for consumers than producers. 6. I think cultured meat should be produced to allow the nation to experience some of it s economic benefits. 7. I think traditionally grown meat has ways they can improve their economic impacts on consumers and producers.

PAGE 309

309 Eight Ways In Vitro Meat will Change Our Lives By: Hank Hyena Published: November 17, 2009 "Future Flesh" is squatting on your plate. Are you nervous? Stab it with a fork. Sniff it. Bite! Chew, swallow. Congrat invention that will massively impact the planet. In Vitro Meat aka tank steak, sci fi sausage, petri pork, beaker bacon, Frankenburger, vat grown veal, laboratory lamb, synthetic shme at, trans ham, factory filet, test tube tuna, cultured will appear in 3 10 entree will be enormous; not just food huge like curry rippling through London in t Vitro Meat will be socially transformative, like automobiles, cinema, vaccines. H+ previously discussed In Vitro Meat, as have numerous other publications [see refe rences at the end of this article]. Science pundits examined its microbiological struggles in Dutch labs and at New Harvest, a Baltimore non profit. Squeamish reporters wasted ink on its "yucky" and "unnatural" creation, while others wondered if its "vegan or not (PETA supports it but many members complain). This article jumps past artificial tissue issues; anticipating success, I optimistically envision Eight Ways In Vitro Meat Will Change Our Lives. 1. Bye Bye Ranches. When In Vitro Meat (IVM) is cheaper than meat on the hoof or claw, no one will buy the undercut opponent. Slow grown red meat & poultry will vanish from the marketplace, similar to sell for half the cost of its murdered rivals. This will grind the $2 trillion global live meat industry to a halt (500 billion pounds of meat are gobbled annually; this is expected to double by 2050). Bloody sentimentality will keep the slaughterhouses briefly busy as ranchers quick kill their inventory before it becomes worthless, but soon Wall Street will be awash in unwanted pork bellies.

PAGE 310

310 Special Note: IVM sales will be aided by continued outbreaks of filthy over crowded farm animal diseases like swine flu, Mad Cow, avian flu, tuberculosis, brucellosis, and other animal to human plagues. Public hysteria will demand pre emptive annihilation of the enormous herds and flocks where deadly pathogens form, after safe IVM protein is available. 2. Urban Cowboys. tle drift into urbanization will suddenly accelerate as unemployed livestock workers relocate and retrain for city occupations. Rural real estate values will plummet as vast tracts of ranch land are abandoned and sold for a pittance (70 % of arable land in the world is currently used for livestock, 26 % of the total land surface, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). New use for ex ranch land? Inexpensive vacation homes; reforested parks; fields of green products like hemp or bam boo. Hot new city job? Techies and designers for In Vitro Meat factories. 3. Healthier Humans. In Vitro Meat will be 100 % muscle. It will eliminate the artery clogging saturated fat that kills us. Instead, heart healthy Omega 3 (salmon oil) will be added. IVM will also contain no hormones, salmonella, e. coli, campylobacter, mercury, dioxin, or antibiotics that infect primitive Starvation and kwashiokor (protein def iciency) will be conquered when compact IVM kits are delivered to famine our inheritance of the 8 % of the H2O supply that was previously gulped down by livestock and their food gristle. (Although Hall of Fame slugger Jimmy Foxx choked to death on a chicken bone, about 90 % of meat victims are murdered by steak).

PAGE 311

311 4. Healthier Planet. y is a brutal fart in the face of Gaia. A recent Worldwatch Institute report 51 % of all human caused greenhouse gas emissions. Statistics are truly shitty: cat tle crap 130 often flushed down the Mississippi River to kill fish and coral in the Gulf of Mexico. Pigs are s a bigger turd total than the entire city of Los Angeles. Livestock burps and farts are equally odious and ozone destroying. 68 % of the ammonia in the world is caused by livestock (creating acid rain), 65 % of the nitrous oxide, 37 % of the methane, 9 % of t he CO2, plus 100 other polluting gases. Big meat animals waste valuable land 80 % of Amazon deforestation is for beef ranching, clear cutting a Belgium sized patch every year. Water is prodigiously gulped 15,000 liters of H20 produces just one kilogram of beef. 40 % unsustainable, and In Vitro Meat is the sensible alternative. (Although skeptics warn that IVM factories will produce their own emissions, research indicates that pollu tion will be reduced by at least 80 % 5. Economic Upheaval. The switch to In Vitro Meat will pu mmel the finances of nations that survive on live animal industries. Many of the world leaders in massacred meat (USA, China, Brazil) have diversified incomes, but Argentina will bellow when its delicious beef is defeated. New Zealand will bleat when its l amb sales are shorn. And ocean harvesting Vietnam and Iceland will have to fish for new vocations. Industries peripherally dependent on meat sales, like leather, dairy and wool, will also be slaughtered. Hide and leather exporting nations like Pakistan and Kenya will be whipped, but South Korea will profit on its sales of "Koskin" and other synthetic leathers. Huge plantations of livestock crops (soybeans & corn) in Brazil, USA, Argentina, and China can be replaced with wool substitutes like sisal. Smaller nations that excel in food processing will thrive st importers of beef. 6: Exotic & Kinky Cuisine. In Vitro Meat will be fashioned from any creature, not just domestics that were affordable to farm. Yes, ANY ANIMAL, even rare beasts like snow leopard, or Komodo Dragon. We will want to taste them all. Some researchers believe we will also be able to create IVM using the DNA of extinct beasts obviously, "DinoBurgers" will be served at every six year birthday party.

PAGE 312

312 people we feasting on "Stewed Idi Amin." But I imagine passionate lovers literally eating each other, growing sausages from their co mingled tissues overni ght in tabletop appliances similar to bread making machines. And of course, masturbatory gourmands will simply gobble their own meat. 7: FarmScrapers. The convenience of buying In Vitro Meat fresh from the neighborhood factory will inspire urbanites to dem and local vegetables and fruits. This will be accomplished with "vertical farming" building gigantic urban multi level greenhouses that utilize hydroponics and interior grow lights to create bug free, dirt free, quick growing super veggies and fruit (fro m dwarf trees), delicious side dishes with IVM. No longer will old food arrive via long polluting transports from the hinterlands. Every metro dweller will purchase fresh meat and crispy plants within walking distance. The success of FarmScrapers will crip ple rural agriculture and enhance urbanization. 8. We Stop the Shame. In Vitro Meat will squelch the subliminal guilt that sensitive people feel when they sit down for a carnivorous meal. Forty billion animals are killed per year in the United States alon e; one million the top priority for vegetarians, because they represent only 1 2 % IVM is a huge step forward in "Abolitionism" the elimination of suffering in all sentient creatures. Peter Singer, founding father of Animal Liberation, supports IVM. So does every European veggie group I contacted: VEBU (Vegetarian Federation of Germany), EVA (Ethical Vegetarian Alternative of Belgium), and the Dutch Vegetarian Society. And P ETA, mentioned earlier, offers $1 million to anyone who can market a competitive IVM product by 2012. My final prediction is this: In Vitro Meat relishes success first in Europe, partly because its "greener," but mostly they already eat "yucky" delicacies like snails, smoked eel, blood pudding, initially invade the market in Spam cans and Hot Dogs, shapes that salivating shoppers are sold on as mysterious & artificial but edible & absolutely American.

PAGE 313

313

PAGE 314

314

PAGE 315

315

PAGE 316

316 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes ood supply. Ask several students to giv e one reason supporting their decision. This should be done at a rapid pace rather than as an in depth discussion. Ask the class if their opinions have changed at all since the beginning of class. Explain that as scientists obtain new data their opinion s can change to help them make better informed decisions. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 16 Lesson Title: Evaluating Arguments for and against Cultured Meat Unit Title: Introduction to Cultured Meat Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimat ed Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Harvest of Fear, You Decide website ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ ) Classroom set of computers with inte rnet connections Cultured Meat You Decide Reflection Guide (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biologica l controls, etc.) 9.03 Identify and demonstrate ways to be an active citizen. 9.05 Demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively. Essential Question: icultural industry, the environment, and the economy? Daily Objectives 1. 2. Develop a supported position related to the introduction of cultured meat in

PAGE 317

317 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 35 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Each student should get a computer. Explain to students that they will be learning about di fferent points supporting or opposing cultured meat. Individually, they will be answering questions on the reflection guide and clicking on their opinions on the website to develop an educated argument for or against cultured meat. Tell students to go to the Harvest of Fear website, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ students they should fully understand that they can alter their decisions for each argument (cultured meat may seem like a good idea to alleviate one problem, but may seem like a bad idea related to another problem), and that the next argument posted is depe ndent on their answer, so they should respond to each argument thoughtfully. Whi le they go through the website, students should also write responses down on the reflection guide. This should be turned in when class is over. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes If there is time at the end of class, hold a brief class discussi on about how their responses changed or stayed the same based on the arguments they saw, as well as whether they had a difficult time choosing their opinions and if their overall viewpoint was a ltered nsion of the reflection guide that students completed during the activity, so it is not necessary to discuss if time does not allow. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their reflection guides. Items Students Turn In Reflection Guide

PAGE 318

318

PAGE 319

319

PAGE 320

320

PAGE 321

321

PAGE 322

322 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Have students watch the video c lip ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCoWh77w1s environmental impacts. Before the video begins, ask students to consider their own viewpoints during th e video regarding the following: Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 17 Lesson Title: Unit Title: Environmental Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equi pment, References, and Other Resources: Environmental Impacts Pretest Computer hooked to a projector and internet access Livestock Production & the Environment video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cvCoWh77w1s ) Note also available on dropbox. Environmental Resources in Agriculture powerpoint Environmental Resources Guide (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction o f population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry use environmental resources? Daily Objectives 1. I dentify agricultural practices that rely on environmental resources. 2. Describe the characteristics of agricultural practices that utilize environmental resources.

PAGE 323

323 1. What they already know about the relationship between agriculture and the environment. 2. Whether they agree with the viewpoints offered in the video, and why or why not. Hold a brief discussion after the video, asking studen ts about their thoughts on the above two aspects. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will complete the Environmental Impacts Pretest. All tests should be turned in upon compl etion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Using the powerpoint, lecture to students on the utilization of environmental resources in the agricultural industry. During the lecture, s tudents should take notes and offer their considerations on the Environmental Resources Guide. Note Teachers should review the guide prior to viewing the powerpoint the questions on the guide are answered in the powerpoint, but students should try to answer them before learning the answers in lecture. The guide asks students to consider how each of the resources and the characteristics of their current uses would be impacted by future population growth and by the introduction of cultured meat. Guidin g questions How do you think population growth will impact the use of this resource? Do you think there is a way to maintain production rates and reduce use of this resource? Do you think high use of this resource is justified based on what is being pr oduced? How might cultured meat impact use of this resource? 1. Agricultural industry accounts for 80 % usage a. Primarily for irrigation b. Irrigated cropland has increased by over 40 % but water application rates have decreased by 20 % Total qu antity of irrigation water applied increased 10 % since 1969. 2. a. Farm size b. Three major uses are (in order) grassland pasture and range (30.8 % use land (29.5 % )and cropland (23.3 % ). Urban u se is 3.1 % of c. Grassland pasture and range d. Forest use land e. Cropland f. Urban areas

PAGE 324

324 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Using a think pair share format, have students share their considerations from their guides with partners and th en with the class. Evaluation Students will be evaluated using their pretests. Items Students Turn In Environmental Impact Pretests

PAGE 325

325 Name ______________________________ Environmental Resources Guide Water What do you think all this water is used for? In the circle below, shade in the percentage increase in water applied. In the circle below, shade in the percentage increase in irrigated cropland. ation? List some examples of agricultural practices or innovations that you think have caused a decrease in water application rates. Land In the circle below, shade in the percentage of farms that a Based on this, what amount of total production do you think comes from small family farms? In the circle below, shade in the percentage of total production that comes from small family farms. How does this c ompare to your prediction? Why do you think the total percentage of production from small family farms is different from the total percentage of farms that are considered small family farms?

PAGE 326

326 How much farmland was owned by the most productive 2 % of US f arms? In the circle below, shade in the percentage of farm sales that came from 2 % of US farms. What size farms would you expect to make up this 2 % ? In the circle below, shade in (using three different colors or patterns) the percentages of land use in the US. Grassland Predict the reasons for decreased grassland pasture. Were your predictions accurate? If not, what are the reasons? Forest Use Land How does the agricultural industry utilize forest use land? Cropland What are s ome causes of decreased available cropland in recent decades? How is the nation able to maintain high levels of production on reduced cropland? In the circle below, use three different colors or patterns to shade in the percentages of cropland used to produce certain types of crops. Urbanized Land Why do you think urbanized land increased at a greater rate than the US population? Do you think the impact or urban growth on agricultural resources is enough of a reason to slow urban growth? Support your response.

PAGE 327

327 Slide 1 S lide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 328

328 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 9

PAGE 329

329 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 20 minutes Tell students that they will be writing a publication in partners designed for agricultural producers that recommends BMPs (t his will require a brief explanation) they can use to improve water, land, and air quality. They will be writing the publications in the following class. To prepare for writing, they will be interviewing a local extension agent about local environmental concerns, how agr icultural producers contribute to these concerns, BMPs that agricultural producers can do to alleviate environmental concerns, and the current Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 18 Lesson Title: Enviro nmental Perspectives and BMPs from an Extension Agent Unit Title: Environmental Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Guest speaker Local extension agent. T his should be arranged ahead of time by the teacher through contact with an appropriate local extension agent. See interest approach and first learning activity for purpose of guest speaker. Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.05 Apply Best Management Practices that enhance the n atural environment. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry use environmental resources? Daily Objectives 1. Explain the purposes of Best Management Practices related to environmental resources. 2. Determine the local status of conservation co ncerns and BMP implementation.

PAGE 330

330 During this 15 minutes, students should get into partners and writ e a list of questions they have regarding each of the following aspects of their publication writing: What are local environmental concerns How do agricultural producers contribute to these concerns What are some BMPs that the agent feels are most importan t in alleviating environmental concerns What is the current status of producers implementing these and other conservation BMPs The list should include at least 2 questions per category, leading to a total of 8 questions. During this time, the teacher sh ould walk around the room, monitoring the questions developed by students and asking them questions that will increase the depth of the questions. The teacher should remind the student that the questions should be designed t o give them answers that will h elp them in writing their publication. They should also be reminded that the publication will recommend specific BMPs that agricultural producers can use to improve water, land, and air quality. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instruc tor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline The local extension agent will speak with students about local conservation and BMPs, focusing on the questions asked by stud ents. ems they may want to include in their publication and answers to questions from the class. The extension agent visit should be arranged ahead of time. The agent should be prepared to discuss how local agricultural producers are linked to environmental co ncerns and BMPs that help them improve environmental conservation. The agent should also be aware that discussion time is approximately 20 minutes.

PAGE 331

331 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes If there is time after the discussion with the extensio n agent, have students briefly talk in their partners about items they learned from the speaker that they might want to include in their publication and a possible outline for writing their publication. This is an extension of the first learning activity in the following class. If time does not allow for this summary, it is not a serious problem. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through teacher monitoring during question development and during the following class through the publications. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 332

332 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes developed by the Extension System at UF to educate agricultural producers and consumers about best agr icultural practices. As they read, have students use two highlight colors to signify items they find that indicate the care ranchers have for the environm ent and items they find that might cause public concern related to the environment. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 19 Lesson Title: Creation of EDIS Publications Unit Title: Environmental Impact Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipmen t, References, and Other Resources: BMPs handout (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interactio n of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.05 Apply Best Management Practices that enhance the natural environment. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry use environmental resources? Daily Objectives 1. Explain the purposes of Best Management Practices related to environmental resources. 2. Evaluate how specific BMPs impact environmental quality.

PAGE 333

333 Learning Activi ty 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline with the extension agent, the article from the interest approach, and the BMPs handout, have student partners des ign an outline of their publication. The publications should include: An introduction that explains why agricultural producers should engage in BMPs What BMPs are Specific BMPs recommended by the students Results of the BMPs (why are they good?) The conce rns that are alleviated by each of the BMPs During this time, the teacher should monitor student progress by asking groups questions about the BMPs they want to focus on, how they are deciding what information to include and exclude, and whether they have any questions. Land Quality BMPs Water Conservation BMPs Air Quality BMPs Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have student partners split up their outline sections for writing purp oses. Each student should be responsible for writing approximately half of their publication. Students should then individually write their sections of the publication. Upon completion, student partners can trade written pieces for editing. Then the st udents should put their publication together to develop the finished publication.

PAGE 334

334 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Students should turn in their written publications. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their written publications. Items Students Turn In EDIS Publications

PAGE 335

335 Best Management Practices Land Quality BMPs (National Resources Conservation Service) 1. Enhance organic matter most important way to improve and maintain soil quality. Improves soil structure, prot ects soil from erosion and compaction, supports healthy habitat for soil organisms. a. Leave crop residues in the field b. Choose crop rotations that include high residue plants c. Use good nutrient and water management practices to grow plants with large roots a nd residue d. Grow cover crops e. Apply manure or compost f. Use low or no tillage systems g. Mulching 2. Avoid excessive tillage minimizes loss or organic matter, protects soil surface with plant residue. Keeps good soil structure, reduces erosion, maintains healthy organism habitat, reduce soil compaction. 3. Manage pests and nutrients efficiently reduces air and water pollution, reduces harm on beneficial soil organisms a. Test and monitor soil and pests b. Apply only necessary chemicals at the right time and place c. Use n onchemical approaches when possible 4. Prevent soil compaction maintains air, water, and space available to plants within the soil. a. Reduce repeated or heavy traffic, heavy equipment, traveling on wet soil 5. Keep the ground covered prevents drying, crust ing, erosion, provides habitats for soil organisms, improves water availability a. Keep crop residue on surface b. Plant cover crops 6. Diversity cropping systems each plant contributes a unique root structure and type of residue to the soil. Helps control pest populations, reduces weed and disease pressures (certain plants are more susceptible to certain pests), increases microorgani sm and organism diversity in soil. a. Use buffer strips (diversity at one time) b. Small diverse fields (diversity at one time) c. Crop rot ation (diversity over time) (over)

PAGE 336

336 Water Conservation BMPs 1. e Pollution 2. Purpose reduce non point sources of pollution from cr oplands through integrated use of best management practices 3. CORE 4 practices a. Conservation tillage leaving crop residue (plant materials from past harvests) on soil surface to reduce runoff and soil erosion, conserves soil moisture, keeps nutrients an d pesticides in the field b. Crop nutrient management accounting for all nutrient inputs helps ensure nutrients are available for crop needs and reduces nutrient movement off fields. Prevents buildup in soils. c. Pest management various methods for keeping insects, weeds, disease, and other pests in check while protecting soil, water, and air quality d. Conservation buffers provide barriers of protection by capturing pollutants that might otherwise move into surface water 4. Supplemental BMPs aimed at benefi tting production while protecting the environment a. Irrigation water management reduces nonpoint source pollution of ground and surface waters from irrigation b. Grazing management minimizes water quality impacts of grazing on pasture and range lands c. Animal feeding operations management minimizes impacts of animal feeding operations and waste through runoff controls, waste storage, waste utilization, and nutrient management d. Erosion and sediment control conserve soil and reduce sediment reaching water Ai r Quality BMPs 1. methane is produced a. 2. Participate in methane recovery efforts uses methane fro m livestock facilities to create energy a. AgSTAR Program sponsored by EPA, USDA, US Dept. of Energy 3. Participate in National Clean Diesel Campaign 4. Clean Agriculture USA Program helps farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses reduce emissions from older engine s that are in operation

PAGE 337

337 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 15 minutes Assign student partners from the previous two days to role play as a certain type of agricultural producer. The producers ca n be related to various crop and/or livestock farms. Tell students that they have been working as a producer on that farm for years, and that their practices have been passed down from previous generations. Up to this point, their practices have not changed much because of the family traditi ons rooted in t he fine if these are in draft form). Instruct student groups to read the publications and consider their willingness to adopt bes message. Hold a brief discussion when students are finished reading about how likely they would be to adopt BMPs. Guiding questions Would you adopt the BMPs based on this article? How much do you think impact on the environment? Do you think farmers are concerned with their role in environmental conservation? How do you thin k farmers could be made more aware of their impact on environmental quality? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 20 Lesson Title: Environmental Impacts Informing Agricultural Producers Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materi als, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: BMP publications from the previous day (student work) Environmental Impacts handout (classroom set) Environmental Impacts Outline Guide (one per group) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. Essential Question: Why are some publi Daily Objectives 1. Explain the impacts of agricultural practices on the environment. 2. Apply the impacts on the environment to specific BMPs designed to r educe impacts.

PAGE 338

338 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain to students that they will be developing a message for agricultural producers to inform them of convince those that might be unwilling to adopt BMPs. In their partner groups from the previous two days, students will use the Agricultural Impacts handout to design their message. They can create a message in any format they feel is appropriate for th e audience (agricultural producers) that is approved by the teacher. Possible message formats include: Powerpoint Brochure Video/Commercial Newsletter Business letter Speech Etc. Students should use this time to determine their message format and create an outline of the content they want to include in their message following the Environmental Impacts Outline Guide. Guides should be kept and turned in during the following class. They should be completely ready to produce their messages by the end of th e class. Teachers should monitor student progress and approve message formats by walking around to each group and Guiding questions Why are you choosing that message format? How does that cont BMPs? 1. Water Quality 2. Land Quality 3. Air Quality Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Tell students that they will be designing their messages during the following class. The teacher should make sure that all s upplies needed for each message to be developed is available to the students for the following class. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through teacher questioning and their outline guides, which will be turned in during the following class.

PAGE 339

339 Environmental Impacts You already know how agriculture uses environmental resources and how they can use certain practices to improve resource quality. But how do agricultural practices impact Water Quality Agriculture is leading source of 25, 823 bodies of water (streams, lakes) are impaired nationwide 71 % of US cropland is located in watersheds where pollutant concentration is above accepted levels for water based recreation Structural c hanges in animal agriculture between 1982 and 1 No 7 increased levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Great Plains, Ozarks, and Carolinas. agricultural use Sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts enter water sources Sediment largest contaminant of surface water, second leading pollution problem in rivers and streams. Results from soil erosion (from soil composition and agricultural producti on practices) Nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are applied to cropland as crop nutrients as fertilizer and manure applications. Enter water sources through runoff and leaching. Promotes algae growth (eutropication), which leads to lower oxygen levels kills fish, clogs pipelines, and reduces recreations opportunities. Nitrogen pollution leading cause of water quality impairment in lakes. 9 % of domestic wells during 1 No 3 standards. Pesticid es can damage freshwater and marine organisms, fisheries, drinking water, and recreational water activities. Pesticides were found in low concentrations in 37 % of groundwater sites examined in a national water quality assessment Salts from excess ir rigation that runs off of fields. Reduces crop yields, damages soil, increase water treatment costs Pathogens bacteria are largest source of impairment in rivers and streams. From poorly treated human waste, wildlife, and animal feeding operations. Di seases can be transmitted through contact with contaminated water, or consumption of contaminated shellfish. Diseases commonly found in animals can be transmitted to humans (zoonoses) Contaminants enter water sources through runoff and leaching

PAGE 340

340 Land Qu ality Disturbing the soil harms soil microbes, which help keep nutrients and water in the soil. Physical disturbance tilling Chemical disturbance misuse of inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides Planting the same crop over and over again robs the soi l of the same nutrients repeatedly without replenishing them. Leaving fields bare reduces amount of nutrients in the soil Causes water to leach nutrients out of soil Causes erosion of soil Reduces nutrient input back into soil from decomposing plant matte r Certain organisms begin shredding crop residues into smaller pieces, and can increase nutrient cycling by 25 % If there is no residue, there is no habitat for these organisms Number of U.S. farms selling hogs decreased by 94 % between 1959 and 2002, whi le hog sales more than doubled. Similar trends have occurred among farms selling dairy products, cattle, and broilers. As livestock producers expand, they are more likely to buy feed grown elsewhere, reducing the amount of land they have available for manu re application, the predominant method of disposal. crops need on the fi elds closest to the facility (lowers hauling cost). Some counties have more livestock manure than they do appropriate land to spread it to meet land needs. Air Quality g. Livestock farms are responsible for 18 % of all greenhouse CO2 emissions, 64 % of ammoni a emissions, 65 % of nitrous oxide, and 37 % of methane worldwide i. Makes it difficult for states to meet Clean Air Act standards ii. Many compounds released by animal production cause unpleasant odors and issues with comfort, health, and production efficiency of animals and humans 1. Swine manure produces organic sulfur compounds (rotten egg smell), which can cause unconsciousness or death in high concentrations 2. Application of manure to croplands and pasture increases nitrous oxide, which is 3 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Ag. industry (both cropland and animal production) account for 72 % of nitrous oxide emissions in US 3. Methane comes from ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats) during digestion. Also relea sed from liquid manure holding areas (lagoons or tanks). Livestock production accounts for 37 % of total global methane emissions

PAGE 341

341 Environmental Impacts Outline Guide 1. In what format do you plan on producing your message? 2. Why do you feel this is a n appropriate form for your audience? 3. How will you create interest in the beginning of your message? 5. What made you select these facts ov er the others? 6. Why do you feel these facts are especially impactful or important?

PAGE 342

342 7. How will you design your message to be appealing to the audience? 8. How will you design your message to be professional? 9. How will you design yo ur message to cause a change in behavior? 10. Based on your message format, draw or outline a rough draft of your message below. For example, if your message is a brochure, draw it out. If your message is a speech, outline what you will say.

PAGE 343

343 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Have students get into their partner groups and collect their materials to produce their messages. Dail y Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 21 Lesson Title: Informing Agricultural Producers Message Creation Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, Referen ces, and Other Resources: All materials required by students to develop messages in formats approved by the teacher during the previous class. Outline Guides from the previous day Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricul tural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. Essential Question: Why are some public organizations concerned about Daily Objectives 1. Create messages designed to inform agricultural producers of their impacts on the environment. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of messages designed to inform agricultural producers of their impacts on the environment.

PAGE 344

344 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students should begin producing their messages immediately based on their outlines from the previous class. During this time, the teacher should monitor student progress by walking around the groups, asking questions and assisting as needed. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Student partner groups will trade messages with one another. All groups should receive the mes sage that was produced by the group whose publication they evaluated during the beginning of the previous class. Groups should evaluate the message based on the role they took on when evaluating the publication, evaluating whether the information provide d in the message and the message itself would convince them to consider adopting BMPs. Classroom discussion should follow, focusing on how messages might impact producer practices and aspects of messages that might be more impactful than others. Both the outline guides and messages should be turned in upon completion of the discussion. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 0 minutes The summary of this lesson is combined with Learning Activity 2. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their messages a nd their outline guides. Items Students Turn In Outline Guides Student created Messages

PAGE 345

345 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes ement practices. Hold a class discussion about wh its practices do more harm to the environment than it can currently make up for. Guiding questions harmful to the environment than they are helpful? Do you think the use of BMPs contributes to environmental conservation enough to alleviate the concerns of individuals? Are cur rent agricultural practices capable of maintaining an acceptable level of env ironmental quality, or do more sustainable practices need to be developed? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 22 Lesson Title: Impacts of Agricultural Practices Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience F oundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Index cards (1 per student) Environmental Evaluation Sheet (classroom set) Environmental Impacts powerpoint Agriscience Foundations Standards: AS.06 .02.01.a. Identify animal production practices that could pose health risks or are considered to pose risks by some. Essential Question: Why are so Daily Objectives 1. Identify agricultural practices that impact the environment. 2. Evaluate whether agricultural practices contribute to or alleviate enviro nmental concerns.

PAGE 346

346 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give each student an index card and instruct them to draw a happy face o n one side and a sad face on the other. Explain to the students that the class will be evaluating some agricultural practices that may impact the environment. Students will take notes on the practices using the attached Environmental Evaluation Sheet w hile the teacher introduces the content through the Environmental Impacts powerpoint. After each practice is introduced, students will evaluate their notes and hold up their index cards, showing the happy side if they feel practice helps alleviate environ mental concerns and the sad side if they feel the practice contributes to environmental concerns. Students should hold up an empty hand if they feel the practice has no impact on the environment. After students hold up their cards, briefly ask students t o explain why they feel practice enhances or hinders environmental quality. Guiding questions Why do you think that practice hinders/enhances environmental quality? Do you think the practice is necessary, despite its environmental impacts? Do you thin k the practice sufficiently alleviates public concerns, or should more be done? What else do you think could/should be done to minimize that environmental impact? Beef Industry i. Feeding ii. Housing Swine Industry i. Housing Poultry Industry i. i. Feeding ii. ii. Housing Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students how they think the production of cultured meat would impact environmental quality and environmental concerns. Using their notes, student should defend their comments by stating how cultured meat production would eliminate or alter agricultural practices and environmental concerns. Guiding questions What types of environmental concerns might cultured meat bring up or contribute to? What types of environmental concerns might cultur ed meat alleviate? What current practices would be altered or eliminated if cultured meat was produced? How would this impact environmental quality in the long term future?

PAGE 347

347 Evaluation Students will be evaluated based on their discussion throughout the class. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 348

348 Environmental Evaluation Sheet Using the chart below, record meat production practices, then evaluate how they might impact the environment. Beef Industry Practices / / Reasons for Evaluation Feeding Practices: Housing Practices:

PAGE 349

349 Swine Industry Practices / / Reasons for Evaluation Housing Practices: Poultry Industry Practices / / Reasons for Evaluation Feeding Practices: Housing Practices:

PAGE 350

350 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 351

351 Slide 7 Slide 8

PAGE 352

352 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes s preference based on the activity (see Learning Activity 1). n environmental quality while producing needed products. Each stude nt in the group should be given one of the following roles: Pro current agricultural practices Anti current agricultural practices Judge Have each student gather their notes from the previous five days, including agricultural practices, environmental impa cts, BMPs, and the environmental resources used by the agriculture industry. These will be used to help them support their sides during the ir debates. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 23 Lesson Title: Debating E nvironmental Impacts of Agricultural Practices Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Students will need their notes from the previo us five days. Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agricu lture production. Essential Question: Daily Objectives 1. Compare and contrast the various benefits and environmental drawbacks related to agr icultural practices. 2. Reflect on arguments developed regarding the impact of agricultural practices on the environment.

PAGE 353

353 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 30 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain debate rules to students: Two students in the group will be debating, using their notes to help them support their point. During each turn, the studen t can make one point related to their side. conserve the environment, and that practices should not be further altered. agricultural practices contribute unnecessarily to environmental harm and that practices should be further altered to alleviate environmental concerns. ir ability to state new supporting evidence on each turn. The judge should keep in mind that each piece of supporting evidence should be new, relate to The judge should use his/her notes to validate the arguments offered by each debater, and should keep track of the points awarded. Students debating should take turns offering statements back and forth until one student runs out of arguments, or until o ne student reaches 20 points according to the judge. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes As a class, have students verbally reflect on their debate. Guiding questions Do you think that agricultural practices are sufficient in maintaining or improving environmental quality? Can any other practices improve environmental quality? Were your arguments easy to develop? Were the arguments easy to judge? How did you determine which practices supported your side? How did you determine whether the offered argument was worth a point? Which side won in your group? Evaluation Students will be evaluated based on discussion at the end of class. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 354

354 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estim ated Time: 10 minutes Have students watch the video about farming on a national wildlife refuge ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHVo4By2vug ). Note the video can be stopped when it starts talkin After the video, ask students to consider how farming practices and their impacts on the environment are controlled. Glean student ideas and thoughts through a brief disc ussion. Guiding questions Who monitors th e practices of the farmer in the video? What types of practices do they monitor? Do you think the farmer has to follow other practices as well? Why do you think these practices should be monitored what impact do they have on the environment? What org anizations do you think play a part in monitoring agricultural practices? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 24 Lesson Title: T he Role of Organizations in Environmental Conservation Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Computer linked to a projector with in ternet access Farming on a Refuge Video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHVo4By2vug ). Note also available on dropbox. Regulation of Agricultural Practices powerpoint Regulation of Agricultural P ractices sheet (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) nec essary for agriculture production. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Essential Question: Daily Objecti ves 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the current connection between BMPs and regulatory agencies.

PAGE 355

355 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline The teacher should lecture about the organizations responsible for monitorin practices using the Regulation of Agricultural Practices powerpoint. Note the NRCS video clip should be played from 3:54 6:21. It is also available on dropbox. During the lecture, students should write notes on the Regulat ion of Agricultural Practices sheet, which will help students link agricultural practices with environmental impacts. 1. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2. EPA 3. FDA 4. States Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline In partners, have students examine their notes and determine if there are any gaps or problems they see in the monitoring of agricultural practices. Encourage students to focus on which items have laws and which items ar e regulated through optional programs. During this time, the teacher should monitor group progress by asking questions to each group. Note the voluntary aspect of many organizations and regulations is an issue that should be focused on. Guiding quest ions Do you think there are any problems with the current regulation system? If not, are there any practices that go k can be do ne to alleviate that problem?

PAGE 356

356 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Discuss as a class the problems or gaps they noticed in the regulation of agricultural practices and potential solutions to a ddress these. Guiding questions are similar to those in Learning Activity 2. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their discussions throughout the class. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 357

357 Regulation of Agricultural Practices USDA: Stands for: Regulates through: Responsible for: Impact on Specific Agricultural Practices: EPA: Stands for: Responsible for: Five Most Impactful Federal Acts Regulated (regarding agricultural practices): Not Responsible for: Impact on Specific Agricultural Practices:

PAGE 358

358 FDA: Stands for: Responsible for: Impact on Specific Agricultural Practices: States: #s: Impact on Specific Agricultural Practices:

PAGE 359

359 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 S lide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 360

360 Slide 7 Slide 8

PAGE 361

361 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Explain to students that for the past several weeks, they have learned about how current agricultural practices impact the en vironment. Ask for a show of hands that indicates whether students feel that more needs to be done to protect the environmental against harmful agricultural practices or if current agricultural practices are sustainable with regard to maintaining or improving environme ntal qua lity. After this show of hands, ask students whether they think the production of cultured meat and other GMOs would have an impact on the environment. This can be done again using a show of hands. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction D ay 25 Lesson Title: Environmental Concerns Evaluation Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Student notes from the entire Environ mental Impacts unit Alliance for Better Foods Argument Sierra Club Argument Argument Validity Evaluation (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energ y, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.02 Describe various ecosystems as they relate to the agriculture industry. Essential Question: How could the use of GMOs impac t environmental resources? How is food safety impacted by production practices and animal health? Daily Objectives 1. Describe the potential impacts of GMO use on the environment. iews on the impact of GMOs on the environment.

PAGE 362

362 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instr uctor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline In groups of 2 3, have students create a brainstorming list of concerns and benefits that could result from the production of GMOs. Share these lists through a options include: Large pieces of paper around the room where students write their ideas for benefits and concerns, which are then discusses as a class Brief group presentations Open class discussion with teacher writing ideas down on the board Etc. As lis ts are shared, the teacher should make sure that the concerns and benefits listed include those in the content outline (p. 7) During discussion, encourage students to carry their ideas to long term or indirect impacts as well. Guiding questions Do you think that concern/benefit is a legitimate one? Do you think that concern/benefit might be offset by other benefits/concerns? Why do you think that is a benefit/concern? How could it impact aspects of the environment? How could that impact then affect other areas, like humans or the economy? 1. Concerns a. Risk of accidentally introducing engineered genes into wild populations i. Can alter wild organisms, ecosystems b. Persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested i. Crop residues c. Susceptibility of non target organisms to the gene i. Insects which are not pests could be harmed d. Stability of the gene i. Does it remain as is, or does it get altered into something unwanted (ex cancer) ii. Loss of biodiversity iii. Increased use of chemicals in agriculture e. Pest resistance to gene does it build up over time? f. Potential generation of new pathogens 2. Potential Benefits a. Reduced chemical and mechanical needs in planting, maintenance, harvest i. Reduced chemical pollution, maintained soil composition, less erosion b. Can increase land availability through use of previously unusable land (drought, flood, extreme weather)

PAGE 363

363 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Mate rials Brief Content Outline Have students gather their notes from the entire Environmental Impacts Unit for use in this activity. Explain to students th at with the help of these notes, they have become experts in understanding how agricultural practices impact the environment. However, some As experts, these students are now able to evaluate the claims made by organizations to de termine whether they are valid and justified or unfounded and false. Arrange students in groups of 2. Give each group one copy of the Alliance for Better Foods Argument and one copy of the Sier ra Club Argument. Each group should also receive two copies of the Argument Validity Evaluation sheet (one for each student). Have each student use the sheet to evaluate one of the arguments. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes When students are finished evaluating the argument, they should discuss th should make a final position statement based on their views of the arguments and their knowledge of environmental impacts. T hese are to be written on the bottom section of the Argument Validity Ev aluation sheet. The sheet should be turned in upon leaving the class. Evaluation Students will be evaluated based on the Argument Validity Evaluation sheet. Items Students Turn In Argument Validity Evaluation sheet

PAGE 364

364 Argument Validity Sheet Name _____________________________ Instructions: Using the guiding statements below, evaluate the argument of one organization. determine your position regarding the va of agricultural practices on the environment. Organization: Evidence from my notes: Statements I think are false: Evidence from my notes: Statements I think are true: ll impact on the environment:

PAGE 365

365 Environmental Impacts Argument Organization: Alliance for Better Foods Some biotech crops are already beginning to improve the environmen tal performance of agriculture, and future crops may eventually make significant global contributions to the preservation of valuable forestlands in the developing world. Following are anticipated environmental benefits from food biotechnology. Conservatio n of natural resources Hardier disease and pest resistant crops can allow greater conservation of resources by requiring less fuel, labor, water and fertilizer. For example, international researchers in Georgia and Israel are exploring ways to produce cot ton that can survive in semi arid conditions, a development that could one day lead to a savings of some 12 billion gallons of water a year. Less land use Researchers around the world are developing hardier strains of fruits, vegetables and grains that on e day may be able to thrive in extreme growing conditions such as tomatoes that can flourish in high salinity soils. Other plant varieties that can protect themselves from pests and diseases mean that growers will be able to produce more food on the same amount of land, thereby reducing pressures to clear additional acres for cultivation. According to the National Council on Food and Agricultural Policy improved farm productivity could result in less impact on prairies, wetlands, forests and other fragile ecosystems that might otherwise be converted for agricultural purposes. Less pesticide use Biotech crops can reduce the use of agricultural chemicals such as insecticides and fungicides. Scientists have dev eloped strains of corn and cotton that produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, thus reducing the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. In addition, herbicide tolerant varieties of many crops have been developed. Accordin g to a study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), U.S. pesticide use was 45.6 million pounds lower in 2001 than it would have been without the use of biotech crops. The use of herbicide tolerant soybeans reduced pesticide levels by 28.7 million pounds, while herbicide tolerant cotton helped cut pesticide levels by 6.2 million pounds. Another report by NCFAP notes several studies finding that growers are achieving higher yields and attaining higher profits by planting Bt varieties of crops, due to the better pest control and decreased pest control costs they provide.

PAGE 366

366 Environmental Impacts Argument Organization: Sierra Club SUPERWEEDS: GE crops were first planted in the mid 1 No 0s. Already, research has documented that genes producing desired characteristics in crops can confer adaptive advantages to weedy species, causing problems in valuable wild plant habitats. Research suggests that bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of distances and farm to farm spread of o ilseed rape transgenes will be widespread. Pollen can also travel for miles in the wind and integrate its DNA into the genome of conventional plants. Genes from GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) can spread to wild plants and native species, resulting in herbicide resistant superweeds. For example, the pollen from transgenic rapeseed (canola) can blow into neighboring farms and wild areas and can easily outcross to any nearby canola plant. The herbicide resistant traits become promiscuous and transfer to weedy relatives. The traditional weed then becomes a stronger "superweed." This outcrossing has started to produce superweeds that are resistant to a wide range of herbicides. The 4/26/00 edition of New Scientist magazine reported the first officially c onfirmed case of its kind: weeds in Canada which became resistant to three kinds of herbicides: Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit. It only took three years for a transgenic spread of super herbicide resistance. The rapid outcrossing of GEO herbicide resistant p lants raises serious questions for those concerned about the emergence of weeds that do not die no matter what herbicide is applied. These superweeds may very well have a bioengineered advantage in taking over farm fields and in moving through wild areas, where they are likely to have a range of impacts on populations of wild plants and wild plant habitats. BIODIVERSITY: In the 9/18/ No Worldwatch Institute report "Farmers Losing Seed Varieties Worldwide," John Tuxill wrote that in the United States more t han 80 % of seed varieties sold a century ago no longer are available and that the world is rapidly losing genetic diversity in crops. With development of transgenic crops, traditional varieties may dwindle even further as farmers grow a less diverse pool o f crops to obtain the highest yields for commercial production. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxins are becoming ubiquitous, highly bioactive substances in agroecosystems. Bt crops are pumping out huge amounts of toxin from all tissues throughout the growin g season, from germination to senescence. Most non target herbivore insects, although not lethally affected, ingest plant tissue containing Bt protein which they can pass on to their natural enemies. There are also unanticipated effects on non target insec ts through deposition of transgenic pollen on foliage of surrounding wild vegetation. These effects herald problems for small farmers in developing countries and for organic farmers since they rely on insect pest control. For instance, loss of lady bugs an d lacewings will likely result in increased crop losses. The Soil Association report (UK) on 6/22/ No warned, "GM code could wipe out wildlife." Birds, for instance, might lose habitat and major food sources (both plants and insects). The spread of transgen es into the wild and the effect this will have on biodiversity may be especially severe in less developed countries and wherever native archetypal varieties of agricultural crops exist. SOIL FERTILITY: The soil food web is crucial for plants to obtain the nutrients necessary for growth. Many crops are engineered with the Bt toxin in order to resist infestation from insects. Yet root exudates from these plants release the toxin into the soil, where it retains its activity for at least 234 days, long after i ts release. This stimulates major changes in soil biota that could affect nutrient cycling

PAGE 367

367 processes and reduce soil fertility. Monsanto's advertising campaigns try to convince people that Roundup is safe, but the facts do not support that conclusion. Inde pendent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals (in addition to destroying the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter). The Progressive Farmer on 1/3/01 reported a University of Missouri study which revealed that Roundup Ready soybeans receiving glyphosate at recommended rates had significantly higher incidence of Fusarium on roots compared with soybeans that did not receive glyphosate. Fusarium is one of the most economically im portant groups of fungi causing diseases on a wide variety of plants. Pat Donald, professor and director of the UM nematology lab was quoted as saying "We're concerned because SDS (sudden death syndrome) is showing up everywhere and can be devastating." E FFECTS ON NON TARGET INSECTS: Insects have their place in the ecosystem. Some play a major role in maintaining the equilibrium of insect populations and are important for pest control strategies. The Bt toxin has been shown to be lethal to non target organ isms such as Monarch butterflies, lacewings and ladybird beetles. The issue is broader than whether Bt toxin produced by genetically modified crops imperils beneficial insects. The real issue is that a strategy to establish expression of an insecticidal co mpound in large scale crop monocultures and thus expose a homogeneous sub ecosystem continuously to the toxin can cause irreparable damage to natural habitats forever SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND ORGANIC FARMING THREATENED: There are many alternative appro aches that farmers can use to effectively regulate insect and weed populations, i.e. rotations, strip cropping, biological control, cover crops, and green manure. To the extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current system, they impede farmers from using a plethora of alternative methods. The entire future of organic farming is being threatened because pollen transfers by insects and the wind from GE crops to organic farms. Cross pollination can move transgenes into the crops so that, against th eir intentions, farmers are growing GE crops. GE seeds can also fall off trucks and farm machinery during transport or be left in the ground, leading to the growth of stray plants. It isn't debatable if Bt resistance will develop among insects populations, the question is how fast this will occur now that the toxins are being used in huge amounts throughout the entire growing season. Bt microbes are applied by organic farmers as a surface agent (when one is absolutely necessary) and will become ineffective as an important biological insect control tool. The problem of crop contamination not only has direct consequences for organic farmers; it also may damage our heritage of agricultural varieties, which has huge implications for populations around the world. For thousands of years, humans have selected and bred varieties adapted to unique climatic zones and regional properties. Transgenes may cause significant damage to that genetic diversity, and commercialization of a few varieties of patented seeds will al so erode this vital heritage. "Terminator" systems designed to protect seed companies' profits by ensuring that farmers can't save seed (the succeeding crop will be sterile) are a further step away from sustainable agricultural practices and respect for th e diversity of our agricultural heritage. GENE TRANSFER INTO GUTS OF BEES: A three year study by a professor at the Institute for Bee Research, University of Jena found a gene transfer from GE rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees. Beatr ix Tappesser from the Ecology Institute in Freiburg was quoted as saying "This is very alarming because it shows that the crossover of genes takes place on a greater scale than we had previously assumed. The results indicate that we must assume that change s take place in the intestinal tubes of people and animals. The crossover of microorganisms takes place and people's make up in terms of microorganisms in their intestinal tract is changed. This can therefore have health consequences."

PAGE 368

368 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Explain to students that they will be taking the Environmental Impacts Posttest. Daily Plan Socio S cientific Issues Instruction Day 26 Lesson Title: Environmental Impacts Posttest Unit Title: Environmental Impacts Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Question wall (this should be posted from the Day 1) Environmental Impacts Posttest (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.02 Describe various ecosystems as they relate to the agriculture industry. 4.05 Apply Best Management Practices that enhance the natural environment. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Essential Question: How does the agricultural industry use environmental resources? Daily Objectives 1. Demonstrate knowledge of agricultural practices and their impact on the environ ment. 2. Evaluate class progress on question responses for the unit.

PAGE 369

369 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will complete the Environmental Impacts Posttest. (Test Code: EN) Standard testing procedures should be enforced. T ests should be turned in upon completion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students individually examine the question wall that they posted during the first lesson. Students may have to leave their seats to read the questions. On a sheet o f paper, the students should write down the questions they feel have been answered through the past several weeks. Note if students have difficulty doing this because of the nature of the questions, allow them to select questions that they feel more com fortable answering, even if they do not feel the question is completely answered. Once they have the questions written down, have them go back to their seats and write down answers to the questions. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes As a cla ss, discuss the questions that students feel could be answered, and allow students to share their answers. The teacher shoul d remove the question cards that have been sufficiently answered, and should leave the ones that have not been fully answered y et. Guiding questions How many of you think this question can be adequately answered? What are some answers you have to that question? How might we find answers to these questions? What else do we need to know to answer that question? Evaluation Stu dents will be evaluated through their responses on the Posttest and the classroom discussion. Items Students Turn In Environmental Impacts Posttest

PAGE 370

370 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students whether they think scientists know the impacts of cultured meat on the environment, and how scientists might learn tative nature of science (science changes as new resul ts are found) and the idea that scientists have differing interpretations of results and do not always agree on the conclusions. Guiding questions Do scientists know whether cultured meat is better for the environment than conventionally produced meat? How would they go about learning more? How many and what types of studies do you think they would need to conduct? Do you knowledg e have on the decision to produce cultured meat? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 27 Lesson Title: Environmental Impacts of Cultu red Meat Unit Title: Introduction of Cultured Meat Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Life Cycle Assessment of Cultured Meat Production article (classroom set) Ar ticle Interpretation Guide (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.) 9.05 Demonstra te the ability to work cooperatively. Essential Question: nvironment, and the economy? Daily Objectives 1. Evaluate arguments supporting or against the production of cultured meat. 2. Interpret scientific arguments and analyze their validity based on their contents.

PAGE 371

371 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Explain to students that they will be learning about the current knowledge available on the environme ntal impacts of cultured meat by reading an article that was published by a scientist in Italy in September of 2010. The students are to act as reviewers of the article in a better understanding of what is now known about the environmental impacts of cultured meat. Arrange the students in groups of 2 3. Each group should receive copies of the article and copies of the Article Interpretation Guide (one per student). U sing the guide, have student groups work through the article. Note the article is designed for a research audience and will be challenging for the students to interpret. The guide is designed to help students focus on specific items in the article, ma k e decisions about what is important, and develop questions related to their interpretation of the article. Student monitoring and assist ance is crucial for the success of this activity, as students may get frustrated with the increased cognitive level req uired by the activity. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes The teacher is to role Note the teacher must have read the article and be prepared to answer questions. findings and evaluate the conclusions drawn. As a final reflection, students are to answer the last question on their guides which asks them to take a position on the impact of cultured meat production on the environment. The guide should be turned in at the end of class. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their guides and through their questioning throughout the class. Items Students Turn In Article Interpretation Guid e

PAGE 372

372 Article Interpretation Guide Name __________________________ read. Complete each of the sections in order to better review the article. Helpful hints for use throughout the article: Abbreviation Word Hint Word GHG Greenhouse gas Air pollution LCA FU DM Fill in t he definitions in your own words to help you remember what these terms mean throughout the article. The first is done as an example for you. The blank boxes are for you to include words and hints that you may find in your reading. Word Definition In vit ro meat Cultured meat Cyanobacteria Why is cultured meat being produced? What is the purpose of the paper? Cultured meat production impacts three things that ar e going to be measured. What three things are being measured in this study? When the researchers are measuring the environmental impacts caused by cultured meat production, how much meat are they saying is in one unit of meat? What do the researchers say is the protein percentage in one unit of meat?

PAGE 373

373 What are cyanobacteria used for in cultured meat production? Where do cyanobacteria come from? Where are stem cells taken from in order to grow the meat? What are the muscle cells (from the stem cells) placed on in order to get them to grow? What are the four products of cultured meat production? What two types of energy input are required for the process of cultured meat production? Hint not cyanobacteria hydrosylate). What two parts of the meat production process require energy? What are the four factors that use energy in cultured meat production? Using Table 2 and the results, fill in the two pie charts below to indicate the proportion of overall energy used and greenhouse gas let off that each factor is responsible for. Proportion of energy required Proportion of greenhouse gasses let off Which overall factors account s for the greatest portion of energy used and greenhouse gas emissions let out?

PAGE 374

374 Which of the overall factors accounts for the smallest percentage of energy used and greenhouse gas emissions let out? Which lets off more green house gasses cultured meat or traditional meat production? Which requires more land cultured meat or traditional meat production? The list below indicates the order of energy requirements for traditional meat industries from the industry requiring the most energy (top) to the industry requiring the least energy (bottom). Write in where cultured meat production falls in this list. Beef Lamb Pork Poultry Where did the researchers find numbers to compare energy production rates of different indus tries? reader do with this information (should this make the reader think differently about the results and conclusions)? Do the researchers think the land use makes cultured meat production more or less favorable than traditional meat production? What are two ways that the researchers think cultured meat production c an improve wildlife conservation? Why do the researchers think that transportation energy required by cultured meat production would be less than traditional meat production?

PAGE 375

375 Introduction (Interest Approach) Est imated Time: 10 minutes Ask students why it might be important to know about how cultured meat is produced in order to make a decision as to whether or not Guiding questions What aspects of cultured meat production might matter to those with economic concerns? What about those with environmental concerns? What about those with animal welfare concerns? What about those with food safety concerns? What as od idea? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 28 Lesson Title: Predic ting the Process of Cultured Meat Production Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Animal Industry Pretest (classroom set) From Pig to P late Worksheet (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Essential Question: How would cultured meat be created? Daily Objectives 1. Describe the importance of the process of cultured meat production in making decisions regarding its use. 2. Predict the steps of cultured meat production.

PAGE 376

376 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students t ake the Animal Industry Pretest. Appropriate test conditions should be monitored by the teacher. Tests should be turned in upon completion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Arrange about how cultured meat is produced, but will first predict how the process occurs. Using the worksheet pictures, the studen t group s are to spend one full minute discussing what the first picture (with the next to it) looks like it is portraying, and what caption they think would accurately reflect the picture. After the minute is up, students are to spend 30 seconds writing their decided caption next to the picture. The next minute should be spent discussing the second picture, followed by 30 seconds to write in the captio n. This pattern should continue until the final picture is reached. Note One full minute of discussion on e ach picture should be enforced by the teacher, who will keep time and tell students when time is up. Students should not work ahead the discussion portion encourages in depth reflection and inquiry. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Tell stu dents to bring their From Pig to Plate worksheets to the following class. Teachers may collect worksheets if they would prefer. Explain to students that they will be comparing their captions at the beginning of next class, and then learning how the proce ss of cultured meat production compares to their predictions. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their pretests and on their predictions during the following class.

PAGE 377

377 Items Students Turn In Animal Industry Pretest

PAGE 378

378 20 Macmillan Publishers Limited.

PAGE 379

379 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Arrange students in partners from yeste rday, and ask that all students have their From Pig to Plate worksheet. Through a classroom discussion, ask students to share their captions for the steps of the production of cultured meat. Have students compare the ir captions and focus on why they felt those captions were appropriate based on their knowledge of the process and the pictures they interpreted. Guiding questions What indicators from the picture made you create that caption? What about your knowledge about cultured meat made you create t hat caption? Does anyone have a caption that indicates something else is done at that step? Why do you feel your caption is accurate? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 29 Lesson Title: The Process of Cultured Meat Production Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Suppli es, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: From Pig to Plate Article (classroom set) Three highlighters per student (different colors) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. 3.07 Inve stigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Essential Question: How would cultured meat be created? Daily Objectives 1. Describe the process of cultured meat production. 2. Identify undetermined or tentat ive components of the process of cultured meat. 3. Evaluate how components of the process of cultured meat may alleviate or cause concerns in consumers.

PAGE 380

380 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Individually 1. Compare their captions with the captions in the article and rewrite the captions on their worksheets in their own words t o be more accurate. 2. Highlight ite ms about the process they feel are not fully developed (these are items or steps that could be changed in the future as the process becomes more refined). 3. Highlight items about the process they feel would alleviate consumer concerns that have been brou ght up by traditional meat production. These should be highlighted in a second color. 4. Highlight items about the process they feel would cause or create consumer concerns. These should be highlighted in a th ird color. Note Based on the students, t he teacher may direct students to read the article first and then give them each analysis step above separately, or may give students all directions at once. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Through classroom discussion, go over student thoug hts regarding the article to each of the four analysis items above. Discussion of the captions should be the least in depth discussion, while the other three items should cause more in depth discussion. Guiding questions How did your predicted steps co mpare to the actual steps of the process? What parts of the process do you think are not fully developed? Why do you think these parts might change in the future? What parts of the process alleviate consumer concerns? What types of concerns are allevia ted? What parts of the process create consumer concerns? What groups do you think would have these concerns? Are there any concerns you have with the process? Evaluation Students will be evaluated based on their class discussion. Items Students Turn In None

PAGE 381

381 Introduction (Intere st Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes On the classroom computer/projector, access the cultured meat virtual taste test ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/taste test.html ). Have students Note this can be done aloud by selected students or silently as a group. Discuss student reactions after each of the senses, and take a poll at the end of the taste test about whether studen ts would eat cultured meat. Guiding questions traditionally grown meat? What about smell, look, or taste? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 30 Lesson Title: Favorable Meat Characteristics Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and O ther Resources: Computer linked to a projector and the internet Favorable Meat Characteristics sheet (classroom set) Favorable Meat Characteristics powerpoint Cuts of meat (optional see Summary) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.03 Illustrate cor rect terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, type, breed, and scientific classification. Essential Question: How would cultured meat be created? Daily Objectives 1. Evaluate th e process of cultured meat production as it addresses barriers, including taste, marbling, and its structural differences fro m traditionally harvested meat. 2. Identify favorable characteristics in traditionally grown meat products.

PAGE 382

382 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will use the Favorable Meat Characteristics sheet to predict the characteristics of traditional meat that would be difficult for scientists to reproduce in cultured meat, and th e reasons for these difficulties. Notes for the sheet will be gathered from teacher lecture, using the Favorable Meat Characteristics powerpoint. Predictions can be discussed by the class throughout the lecture. Note The teachers should guide these pr edictions using his/her knowledge as well. For example, marbling would be a barrier because cultured meat only uses muscle cells; physiological age of cells might be different from age of animal; any qualities (like color) from other cells (like blood) ar e not present. Guiding questions Do you think this quality would be able to be produced in cultured meat? Why/why not? What aspects of the production of cultured meat make this quality difficult to obtain? Characteristics of traditionally harvested mea t 1. Beef 2. Pork 3. Poultry Characteristics/Barriers of Cultured Meat 1. Texture 2. Flavor 3. Marbling/Fat 4. Color 5. Inclusion of various nutrients Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes This summary may be altered to include real cuts of mea t instead of powerpoint slides if the teacher would prefer. Using real meat cuts would allow students to dissect the meat and better experience its texture. If this method of summary is preferred, mak e sure that all students thoroughly wash their hands a nd all surfaces after contact with raw meat. Using the last seven slides of the powerpoint, have students individually consider the characteristics of the meat shown and the expected characteristics of the same meat that was produced through a culture. H ave students decide whether they would prefer to eat the traditionally grown meat or the cultured meat based strictly on the characteristics of the meat. Ask students for th eir decisions and their justifications for their views. Note As discussion conti nues, try to encourage students to see both sides of the argument. For example, if they consistently say that traditional meat would be better, ask them about the convenience of hav ing boneless fish fillets or if they would prefer chicken legs without the skin. Guiding questions Why would you prefer to eat that type of meat over the other? What characteristics do you think would be different between the two?

PAGE 383

383 Evaluation Students will be evaluated through class discussion. Items Students Turn In Non e.

PAGE 384

384 Favorable Meat Characteristics Instructions: Fill out the guide below to make predictions on the characteristics of traditional meat that would be difficult to produce in cultured meat.

PAGE 385

385 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 386

386 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 11 Slide 9 Slide 12

PAGE 387

387 Slide 13 Slide 16 Slide 14 Slide 17 Slide 15 Slide 18

PAGE 388

388 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes As k students what breed of cattle is promoted by restaurants. Note The majority of fast food restaurant commercials promote Angus burgers. Show students the Angus Cow video ( http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=k_CVQYCsuvM ) Ask them if they think cultured meat production is as dependent on selection of certain breeds as traditionally grown meat. Guiding questions Why do you think Angus cattle are so highly regarded? What characteristics of this br eed do you think make it a good breed for meat production? Do you think cultured meat products would be different based on the breed their cells are bi opsied genetics when collecting biopsies? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 31 Le sson Title: Animal Breeds and Characteristics Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Angus Cow video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_CVQYCsuvM ) Note this video is also available on dropbox. Animal Breed and Characteristics Packets (one of each Beef and Swine per student) Breeds and Characteristics Powerpoint Agriscience Fou ndations Standards: 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, type, breed, and scientific classification. 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anat omy of animals. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Identify breeds of animals chosen for specific characteristics related to meat production. 2. Describe the favo rable and unfavorable anatomical characteristics of various animals related to meat production. 3. Evaluate the suitability of various breeds of animals for use in cultured meat production.

PAGE 389

389 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Arrange students into groups of 2 3. Give each student a copy of both Animal Breeds and Characteristics packets (B eef and Swine). Each group should also receive tape. Students will cut out each of the characteristics. Have students attempt to pair up the name of the breed with the breed characteristics by placing them in the appropriate spots on the paper. When gr oups have finished, go over this with them to ensure that all students have the correct characteristics with each of the names. Note Students can be instructed to fold over the third section of the worksheet to keep them from working ahead of the teache r would prefer. It will be used during the class summary. Beef breeds and their characteristics 1. Texas Longhorn 1. Herefords, Shorthorns, Angus a. Shorthorn b. Hereford c. Angus (black and red) 2. Brahman 3. Charolais 4. Chianina 5. Limousin 6. Maria Anjou 7. Simmental Swine Breed s and their characteristics 1. Berkshire 2. Chester White 3. Duroc 4. Hampshire 5. Landrace 6. Poland China 7. Spotted Swine 8. Yorkshire 9. Pietrain Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Using the Breeds and Characteristics Powerpoint, have students guess each of the breeds shown in the pictures according to the characteristics on their papers.

PAGE 390

390 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students to individually select the top three breeds they would use in the production of cultured meat for each species, and three breeds they would not use. They should complete the appropriate section of the Animal Breeds and Characteristics sheets duri ng this activity. After 6 7 minutes, ask students about their s elections and reasons for their selections. Note the worksheets can be collected and later returned if the teacher would like. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their worksheets and through discussion. Items Students Turn In Animal Breeds a nd Characteristics sheets (optional)

PAGE 391

391 Animal Breeds and Characteristics Beef Breed Characteristics Rating for use in cultured meat production and Reasons Charolais Hereford Chianina Angus Texas Longhorn Limousin Simm ental Brahman Maria Anjou Shorthorn

PAGE 392

392 Animal Breeds and Characteristics Swine Breed Characteristics Rating for use in cultured meat production and Reasons Landrace Yorkshire Chester White Spotted Swine Hampsh ire Berkshire Pietrain Poland China Duroc

PAGE 393

393 Beef Breed Characteristics cut these out and tape next to the appropriate breed. a. only beef breed available to US cattle producers until mid 1800s. b. Hardy c. Lacked beefy appearance d. Difficult to fatten (lean carcasses) a. Compared to longhorn increased growth rate, improved mothering ability, shorter horns b. Bred with longhorns to give heavier muscled carcass c. Beefy appearance d. Very hardy, able to tolerate wide range of environmental con ditions e. Polled Herefords are naturally hornless f. Most popular breed of beef cattle g. Naturally polled h. Good for hot climates because loose hide dissipates heat well i. More tolerant to disease than other breeds of cattle j. Have been used to create other breeds Br angus, Beefmaster, Santa Gertrudis (hardy, good maternal abilities in these three breeds) k. Rapid growth rate and muscling l. Used to sire large calves that lead to difficult births, but selective breeding for low birth weight solved this problem m. Largest bree d of beef cattle n. Good growth rate o. Lean carcasses p. Moderately framed q. Heavily muscled r. Rapid growth rates s. Great for crossbreeding with large framed or light muscled cows t. Good maternal abilities u. Docile temperament v. Largest and heaviest framed of the French breed s w. Large x. Heavily muscled y. Good breeding versatility

PAGE 394

394 Swine Characteristics cut these out and tape next to the appropriate breed. a. Used to have short noses, but breeders have selectively bred for long noses to help animals eat from automatic self feeders b. Good mothering ability c. Exceptional muscle quality (color, texture, flavor) d. Can be used as maternal or paternal for crossbreeding e. Great mothering ability f. Good growth rate g. Good carcass traits h. Breeders have selected for extreme leanness and muscling to be us ed as a paternal breed i. Used as maternal and paternal j. Good muscling and leanness k. Large litters l. Exceptional milking ability m. Good growth rate n. Good muscling o. Hardy p. Used as paternal breed q. Farrow and wean large, heavy litters r. Used as maternal breed s. Very lean t. Heav ily muscled u. Many carry two copies of stress gene v. Used to cross with other paternal breeds to produce lean, heavily muscled, crossbred sires with 0 or 1 copy of the stress gene

PAGE 395

395 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 396

396 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 11 Slide 9 Slide 12

PAGE 397

397 Slide 13 Slide 16 Slide 14 Slide 17 Slide 15 Slide 18

PAGE 398

398 Slide 19 Slide 20

PAGE 399

399 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Show students the first two photographs on the powerpoint. Hold a brief class discussion about how the se items are created. Note The teacher should guide the discussion toward cell differentiation. Guiding questions are designed to lead discussion towar d this. Guiding questions How are each of these similar? How do you think they are created? How are they similar to cultured meat production? Daily Plan Socio Scie ntific Issues Instruction Day 32 Lesson Title: Cell Differentiation Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Guided Predictions power point Computer hooked to projector with internet access Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. 3.07 Investigate DNA and ge netics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Identify the components of animal cells. 2. Explain th e characteristics of traditionally harvested meat and cultured meat at the cellular level.

PAGE 400

400 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Ask students what would happen if the cultured meat ell. Through the Guided Predictions powerpoint, have the class openly discuss each statement, and then the correct answer. Correct statements should be written in student notes. Then have students re address the original question what would happen if the biopsy Note discussion can stem from the related content in the unit plan. Guiding questions Do you think that statement is true or false? Why do you think that? So does that change your answer t o the original question? 1. Animal cells all cells originate from other cells. All organisms are made up of one or more cells. All cells have similar functions: a. All cells must take up nutrients from external environment b. All cells must excrete was te products into their external environment c. All cells do some kind of work (make proteins, store energy, carry oxygen, transport electrical impulse, store minerals, move) d. All cells must reproduce 2. Cell differentiation a. Cells are specialized, and each type of cell has a different job i. Muscle cells support body and movement ii. Bone cells structure and support of body iii. Red blood cells carry oxygen iv. Fat cells v. Some make up tissues and organs b. Differentiated cells work together in systems i. Skeletal system ii. Muscular system iii. respiratory system iv. circulatory system v. nervous system vi. endocrine system vii. reproductive system Cultured Meat Cells 1. All muscle cells 2. No attached systems working together

PAGE 401

401 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 5 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Using the next pictures on the Guided Predictions powerpoint (Cell Differentiation), have students identify similarities and differences of the types of cells. Point out that each cell has similar organelles which help it carry out its specific functions. Guiding questions If all cells have similar organelles, why are muscle cells needed to grow cultured meat? Do you think cultured meat production could incorporate cell differentiation in ord er to make more realistic meat products? How? 1. Cell differentiation a. Cells are specialized, and each type of cell has a different job i. Muscle cells support body and movement ii. Bone cells structure and support of body iii. Red blood cells carry oxygen iv. Fat cell s v. Some make up tissues and organs b. Differentiated cells work together in systems i. Skeletal system ii. Muscular system iii. respiratory system iv. circulatory system v. nervous system vi. endocrine system vii. reproductive system Summary (Review ) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Explain to students that they will be learning about the organelles of animal cells during the next class. They will be comp aring http://prezi.com/mrfde7ibr 1a/copy of cell analogy project/ Note this prezi is also located on dropbox. Click the prezi folder, open with WinRAR.exe, close t he popup screen about buying, open the copy of the prezi, click on the right arrow. Guiding questions nk it is responsible for?

PAGE 402

402 Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their discussion. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 403

403 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 404

404 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 11 Slide 9 Slide 12

PAGE 405

4 05 Slide 13 Slide 14

PAGE 406

406 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Give students three minutes to consider what they think a cell is like (remind them of the Spongebob pr ezi from the previous class). Then, go around the room and have each student complete the sentence. Example: A cell is like a house. A cell is like a pa rty. A cell is like a truck. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 30 minutes Instructor Direction s / Materials Brief Content Outline 1. Animal cell organelles Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 33 Les son Title: Cell Anatomy Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Classroom set of computers with int ernet access Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Compare and contrast cells and other systems. 2. Explain the functions of different cell organelles.

PAGE 407

407 ( http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/c ontent/begin/cells/insid eacell/ ). Tell students that they should go through the cell to identify organelles that are similar to components of something else that they can relate to a cell. Note an example would be that a cell is like a house. The mit ochondria is the heater, the family that lives there is the nucleus, the walls are the cell membrane, etc. Students should be told that they can make the cell membrane transparent or keep it opaque, but they should leave the cell as an animal cell. Worksh eet collection is at the discretion of the teacher. a. Cell membrane b. Nucleus c. Chromosomes d. Cytoplasm e. Endoplasmic reticulum f. Mitochondria g. Lysosomes h. Golgi bodies Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Have several students sh student made these analogies. Guiding questions Why do you think the cell is like that item? What would the _____ be in the cell? What similarities do y ou see Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their worksheets and discussions. Items Students Turn In

PAGE 408

408 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 34 Lesson Title: Cellular Reproduction Mitosis Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwl6oK9gcBE&feature=related ) Note this video is also located on the dropbox. Mitosis worksheet (classroom set) Mitosis powerpoint Mitosis si gns (one set) Computer hooked to projector with internet access Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. 3.04 Describe the phases of cell reproduction. Essential Question: How would traditi onally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Explain the process of mitosis. 2. Predict characteristics of cultured meat resulting from mitosis.

PAGE 409

409 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minut es Have students watch the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwl6oK9gcBE&feature=related ). Note this video is also located on the dropbox. previous content, where students learned about the process of lab grown meat production. Ask probing questions related to th e actual process of cellular replication. Guiding ques tions We say that the cells multiply, but how do they do this? Do cells multiply naturally? When they multiply, what is the result? Can they multiply an unlimited number of times? Do you think there are any negative outcomes of cellular multiplicatio n? Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give each student the Mitosis worksheet. Have students fill out the worksheet while following along the lecture. The first side should be tota lly completed at the end of the lecture. The students should then work to answer the second side questions. Teacher lecture will be guided by the Mitosis powerpoint. Note the teacher can also use the content provided in the unit content guide. 1. Interp hase cellular growth a. G1 b. S c. G2 2. Mitosis division of body cells (nonsex) a. Prophase b. Metaphase c. Anaphase d. Telophase

PAGE 410

410 Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline In this activity, stude nts will be acting out the stages of mitosis. Assign the following roles to students by taping the attached Mitosis signs to their shirts: Chromosome A (for hair texture) (2 students to be sister chromatids) Chromosome B (for hair color) (2 students t o be sister chromatids) Nuclear membrane (three students) Cell membrane (six to eight students) Organelles (2 students) Cytoplasm (2 students) Spindle fibers (2 students) After students are assigned to their parts, explain to students not assigned a part that they will be assisting in the placement of the parts during the stages of mitosis. Students are to organize themselves to represent the appropriate stage as called out (in order from the three subphases of interphase through telophase) by the teach er. When the students think they have the correct action represented, the teacher should check and ask questions to make sure all students are aware of what is going on in the stage. Example Students should begin according to the diagram on the right. When the teacher calls out Interphase G1, a second student representing Cell membrane Nuclear membrane Organelles Cytoplasm Chromosome A Chromosome B Students assigned a part to be used later (sister chromatids, spindle fibers, etc.)

PAGE 411

411 organelles and cytoplasm should step in to the cell. When Interphase S is called out, students representing the copied chromosome should come into the cell and er student representing the original chromosome by holding hands or linking arms. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 0 mintues If time allows, show students a real cell going through the stages of mitosis ( http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/labbench/lab3/mitfilm.html ). Pause the video at each stage and ask students to identify which stage it is and how they know. E valuation Students will be evaluated through their discussion and actions during the activity. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 412

412

PAGE 413

413 Mitosis Questions Is the parent cell haploid or diploid? What does this mean? What about the daughter cells? Mitosis res ults in how many daughter cells? During which phase of mitosis do chromosomes align their centromeres along the equatorial plate? Do homologous chromosomes line up next to each other or apart from each other? What is the difference between homologous chr omosomes and replicated chromosomes? Do daughter cells still have homologous pairs? Do daughter cells have replicated chromosomes? How many times does DNA replicate during one cycle of mitosis? Name each of the phases of mitosis, and draw out what happ ens in each:

PAGE 414

414 Chromosome A Wavy Hair Chromosome A Wavy Hair Chromosome B Brown Hair Chromosome B Brown Hair Nuclear Membrane Nuclear Membrane Nuclear Membrane Cell Membrane Cell Membrane Cell Membrane Cell Membrane Cell Membrane Cell Membrane

PAGE 415

415 Cell Membrane Cell Membrane Organelles Organelles Cytoplasm Cytoplasm Spindle Fibers Spindle Fibers

PAGE 416

416 Name _________________________ A cell is like a __________________________. The is like the cell membrane because The is like the nucleus because The are like the chromosomes because The is like the endoplasmic reticulum because The is like the mitochondria because The are like the lysosomes because The are like the golgi bodies because Th e is like the cytoplasm because On the back of this sheet, draw your analogy to display how items in your example are related to the cell parts above.

PAGE 417

417 Int roduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students to consider themselves cultured meat scientists for a minute. As cultured meat scientists, how would they go ab out selecting the perfect animal from which to take a biopsy? Guiding q uestions Why would it be important to choose an ideal animal? (remember that mitosis produces identical cells) What characteristics would you want to see in the animal whose muscle cells you will use? How does this differ from traditional m eat producti on? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 35 Lesson Title: Cellular Reproduction Meiosis Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Computer hooked to projector with internet access Meiosis worksheets (classroom set) Mei osis powerpoint Meiosis flip book sheets (one set per pair of students) Scissors (classroom set to share) Stapler Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. 3.04 Describe the phases of cell rep roduction. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Explain the process of meiosis. 2. Predict characteristics of traditionally grown meat resulting from meiosis.

PAGE 418

418 Show students the beef selection video ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/lessons/the perfect cow/video segments/1536/ ). You can turn the video off at the beginn ing of the dairy cow discussion. Explain to students that while cultured meat production is done strictly through mitosis, traditional meat production uses both production of muscle cells through mitosis (during animal gro wth) and selection of traits of p arents to produce favorable offspring to produce that muscle. Explain to students that over the next few days, you will be examining how traditional meat production uses cellular reproduction in ways different than lab grown meat. Learning Activity 1 E stimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give students the meiosis worksheet. Students should complete the worksheet as the teacher lectures using the meiosis powerpoint. 1. Meiosis division of sex cells a. Meiosis I b. Meiosis II Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 15 minutes Put students into pairs. Give each pair a meiosis flip book sheet (5 pages). Students can share pairs of scissors. Have st udents work in partners to draw in chromosomes and add captions to e ach page of the flip book, then assemble flip books using a stapler. Turning these in is at the discretion of the teacher, but they should be returned to the student for review. Evaluation Students will be evaluated through discussion and through flip books Items Students Turn In Meiosis flip books (optional)

PAGE 419

419 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 420

420 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9

PAGE 421

421 Intro duction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students to think pair share the following two questions: How is meiosis used in lab grown meat production and traditional meat production? How is mitosis used in lab grown meat production and tra ditional meat production? During the sharing, the teacher should identify student misconceptions (for example, if a student thinks meiosis is used in l ab grown meat production). Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 36 Lesson Title: Prod ucts of Meiosis and Mitosis Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Venn Diagram Set (one per group of three students) Agriscience Foun dations Standards: 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. 3.04 Describe the phases of cell reproduction. 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Essential Question : How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Compare and contrast the processes of mitosis and meiosis. 2. Compare and contrast the products of mitosis and meiosis in meat production.

PAGE 422

422 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Ma terials Brief Content Outline Explain to students that because mitosis and meiosis are very similar, but are actually two distinct processes, they will be comparing the two today. Arrange students in groups of three. Each group will receive a set of Ven n Diagrams. Have each student complete one of the venn diagrams based on their notes from the previous classes. Note the venn diagram for characteristics of meiosis and mitosis does not include a comparison of their stages. This diagram should focus more on haploid vs. diploid, number of chromosomes, types of cells, etc. When each student in the group is finished, have the students share their diagrams with one another to determine if anything needs to and knowledge, and to evaluate whether the material included is correct. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Have selected members from each group share their venn diagrams. Go over each with the class by diagram, asking students to contribut e their thoughts to each specific diagram. Turning in the diagrams at the end of class is at the discretion of the teacher. Guiding questions Do you think that what student A said is correct? Would you add anything else to that diagram? What else do you think is similar? What else do you think is different? Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their diagrams and their discussion. Items Students Turn In Venn diagrams (optional)

PAGE 423

423 Use the diagram above to compare how mitosis and meio sis are used in lab grown meat production and traditional meat production. Uses of Mitosis in meat production Uses of Meiosis in meat production

PAGE 424

424 Use the diagram above to compare how mitosis and meiosis are used in lab grown meat production and traditional meat production. Characteristics of Mitosis Characteristics of Meiosis

PAGE 425

425 Use the diagram above to compare the process and stages of mitosis and meiosis Process of Mitosis Process of Meiosis

PAGE 426

426 ___ N ___ N ________ over Sister ____ ______ still present

PAGE 427

427 Meiosis Questions How many cells results from meiosis? Are parent cells haploid or diploid? How about daughter cells? What is crossing over, and when does it occur? How does crossing over impact gene tic diversity? What is a chiasmata? How are the chromosomes that line up during metaphase I differ from those that line up during mitosis? How many times does DNA replicate during meiosis? How many divisions are there in meiosis? How is this diff erent than in mitosis? What are tetrads? Are they formed in mitosis? During mitosis, are the genes of the daughter cells identical or different? What about during meiosis? Why is meiosis important to traditional meat production?

PAGE 428

428 Introd uction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Ask students how they think a farm to mass produce ground beef and a farm to mass produce cultured ground beef would differ. Hold a brief class discussion. Daily Plan Socio S cientific Issues Instruction Day 37 Lesson Title: Industry Predictions from Production Practices Unit Title: Introduction of Cultured Meat Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and O ther Resources: Posterboards (or large sheets of blank paper, or 2 4 sheets of computer paper taped together) (classroom set) Markers, crayons, colored pencils, etc. Industry Predictions Guide Sheet (classroom set each page contains three sheets) Indust ry Reflections Sheet (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.) 9.03 Identify and demonstrate ways to be an active citizen. 9.0 5 Demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively. Essential Question: nvironment, and the economy? Daily Objectives 1. Evalua te differences between the meat industries of traditional and cultured meat caused by differences in cellular reproduction needed. 2. Analyze potential problems in the cellular reproduction processes required by traditionally and lab grown meat.

PAGE 429

429 Guiding questions How would the facilities be different? What about incoming products? How many and what types of animals would the farm have? How is this linked to their processes of cellular reproduction? How much land would be needed? What ty pes of workers would be needed? Learning Activi ty 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Arrange students in pairs. Each pair of students will draw two farms that represent the industry created through each respec tive production method. One student will draw a farm representative of lab grown meat production and the other will draw a farm representative of traditionally grown meat production. Students should follow the Industry Predictions Guide to include appr opriate items in their drawings. Note du are being represented in their drawings. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brie f Content Outline Have selected groups share their posters and discuss the differences they noted in the farms with the class. Guiding questions What long term impacts do you think that difference would cause? How do you see this impacting the industr y in the long term? What do you think the industry could do to reduce long term problems? Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Have each student individually complete the industry reflection sheet and turn it in.

PAGE 430

430 Evaluation Students will b e evaluated on their posters and their reflection sheets. Items Students Turn In Industry Reflection Sheet

PAGE 431

431 Industry Predictions Sheet Use the following predictions to guide your illustrations of your farm. Remember, your farm should represen t all aspects of the industry, not just those typically located on a farm (this includes inputs, wastes, and meat processing among other aspects). What types of facilities does your farm need? Why are each of these items needed? Be sure to consider all aspects of the meat production process, from inputs to wastes, and items needed to continue production. What types and how many animals will your farm need? How will these animals be housed? What types of and how many employees will your farm need? Wha t facilities are needed that aid in the production of meat? For example, will you need breeding facilities? Different breeds? Transportation for animals? Animal waste management? Animal feed production and storage? Sterilization areas? Meat processi ng facilities? Storage for equipment and materials? Others? Industry Predictions Sheet Use the following predictions to guide your illustrations of your farm. Remember, your farm should represent all aspects of the industry, not just those typically lo cated on a farm (this includes inputs, wastes, and meat processing among other aspects). What types of facilities does your farm need? Why are each of these items needed? Be sure to consider all aspects of the meat production process, from inputs to was tes, and items needed to continue production. What types and how many animals will your farm need? How will these animals be housed? What types of and how many employees will your farm need? What facilities are needed that aid in the production of meat ? For example, will you need breeding facilities? Different breeds? Transportation for animals? Animal waste management? Animal feed production and storage? Sterilization areas? Meat processing facilities? Storage for equipment and materials? Other s?

PAGE 432

432 Industry Reflections Sheet Name ______________________ Question: Based on what you know about cellular reproduction and how meiosis and mitosis are used in the creation of meat, what are your perceptions of the production of lab grown meat? Support your viewpoint with statements related to cellular reproduction and potential related impacts.

PAGE 433

433

PAGE 434

434

PAGE 435

435

PAGE 436

436

PAGE 437

437

PAGE 438

438 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 38 Lesson Title: Genetic Probability Unit Title: Animal Industry Course : Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Genetic Probability Guide (classroom set) Genetic Probability powerpoint Genetic Probability lab sheet (classroom set) Paper plates (on e per 2 students) Pennies (one per 2 students) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. 6.03 Illustrat e correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, type, breed, and scientific classification. 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Identify components of DNA. 2. Describe the process of genetic probability.

PAGE 439

439 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Show st udents the first four powerpoint slides. At each one, ask students to identify parent characteristics that were exhibited in the offspring. After the final slide, ask them how producers are able to get characteristics they want out through animal reprod u ction. Guiding questions How are traits passed down from parent to offspring? How can producers use this to their advantage? Do all offspring always contain desired traits? Why or why not? Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Instructo r Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Pass out the Genetic Probability Guide. Have students follow the sheet and record notes as the teacher uses the powerpoint t o guide discussion about genetics. Note the guide should be the main source of d iscussion. The powerpoint is designed to be used as a supplement to the guide, to help students grasp certain concepts. Guiding questions are included in the student sheet. Teachers should facilitate discussion that elaborates on these question s. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students get into partners (boy girl partners is favorable, but not necessary). Give each partner a genetic probability lab sheet and a paper pla te. Have students follow the directions on the lab sheet to create a child that is a genetic combination of the two Note collection of the lab sheet is at the discretion of the teacher.

PAGE 440

440 Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Ask students to look at their animal breeds notes from earlier in the unit. Hold a discussion about which characteristics br eeds are selected for when selectively breeding for meat production. Guiding questions If you were a meat producer, which bree ds would you cross? Why? What characteristics are sought out in that breed? Why are these characteristics beneficial? Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their lab sheets and discussion. Items Students Turn In Genetic probability lab sheet (op tional)

PAGE 441

441 Genetic Probability Guide We already know that genes are passed down from parents to offspring through meiosis. But how do the genes actually result in certain traits? Can we use our knowledge of genes to select parents to creat e certain traits in the offspring? This worksheet will serve as your guide to answer these questions. How do genes make traits? Four Nitrogen Bases: Base Pairs:

PAGE 442

442 Practice: How are traits passed do wn? Genes control: Alleles: Aa A = nice a = mean Which is the dominant allele?

PAGE 443

443 Which is the recessive allele? How do you know that the phenotype will be when looking at this genotype? Is the above genotype homozygous or heterozygous? What wou ld a homozygous genotype look like? Are there any other homozygous genotypes? What would the phenotypes be for the two homozygous genotypes? How would the heterozygous phenotypes be expressed if this were a trait that had incomplete dominance? How do people have very varied heights or skin colors? What is a punnett square for? Draw a punnett square for the following two parents: Aa x Aa What would the phenotypes be for these offspring? What do you need to be able to use a punnett square? Following the powerpoint links, recreate the monohybrid and dihybrid punnett squares below:

PAGE 444

444 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 2 Slide 5 Slide 3 Slide 6

PAGE 445

445 Slide 7 Slide 10 Slide 8 Slide 11 Slide 9 Slide 12

PAGE 446

446 Slide 13 Slide 16 Slide 14 Slide 17 Slide 15 Slide 18

PAGE 447

447 Slide 19 Slide 22 Slide 20 Slide 21

PAGE 448

448

PAGE 449

449

PAGE 450

450

PAGE 451

451

PAGE 452

452

PAGE 453

453 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Explain to students that breeding decisions rely heavily on genetics in all areas of animal and plant breeding. On your computer, go to http://www.mnzoo.org/education/games/matchmaker/index.html and c Note make sure sound is on so students can hear the introduction. After the introduction is over, ask students to consider how a breeder might increase disease resistance in a population of animals, like tigers. Guiding questi ons What phenotypes of animals would you want to breed if disease resistance was a recessive trait? Would animals with a phenotype not displaying disease resistance be able to contribute recessive genes for disease resistance to offspring? What might b Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 39 Lesson Title: Punnett Squares and Making Selective Breeding Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, Ref erences, and Other Resources: Classroom set of computers with internet access Classroom computer hooked to a projector and the internet. Zoo matchmaker worksheet (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics app lications in agriscience including the theory of probability. 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its produ ction? Daily Objectives 1. Apply genetic probability principles to reproduction decisions. 2. Utilize punnett squares to make predictions regarding genetic probability.

PAGE 454

454 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give each student a computer with internet access. Note this activity can be done in pairs as well if an entire classroom set is not available. Note students MUST read the instructions before The directions on the top of the lab sheet relatedness, disease resistance, and who they bred at each generation. Note as students go through the lab, the teacher should walk the room and ask them questions a bout how they are making decisions regarding who to breed and what their current level of inbreeding and disease resistance is. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes When all students have completed the activity and have finished filling in their worksheets, hold a discussion focusing on student reactions to the results of their breeding decisions. Guiding questions How could you tell if an animal was disease resistant? Were you able to keep your disease resistance as low as you expected? Why or why not? How did you make decisions about who to breed? Did you expect that level of inbreeding by the last generation? If you were to do this again, would you choose different partners to breed at any point? Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their discussion after the Zoo Matchmaker. Items Students Turn In Zoo Matchmaker lab sheets (optional)

PAGE 455

455

PAGE 456

456 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 1 0 minutes Explain to students that the production of cultured meat would potentially need only one superior animal, which could elimina te the need for genetic diversity. Ask students to choose a position regarding the importance of maintaining genetic di versity in cattle if cultured meat was mass produced (students should decide whether breeders should maintain genetic diversity in the future or b reed Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 40 Lesson Title: Maintaining Genetic Diversity through Reproduction Unit Title: Anima l Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Livestock Reproductive Plan (classroom set) Student livestock breed notes from previously in the unit Agriscience Fo undations Standards: 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according t o use, type, breed, and scientific classification. 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. Essential Question: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? Daily Objectives 1. Compare an d contrast the benefits and drawbacks of different breeds of cattle with regard to meat production. 2. Create a long term reproductive plan to create lab grown meat while maintaining genetic diversity.

PAGE 457

457 the best animal and then just clone it, eliminating genetic diversity). Note the decision is not relat ed to whether cultured meat should be produced. This situation assumes that cultured meat is already being produced and considers how the livestock indus try should move forward. Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Ma terials Brief Content Outline Once each student makes their decision (this does not have to be done aloud), give each student the Livestock Reproductive Pl an. Students will complete the plan individually based on their decision above. They should use th eir livestock breeds notes to help them select breeds. Note as the students are creating their plans, the teacher should monitor student progress and ask students questions to keep them on track and from getting confused. This task requires a high cogn itive level and can lead to student questions and frustration, if those questions go answered. Guiding questions What is the goal of your reproductive plan maintaining genetic diversity or producing one superior animal? If you are maintaining genetic diversity, why do you feel that is important when cultured meat is in production? Which breeds are you including in your plan? Why? Which genes are you selecting for? Why? Are there genes you are trying to avoid? Why? How successful is your breedin g so far? Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Once students are finished creating their reproductive plans, ask students to reflect on their overall plan. Select students to share the goal of their reproductive plan, the strengths of their plan the weaknesses of their plan, and their overall reaction to the job responsibilities of a livestock breeder. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on their plans and their discussion. Items Students Turn In Livestock Reproductive Plans

PAGE 458

458 Name ______ ________________________ Livestock Reproductive Plan Instructions: You will be producing a livestock reproduction plan for the next three generations based on your overall goal (genetic diversity or ideal animal). Record your goal, and then use the her d below to breed two generations of animals to get as close to your goal as possible. Items in Bold require responses from you. Goal of Plan : ____________________________ Genotypes: Muscling Growth Rate A = heavy muscling B = rapid growth A = light muscling b = slow growth Your Current Herd: Phenotypes: Angus Angus Longhorn Longhorn Charolais Charolais Limmousin Limmousin Brahman Simmental Aa Bb Aa Bb aa Bb aa bb AA Bb AA BB AA Bb AA BB aa BB Aa Bb Phenotypes :

PAGE 459

459 Reproduction Plan: ___ _______ ___________ X ____ _____ _________ __________ __________ Your above partners have two offspring one bull and one heifer. Choose two potential offspring from the punnett square and breed each with another animal from your herd. (Note you can choose more desirable combinations from the punnett square.) Breed: Genotypes: Punnett Square:

PAGE 460

460 Each of the above pairs has two offspring each with one bull and one heifer. Choose two potential offspring from the punnett square and breed each with another animal from your herd. (Note yo u can choose more desirable genotypes/phenotypes from the punnett squares.)

PAGE 461

461 From the pair on the left side of the paper: From the pair on the right side of the paper:

PAGE 462

462 Each of the above four pairs each has two calves each has one bul l and one heifer. Below, identify the genotypes of offspring had by each pair (note you can choose these based on the genotypes/phenotypes you wish to get out of the cross). Reflect on your crosses. How did your herd fare did you achieve your go al? What were the phenotypes of the offspring? Did all of the offspring end up with phenotypes you wanted or expected? What would you differently next time?

PAGE 463

463 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Ti me: 10 minutes Ask students to consider whether they promote animal welfare or animal rights. As students give their answers, ask them to g ive a reason or example that supports their position. Guiding questions Why do you feel that viewpoint (rights or welfare) is worth promoting? What actions do you take to support this position? Is there anything you disagree with regarding the other position? Does your position impact your decision regardi ng the production of lab grown meat? Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 41 Lesson Title: Animal Activist Posit ions Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Animal Activist Packet (one per group of 2 3 students) Note when creating these packets, be sure to include two blank slips of paper. Animal Activist Positions handout (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.06 Compare and contrast animal welfare issues. Essential Question: Why do traditionally harvested and cultured meat suppo rters each believe they are treating animals ethically? Daily Objectives 1. Identify practices associated with animal welfare and animal rights. 2. Compare and contrast ideals of animal welfare and animal rights.

PAGE 464

464 Learning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Arrange students into groups of 2 3. Give each group an Animal Activist Packet. Give the groups approximately 10 minutes to arrange the actions written on the pieces of paper into two groups items supporting animal welfare and items supporting animal rights. Then have students use the two blank slips of paper to come up with one action or idea that would fit into each cate gory. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Give each student a copy of the Animal Activist Positions handout. Have the student groups reevaluate their category assignments for the slips from Activity 1 and rearrange the slips as needed. During this time, students should also write the number of the rule from the handout that provides evidence that they put the action in the correct category. For correspond with the rule on the handout and the slip should Guiding questions Why did you put that slip in that category? Which category do you think producers typically are in? Which category do you think those that promote lab grown meat are in? What about consumers? When students are finished labeling their slips with numbers, ask them to come up with and write down a definition for animal welfare and animal rights in their groups. Animal Welf arists 1. Gentle animal handling 2. Provide suitable diets and adequate water 3. Provide living conditions that are well suited to the animals to reduce abnormal or injurious behavior 4. Provide environments and equipment to prevent injury (penning, flooring, harne ssing) 5. Provide adequate space to prevent over crowding 6. Improve loading and transport to reduce bruises and injuries 7. Use of appropriate techniques and equipment in slaughter process to minimize pain, fear, and distress 8. Close attention to animals by caretake rs improves potential for early diagnosis of disease and behavioral problems 9. Vaccinate for diseases that can negatively impact animals Animal Rightists (PETA) 1. Eat non animal produced diet (vegan) 2. Purchase products that were not tested on animals 3. Attend a nimal free entertainment and recreation 4. Adopt pets from shelters 5. Spay and neuter pets 6. Use organic gardening practices 7. Lobby against animal industry practices

PAGE 465

465 Learning Activity 3 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Provide students with the definition of animal welfare and animal rights. Ask students if their definitions were accurate and if they included any additional aspects in their definitions. Then ask students if they feel both types of activists a re needed. The teacher should guide discussion toward the notion that both are needed in order to keep a system of checks and balances in the industry. After student discussion establishes that both types of activists are needed in society, briefly go ov er some of the laws (listed to the right) that have been developed through the work of animal welfarists and rightists. 1. Animal Welfare all animals should be happy, healthy, free from want, and treated humanely a. For animals to grow, reproduce, a nd perform, they must be well tended i. Provided with feed water, protection from parasites and disease, and protection from predators b. Most animal producers 2. Animal Rights animals should have the same rights and privileges as humans. a. d for human benefit (food, clothes, pleasure, research) 3. Laws related to animal welfare not an inclusive list a. Animal Transportation Act (1906) b. Humane Slaughter Act (1958) c. Animal Welfare Act (1966) d. Horse Protection Act (1970) e. Marine Mammal Protection Act ( 1972) f. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (1985) g. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act (1989) h. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act (1 No 0) i. Animal Enterprise Protection Act (1 No 2) j. Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act (1 No 9) k. Animal Fighting Enforcement Act (2002) l. Captive Wildlife Safety Act (2002) Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Ask students to consider what issues are identified as animal welfare issues. They should individually create a list and bri ng t he list to class on the following day.

PAGE 466

466 Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their performance with the Animal Activist Packet slips and through classroom discussion. Items Students Turn In None.

PAGE 467

467 Cut these out to create packets of slips. Be sure to include two blank slips of paper. Animal Activist Packets Avoid the circus and zoo go to the movies instead. Specify a certain number of cattle to be transported together. Use a non elec trified working stick to move cattle. Fence in cattle to engage in rotational grazing. Neuter your dog Open second half of chicken house as birds grow to a larger size. Get a puppy from petfinder.com instead of from a breeder. Reduce noise in slaughte rhouses. Apply cow manure to gardens. Provide animals with dietary supplements. Check on animals daily. Contact congressman to support legislation impacting animal industries. Use farrowing crates when a sow has piglets. Keep records on all animal va ccinations.

PAGE 468

468 Animal Activist Positions Animal Welfarists 1. Gentle animal handling 2. Provide suitable diets and adequate water 3. Provide living conditions that are well suited to the animals to reduce abnormal or injurious behavior 4. Provide environments and equipment to prevent injury (penning, flooring, harnessing) 5. Provide adequate space to prevent over crowding 6. Improve loading and transport to reduce bruises and injuries 7. Use of appropriate techniques and equipment in slaughter process to minimize pain, fear and distress 8. Close attention to animals by caretakers improves potential for early diagnosis of disease and behavioral problems 9. Vaccinate for diseases that can negatively impact animals Animal Rightists (PETA) 1. Eat non animal produced diet (vegan) 2. Purc hase products that were not tested on animals 3. Attend animal free entertainment and recreation 4. Adopt pets from shelters 5. Spay and neuter pets 6. Use organic gardening practices 7. Lobby against animal industry practices

PAGE 469

469 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Ask students to share their list of animal welfare issues that they developed at the end of the previous class. Develop a cl assroom li st that compiles student lists. Note some examples of issues are located in the unit plan: m. Animal transportation n. Slaughter Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruc tion Day 42 Lesson Title: Animal Activist Issues Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Classroom set of computers with internet acces s List of activist organizations (can be handed out to students, displayed over a projector, or written on the board) Note due to the graphic content included in some of the listed websites, teachers may omit some of these or guide students to limi ted pa ges in the websites. To achieve this, teachers should review the websites before class to determine an appropriate course of action. Argument Development Guide (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.06 Compare and contrast animal welfare issues. Essential Question: Why do traditionally harvested and cultured meat supporters each believe they are treating animals ethically? Daily Objectives 3. Identify organization practices that support positions on animal issues. 4. Develop and justify an argument supporting a position regarding an animal issue.

PAGE 470

470 o. Pre slaughter management p. Provision of adequate feed and water q. Handling of animals by humans r. Culling of animals that are unhealthy or of low commercial value s. Housing conditions Guiding questions Why do you think that is an issue? Where have you seen or heard of it being an issue? Do you think this is an issue raised by animal rightists or welfarists? Learning Activity 1 Estim ated Time: 30 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have each student get a computer and choose one animal activist issue he/she has interest in. Using the activist organization websites, have students write a letter to the org anization either in support of or in Give each student a copy of the Argument Development Guide to include appropriate items in their letters. Letters should be turned in at the end of class. Note Due to the open ended nature of the assignment and the graphic content included on the websites, students should be closely monitored to keep them on task. Guiding questions Why did you choose this issue? What is this issue? What do you plan to write to them? What backing do you have? What grounds do you have? Are there any reservations? Letters should be turned in at the end of class. 1. Claim 2. Warrant(s) 3. Backing 4. Data/Grounds 5. Reservation 6. Qualifier

PAGE 471

471 Summary (Rev iew) Estimated Time: 5 minutes s. Guiding questions guess your position on t he issue? What tactics does the organization use to convince people of their position? What items did you include in your letter to support your own position? Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their animal activist organization letters. I tems Students Turn In Letters to animal activist organizations

PAGE 472

472 Argument Development Guide In order to develop an argument that might convince someone to see things your way, the argument should contain several components: 1. Claim a. A claim is the major position of an argument, such as, "I deserve an 'A' in this class." b. Arguments can have the claim at the beginning or end, but all other parts of the argument should support this claim. Write your claim here: 2. Warrant(s) a. A warrant leads directly to a claim it states some of the reasons you are making your claim. b. A warrant is the(one of the) reason(s ) given to lead a reader to accept the claim. For example, "I worked really hard in this class; therefore, ." c. Arguments can have more than one warrant to justify a single claim. 3. Backing a. A backing leads to a warrant encouraging a reader to believe the warrant is true. b. A backing offers something intended to assure a reader that a warrant is credible, such as "If you doubt me, you can check my personal journal." c. Backing can also include references if you are not consider Write your claim here: Outline you r warrants here: List your backings here:

PAGE 473

473 4. Data/Grounds a. Data (or grounds) are specific evidence offered to support the salient claim such as: i. "Each advisory grade I received for the assigned projects I submitte d was an 'A'." ii. "Also, I got a 'check' mark or a 'plus' mark on every activity I submitted." 5. Reservation a. A reservation may be associated with a claim, warrant, backing, or data/grounds b. A reservation may be used to anticipate an d discount a reader's objection to a claim warrant backing or data / grounds For example, a reservation to the data offered about project grades could be "Of course, I can't be responsible for my instructor failing to correctly record one or more o f my project grades." 6. Qualifier a. A qualifier "softens" a claim since most claims cannot be absolutely true or necessary in all cases. b. A qualifier usually includes a word which indicates a degree of truth or necessity, like almost, po ssibly, likely, most likely, et cetera Now, outline your argument on a separate sheet of paper. Determine where you will place each of the above items in your argument, and list out the above details you offered, as well as any other additio ns you wish to make. Your argument is ready! List your data here: List potential reservations that the reader might be thinking here: List qualifiers to your claim here:

PAGE 474

474 Animal Activist Organizations People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals www.peta.org Issues of Focus Animals used for food Animals used for clothing Animals used for experimentation Animals used for entertainment Companion animals Wildlife Ducks Unlimited www.ducks.org Issues of Focus Conservation of wetlands Conservation of waterfowl American Society for the Preventio n of Cruelty to Animals www.aspca.org Issues of Focus Caring for pet parents and pets Providing positive outcomes for at risk animals Serving victims of animal cruelty Humane Society of the United States www.humanesociety.org Issues of Focus Animal cruelty and fighting Farm animal protection Puppy mills Wildlife abuses Fur trade Chimpanzees

PAGE 475

475 Introduction (Interest Approach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Explain to students that they will be taking the animal industry posttest. Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 43 Lesson Tit le: Animal Industry Posttest Unit Title: Animal Industry Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minutes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Animal Industry Posttest (classroom set) Fetal Bovine Serum article (c lassroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, type, breed, and scientific classification. 6.04 Compare the ba sic internal and external anatomy of animals. 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. 6.06 Compare and contrast animal welfare issues. 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and anima l cells. 3.04 Describe the phases of cell reproduction. Essential Question: Why do traditionally harvested and cultured meat supporters each believe they are treating animals ethically? Daily Objectives 1. Display knowledge regarding the animal industry through a posttest. 2. Evaluate practices regarding lab grown meat in relation to animal welfare and rights ideals.

PAGE 476

476 Le arning Activity 1 Estimated Time: 25 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Students will complete the animal industry posttest. Teachers should ensure that appropriate testing conditions are maintain ed. Tests should be turned in upon completion. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Ask students to consider how animal welfarists and rightists would react to the production of lab grown meat. Once several s tu dent answers have been voiced, have students read the Fetal Bovine Serum Article. Note if time is limited, have students stop reading after the first few sentences of the section on animal rights issues with FBS. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 5 m inutes Ask students to once again consider how animal welfarists and rightists would react to the production of lab grown meat. Guiding questions Did the article change your mind about what these groups might think about lab grown meat? Do you think activists know that cattle must be killed in order to culture the meat cells? How is this issue addressed (or not addressed) by promoters of lab grown meat? Do you think this is ethically responsible of them? Why or why not? Evaluation Students will be evaluated through their animal industry posttests. Items Students Turn In Animal Industry Posttests

PAGE 477

477 Frost & Sullivan Market Insight Published: 1 Jun 2001 FBS Use in Cell Cultures: The Beginning of the End? Date Published: 1 Jun 2001 FBS Use in C ell Cultures: The Beginning of the End? By Kelly C. Westfall For years, animal sera have been used to enhance cell culture growth. Serum, including fetal bovine serum (FBS) and non fetal bovine serum, contains nutritional aspects, which are vital for succe ssful growth of animal cell cultures. Because of its exceptional growth enhancement properties, FBS is more widely used than non fetal bovine sera (such as adult bovine, horse, goat, and swine sera). Advantages of FBS Over Other Sera FBS is the preferred a nimal serum for cell culture enhancement for several reasons. It has an abundance of proteins, growth factors, enzymes and other chemical components that make it ideal for promoting cell health and growth. All animal fetuses are generally well protected by the placenta and the chance of serum contamination by pathogens in vivo is minimal when compared to the contamination potential of an adult. However, fetal cows are used as a serum source more often than other animals because cattle are plentiful, slaught ered in high volumes, and yield multiple end products. The fetal bovine immune system is not mature and contains fewer molecules (such as complement and antibodies) that could interfere or inhibit the growth of cells. Conflicts Over the Use of FBS The use of FBS raises questions in the minds of animal rights activists and regulating agencies. Since FBS is a byproduct derived from fetal blood, pregnant cows must be slaughtered to obtain it. This practice does not appeal to animal rights activists. Also, fai rly recent outbreaks of diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) and foot and mouth disease (FMD) have driven regulatory agencies to pay scrupulous attention to the uses of cell culture products that have been grown using bovine serum. Understandably, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is especially stringent over products made with FBS that will be ingested or growth rate.gif

PAGE 478

478 implanted, such as pharmaceuticals and human tissue. Although extensive testing has adequately ensured the safety of FBS, these issues could be greatly reduced by closely analyzing alternatives to serum. These conflicts remain on the forefront; particularly when there are some reliable alternatives to using animal sera. In addition to progressively successful research in serum free media development, issues with regulatory agencies could, consequently, help drive the FBS market to eventual extinction. Serum Free Methods May Replace FBS Although FBS has not been perfectly defined in biochemical terms, some advancements and discoveries have been made. Because of this, consistencies in serum lots have improved significantly over the past few years resulting in better cell culture product consistency and less time consuming testing for lot to lot variations. Furthermore, the r ecognition of increased serum definition has led many biotechnology firms to develop and market serum free media. This media eliminates the requirement of serum for growing cells. However, serum free media has to be specialized for certain cell lines and t here is not, of yet, any serum free media that can maintain a very broad selection of cell lines with notable results. Incidentally, the driving factor behind FBS production is not demand, but the state of the cattle industry. But with the encouragement of the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), advancements in universal serum free media may not be improbable in the near future. The FBS Market The FBS market is mature and relatively static, growing only slightly each year. With the proliferat ion of serum free and protein free media in the marketplace, the FBS market should become flat and, eventually, experience a gradual decline in growth. This market decline, however, does not indicate the decline of the use of cell cultures. The growth o f c ells is no longer 100 % dependent upon the use of FBS and the uses of cell cultures and their end products have increased. Finally, since production of FBS is largely dependent upon the cattle industry, revenues from serum free media may be more consistent as its sales will be dependent upon demand.

PAGE 479

479 Daily Plan Socio Scientific Issues Instruction Day 44 Lesson Title: Argument Development and Defense Unit Title: Introduction of Cultured Meat Course: Agriscience Foundations Estimated Time: 45 minu tes Materials, Supplies, Equipment, References, and Other Resources: Six large sheets of art or butcher paper, each with one of the following headings: Animal Production Industry Animal Welfare Economy Environment Food Safety Other Markers (one per st udent) Question wall from the beginning of the unit Argumentation Posttest (classroom set) Agriscience Foundations Standards: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.) 9.03 Iden tify and demonstrate ways to be an active citizen. 9.05 Demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively. Essential Question: nvir onment, and the economy? Daily Objectives 1. Create multi faceted arguments defending a particular position regarding the production of lab grown meat. 2. Evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of lab grown meat production.

PAGE 480

480 Introduction (Interest Appro ach) Estimated Time: 5 minutes Lay each sheet of butcher paper in a separate area around the room. Tell students to visit each sheet of paper and write dow n one piece of evidence that either supports the production of lab grown meat (labeled with a plus sign) or opposes the production of lab grown meat (labeled with a minus sign). Students should visit as many sheets as they can before time is up. Note This is a limited class time activity. To increase classroom organization, the teacher may divide students up into groups that stay together as they travel to each of the pieces of paper. If this approach is used, the teacher will time students at eac h paper and call out for them to switch locations or rotate to each paper. Learning Activity 1 Estim ated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students examine the remaining questions on the question wall that was developed on the first day of the nine week unit. Based on the number of cards left, the teacher ma y arrange students accordingly (ex each student picks a card, students get into partners and pick a card, etc.). Students should remove all cards from the wall and determine whether the question they chose has bee n answered through the class. If the qu estion has been answered, the student should make sure that the corresponding piece of butcher question to the appropriate butcher paper. Learning Activity 2 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Spending about 1 2 minutes on each sheet of paper, guide the class through a brief summary of the major points listed on each sheet. If any questions from the wall are unanswered, ask the class to determine ways they might find out the answers to these questions. Guiding questions Which pieces of evidence on this sheet were influential in your decision making, or which supported your pos ition best? How might we go about answering that remaining question?

PAGE 481

481 Learning Activity 3 Estimated Time: 20 minutes Instructor Directions / Materials Brief Content Outline Have students complete the Argumentation Posttest. The teacher should ensur e that appropriate testing conditions are maintained. Tests should be turned in upon completion. Summary (Review) Estimated Time: 10 minutes Due to the posttest administration, there will be no review. Evaluation Students will be evaluated on thei r argumentation posttests. Items Students Turn In Argumentation Posttest

PAGE 482

482 APPENDIX B UNIT CONTENT Food Safety Unit Plan Unit Name: Food Safety Estimated Time: 1 Week Essential Questions: 1. Why are consumers concerned with food safety? 2. How is food safety impacted by agricultural production practices? 3. How can the animal and food industries improve food safety? Essential Question 1: Why are consumers concerned with food safety? Agriscience Foundations I St andards: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.). 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Identify biotechnological innovations that have impacted the food supply. 2. Evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of advancements in biotechnology. 3. Identify his torical events that have led consumers to elicit concern regarding food safety. Objective 1: Identify biotechnological innovations that have impacted the food supply. Content Outline: 3. Terminology a. Biotechnology using organisms and their components to make products (includes GMOs) b. Genetically modified foods alters the genetic makeup of organisms (plants, animals, bacteria). AKA genetically engineered, transgenic 4. a. Hybrid plant varieties became commercially available in 1930s, and greatly increased crop yields b. The creation of the first genetically engineered farm animals was documented in 1985 c. In 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries i. 53 % was in the US

PAGE 483

483 d. In 2009, over 330 million acres of biotech crops were grown e. The first medical product from a genetically engineered animal was approved by US govt. in 2009 f. The practical benefits of this technology have not yet reached American patients and consumers, however continued successful applica tion of the new United States (U. S.) federal government regulatory process should be aggressive, enabling scientific innovation. 5. a. Overcome agricultural limitations i. Salt tolerant plants 1. Used to grow crops on land w ith water that has high salt content (otherwise would be nonproductive) ii. Increase in milk production in dairy cows 1. Uses bST hormone that cows naturally produce, inject more bST into the cow to produce more milk iii. Increase growth rates with hormones in cattle, fish, pigs, sheep iv. Fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier than they do naturally v. Drought or flood resistant crops b. Increase food quality i. Shelf life 1. Flavr Savr tomato ii. Pest resistance 1. Corn 2. Soybeans 3. Cotton 4. Canola 5. Alfalfa iii. Disease resistance 1. In cattle (ma d cow disease [BSE], chickens, fish, pigs 2. iv. Taste 1. Increase meat tenderness with product that knocks out acid meat gene c. Improve human health i. Disease management 1. Lactose forti fied milk ii. Disease prevention 1. Fortified milk 2. 3 fatty acids)

PAGE 484

484 3. Reduce fat and cholesterol in meat of cattle and pigs 4. Rice with increased iron and vitamins (Golden rice has beta carotene, whi ch is Vitamin A) 5. Bananas that produce human vaccines against diseases like hepatitis B d. Minimize environmental impact i. Reduce waste excreted by enhancing growth rate of fish, cattle, and pigs ii. Detect pollutants more easily with use of GloFish iii. Increase nitrog en use efficiency to require less nitrogen fertilizer iv. Enviropig line of Yorkshire pig that is able to digest phosphorus in grains, which keeps the amount of phosphorus in manure lower v. Goat with spider silk use less natural resources for building Objec tive 2: Evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of advancements in biotechnology. Content Outline: 1. Food Quality a. BENEFIT enhanced taste and quality i. Longer shelf life, better coloring, less disease, improved marbling 2. Food Safety a. BENEFIT foodborne diseases are a major global contributor to human death and illness i. Could produce foods that are resistant to food borne pathogens (E.coli, salmonella, ect.) ii. ns) b. DRAWBACK new regulations that do not have an established successful history i. GMO labeling is currently not mandatory in some countries (like the US) c. DRAWBACK bioterrorism 3. Economic Impacts a. BENEFIT cheaper, more available foods i. Fewer costs to produ ce foods because of less fertilizer, pesticides, supplemental dietary additives, feed, water, and medical care. Also, more food is available, increasing supply leads to cheaper foods b. DRAWBACK domination of world food production by a few companies i. Increa sed dependence on certain nations with reduced food independence 4. Environmental Impacts a. BENEFIT agricultural industries have been targeted by some as being harmful to the environment due to use of pesticides, fertilizers, and causing increased water, lan d, and air pollution. GMOs can reduce fertilizer and pesticide usage, increase animal and plant efficiency in their use of certain nutrients, and reduce animal wastes b. BENEFIT higher yielding animals and plants will reduce the burden on limited land and water resources c. DRAWBACK unknown effects on other organisms i. ii. Unintended transfer of genes through accidental cross pollination

PAGE 485

485 5. Human Health a. BENEFIT Could greatly reduce diseases that result from poo r diet of high fats and low quality protein (cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes, obesity) i. Health and cognitive skills improve with increased nutrition 1. A limited land supply means agriculturalists must develop more nutritional foods on the same amoun ii. Childhood obesity is a nationwide epidemic 1. b. DRAWBACK unknown effects of GMOs on human health i. Allergies, tran sfer of antibiotic resistance to humans, etc. 6. Plant and Animal Industry a. BENEFIT fewer resources (feed, land, etc.) will be needed to produce more food i. Animals with greater feed efficiency and better quality/more meat production on less food and with fewe r supplements ii. Plants yield more on same amount of land with less water and fertilizer and in more varied weather and soil conditions iii. Improved reproductive performance can yield more offspring with desirable traits through fewer breedings b. DRAWBACK smalle r farmers may get pushed out of industry by more powerful companies c. DRAWBACK unknown long term effects of gene manipulation on breeds and species i. Reduction of genetic variety in a species 7. Animal Welfare a. BENEFIT ease and illness mad cow disease, mastitis, foot and mouth disease, etc., which will decrease animal stress and suffering i. Will reduce need for medical treatments and use of antibiotics b. DRAWBACK could cause unknown stress for animals 8. Ethics a. BENEFIT im provement of global human health and reduction of human death, disease, poverty, and hunger b. DRAWBACK tampering with nature by mixing genes among species i. Some people may be opposed to eating the genes of animals in plant foods, vice versa Objective 3: I dentify historical events that have led consumers to elicit concern regarding food safety.

PAGE 486

486 Content Outline: 7. Beef a. E. coli i. 2005 5 beef recalls related to E. coli ii. 2006 8 recalls iii. 2007 21 recalls b. Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) i. Large st beef recall in US history in 2008 (143 mission lbs) after videos of down cows going to slaughter were released by Humane Society of U.S. ii. c. Foot and Mouth Disease i. First outbreak in Britain in over 20 years was in 2001, led to ban of all British exports of meat, livestock, and milk. 7 million sheep and cattle were killed to stop disease spread d. Hormone additive controversy 8. Swine a. H1N1 i. Outbreak in 2009 US show swine and humans caused some countries (China, Russia, Ukraine) to ban pork coming from Mexico and U S, and Egypt to slaughter 300,000 pigs, although swine flu is not spread 9. Poultry a. Avian Influenza i. First reported in animals and humans (some died) in 1 No 7 in Hong Kong. Spread through Asian wild birds in 2006. Live poultry markets are permanently closed in Beijing and China 10. Lettuce a. Bagged salad was linked to E. coli outbreaks in 2006, 2010, and 2011 11. Peanut Butter a. 2007 outbreak of Salmonella in Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butters b. 2009 outbreak of Salmonella in King Nut peanut products 12. Sprouts a. E. coli outbreak Germany in May 2011, killed 49, o ver 800 developed life threatening kidney complication. Contaminated seeds from Egypt are thought to be the cause. Essential Question 2: How is food safety impacted by agricultural production practices? Agriscience Foundations 2.03 Eval uate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain.

PAGE 487

487 I Standards: 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, health, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agri cultural practices. Objectives: Students will be able to: 2. Analyze the impact of current agricultural practices on food safety. Objective 1: Identify agricultural Content Outline: 5. USDA a. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers plant variety and seed laws, including GM seeds, and administers laws for certification and labeling of seeds for trade. AMS also offers laboratory testing services for GM foods and fiber products and voluntary process verification services to assure separation of GM and conventional products in food chain. b. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts research in new traits and improving existing traits in livestock, crops, and microorganisms; safeguarding the environment; and assessing and enhancing the safety of biotechnology products. ARS also develops and provides access to agricultural resources and genomic i nformation. c. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates field testing, interstate movement, and importation of GMOs. APHIS determines whether a GMO is as safe for the environment as its traditionally bred counterpart and can be freely used in agriculture. d. The Economic Research Service (ERS) conducts research on the economic aspects of the use of GMOs, including the rate of and reasons for adoption of biotechnology by farmers. ERS also addresses economic issues related to the marketing labeling, and trading of GMOs. e. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, whole some, and correctly labeled and packaged including animals involved in biotechnology. f. USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) supports the overseas acceptance of biotechnology and crops that have been reviewed by the U.S. government agencies to support U.S. farm exports and promote global food security. g. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) provides inspection, weighing, and related services on grains, pulses, oilseeds, and processed and graded commodities. GIPSA also overs ees a voluntary process verification program which allows suppliers to assure customers about the quality of their products or services through independent audits of their manufacturing practices or services. h. The National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS), as the fact finder for agriculture, provides information on

PAGE 488

488 the adoption of biotechnology crops (specifically corn, cotton, and soybeans). NASS has been tracking the adoption of biotech crops since 2000. i. The National Institute of Food and Agricultu re (NIFA) provides funding and program leadership for research in agricultural biotechnology. Also supports the development of science based information regarding the safety of introducing into the environment genetically modified plants, animals, and micr oorganisms. 6. FDA a. FDA is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome and sanitary; human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices are safe and effective; cosmetics are safe; and electronic products that e mit radiation are safe. FDA also ensures that these products are honestly, accurately and informatively represented to the public. Some of the agency's specific responsibilities include: i. Foods 1. Labeling 2. safety of all food products (except meat and poultry) 3. bottled water ii. Veterinary Products 1. Livestock feeds 2. Pet foods 3. Veterinary drugs and devices b. 7. CDC a. Works with USDA and FDA to ensure food safety. Acts as agency that connects consumer illness with food produ ction processes through: i. Monitoring human illness and tracking illness occurrences ii. Identifying the foods and settings linked with illness iii. Investigating outbreaks and cases iv. Working with state and local health departments v. Targeting prevention measures to m eet long term food safety goals vi. Informing food safety action and policy 8. EPA a. FDA, USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency share the responsibility for regulating pesticides. EPA determines the safety and effectiveness of the chemicals and establishes tolerance levels for residues on feed crops, as well as for raw and processed foods. Objective 2: Analyze the impact of current agricultural practices on food safety. Content Outline: 5. Beef Industry a. Calves are vaccinated, castrated, implanted, dehorned

PAGE 489

489 b. Cattle are given additives in feed i. Antimicrobial Drugs ii. Animals raised in confinement hold greater potential for spread of harmful microbes, so antimicrobial drugs keep these under control iii. Used at a lower level in the feed than if the animal was sick (subth erapeutic level) iv. Has been used less frequently recently because of concern about the development of resistant strains of bacteria v. Hormones vi. Normally produced in the body to regulate body functions (growth, metabolism, reproductive cycle, etc) vii. Hormones and s ynthetic hormones are added to stimulate certain functions viii. Synthetic hormones are approved by the FDA for use in beef cattle finishing rations a. DES was used as a synthetic estrogen to increase rate of gain in steers, but was banned in 1972 because of cancer s in women when used to prevent miscarriages. Ban was lifted and then banned again by 1979. b. Cases like this continue to make use of hormones controversial c. Since 1989 European Union banned importation of any meat for human consumption that has been treated with hormones d. Problematic because it is not possible to differentiate between hormones injected and those produced by the animal e. In 1 No 8, World Trade Organization ruled that EU ban was a violation of international trade rules, but studies showing harmful effects of one growth hormone keep the ban in effect. ix. Dewormers control parasites c. Processing 1. Feed additives and drugs are removed from feed for a specified amount of time before slaughter ii. Feed is adjusted to condition animals for travel iii. Cattle are moved slowly and quietly when loading and handling to keep animals relaxed and keep meat cuts high quality iv. Trucks are loaded without crowding or underloading to reduce animal injury d. To increase food safety i. Producers encouraged to attend Beef Quality Assurance Tr aining. ii. Irradiation of ground beef products is done by packers and meat retailers to kill bacteria (like E. coli) iii. Educational efforts encourage consumers to cook hamburger thoroughly, clean utensils and surfaces iv. le that may transmit the organism for mad cow disease v. Country of origin labeling

PAGE 490

49 0 vi. Mandatory identification allow verification of origin of beef products 6. Swine Industry a. Piglets i. Umbilical cord cut, remaining cord sprayed with iodine ii. Cut needle teeth (8 shar p teeth) tips are removed at one day old to prevent cuts on other piglets and iii. Some large commercial operations have abandoned this practice and experience few problems iv. Tail docking at one day old reduces chance o f tail biting (older pigs fed in confinement may bite other v. Ear notching identification of individual pigs. More permanent than ear tags vi. Receive dose of long lasting antibiotic to ward off infection vii. Receive iron injection at 7 days old b/c sow milk is low in iron (prevents anemia) viii. Injections given on neck 1 inch behind ear to avoid abscesses or iron stain in ham muscle ix. Boars are castrated at 3 7 days of age to reduce stress b. To increase food safety i. Welfare audits lead large eating establishme nts to pressure packers to verify that pork was raised under acceptable production conditions ii. Packers require their producers to maintain Pork Quality Assurance certification from National Pork Board 1. National Pork Board provides a voice for producers natio nwide and develops promotional/educational materials a. 15 producers are appointed by US Secretary of Ag. iii. Producers follow 10 good production practices to ensure pork quality iv. Producers practice biosecurity v. 2002 Farm Bill Congress mandated country of origin labeling 1. National Pork Producers Council tracks legislative issues for pork producers 7. Poultry Industry a. Animal Management i. Raised in confinement in an open floor system ii. House is cleaned and disinfected each time a flock leaves, wait one week for new flock t o come in iii. Ventilation will prevent respiratory diseases and will reduce ammonia odor iv. Chickens may be debeaked to prevent cannibalism (1/3 of upper beak and of lower beak is removed). Does not affect growth or health of chickens v. Hormone implants may be u sed to produce same results as caponing (surgically castrating males). This

PAGE 491

491 causes chickens to produce more tender meat. b. Processing i. Should not be fed 12 hours before slaughter ii. Avoid overcrowding in delivery coops 8. Dairy Industry a. Animal Management i. Feeding n eeds vary by cow status (pregnant, milking, dry, calf, bull) ii. Vitamin and mineral supplementation varies by amount of feed, which varies on lactation period iii. Forages are tested for nutritional quality every 60 days b. Processing i. nfect udder and trigger release of oxytocin, which initiates milk letdown ii. Teats are dipped in iodine to prevent bacterial invasion of udder Essential Question 3: How can the animal and food industries improve food safety? Agriscience Foundations I Stand ards: 2.03 Evaluate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain. 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, health, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Compare current agricultural practices and consumer concerns to determine areas of improvement for food safety. 2. Evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks of possible so lutions to current food safety issues. Objective 1: Compare current agricultural practices and consumer concerns to determine areas of improvement for food safety. Content Outline: 3. Food Quality a. Public Concerns inconsistency in product quality, cost ver sus quality, shelf life b. Current Solutions i. food additives increase consistency in quality, but some are concerned with potential human health effects ii. preservatives increases food shelf life, but some are concerned with potential human health effects iii. pesticides increases consistency in quality, produces more attractive products, but some are concerned with potential human and environmental effects iv. organic choices pots, ect.) v. GMOs reduces use of pesticides and increases consistency in quality, but some are concerned with potential human and environmental effects

PAGE 492

492 4. Food Safety a. Public Concerns contamination through processing, allergens, lack of consistent regulatio n, bioterrorism, lack of knowledge of GMO impacts b. Current Solutions i. Current regulation and inspection standards by USDA, FDA, EPA, and CDC, and Department of Homeland Security ii. Buy locally reduced processing, can be costly, reduces product availability iii. Organic choices reduces food additives, can be costly 5. Economic Impacts a. Public Concerns high cost of quality foods, world hunger b. Current Solutions i. Public assistance available to purchase specific healthy foods to those below a certain income level ii. Food warehouses/Large store chains can purchase more food for less cost, and pass savings to customer (Ex food at Walmart is typically cheaper than at a convenience store or a local food store) iii. GMOs can greatly reduce world hunger and the cost of foo d because of less cost input required to 6. Environmental Impacts a. Public Concerns ure runoff and resource usage b. Current Solutions i. Increased governmental regulation on pollution runoff and output levels ii. Organic farming reduces use of pesticides iii. GMOs reduces use of pesticides and waste produced by animals (increased feed efficiency and fewer animals with higher yields) 7. Human Health a. Public Concerns food safety recalls from foods infected with diseases, poor diets (high fat, low nutrition) lead to disease (diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease), increasing prevalence of food all ergies among children b. Current Solutions i. Current food regulation and inspection by USDA, FDA, and CDC ii. Enriched and fortified foods contain nutrients not normally found in that product (Iodized salt, Vitamin A & D fortified milk, enriched bread, etc) iii. Use of artificial products (artificial sweeteners) iv. GMOs increases nutrition and reduces undesirable aspects (high fat, etc) while not containing artificial items, but some have concerns with safety and allergens (ex if a vegetable contains genes from a pea nut, what are the effects on those that are allergic to peanuts?) Especially problematic because of lack of labeling regulation

PAGE 493

493 8. Plant and Animal Industry a. Public Concerns larger farms push out smaller farmers, growing world population, public perception o f food production practices b. Current Solutions i. Public awareness campaigns ii. Farm buyouts government pays small farmers to stop producing certain products that are produced more efficiently through larger farms 9. Animal Welfare a. Public Concerns public perc eption of food production practices related to treatment of animals b. Current Solutions i. Public awareness campaigns ii. Government regulations on animal treatment and production practices 10. Ethics a. Public Concerns some disagree with the slaughtering of animals for human consumption based on ethics b. Current Solutions i. Vegetarianism ii. GMOs can insert animal protein genes into non animal products, or potentially create animal tissues from cells without killing the animal Objective 2: Evaluate the potential benefi ts and drawbacks of possible solutions to current food safety issues. Content Outline: Content for this objective is derived from that of each of the above objectives. References Baker, M. C. & Mikesell, R. E. (2005). Animal Science: Biology & Technolo gy. (2 nd ed.) Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2010). Healing, fueling, feeding: How biotechnology is enriching your life. Retrieved from: http://valueofbiotech.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Va lueofBiotechFINAL.pdf Campbell, J. R., Kenealy, M. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2003). Animal Sciences: The Biology, Care, and Production of Domestic Animals. (4 th ed.) McGraw Hill: Boston, MA. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). CDC and Food Safety. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/cdc and food safety.html Cheng, M. (July, 2011). Food chain may contain seeds with deadly E. coli. The Tennessean. Retrieved from:

PAGE 494

494 http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110701/NEWS/307010054/Food chain may contain seeds deadly E coli Environment News Service (August, 2007). Food and mouth disease scares England. Environment News. Retrieved from: http://www.ens newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007 08 08 04.html Filley, S. (2005). Weaning Beef Calves. C ircular No. RegL&F0503. Oregon State University Extension Service: Roseburg, OR. Gillespie, J. R. (2004). Modern Livestock & Poultry Production (7 th ed.) Delmar Cengage Learning: Clifton Park, NY. Gottleib, S., & Wheeler, M. B. (2011). Genet ically engineered animals and public health: Compelling benefits for health care, nutrition, the environment, and animal welfare. Biotechnology Industry Organization. Retrieved from: http://www.bio.org/foodag/2011_ge % 20animal_benefits_report.pdf Human G enome Project Information. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science & Office of Biological and Environmental Research. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml to protect pigs. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8483309 Martin, A. (February, 2008). Largest recall of ground beef is ordered. The New York Times Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/business/18 recall.html See Recent Recalls. FoodSafety.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://www.foodsafety.gov/recalls/recent/index.html Seperich, G. J. (2004). Food Science and Safety (2 nd ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River NJ. United States Department of Agriculture. Biotechnology. Retrieved from: http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=BiotechnologyAgencyDesc.xml&navid=AGRICULTURE United States Food and Drug Administration. What we Do. Retrieved from: http ://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/default.htm World Health Organization (2011). H5N1 avian influence: Timeline of major events. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/H5N1_avian_influenza_update.pdf

PAGE 495

495 Economic Impacts Unit Plan U nit Name: Economic Impacts of Biotechnology on Agriculture Estimated Time: 2 Weeks Essential Questions: 1. How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? 2. How might GMOs impact our economy? Essential Questi on 1: How does the agricultural industry contribute to our economy? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and properties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. 6.08 Explore career opportunities in animal science. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Objectives: Students will be abl e to: 6. Evaluate the trustworthiness and credibility of information sources. 7. Identify agricultural products that contribute to local, state, national, and global economies, including byproducts and value added products. 8. Analyze the economic impact of differe nt agricultural products on different populations based on consumer trends. Objective 1: 1. Evaluate the trustworthiness and credibility of information sources. Content Outline: 2. Considerations in evaluation of sources: a. Authority of the author/publisher/spe aker i. Who is the author? ii.

PAGE 496

496 1. Educational degrees, institutional affiliation, employment experience, past writings iii. 1. Cited in articles, books, or bibliographies on the topic 2. Recommended to you by a credible person or text iv. Who is the publisher? 1. Commercial, trade, institutional, or other (.edu, gov, org) 2. Known for quality and/or scholar publications 3. Basic values or goals 4. Specialization 5. Editorial board 6. Blind review process v. Is the author associated wit h a reputable institution or organization? 1. Organizational mission 2. Basic values or goals 3. National or international b. Objectivity of the author i. Does the author state the goals for this publication? 1. Inform, educate, explain 2. Is it advocating for some particular cause? 3. Does it seek to persuade? 4. Is it selling a product or service? 5. Is the author ranting about something? ii. Does the author exhibit a particular bias? 1. Commitment to a point a view 2. Acknowledgement of bias 3. Presentation of facts and arguments for both sides o f a controversial issue 4. Language free of emotion arousing words and biases iii. Does the information appear to be valid and well researched? 1. Reasonable assumptions and conclusions 2. Arguments and conclusions supported by evidence 3. Opinions not disguised as facts 4. S ources cited c. Quality of the work i. Is the information well organized? 1. Logical structure 2. Main points clearly presented

PAGE 497

497 3. Text flows well 4. 5. Good grammar 6. No errors ii. Are graphics appropriate and clearly presented? iii. Is information co mplete and accurate? 1. Facts and results agree with your knowledge of the subject and with others in the field 2. Sources are documented d. Coverage of the work i. Does the work use other sources? ii. Does it support other materials you have read, or add new information? iii. Have you found enough information to support your arguments? 1. Look for gaps in your arguments and evidence (facts, statistics, ect) e. Currency of the work i. When was it published? ii. Does the topic require current information? iii. Has the source been revised or updat ed since its original publication? Objective 2: Identify agricultural products that contribute to local, state, national, and global economies, including byproducts and valu e added products. Content Outline: 9. US Ranking in World Production (Food and Agri cultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005) 1. US is #1 in the world for almonds, blueberries, cow milk, cranberries, grapefruit, maize, indigenous cattle meat, indigenous chicken meat, indigenous pig meat, indigenous turkey meat, sorghum, soybeans, st rawberries, and string beans 2. US is #2 in the world for apples, cherries, game meat, hen eggs, honey, hops, lettuce, mushrooms, oranges, pistachios, spinach, tomatoes, and walnuts 3. US is #3 in the world for asparagus, avocados, carrots, grapes, hazelnuts, li nseed, oats, onions, peaches, pears, green peas, raspberries, safflower seed, sugar beats, and wheat 4. US is #4 in the world for chilles and green peppers, garlic, pumpkins, tobacco leaves, and watermelon 10. nd Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2005) a. Note based on value according to 2001 international commodity prices to avoid exchange rate confusion b. Maize, indigenous cattle meat, cow milk, indigenous chicken meat, soybeans, indigenous pig mea t, wheat, hen eggs, tomatoes, grapes, potatoes, indigenous turkey meat, rice, lettuce, oranges, apples, sorghum, sugar beets, strawberries (these are in order from most important to least) 11. a. Greenhouse/nursery, oranges, tomatoes, sugar cane, cattle/calves (in order from greatest value to least value) b. Oranges make up 66.8 % of total US value

PAGE 498

498 c. Sugar cane makes up 46.6 % of total US value 12. a. Fruits (3 rd top state), vegetables (5 th top state), li ve animals/meat (24 th top state), seeds (7 th top state) 13. a. Palm Beach, Miami Dade, Hendry, Hillsborough, Polk 14. Value added agriculture any activity an agricultural producer performs outside of traditional comm odity production to receive a higher return per unit of commodity sold. The value of the product increases per unit sold. a. The producer does more processing in house i. A dairy makes cheese or ice cream b. The producer markets directly to consumers i. and sells off the farm c. The producer engages in agritourism and entertainment agriculture i. Pick your own, hayrides, petting zoos d. Benefits could result in more profits for producers e. Drawbacks increases risk for producers, because it involves more labor/pr oduction not typically performed by the producer f. Examples of Value Added Businesses in Florida: i. Wineries using tropical fruits. ii. Tropical fruit ice cream and milk shakes. iii. Jams and jellies. iv. Fruit baskets. v. Bed and Breakfasts. vi. Agritourism (e.g., farm tours, fe stivals, picnics, catered parties). vii. Bird watching. viii. Fishing. ix. Spice parks. x. Alligator farms. xi. Direct sales to restaurants and retailers. xii. Farmers markets. xiii. U pick, or pick your own. xiv. Roadside markets. 15. Agricultural by products items created as a result of food p roduction a. Adds value to waste b. Examples of by products i. Stem and leaf waste (from production of vegetables, fruits, etc) can be used to produce energy (biogas or electricity), banana stem waste is used to make handmade paper (value added byproduct)

PAGE 499

499 ii. Cleani ng and washing wastes usually high moisture, low organic material. Lactic acid produced in meat packing plants from fermentation can be used in animal feeds or as a flavoring and preserving agent iii. Sorting waste and culls culled apples make apple juice others are used for animal feed, lotions, vitamins, etc. iv. Peeling and coring wastes orange peels can be made into citrus oil and molasses, papaya makes chewing gum, medicine, toothpaste, and meat tenderizers, others make natural sweeteners v. Fruit pit was te can be burned as a fuel, grapefruit seed extract can be turned into emergency water treatment product vi. Milling waste wheat byproducts make flour supplements, corn byproducts make corn syrup, starches, ethanol as a gas additive vii. By products of the Meat Industry 1. Edible by products a. Unused parts variety meat (scrapple, spam, souse, loaves, etc.) b. Blood component in sausage c. Stomach sausage container, component of cheesemaking process d. Bones gelatin in ice cream and jellied food products e. Fats shorten ing, candies, chewing gum f. Intestines sausage casings 2. Inedible by products a. Hide leather goods, upholstery b. Pelts wool, ointments (lanolin) c. Fats industrial oils, lubricants, animal feeds d. Bones glue, fertilizer, leather preparation e. Cattle feet lubr icants, neatsfoot oil (leather preparations) f. Glands medicines i. Ovaries make estrogen and progesterone ii. Pancreas makes insulin g. Lungs pet foods h. Intestines surgical sutures and condoms i. Liver cortisone j. Spinal cord processed into vitamin D k. Fetal calf bl ood used for cancer and AIDS research l. Aorta valves replacement in human heart valves m. Fetal pigs teaching biology through dissection Objective 3: Analyze the economic impact of different agricultural products on different populations based on consume r trends.

PAGE 500

500 Content Outline: 4. Demographic Projections between 2002 and 2020 (USDA) a. Nation will become more racially diverse b. Proportion of population age 20 34 will decrease, while those 45 74 will increase (USDA assumes their food habits will follow those o f the new age group as they age) 5. Previous trends a. Increasingly, consumers have become more convenience oriented, health conscious, and they expect food to be safe to eat, eat more processed foods, and purchase from larger supermarkets b. Number of local far c. Demand for fresh fruits and vegetables is increasing d. Greater sales of environmentally friendly products and locally grown products e. Food budgets decreased by 2.8 % between 1970 and 1 No 5. 2009 9.5 % of budget spent on food. f. Food a way from home has increased (48 % of food budget in 2009), over 1/3 going to fast food i. Average US Adult buys a restaurant snack or meal 5.8 times per week g. Between 1970 and 1 No 5, consumption of fruits, vegetables, grains, fruits, fats, oils, and sweets incre ased while meat and dairy has remained constant h. Trends in the Meat Industries (1970 1 No 5) i. Beef consumption declined 15 % pork consumption declined 13 % chicken consumption more than doubled, turkey consumption grew 127 % 1. Due to changes in prices, income, preference, product development ii. Shell egg consumption decreased 37 % processed egg consumption increased 88 % 1. Due to health, taste, and convenience factors 6. 2020) a. i. As people increase in age, they will take on the eating habits of the new age group ii. Incomes will increase by 1 % each year b. Growing aged population projected to impact the following food consumptions i. Decrease fried potatoes, cheese, sugar, beef, poultry ii. Increase other types of potatoes, fruits, fish, and eggs c. Increased racial diversity projected to impact the following food consumptions i. Decrease dairy products, certain types of potatoes ii. Increase fruits, nuts, seeds, eggs, poultry, fish, beef, poultry d. Food budgets will increase, with away fro m home consumption increasing more than at home consumption i. At home increases fruits, vegetables, fish, prepared foods, sugars and sweets, fish ii. At home decreases beef, pork e. As income increases, consumers will want more quality food over quantity, inclu ding value added products, increased diversity in products, food with greater convenience, or those that align with environmental and animal

PAGE 501

501 welfare efforts f. While overall beef consumption will decrease because of health education, income growth, aging popu lation, and preference for poultry and fish, money spent on beef will increase because of purchasing higher quality cuts and grades, as well as semi prepared beef meals Essential Question 2: How might GMOs impact our economy? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. 6.07 Investigate the nature and properties of food, fiber, an d by products from animals. 6.08 Explore career opportunities in animal science. 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Identify the areas of agriculture that could be impacted by the introduction of cultured meat as a food source. 2. Predict the economic outcomes of potential cultured meat introduction scenarios on various groups, including agricultural sectors and consumers. Objective 1: Identify the areas of agriculture that could be impacted by the introducti on of cultured meat as a food source. Content Outline: 2. Food supply chain businesses that collectively produce consumable items. The chain involves all aspects of food production from pre production research to post consumption waste disposal a. Pre produc tion research and development b. Inputs feed suppliers, veterinarians, breeders c. producer cow/calf operations, feeder operation d. processor slaughter, packing e. distributor marketers, food distributors. Sells to distributors f. wholesaler sells to retai lers g. retailer supermarkets h. consumer people that buy the foods i. post consumption waste disposal, recycling Objective 2: Predict the economic outcomes of potential cultured meat introduction scenarios on various groups, including agricultural sec tors and consumers.

PAGE 502

502 Content Outline: 2. Cultured meat introduction scenarios: f. Used as a non human foodsource (pet food, animal feeds) g. Introduced to malnourished countries h. Introduced as a value added product to affluent populations i. Introduced to ground meat prod ucts References Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (2010). Food consumption trends. Retrieved from: http://www.agmrc.org/markets__industries/food/food_consump tion_trends.cfm Bell, C., & Smith, T. (2009). Critical evaluation of information sources. University of Oregon Libraries. Retrieved from: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/fi ndarticles/credibility.html n 2020. Food Review, 25 (1) p. 2 9 Evans, E. (2009). Value added agriculture: Is it right for me? University of Florida, EDIS Publication No. FE638. Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe638 Huisenga, M. (2011). Smart business: the effective use of agricultural byproducts. The World Bank, Agric ulture and Rural Development. Retrieved from: http://go.worldbank.org/9DF3QEOND0 King, B. S., Tietyen, J. L., & Vickner, S. S. (2000). Food and agriculture: Consumer trends and opportunities. Universi ty of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Publication No. IP 58A. King, B. S., Tietyen, J. L., & Vickner, S. S. (2000). Food and agriculture: Consumer trends and opportunities. Protein food s. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Publication No. IP 58F. Savell, J. W. (2011). By Products of the Meat Industry. Texas A&M University, Animal Science 307 Honors. Retrieved from: http://meat.tamu.edu/byproducts.html The Statistic s Division (2005). Major food and agricultural commodities and producers. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Economic and Social Department. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.html?lang=en&country=231&year=2005 United States Department of Agriculture (2011). State fact sheets: Florida. Economic Research Service. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/FL.htm

PAGE 503

503 Environmental Impacts Unit Plan Unit Name: Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology Estimated Time: 2 Weeks Essential Questions: 1. How does the agricultur al industry use environmental resources? 3. How would the use of GMOs impact environmental resources? Essential Question 1: How does the agricultural industry use environmental resources? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.02 Describe various ecosystems as they relate to the agriculture industry. 4.05 Apply Best Management Practices that enhance the natural environment. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that im pact agricultural practices. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Identify agricultural practices that rely on environmental resources. 2. Explain the purposes of Best Management Practices related to environmental resources. Objective 1: Identify agricultu ral practices that rely on environmental resources. (1 day) Content Outline: 3. Agricultural industry accounts for 80 % a. Primarily for irrigation b. Irrigated cropland has increased by over 40 % but water application rates have decreased b y 20 % Total quantity of irrigation water applied increased 10 % since 1969. 4. a. Farm size i. Small family farms (sales less than $10,000) make up more than half of all farms, but account for 27 % of

PAGE 504

504 production ii. In 200 2, half farm sales came from 2 % of US farms and 11 % of farm land (increasing number of large farms) b. Cropland has decreased in recent decades, but the nation can still produce high capacity of food and fiber c. Three major uses are (in order) grassland pastu re and range (30.8 % use land (29.5 % )and cropland (23.3 % ). Urban use is 3.1 % d. Grassland pasture and range less pasture and range is needed that in the past to sustain grazing herds because of improved forage qua lity and productivity of land. Also, number of domestic animals (mainly sheep) has declined, requiring less pasture e. Forest use land includes forestry industry and parks, wilderness areas, wildlife areas, ect. f. Cropland includes cropland used for crops, pasture, and idled. Corn for grain, soybeans, wheat, and hay accounted for 80 % of all cropland harvested in 2002. 17 other principal crops accounted for 15 % and vegetables, fruit, nuts, melons, etc. accounted for 4.5 % g. Urban areas remains low compared to agricultural uses, but while the US population doubled between 1945 and 2002, amount of urbanized land quadrupled. i. Cropland changed into urban use is generally irreversible ii. Excessive loss of cropland to urban uses could lessen the production of food an d fiber and the supply of rural amenities (open space, watershed protection, rural lifestyles) Objective 2: Explain the purposes of Best Management Practices related to environmental resources. (2 days) Content Outline: Land Quality BMPs (Natural Resou rces Conservation Service) 7. Enhance organic matter most important way to improve and maintain soil quality. Improves soil structure, protects soil from erosion and compaction, supports healthy habitat for soil organisms. a. Leave crop residues in the fiel d b. Choose crop rotations that include high residue plants c. Use good nutrient and water management practices to grow plants with large roots and residue d. Grow cover crops e. Apply manure or compost f. Use low or no tillage systems g. mulching 8. Avoid excessive tillage minimizes loss or organic matter, protects soil surface with plant residue. Keeps good soil structure, reduces erosion, maintains healthy organism habitat, reduce soil compaction. 9. Manage pests and nutrients efficiently reduces air and water pollution, r educes harm on beneficial soil organisms a. Test and monitor soil and pests b. Apply only necessary chemicals at the right time and place c. Use nonchemical approaches when possible 10. Prevent soil compaction maintains air, water, and space available to plants withi n the soil.

PAGE 505

505 a. Reduce repeated or heavy traffic, heavy equipment, traveling on wet soil 11. Keep the ground covered prevents drying, crusting, erosion, provides habitats for soil organisms, improves water availability a. Keep crop residue on surface b. Plant cover crops 12. Diversity cropping systems each plant contributes a unique root structure and type of residue to the soil. Helps control pest populations, reduces weed and disease pressures (certain plants are more susceptible to certain pests), increases microor ganism and organism diversity in soil. a. Use buffer strips (diversity at one time) b. Small diverse fields (diversity at one time) c. Crop rotation (diversity over time) Water Conservation BMPs 5. Developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and EP Nonpoint Source Pollution 6. Purpose reduce non point sources of pollution from croplands through integrated use of best management practices 7. CORE 4 practices a. Conservation tillage leaving crop residue (plant materials from past harvests) on soil surface to reduce runoff and soil erosion, conserves soil moisture, keeps nutrients and pesticides in the field b. Crop nutrient management accounting for all nutrient inputs helps ensure nutrients are available for cr op needs and reduces nutrient movement off fields. Prevents buildup in soils. c. Pest management various methods for keeping insects, weeds, disease, and other pests in check while protecting soil, water, and air quality d. Conservation buffers provide barr iers of protection by capturing pollutants that might otherwise move into surface water 8. Supplemental BMPs aimed at benefitting production while protecting the environment a. Irrigation water management reduces nonpoint source pollution of ground and surf ace waters from irrigation b. Grazing management minimizes water quality impacts of grazing on pasture and range lands c. Animal feeding operations management minimizes impacts of animal feeding operations and waste through runoff controls, waste storage, wa ste utilization, and nutrient management d. Erosion and sediment control conserve soil and reduce sediment reaching water Air Quality BMPs 5. digest food, so less methane is produced a.

PAGE 506

506 6. Participate in methane recovery efforts uses methane from livestock facilities to create energy a. AgSTAR Program sponsored by EPA, USDA, US Dept. of Energy 7. Participate in National Clean Die sel Campaign a. Clean Agriculture USA Program helps farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses reduce emissions from older engines that are in operation on environmental resources? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) neces sary for agriculture production. 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Objectives: Students will be able to: 3. Explain the impacts of agricultural practices on the environment. 4. Compare and contrast the various benefits and environmental drawbacks related to agricultural practices. 5. Objective 1: 1. Explain the impacts of agricultural practices on the environment. (2 da ys) Content Outline: 4. Water Quality 71 % of US cropland is located in watersheds where pollutant concentration is above accepted levels for water based recreation Structural ch anges in animal agriculture between 1982 and 1 No 7 increased levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Great Plains, Ozarks, and Carolinas. 25, 823 bodies of water (streams, lakes) are impaired nationwide Almost half of the wetlands in the nation have been d Sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts enter water sources Sediment largest contaminant of surface water, second leading pollution problem in rivers and streams. Results from s oil erosion (from soil composition and agricultural production practices) Nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are applied to cropland as crop nutrients as fertilizer and manure applications. Enter water sources through runoff and leaching. Promotes algae growth (eutropication), which leads to lower oxygen levels, kills fish, clogs pipelines, and reduces recreations opportunities. Nitrogen pollution leading cause of water quality impairment in lakes. 9 % of domestic wells during 1 No 3 2000 had nitrogen con centrations above Pesticides can damage freshwater and marine organisms, fisheries, drinking water, and recreational water

PAGE 507

507 activities. Pesticides were found in low concentrations in 37 % of groundwater sites examined in a national water quality assessment Salts from excess irrigation that runs off of fields. Reduces crop yields, damages soil, increase water treatment costs Pathogens bacteria are largest source of impairment in rivers and streams. From poorly treated h uman waste, wildlife, and animal feeding operations. Diseases can be transmitted through contact with contaminated water, or consumption of contaminated shellfish. Diseases commonly found in animals can be transmitted to humans (zoonoses) Enters water so urces through runoff and leaching 5. Land Quality Disturbing the soil harms soil microbes, which help keep nutrients and water in the soil. Physical disturbance tilling Chemical disturbance misuse of inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides Planting the s ame crop over and over again robs the soil of the same nutrients repeatedly without replenishing them. Leaving fields bare reduces amount of nutrients in the soil Causes water to leach nutrients out of soil Causes erosion of soil Reduces nutrient input bac k into soil from decomposing plant matter Certain organisms begin shredding crop residues into smaller pieces, and can increase nutrient cycling by 25 % If there is no residue, there is no habitat for these organisms Number of U.S. farms sell ing hogs decr eased by 94 % between 1959 and 2002, while hog sales more than doubled. Similar trends have occurred among farms selling dairy products, cattle, and broilers. As livestock producers expand, they are more likely to buy feed grown elsewhere, reducing the amou nt of land they have available for manure application, the predominant method of disposal. more manure than crops need on the fields closest to the facility (lowers hauling cost). Some counties have more livestock manure than they do appropriate land to spread it to meet land needs. 5. Air Quality a. Livestock farms is responsible for 18 % of all gre enhouse CO2 emissions, 64 % of ammonia emissions, 65 % of nitrous oxide, and 37 % of methane worldwide i. Makes it difficult for states to meet Clean Air Act standards ii. Many compounds released by animal production cause unpleasant odors and issues with comfort, h ealth, and production efficiency of animals and humans 1. Swine manure produces organic sulfur compounds (rotten egg smell), which can cause unconsciousness or death in high

PAGE 508

508 concentrations 2. Application of manure to croplands and pasture increases nitrous oxide which is 310 more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Ag. industry (both cropland and animal production) account for 72 % of nitrous oxide emissions in US 3. Methane comes from ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats) d uring digestion. Also released from liquid manure holding areas (lagoons or tanks). Livestock production accounts for 37 % of total global methane emissions Objective 2: Compare and contrast the various benefits and environmental drawbacks related to agr icultural practices. (2 days) Content Outline: Beef Industry iii. Feeding 1. Rotational grazing i. 1 1.5 acres can support a cow/calf pair for an entire year ii. In drier climates, a cow/calf pair can require up to 110 acres 2. Dry, pregnant cows get stored forages in winter (ex hay) 3. Bulls are fed stored forages when not breeding. Require grain before, during, and after breeding to maintain body condition 4. Heifer calves get grain ration during first winter. Bred at 12 15 months old 5. All have access to free choice salt and minerals 6. Finishing cattle (feedlot cattle) get high grain, high energy diet, very little forage. Results in rapid gains and increased carcass quality. Young feedlot cattle receive supplemental protein 7. Level of energy level grain fed depends on frame of finishing cattle. 8. Silages are substituted for grain in low energy finishing diets iv. Housing 1. Mature cows need a sheltered place or windbreak 2. Well drained to keep mud minimal 3. Newborn calves should have access to a portable shelter if born in winter 4. Finishi ng cattle can be fed in small groups indoors on a manure pack. 5. Larger feedlots are entirely outdoors, contain a windbreak for shelter and high dry place for cattle to lie. Swine Industry i. Housing 1. In temperate climates, can be raised outside 2. In northern states, pigs have access to warm, dry, well bedded shelter to keep out of cold weather ii. Amount of feed must be increased if pigs are left in cold without shelter iii. Growth rates slowed if temp gets below 60 65 6. Sows are farrowed in temperature controlled buil dings 7. Heat is more harsh on a pig than cold, so feed rate slows above 80 85. a. Pigs have no sweat glands or any natural way to cool off.

PAGE 509

509 b. Can cause lactating sows to lose too much body condition to be able to rebreed, boars may become infertile c. Sprinkler syst ems can drip water onto pigs for cooling or outdoor facilities should have shade and access to a wet place to lie down Poultry Industry iii. Feeding 2. Feed costs are 2/3 of total cost of producing meat from chickens 3. Grains make up 50 80 % of total feed ration a. 4. free choice eating because chickens will eat enough to meet energy requirements iv. Housing 1. Raised in confinement in an open floor system 2. House is cleaned and disinfected each time a flock leaves, wait one week for new flock to come in 3. New litter is put into house for new flock 4. Floor space per bi rd is increased with age (half of the house may be blocked off until chickens reach 20 weeks) b. Use lights 24 hours per day 8. Temp should be controlled, starting at around 90 and slowly being decreased to 70 75 as chicks get older a. Chicken behavior can indi cate whether they need more or less heat i. Huddling together and cheeping or moving away from the heaters 9. Ventilation will prevent respiratory diseases and will reduce ammonia odor Dairy Industry i. Calf Nutrition 1. Calf is weaned immediately after receiving colostrum, then raised by humans 2. Dairy calf is born without antibodies in the bloodstream to protect from disease (like humans are), so must have colostrum immediately after birth a. r the first 24 hours after birth and readily absorbs antibodies from colostrum b. Frozen colostrums can be substituted if calf is removed before first meal 3. 6 8 lbs of milk replacer are fed daily till 5 8 weeks of age 4. High quality grain calf starter is introd uced slowly at 1 week old 5. High quality hay is introduced at 4 weeks old 6. Weaned from milk replacer when calf started consumption reaches 4lbs per day 7. Milk replacer is replaced with clean water 8. aliva from mature cows will provide bacteria for rumen development ii. Adult Dairy Cow Nutrition

PAGE 510

510 9. Small and mid size herds can reduce feed costs with intensive pasture management (closely monitored rotational grazing). a. Also leads to lower vet costs because of i mproved foot health and lower mastitis cases b. Can be managed seasonally so that all cows are dry in winter when grass does not grow 10. 12 weeks to 1 year heifers are fed grain mix with feed additive (to improve feed efficiency by encouraging breakdown of met hane gas bubbles in rumen) and high quality hay or silage. 11. After breeding pregnant heifers are fed free choice, high quality forage, maybe several lbs of grain mix to ensure proper development and provide trace minerals and vitamins 12. Lactating cows a. Lar ge quantities of milk require large amounts of high quality feed multiple feedings per day and feeding forages before grains can increase feed intake b. Vitamin and mineral supplementation varies by amount of feed, which varies on lactation period c. Forages a re tested for nutritional quality every 60 days iii. Housing 13. Calves individual stalls, preferably outside for improved ventilation lowers risk of respiratory disease 14. Heifers grouped together at 8 weeks old heifer growing barn or open fronted sheds 15. Cows w ere originally in tie stall housing (stanchion barns) remained tied in individual stalls for most of the day. a. Then free stall housing to allow cow to enter and leave as they wish. Includes feed bunk for free choice eating 16. Housing often requires protecti ve footwear or shoe disinfectant to reduce contaminants from outside sources in the barns 17. Milked in parlors, where cow comes to milkers. 8 12 are milked at one time a. Manure is spread on fields in liquid or solid form. Must be removed daily, either spread or stored for later; spreading rate slows if temp gets below 60 65. Objective 3: Content Outline: 5. USDA Natural Resources Conservatio n Service a. Agricultural Management Assistance provides money to ag. producers who voluntarily address issues such as water quality and management, erosion control, etc. by incorporating conservation into their farming operations 6. EPA a. Safe Drinking Water Act b. Clean Water Act c. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act d. Endangered Species Act e. Toxic Substances Control Act f. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act g. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act h. Clean Air Act i. Emergenc y Planning and Community Right to Know Act

PAGE 511

511 j. Food Quality Protection Act k. Oil Pollution Act l. NRCS 7. FDA National Environmental Policy Act a. Required to assess environmental impacts associated with its actions, including approving food and drug products 8. States a. No nationwide monitoring programs in US to calculate agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases b. 33 states have laws that regulate agricultural use of water and water quality c. Many states use standards to employ best management practices (conservation ti llage, nutrient management, pesticide management, irrigation water management Essential Question 3: How could the use of GMOs impact environmental resources? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the inter action of population, food, energy, and the environment. 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. 4.02 Describe various ecosystems as they relate to the agriculture industry. Objectives: Studen ts will be able to: 2. Describe the potential impacts of GMO use on the environment. 3. Objective 1: Describe the potential impacts of GMO us e on the environment. (1 day) Content Outline: 3. Concerns a. Risk of accidentally introducing engineered genes into wild populations i. Can alter wild organisms, ecosystems b. Persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested i. Crop residues c. Susceptibil ity of non target organisms to the gene i. Insects which are not pests could be harmed d. Stability of the gene i. Does it remain as is, or does it get altered into something unwanted (ex cancer) ii. Loss of biodiversity iii. Increased use of chemicals in agriculture

PAGE 512

512 e. Pest resistance to gene does it build up over time? f. Potential generation of new pathogens 4. Potential Benefits a. Reduced chemical and mechanical needs in planting, maintenance, harvest i. Reduced chemical pollution, maintained soil composition, less erosion ii. Can increase land availability through use of previously unusable land (drought, flood, extreme weather) Objective 2: ) Content Outline: 1. The Alliance for Better Foods a. Some biotech crops are already beginning to improve the environmental performance of agriculture, and future crops may eventually make significant global contributions to the preservation of valuable forestlands in the developing world. Following are anticipated environmental benefits from food biotechnology. b. Conservation of natural resources Hardier disease and pest resistant crops can allow greater conservation of resources by requiring less fuel, labor, wate r and fertilizer. For example, international researchers in Georgia and Israel are exploring ways to produce cotton that can survive in semi arid conditions, a development that could one day lead to a savings of some 12 billion gallons of water a year. c. Le ss land use Researchers around the world are developing hardier strains of fruits, vegetables and grains that one day may be able to thrive in extreme growing conditions such as tomatoes that can flourish in high salinity soils. Other plant varieties tha t can protect themselves from pests and diseases mean that growers will be able to produce more food on the same amount of land, thereby reducing pressures to clear additional acres for cultivation. According to the National Council on Food and Agricultural Policy improved farm productivity could result in less impact on prairies, wetlands, forests and other fragile ecosystems that might otherwise be converted for agricultural purposes. d. Less pesticide use Bio tech crops can reduce the use of agricultural chemicals such as insecticides and fungicides. Scientists have developed strains of corn and cotton that produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, thus reducing the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. In addition, herbicide tolerant varieties of many crops have been developed. According to a study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), U.S. pesticide use was 45.6 million pounds lower in 2001 than it w ould

PAGE 513

513 have been without the use of biotech crops. The use of herbicide tolerant soybeans reduced pesticide levels by 28.7 million pounds, while herbicide tolerant cotton helped cut pesticide levels by 6.2 million pounds. Another report by NCFAP notes severa l studies finding that growers are achieving higher yields and attaining higher profits by planting Bt varieties of crops, due to the better pest control and decreased pest control costs they provide. 2. The Sierra Club a. SUPERWEEDS: Genetically engineered crops were first planted in the mid 1 No 0s. Already, research has documented that genes producing desired characteristics in crops can confer adaptive advantages to weedy species, causing problems in valuable wild plant habitats. Research suggests that bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of distances and farm to farm spread of oilseed rape transgenes will be widespread. Pollen can also travel for miles in the wind and integrate its DNA into the genome of conventional plants. Genes from GEOs (ge netically engineered organisms) can spread to wild plants and native species, resulting in herbicide resistant superweeds. For example, the pollen from transgenic rapeseed (canola) can blow into neighboring farms and wild areas and can easily outcross to a ny nearby canola plant. The herbicide resistant traits become promiscuous and transfer to weedy relatives. The traditional weed then becomes a stronger "superweed." This outcrossing has started to produce superweeds that are resistant to a wide range of he rbicides. The 4/26/00 edition of New Scientist magazine reported the first officially confirmed case of its kind: weeds in Canada which became resistant to three kinds of herbicides: Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit. It only took three years for a transgenic s pread of super herbicide resistance. This was the first documented case of gene stacking in canola occurring without deliberate human intervention. The rapid outcrossing of GEO herbicide resistant plants raises serious questions for those concerned about t he emergence of weeds that do not die no matter what herbicide is applied. These superweeds may very well have a bioengineered advantage in taking over farm fields and in moving through wild areas, where they are likely to have a range of impacts on popula tions of wild plants and wild plant habitats. b. BIODIVERSITY: In the 9/18/ No Worldwatch Institute report "Farmers Losing Seed Varieties Worldwide," John Tuxill wrote that in the United States more than 80 % of seed varieties sold a century ago no longer are available and that the world is rapidly losing genetic diversity in crops. With development of transgenic crops, traditional varieties may dwindle even further as farmers grow a less diverse pool of crops to obtain the highest yields for commercial product ion. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxins are becoming ubiquitous, highly bioactive substances in agroecosystems. Bt crops are pumping out huge amounts of toxin from all tissues throughout the growing season, from germination to senescence. Most non target h erbivore insects, although not lethally affected, ingest plant tissue containing Bt protein which they can pass on to their natural enemies. There are also unanticipated effects

PAGE 514

514 on non target insects through deposition of transgenic pollen on foliage of su rrounding wild vegetation. These effects herald problems for small farmers in developing countries and for organic farmers since they rely on insect pest control. For instance, loss of lady bugs and lacewings will likely result in increased crop losses. Th e Soil Association report (UK) on 6/22/ No warned, "GM code could wipe out wildlife." Birds, for instance, might lose habitat and major food sources (both plants and insects). The spread of transgenes into the wild and the effect this will have on biodivers ity may be especially severe in less developed countries and wherever native archetypal varieties of agricultural crops exist. c. SOIL FERTILITY: The soil food web is crucial for plants to obtain the nutrients necessary for growth. Many crops are engineered with the Bt toxin in order to resist infestation from insects. Yet root exudates from these plants release the toxin into the soil, where it retains its activity for at least 234 days, long after its release. This stimulates major changes in soil biota tha t could affect nutrient cycling processes and reduce soil fertility. Monsanto's advertising campaigns try to convince people that Roundup is safe, but the facts do not support that conclusion. Independent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals (in addition to destroying the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter). The Progressive Farmer on 1/3/01 reported a University of Missouri study which revealed that Roundup Ready soybeans receiving glyphosate at recommended rates had significantly higher incidence of Fusarium on roots compared with soybeans that did not receive glyphosate. Fusarium is one of the most economically important groups of fungi causing diseases on a wide variety of plants. Pat Donald, professor and director of the UM nematology lab was quoted as saying "We're concerned because SDS (sudden death syndrome) is showing up everywhere and can be devastating." d. EFFECTS ON NON TARGET INSECTS: Insects have their place in t he ecosystem. Some play a major role in maintaining the equilibrium of insect populations and are important for pest control strategies. The Bt toxin has been shown to be lethal to non target organisms such as Monarch butterflies, lacewings and ladybird be etles. The issue is broader than whether Bt toxin produced by genetically modified crops imperils beneficial insects. The real issue is that a strategy to establish expression of an insecticidal compound in large scale crop monocultures and thus expose a h omogeneous sub ecosystem continuously to the toxin can cause irreparable damage to natural habitats forever e. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND ORGANIC FARMING THREATENED: There are many alternative approaches that farmers can use to effectively regulate insect a nd weed populations, i.e. rotations, strip cropping, biological control, cover crops, and green manure. To the extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current monoculture system, they impede farmers from using a plethora of alternative methods. T he entire future of organic farming is being threatened because pollen transfers by insects and the wind from GE crops to organic farms. Cross pollination can move transgenes into the crops so that, against their intentions, farmers are growing GE crops. G E seeds can also fall off trucks and farm machinery during transport or be left in the ground, leading to the growth of stray plants. It isn't debatable if Bt resistance will develop among insects populations, the question

PAGE 515

515 is how fast this will occur now t hat the toxins are being used in huge amounts throughout the entire growing season. Bt microbes are applied by organic farmers as a surface agent (when one is absolutely necessary) and will become ineffective as an important biological insect control tool. The problem of crop contamination not only has direct consequences for organic farmers; it also may damage our heritage of agricultural varieties, which has huge implications for populations around the world. For thousands of years, humans have selected a nd bred varieties adapted to unique climatic zones and regional properties. Transgenes may cause significant damage to that genetic diversity, and commercialization of a few varieties of patented seeds will also erode this vital heritage. "Terminator" syst ems designed to protect seed companies' profits by ensuring that farmers can't save seed (the succeeding crop will be sterile) are a further step away from sustainable agricultural practices and respect for the diversity of our agricultural heritage. f. GENE TRANSFER INTO GUTS OF BEES: A three year study by Professor Hans Hinrich Kaatz at the Institute for Bee Research, University of Jena found a gene transfer from genetically engineered rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees. Beatrix Tappess er from the Ecology Institute in Freiburg was quoted as saying "This is very alarming because it shows that the crossover of genes takes place on a greater scale than we had previously assumed. The results indicate that we must assume that changes take pla ce in the intestinal tubes of people and animals. The crossover of microorganisms takes place and people's make up in terms of microorganisms in their intestinal tract is changed. This can therefore have health consequences." References 20 questions on genetically modified foods. World Health Organization. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ Anega, V. P., Schlesinger, W. H., & Erisman, J. W. (2009). Effects of agriculture upon the air quality and climat e: Research, policy, and regulations. Environmental Science Technology, 43 (12), p. 4234 4240. Campbell, J. R., Kenealy, M. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2003). Animal Sciences: The Biology, Care, and Production of Domestic Animals. (4 th ed.) McGraw Hill: B oston, MA. Dresbach, S. H., Flax, H., Sokolowski, A., & Allred, J. The impact of genetically modified organisms on human health. The Oh io State University Cooperative Extension Service, Publication No. HYG=5 058 01. Environmental Protection Agency (200 7). Major existing EPA laws and programs that could affect agricultural producers. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/agmatrix.pdf Gillespie, J. R. (2004). Modern Livestock & Poult ry Production (7 th ed.) Delmar Cengage Learning: Clifton Park, NY.

PAGE 516

516 Mason, D. (2011). Agricultural management assistance. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from: http:/ /www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/AMA/index.html Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil quality management. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://soils.usda .gov/sqi/management/management.html Promise of Biotechnology: Environmental benefits of food biotechnology. Alliance for Better Foods. Retrieved from: http://www.betterfoods. org/Promise/Environment/Environment.htm Sierra Club (2008). Why is release of transgenic crops into the environment a risk? Retrieved from: http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/references.asp Soil Quality National Technology Development Team (2010). Farming in the 21 st century: A practical approach to improve soil health. United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/21st_century_soil_health_tech_doc.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Animal feeding operations Best managemen t practices. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anafobmp.html Watershed Academy Web (2008). Agricultural management practices for water quality protection. United States Environme ntal Protection Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/agmodule/ Wiebe, K., & Gollehon, N. (2006). Agricultural resources and environmental indicators, 2006 edition. United States Departmen t of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Information Bulletin NO. EIB 16. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/

PAGE 517

517 Animals and Biotechnology Unit Plan Unit Name: Animals and Animal Welfare Estimated Time: 3 Weeks Essential Questions: 1. How would cultured meat be created? 2. How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production? 3. Why do traditionally harvested and cultured meat supporters each believe they are treating an imals ethically? Essential Question 1: How would cultured meat be created? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, t ype, breed, and scientific classification. 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals. 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Explai n the process of cultured meat production. 2. Evaluate the process of cultured meat production as it addresses barriers, including taste, marbling, and its structural differences from traditionally harvested meat. Objective 1: Explain the process of culture d meat production. Content Outline: 1. Take small biopsy from animal 2. Extract myosatellite cells a. Adult stem cells responsible for muscle growth and repair b. Embryonic stem cells would be more beneficial, but attempts to produce embryonic stem cells from farm animals have not been successful. c. Some researchers prefer to plant entire biopsy in a dish instead of extracting specific cells. i. Would be used to produce cuts of meat (steaks, filets) instead of ground meat, since all the tissues would be present (blood vessels, fats, blood, etc) 3. Add animal free growth serum to multiply cells

PAGE 518

518 a. Available, but expensive (accounts for 90 % of cultured meat costs) b. Used to keep protective ends of chromosomes (telomeres) from wearing down with age i. Currently, myosatellite cell s will only divide dozens of times before telomeres wear down c. i. Also contains antibiotics and anti fungal agents that might not be fit for human consumption d. Others reco mmend using tumor growth promoting genes to keep cells multiplying 4. Put myosatellite cells on a scaffold to fuse them into myofibres, which will bundle together to make up muscle a. Makes muscle, but weak and textureless 5. Assemble myofribres between anchor poi nts to allow them to flex a. Can also administer 10 volt shock of electricity every second to boost up protein content i. Would be expensive in large industry b. Some use a scaffold made of chitosan (from crabs or fungi) that expand and contract with temperature variations, making it a natural fitness center for muscle strips 6. 7. Add flavoring, nutrients (like iron, which comes from blood) and vitamins (l ike B12, which comes from gut bacteria) Objective 2: Evaluate the process of cultured meat production as it addresses barriers, including taste, marbling, and its structural diff erences from traditionally harvested meat. Content Outline: Characteristics of traditionally harvested meat 4. Beef a. Beef Quality Assurance nationally coordinated, state implemented program that provides information to beef producers and consumers of how animal production practices and scientific knowledge can improve beef quali ty. b. USDA Quality Grading includes factors that affect palatability of meat (tenderness, juiciness, and flavor). Voluntary. i. Grades 1. Prime, choice, select, standard, commercial, utility, cutter, canner 2. Final grade calculated through knowing the approp riate degrees of marbling for each carcass maturity age. ii. Indicators 1. Carcass maturity physiological age of animal (not actual age) a. Indicated through bone characteristics, ossification of cartilage (more = older), color and texture of muscle (darker, co arser = older) 2. Texture coarser = older 3. Color of lean darker red = older 4. Amount/distribution of marbling dispersion of fat within the lean meat. 5. Pork

PAGE 519

519 a. Pork Quality Assurance producer education and certification program to improve port quality. i. Alte red to PQA Plus in 2007 to reflect consumer interest in the way food animals are raised b. Quality Indicators i. Color darker pink is preferable ii. Marbling want 2 4 % to give appropriate pork flavor iii. Water holding capacity amount of moisture in pork that is lost when it is cut. Lower loss is preferable; should not be higher than 2.5 % iv. Ultimate pH acidity of pork 24 hours after slaughter. Predictor of moisture holding capacity. Higher pH = better water holding capacity and better pork. c. Pork quality can be lowered by stress. Short term stress before slaughter = pale, soft pork with decreased moisture holding capacity. Long term stress = dark, firm, dry pork 6. Poultry a. Agricultural Marketing Service Poultry Programs maintains US standards b. Quality A, B, C c. Qu ality Indicators for Ready to Cook Poultry i. Conformation free of deformities ii. Fleshing well developed meat (breast, leg, drumstick, thigh, wing) iii. Fat covering well developed, evenly distributed iv. Defeathering no feathers or hairs left on bird v. Exposed flesh minimal flesh exposed from cuts, tears, and missing skin vi. Disjointed and broken bones, missing parts none present vii. Discolorations minimal. Large discolorations indicate the chicken was not appropriately bled out, bruising, or blood clots viii. Freezi ng defects minimal ix. Backs meat in appropriate places d. Additional quality indicators for specific poultry food products (roasts, breasts, drumsticks, thighs, legs) Characteristics/Barriers of Cultured Meat 1. Texture 2. Flavor 3. Marbling/Fat 4. Co lor 5. Inclusion of various nutrients Essential Question 2: How would traditionally harvested meat compare to cultured meat in its production?

PAGE 520

520 Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. 3.04 Describe the phases of cell reproduction. 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Describe the favorable and unfavorable anatomical characteristics of var ious animals related to meat production. 2. Explain the characteristics of traditionally harvested meat and cultured meat at the cellular level. 3. Analyze differences in the reproduction processes of cultured and traditionally grown meat at the cellular level. 4. Predict trends in selective breeding that would result from the production of cultured meat. Objective 1: Describe the favorable and unfavorable anatomical characteristics of various animals related to meat production. Content Outline: Beef breeds and th eir characteristics 2. Texas Longhorn only beef breed available to US cattle producers until mid 1800s. i. Hardy ii. Lacked beefy appearance iii. Difficult to fatten (lean carcasses) 8. Herefords, Shorthorns, Angus a. Compared to longhorn increased growth rate, imp roved mothering ability, shorter horns b. Bred with longhorns to give heavier muscled carcass c. Shorthorn i. Beefy appearance d. Hereford i. Very hardy, able to tolerate wide range of environmental conditions ii. Polled Herefords are naturally hornless e. Angus (black an d red) i. Most popular breed of beef cattle ii. Naturally polled 9. Brahman a. Good for hot climates because loose hide dissipates heat well b. More tolerant to disease than other breeds of cattle c. Have been used to create other breeds Brangus, Beefmaster, Santa Gertrudi s (hardy, good maternal abilities in these three breeds) 10. Charolais a. Rapid growth rate and muscling

PAGE 521

521 b. Used to sire large calves that lead to difficult births, but selective breeding for low birth weight solved this problem 11. Chianina a. Largest breed of beef cattle b. Good growth rate c. Lean carcasses 12. Limousin a. Moderately framed b. Heavily muscled c. Rapid growth rates d. Great for crossbreeding with large framed or light muscled cows 13. Maria Anjou a. Good maternal abilities b. Docile temperament c. Largest and heaviest framed of the French breeds 14. Simmental a. Large b. Heavily muscled c. Good breeding versatility Swine Breeds and their characteristics 10. Berkshire a. Used to have short noses, but breeders have selectively bred for long noses to help animals eat from automatic self feeders b. Good mothering ability c. Exceptional muscle quality (color, texture, flavor) d. Can be used as maternal or paternal for crossbreeding 11. Chester White a. Great mothering ability 12. Duroc a. Good growth rate b. Good carcass traits c. Breeders have selected for extreme leanness and muscling to be used as a paternal breed 13. Hampshire a. Used as maternal and paternal b. Good muscling and leanness 14. Landrace

PAGE 522

522 a. Large litters b. Exceptional milking ability 15. Poland China a. Good growth rate b. Good muscling c. Hardy 16. Spotted Swine a. Used as paternal breed 17. Yorkshire a. Farrow and w ean large, heavy litters b. Used as maternal breed 18. Pietrain a. Very lean b. Heavily muscled c. Many carry two copies of stress gene d. Used to cross with other paternal breeds to produce lean, heavily muscled, crossbred sires with 0 or 1 copy of the stress gene Objectiv e 2: Explain the characteristics of traditionally harvested meat and cultured meat at the cellular level Content Outline: 3. Animal cells all cells originate from other cells. All organisms are made up of one or more cells. All cells have similar functio ns: a. All cells must take up nutrients from external environment b. All cells must excrete waste products into their external environment c. All cells do some kind of work (make proteins, store energy, carry oxygen, transport electrical impulse, store minerals, mo ve) d. All cells must reproduce 4. Animal cell organelles a. Cell membrane layer that separates cell contents from external environment i. b. Nucleus brain of the cell, controls all ce ll activity i. Surrounded by nuclear membrane c. Chromosomes small strands of genetic material that are housed in the nucleus i. Made of DNA ii. Coded pieces of DNA are genes 1. Contain blueprint for what the cell is to do and directions to replicate, as well as certain traits of the organism 2. Can be passed down to new organisms through cellular replication

PAGE 523

523 d. Cytoplasm jelly like substance that holds other organelles e. Endoplasmic reticulum network of membranes that connects cell membrane to nucleus, breaks down raw mate rials entering cell. i. Rough ER has ribosomes, which make proteins ii. Smooth ER no ribosomes f. Mitochondria powerhouse of the cell (manufactures ATP, which is energy) g. Lysosomes digest proteins h. Golgi bodies newly made proteins get assembled and packaged 5. Cell differentiation a. Cells are specialized, and each type of cell has a different job i. Muscle cells support body and movement ii. Bone cells structure and support of body iii. Red blood cells carry oxygen iv. Fat cells v. Some mak e up tissues and organs b. Differentiated cells work together in systems i. Skeletal system 1. Made of bone and cartilage ii. Muscular system 1. Made of muscle tissue 2. Attaches to skeletal system by tendons 3. Allows skeletal system to move 4. Blood vessels and blood cells brin g energy to muscles a. white meat vs. dark meat white is slower muscle with longer duration, so fewer red blood cells get to it. Dark is faster moving muscle with shorter duration needs more oxygen, so has more red blood cells iii. respiratory system 1. include s lungs 2. supplies cells with oxygen iv. circulatory system 1. heart, blood vessels 2. takes oxygen and nutrients to cells of other tissues through red blood cells v. nervous system 1. brain, spinal cord 2. sends messages between brain and body vi. endocrine system

PAGE 524

524 1. includes many specialized cells and glands 2. secretes substances into blood that keeps body chemically balanced vii. reproductive system 1. ovaries, testes 2. enables animals to reproduce Cultured Meat Cells 3. All muscle cells 4. No attached systems working together Objective 3: Analy ze differences in the reproduction processes of cultured and traditionally grown meat at the cellular level. Content Outline: Cellular Reproduction 3. Interphase cellular growth a. G1 cell grows in size by increasing number of organelles and volume of cytop lasm b. S genetic material replicates so chromosomes are double (called sister chromatids) i. Chromatids are attached to each other at centromere c. G2 cell manufactures organelles and prepares for cell division 4. Mitosis division of body cells (nonsex) a. Prophas e nuclear membrane disappears, sister chromatids shorten and thicken b. Metaphase ends of the cell c. Anaphase spindle fibers retract, pulling sister chromat ids apart d. Telophase new cell membranes are formed, cytokinesis divides organelles and cytoplasm between two new cells. 5. Meiosis division of sex cells a. Animals have duplicate chromosomes in body i. Haploid is number of unique chromosomes, or homologous pairs (N) ii. Diploid is the number of chromosomes an animal has (2N) iii. 1. So that when two sex cells join up, they have 2N again, one from each parent b. Meiosis I results in 2 cells with pairs of chromosomes, to look like the beginning of mitosis i. Prophase ii. Metaphase iii. Anaphase

PAGE 525

525 iv. Telophase c. Meiosis II splits chromosome pairs in half, so each daughter cell has half the number of chromosomes as the parent from the end of meiosis I i. genes in pairs are split in half with t two sex cells Cultured Meat vs. Traditionally Grown Meat 1. Reproduction of traditionally grown meat a. Mitosis used to grow animals (increase cell number and size) b. Meiosis used to produce animals with desired traits through selective breeding i. Punnet squares 2. Reproduction of cultured meat a. Mitosis used to grow animal cells b. No meiosis selective reproduction is done through animal selection i. Objective 4: Predic t trends in selective breeding that would result from the production of cultured meat. Content Outline: Contents for this objective are collectively gathered from the other content in this section. Essential Question 3: Why do traditionally harvested an d cultured meat supporters each believe they are treating animals ethically? Agriscience Foundations I Standards: 6.06 Compare and contrast animal welfare issues. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Compare and contrast ideals of animal welfare and animal rights. 2. Evaluate the practices of various organizations based on their position with regard to animal rights and animal welfare. Objective1: Compare and contrast ideals of animal welfare and animal rights. Content Outline: 4. Animal Welfare all animals should be happy, healthy, free from want, and treated humanely a. For animals to grow, reproduce, and perform, they must be well tended i. Provided with feed water, protection from parasites and disease, and protection from predators b. Most a nimal producers 5. Animal Rights animals should have the same rights and privelages as humans. a. 6. Laws related to animal welfare not an inclusive list

PAGE 526

526 a. Animal Transportation Act (1906) b. Humane Slaughter Act (1958) c. Animal Welfare Act (1966) d. Horse Protection Act (1970) e. Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) f. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (1985) g. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act (1989) h. Food, Agricultur e, Conservation and Trade Act (1 No 0) i. Animal Enterprise Protection Act (1 No 2) j. Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act (1 No 9) k. Animal Fighting Enforcement Act (2002) l. Captive Wildlife Safety Act (2002) 7. Global animal welfare issues a. Animal transportation b. S laughter c. Pre slaughter management d. Provision of adequate feed and water e. Handling of animals by humans f. Culling of animals that are unhealthy or of low commercial value g. Housing conditions Objective 2: Evaluate the practices of various organizations based on their position with regard to animal rights and animal welfare. Content Outline: Animal Welfarists 10. Gentle animal handling a. Reduces stress, therefore improves growth and reproduction 11. Provide suitable diets and adequate water a. Additives can improve animal health 12. Provide living conditions that are well suited to the animals to reduce abnormal or injurious behavior a. Livestock pens keep animals away from dangers and sheltered from weather b. Confining sows during gestation eliminates competition for feed c. Farro wing crates reduces number of baby pigs crushed by sow 13. Provide environments and equipment to prevent injury (penning, flooring, harnessing) a. Docking piglet tails 14. Provide adequate space to prevent over crowding

PAGE 527

527 a. Overcrowding vs. temperature control 15. Improve loading and transport to reduce bruises and injuries a. Overcrowding and underloading both cause injuries 16. Use of appropriate techniques and equipment in slaughter process to minimize pain, fear, and distress a. Improves meat quality b. Appropriate stunning and rest raining practices 17. Close attention to animals by caretakers improves potential for early diagnosis of disease and behavioral problems 18. Vaccinate for diseases that can negatively impact animals Animal Rightists (PETA) 8. Eat non animal produced diet (vegan) 9. Pu rchase products that were not tested on animals a. Clothes i. Animal confinement ii. Suffering of wild trapped animals iii. Methods of hide harvesting (suffocation, electrocution, gas, poison) b. Drugs and cosmetics i. Poisoning of laboratory animals ii. Abuse of laboratory animal s (experimental surgeries, etc.) 10. Attend animal free entertainment and recreation (circuses, zoos, horse drawn carriages, animal actors, etc.) a. Forcing animals to perform unnatural behaviors out of fear (circuses) b. Use of negative reinforcement on animals bei ng trained c. Animal confinement d. Animal boredom (zoos) 11. Adopt pets from shelters a. Cruel treatment of animals by owners i. Chained to posts ii. cutting ears, tails, declawing, ect. iii. Shock collars iv. Animal hoarding b. Pet trade/breeders i. Feed pet overpopulation ii. Inbreeding

PAGE 528

528 iii. Trea 12. Spay and neuter pets a. Pet overcrowding 13. Use organic gardening practices 14. Lobby against animal industry practices a. i. Animal confinement ii. Lack of animal exercise iii. Separation of males, females, off spring iv. Use of drugs v. Genetic alteration to improve productivity vi. Animal transportation vii. Slaughtering practices (conscious animals during slaughtering processes) References Baker, M. C., & Mikesell, R. E. (2005). Animal Science: Biology and Technology (2 nd ed.). Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. http://www.bqa.org/whatisqualitybeef.aspx Fraser, D., et al. (2009). Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices. Report of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0483e/i0483e00.pdfn Hale, D. S., Goodson, K., & Savell, J. W. (2010). Beef quality and yield grades. Texas A&M University, Department of Animal Science. Retrieved from: http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html Jon es, N. (2010). A taste of things to come? Nature, 468 P. 752 753. Lammers, P. J., Stender, D. R., & Honeyman, M. S. (2007). Pork quality. Iowa State University, Publication No. IPIC NPP610 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.ipic.iastate.edu/publications/610.PorkQuality.pdf People for the ethical treatment of animals (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.peta.org United States Department of Agriculture (2002). United States classes, standards, and grades for poultry. Publication No. 70.200. Retrieved from: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDE V3004377

PAGE 529

529 APPENDIX C STUDENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SSI Content Outline SSI: The incorporation of lab Agriscience Foundations I Standards Overall: 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agricultu re (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.). 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data. Units: Food Safety (Week 1) o 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energy, and the environment. o 2.03 Evaluate the food safety responsibilities that occur along the food supply chain. o 6.05 Demonstrate scientific practices in the management, health, safety, and technology of the animal agriculture industry. o 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Economic Impact (Weeks 2 3) o 1.02 Analyze the impact of agriculture on the local, state, national, and global economy. o 6.01 Explain the economic importance of animals and the products obtained from animals. o 6.07 Investigate th e nature and properties of food, fiber, and by products from animals. o 6.08 Explore career opportunities in animal science. Environmental Impact (Weeks 4 5) o 1.04 Examine the role of the agricultural industry in the interaction of population, food, energ y, and the environment. o 4.03 Describe the environmental resources (soil, water, air) necessary for agriculture production. o 4.02 Describe various ecosystems as they relate to the agriculture industry. o 4.05 Apply Best Management Practices that enhance the natural environment o 4.04 Identify regulatory agencies that impact agricultural practices. Animal Impact (Weeks 6 8) o 6.03 Illustrate correct terminologies for animal species and conditions within those species. o 6.02 Categorize animals according to use, type, breed, and scientific classification. o 6.04 Compare the basic internal and external anatomy of animals.

PAGE 530

530 o 3.03 Identify the parts and functions of plant and animal cells. o 3.04 Describe the phases of cell reproduction. o 3.07 Investigate DNA and genetics applications in agriscience including the theory of probability. o 6.06 Compare and contrast animal welfare issues. The Introduction of Cultured Meat (Week 9) o 3.06 Interpret, analyze, and report data o 3.08 Evaluate advances in biotechnology that impact agriculture (e.g. transgenic crops, biological controls, etc.) o 9.03 Identify and demonstrate ways to be an active citizen. o 9.05 Demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively.

PAGE 531

531 APPENDIX D ORDER OF LESSON PLA NS Design of the Study (You can use the down side of the list to gauge your progress through the study) Day # Class Progress xx Take the Teacher SSI Survey (done outside of class students not involved) x Students take Pretest Survey Students take P retests CKAg, NoS, and SR 1 Teach Introduction of Cultured Meat, Lesson 1 Students take Pretest Arg 2 Students take Food Safety Pretest (Pre CKFS) Teach Food Safety, Lesson 1 3 Teach Food Safety, Lesson 2 4 Teach Food Safety, Lesson 3 5 Teach F ood Safety, Lesson 4 Students take Food Safety Posttest (Post CKFS) Send Completed Materials to Kate 6 Students take Economic Impacts Pretest (Pre CKEc) Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 1 7 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 2 8 Teach Economic Impacts, Le sson 3 9 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 4 10 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 5 11 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 6 12 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 7 13 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 8 14 Teach Economic Impacts, Lesson 9 15 Teach Economic I mpacts, Lesson 10 Students take Economic Impacts Posttest (Post CKEc) Send Completed Materials to Kate 16 Teach Introduction of Cultured Meat, Lesson 2 17 Students take Environmental Impacts Pretest (Pre CKEnv) Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 1 1 8 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 2 19 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 3 20 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 4 21 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 5 22 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 6 23 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 7 24 Teach Environmental Impact, Lesson 8 25 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 9 26 Teach Environmental Impacts, Lesson 10 Students take Environmental Impacts Posttest (Post CKEnv)

PAGE 532

532 Send Completed Materials to Kate 27 Teach Introduction of Cultured Meat, Lesson 3 28 Students take Animal Industry Pretest (Pre CKAn) Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 1 29 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 2 30 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 3 31 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 4 32 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 5 33 T each Animal Industry, Lesson 6 34 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 7 35 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 8 36 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 9 37 Teach Introduction of Cultured Meat, Lesson 4 38 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 10 39 Teach Animal Industr y, Lesson 11 40 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 12 41 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 13 42 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 14 43 Teach Animal Industry, Lesson 15 Students take Animal Industry Posttest (Post CKAn) Send Completed Materials to Kate 44 Te ach Introduction of Cultured Meat, Lesson 5 Students take Posttest Arg 45 Students take Posttest Survey Students take Posttests CKAg, NoS, and SR Teacher takes Post Survey Send Completed Materials to Kate

PAGE 533

533 APPENDIX E CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AS SESSME NTS Agriscience Content a. Increasing food production b. Minimizing environmental impacts c. Improving human health d. All of the above 2. Hidden allergens can be a concern that stems from which group? a. environmental b. human health c. economic d. market sector 3. How can genetically engineered foods benefit the marketplace? a. provide new species with unknown viruses b. provide a new line of diseases c. provide the unexpected side effects of new food sources d. pro vide a more nutritious food 4. Zoonosis is the term that describes ___________________. a. a disease humans can catch from plants. b. a disease of humans that can be transferred to animals. c. an animal disease that can be caught by humans. d. a disease humans can g et from a vegetarian diet. 5. Which of the following is NOT a step in the food supply chain? a. packaging b. grading c. storing d. lumbering 6. This organization ensures that the commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, correctly labeled, and co rrectly packaged. a. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) b. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) c. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) d. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 7. Golden Rice is a transgenic plant that pro duces _____. a. anticancer enzymes b. a substance that helps our bodies produce vitamin A c. a chemical that provides frost tolerance d. a herbicide called Roundup

PAGE 534

534 8. What is a term for animals that have had their genes changed or manipulated? a. clones b. transgenic an imals c. naturally selected d. superovulated 9. In 2006, 252 million acres of GM crops were planted. What percentage of that was in the US? a. 12 % b. 31 % c. 53 % d. 87 % 10. Which of the following diseases has been linked to food recalls due to its presence in beef? a. H1N1 b. Salmonella c. E. coli d. Avian Influenza 11. a. 394 million b. 5 billion c. 7 billion d. 8.9 billion 12. Which of the following is a product that increases profit to producers through the use of waste from animal pr oduction? a. Value added product b. By product c. Sub product d. Waste product 13. What is the correct order of events in the food supply chain? a. retailer, distributor, grader, producer, processor, wholesaler b. producer, grader, processor, distributor, wholesaler, ret ailer c. processor, grader, wholesaler, producer, retailer, distributor d. distributor, producer, retailer, wholesaler, grader, processor 14. What is a byproduct of beef cattle? a. leather b. fur c. hair d. mohair 15. The top three commodities in the United States in te rms of value are _____. a. corn, beef, and milk b. fruits, fodder, and vegetables c. live animals, meat, and dairy products d. peanuts, sugar, and wine

PAGE 535

535 production? a. Unite d States Department of Agriculture b. University of Florida c. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations d. Food and Drug Administration 17. Which of the following is a drawback of value added agriculture? a. The controversial nature of value added ag riculture b. Results in a decrease in profit c. The producer takes on additional risk d. The producer has to advertise 18. Agricultural by products produce which of the following: a. Bacon b. Milk c. Fertilizer d. Eggs 19. Which of the following is a demographic predictio n that can impact food demand? a. The nation will become more racially diverse b. The proportion of younger people will increase c. The proportion of older people will decrease d. The nation will become less racially diverse 20. Which of the following meats doubled in consumption between 1970 and 1 No 5? a. beef b. chicken c. pork d. fish 21. What organization is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts associated with its approval of food products? a. Food and Drug Administration b. Environmental Protection Agency c. US Depar tment of Agriculture d. Natural Resource Conservation Service 22. Checkoff promotions are carried out _____. a. for individual breeds b. without breed specific identification c. by combining pork and beef as one initiative d. by combining beef and dairy as one initiati ve 23. a. land b. water c. air d. fuel

PAGE 536

536 24. Which of the following is NOT an environmental concern associated with manure? a. air quality b. water pollution c. soil quality d. biogas production 25. The agricultural industry acco a. 15 % b. 50 % c. 6 % d. 80 % 26. What is the largest usage of US land? a. Urban use b. Grassland pasture c. Cropland d. Forest use 27. Which of the following is currently seen as a threat to US agriculture production? a. While t he US population doubled between 1945 and 2002, the amount of urbanized land quadrupled. b. Cropland changed into urban use can be reversed, but the zoning laws make it a lengthy process. c. Urban land use accounts for the greatest percentage of land use in the US. d. Many agricultural producers prefer to live in urban areas, making urban sprawl into rural lands increase. 28. Who recommends land quality BMPs? a. People for the Ethical Treatment of Land b. US Department of Energy c. Food and Drug Administration d. Natural Reso urces Conservation Service 29. Which of the following is NOT a BMP related to water quality? a. Leave crop residue in fields b. Allow fertilizers to enter and enrich water sources c. Utilize various methods of pest management d. Provide conservation buffers to capt ure pollutants 30. Which of the following is a current environmental concern related to the production of GMOs? a. Could alter wild organisms and ecosystems b. Could reduce fertilizer applications c. Could negatively impact human health d. Could decrease urban land availability 31. ___________________ are used to prevent any major/common diseases within the herd. a. restraint b. colostrums c. vaccinations d. additives

PAGE 537

537 32. An example of a common permanent identification method is _____. a. ear tags b. ear notching c. neckchains d. neck straps 33. The _____ opposes the taking of wool and meat because the organization believes doing so harms animals. a. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals b. Humane Society of the United States c. Florida Humane Society d. Farm Bureau 34. The most desired beef quality grade is _____. a. Select b. Prime c. Choice d. Standard 35. _______________ is intramuscular fat. a. marbling b. carcass age c. moisture content d. subcutaneous 36. Which is NOT a function of the cell membrane? a. to separate the cell contents from the external en vironment b. controls c. to allow raw materials to enter the cell d. to allow newly made proteins and waste to exit the cell 37. How many daughter cells are produced in spermatogenesis? a. two b. three c. four d. six 38. What is the match pair for t he nitrogen base adenine? a. guanine b. adenine c. thymine d. cytosine 39. What breed of swine is known for a white belt, erect ears, leanness of carcass and muscling? a. Hampshire b. Yorkshire c. Poland China d. Chester White

PAGE 538

538 40. What is phenotype? a. r outward appearance b. the actual genetic code of an organism c. traits of controlled by a single pair of genes d. traits an organism controlled by several pairs of genes

PAGE 539

539 Food Safety Test e. Inc reasing food production f. Minimizing environmental impacts g. Improving human health h. All of the above 2. Hidden allergens can be a concern stemming from which group? e. environmental f. human health g. economic h. market sector 3. How can biotechnology be used to improv e plants? a. increase the nutritional value of some crops b. increase the amount of sunlight the plant can absorb c. decrease the amount of minerals the plant can take up d. decrease the size of the root system 4. What is NOT an example of genetic resistance in plant s? a. diseases b. flower color c. insects d. viruses 5. How can genetically engineered foods benefit the marketplace? e. provide new species with unknown viruses f. provide a new line of diseases g. provide the unexpected side effects of new food sources h. provide a more nutri tious food 6. What federal agency oversees policy and regulations concerning our food supply? a. HSUS b. FDA c. EPA d. ARS

PAGE 540

540 7. Zoonosis is the term that describes ___________________. a. a disease humans can catch from plants. b. a disease of humans that can be trans ferred to other humans. c. an animal disease that can be caught by humans. d. a disease humans can get from a vegetarian diet. 8. __________ is producing food products that are safe to eat and keeping them safe for consumption. a. Food spoilage b. Food safety c. Grading d. Sanitation 9. _____ is the process of treating food to prevent or reduce spoilage. a. Packaging b. Grading c. Sublimation d. Food preservation 10. Which of the following is NOT a step in the food supply chain? a. packaging b. grading c. storing d. lumbering 11. Feeder cattle with diseases _____. a. must undergo correction or recovery before entering a feedlot b. can be put into a feedlot provided corn is fed c. should be harvested for dog food d. receive a USDA Grade of No. 1 12. This organization ensures that the commercial supply of me at, poultry, and egg products is safe, correctly labeled, and correctly packaged a. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) b. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) c. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) d. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

PAGE 541

541 13. What is a term for animals that have had their genes changed or manipulated? a. clones b. transgenic animals c. naturally selected d. superovulated 14. Golden Rice is a transgenic plant that produces _____. a. anticancer enzymes b. a substance tha t helps our bodies produce vitamin A c. a chemical that provides frost tolerance d. a herbicide called Roundup 15. The hope for the future of agricultural biotechnology is that it may _____. a. address the world hunger problem b. become obsolete in the next decade c. r educe crop yield d. replace all traditional farming 16. Labeling of GMO products is necessary if they contain: a. allergens or food additives b. bacteria or plasmids c. Bt genes d. enhanced nutrients 17. What appears to be the greatest concerns regarding biotechnology? a. DNA fingerprinting b. genetic drift c. safety risks d. more weeds 18. In 2006, 252 million acres of GM crops were planted around the globe. Of the total GM crops planted, what percentage was in the US? a. 12 % b. 31 % c. 53 % d. 87 % 19. Which of the following diseases has be en linked to food recalls due to its presence in beef? a. H1N1 b. Salmonella c. E. coli d. Avian Influenza

PAGE 542

542 20. Which organization is responsible for investigating consumer illnesses related to food production and consumption? a. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) b. United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) c. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) d. Center for Disease Control (CDC)

PAGE 543

543 Economic Impact Test a. 394 million b. 5 billion c. 7 billion d. 8.9 billion 22 Which of the following is a product that increases profit to producers through the use of waste from animal production? a. Value added product b. By product c. Sub product d. Waste product 23. What is the correct order of events in the food supply chain? a. retail er, distributor, grader, producer, processor, wholesaler b. producer, grader, processor, distributor, wholesaler, retailer c. processor, grader, wholesaler, producer, retailer, distributor d. distributor, producer, retailer, wholesaler, grader, processor 24. In t he food supply chain, who is responsible for inserting food into containers for shipment to the processing plant? a. trucker b. retailer c. harvester d. packer 25. Which of the following is a benefit provided by the agriculture industry in the United States? a. The agr iculture industry takes employees away from manufacturing positions. b. The agriculture industry tends to weaken and destabilize the central government. c. The agriculture industry provides the United States with imports. d. The basic human needs for food, clothing and shelter are met. 26. What is one of six major areas of agriculture that is concerned with the many areas in raising animals for food consumption? a. livestock production b. forestry c. agricultural mechanics and technology d. supplies and services

PAGE 544

544 27. What is a byproduct of beef cattle? a. leather b. fur c. hair d. mohair 28. _________ is the exchange of goods and services between different countries. a. Free trade b. International trade c. Restrictive trade d. Trade embargo 29. The top three commodities in the United States in terms of value are _____. a. corn, beef, and milk b. fruits, fodder, and vegetables c. live animals, meat, and dairy products d. peanuts, sugar, and wine commodity production? a. Un ited States Department of Agriculture b. University of Florida c. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations d. Food and Drug Administration a. Nursery plants b. Vegetables c. Milk d. Turfgrass 32. ___________ is any activity that an agricultural producer performs outside of traditional commodity production to receive a higher return per unit of commodity sold. a. By products production b. Cultured meat production c. Exportation of goods d. Value added agricultu re

PAGE 545

545 33. Which of the following is a drawback of value added agriculture? a. The controversial nature of value added agriculture b. Results in a decrease in profit c. The producer takes on additional risk d. The producer has to advertise 34. Agricultural by pro ducts produce which of the following: a. Bacon b. Milk c. Fertilizer d. Eggs 35. Which of the following is a demographic prediction that can impact food demand? a. The nation will become more racially diverse b. The proportion of younger people will increase c. The proporti on of older people will decrease d. The nation will become less racially diverse 36. Which of the following is not a consumer trend in the US? a. Greater sales of environmentally friendly products b. Greater sales in locally grown products c. Greater sales of conven ience oriented foods d. Greater sales of beef products 37. Which of the following meats doubled in consumption between 1970 and 1 No 5? a. beef b. chicken c. pork d. fish 38. The USDA makes food consumption trend predictions based on which of the following assumptions? a. As people get older, they will make less money than they did when they were younger b. Income will remain constant in the upcoming years, with no raises or deductions c. As people get older, they will take on the eating habits of the new age group d. Food budgets will increase on an annual basis

PAGE 546

546 39. Cultured meat production would impact which of the following aspects of the food supply chain? a. Producers b. Consumers c. Pre production d. All of the above 40. Florida contributes over half of the US value of which of t he following commodities? a. Sugar cane b. Oranges c. Watermelon d. Beef cattle

PAGE 547

547 Environmental Impact Test 41. The agency in the federal government that oversees food and medicine is the _____. a. Forest Service b. Natural Resources Conservation Service c. Food and Drug Ad ministration d. Agricultural Marketing Service 42. Checkoff promotions are carried out _____. a. for individual breeds b. without breed specific identification c. by combining pork and beef as one initiative d. by combining beef and dairy as one initiative 43. The act of ________________ a deceased animal will be most likely to eliminate the danger of water pollution. a. burying b. landfilling c. composting d. incinerating 44. Items used by the agricultural industry that occur in nature are known as _________________. a. environment b. ecology c. natural resources d. atmosphere a. land b. water c. air d. fuel 46. What is a gas that is emitted by decomposing organic matter, such as animal waste? a. Carbon monoxide b. fertilizer c. methane d. ethanol

PAGE 548

548 47. Which of the following is NOT an environmental concern associated with manure? a. air quality b. water pollution c. soil quality d. biogas production 48. Which of the following is a true statement regarding the potential of biotechnology? a. Biofuels from fermentation can make cr ops drought and salt tolerant. b. Transgenic animals are being taught to speak. c. Food supplies can be increased through higher yields on less land. d. North America will be the only continent where transgenic crops will be grown. 49. The agricultural industry a a. 15 % b. 50 % c. 6 % d. 80 % 50. What is the largest usage of US land? a. Urban use b. Grassland pasture c. Cropland d. Forest use 51. Which of the following is currently seen as a threat to US agriculture production? a. Whil e the US population doubled between 1945 and 2002, the amount of urbanized land quadrupled. b. Cropland changed into urban use can be reversed, but the zoning laws make it a lengthy process. c. Urban land use accounts for the greatest percentage of land use in t he US. d. Many agricultural producers prefer to live in urban areas, making urban sprawl into rural lands increase. 52. What are BMPs? a. Biotechnology and Marketing Products b. Breakdown Manure Pads c. Best Management Practices d. Borrowed Money Protection

PAGE 549

549 53. Wh at organization or agency recommends the use of land quality BMPs? a. People for the Ethical Treatment of Land b. US Department of Energy c. Food and Drug Administration d. Natural Resources Conservation Service 54. Which of the following is NOT a BMP related to wat er quality? a. Leave crop residue in fields b. Allow fertilizers to enter and enrich water sources c. Utilize various methods of pest management d. Provide conservation buffers to capture pollutants 55. Which of the following water pollutants is a result of soil er osion? a. Sediment b. Pesticides c. Salts d. Pathogens 56. Why are nutrients considered a water pollutant? a. They can alter the taste of drinking water, making people less likely to drink it b. They come from human waste, so they can transfer diseases through water c. They damage crop yields d. They promote algae growth, leading to lower oxygen levels in water 57. Which of the following is an example of a physical disturbance that impacts land quality? a. Over fertilizing b. Using pesticides c. Tilling d. Growing same crop repeatedly 5 8. Due to the large amounts of carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions produced by livestock farms, some states have a difficult time meeting standards of which Act? a. Safe Drinking Water Act b. Clean Air Act c. Toxic Substances Control Act d. Food Quality Protection Act

PAGE 550

550 59. What organization is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts associated with its approval of food products? a. Food and Drug Administration b. Environmental Protection Agency c. US Department of Agriculture d. Natural Resource Conservation Service 60. Which of the following is a current environmental concern related to the production of GMOs? a. Could alter wild organisms and ecosystems b. Could reduce fertilizer applications c. Could negatively impact human health d. Could decr ease urban land availability

PAGE 551

551 Animal Science Test 61. Which of the following is NOT a good health management practice? a. purchasing your animals from a reputable person b. keeping animals in weather they will not tolerate c. monitoring animals daily d. separating si ck animals from healthy animals 62. What is an infection of the milk secreting glands? a. heat b. mammary illness c. mastitis d. estrus 63. What is the process of removing the testicles from the male animals so they cannot breed? a. docking b. dehorning c. banding d. castrating 64. What method of identification is commonly used in pigs? a. microchips b. ear notching c. neck chains d. branding 65. ___________________ are used to prevent any major/common diseases within the herd. a. restraint b. colostrums c. vaccinations d. additives 66. A _____ is used to prevent disease from entering a livestock site. a. non slip floor b. antibacterial hand gel c. foot bath d. steel toed boots 67. An example of a common permanent identification method is _____. a. ear tags b. ear notching c. neckchains d. neck straps

PAGE 552

552 68. The _____ oppos es the harvesting of wool and meat from animals because the organization believes doing so harms animals. a. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals b. Humane Society of the United States c. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals d. Farm Bureau 69. The most desired beef quality grade is _____. a. Select b. Prime c. Choice d. Standard 70. For animal transport, _____ is necessary. a. adequate ventilation b. appropriate bedding c. a safety check of the vehicle d. All of the above 71. _______________ is intramuscular fat. a. marblin g b. carcass age c. moisture content d. subcutaneous 72. Preventive health measures (e.g., administering recommended vaccines) may _____ by minimizing the number of animals with poor health. a. lower input costs b. increase productivity c. minimize death loss d. All of the a bove 73. High quality food has become the norm in the United States due in part to a uniform set of terms established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) known as ________________________________. a. grades b. weights c. measures d. regulations

PAGE 553

553 7 4. Which is NOT a function of the cell membrane? a. to separate the cell contents from the external environment b. controls c. to allow raw materials to enter the cell d. to allow newly made proteins and waste to exit the cell 75. What is the sequential process of somatic cell division? a. mitosis b. spermatogenesis c. oogenesis d. cell growth 76. What are chromatids? a. thread like fibers b. strands of identical DNA that join to form a chromosome c. daughter cells d. the division of the cytoplasm 77. How many daugh ter cells are produced in spermatogenesis? a. two b. three c. four d. six 78. What is a chromosome? a. part of a cell that contains energy b. part of a cell that contains the genetic material c. cell site for the production of proteins d. cell site for the production of hormone s 79. What is the match pair for the nitrogen base adenine? a. guanine b. adenine c. thymine d. cytosine 80. What is a genotype? a. the physical appearance b. technique for predicting number of offspring c. traits controlled by several pairs of genes d. the actual genetic code

PAGE 554

554 81. What is the proper name of the meat that is produced by swine? a. beef b. mutton c. pork d. lamb 82. What is the act of providing animals with surroundings that meet their needs while under human control? a. animal rights b. animal welfare c. controlled environment d. biot echnology 83. What act was passed in 1966 to regulate the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and commerce and their treatment by dealers? a. animal welfare act b. health research extension act c. laboratory animal welfare act d. economic researc h act 84. What breed of beef cattle are white to a light straw color, can either be polled or horned and are known for their heavy muscling? a. Angus b. Charolais c. Hereford d. Shorthorn 85. What breed of swine is known for a white belt, erect ears, leanness of car cass and muscling? a. Hampshire b. Yorkshire c. Poland China d. Chester White 86. What term is used to describe the genotype when two haploid gametes containing the same allele of a gene come together during fertilization? a. dominant b. heterozygous c. homozygous d. recessive

PAGE 555

555 87. What is a phenotype? a. b. the actual genetic code of an organism c. traits controlled by a single pair of genes d. traits controlled by several pairs of genes 88. What is a matrix that provides a technique for pred icting genotype? a. b. c. Punnett square d. quantitative table 89. What is the term describing superior traits resulting from the mating of two animals from different genetic lines? a. purebred b. hybrid vigor c. inbreeding d. crossbreeding 90. Which is the MOST important purpose for using genetic modification in animals? a. to develop animals totally new and unique to agriculture b. to enhance the appearance of agriculturally important animals c. to improve genetic diversity of food producing animals d. to increase production of food producing animals

PAGE 556

556 APPENDIX F EST OF SCIENTIFIC RE ASONING LCTSR 1a. Suppose you are given two clay balls of equal size and shape. The two clay balls also weigh the same. One ball is flattened into a pancake shaped piece. Which of these statements is correct? a) The pancake shaped piece weighs more than the ball b) The two pieces still weigh the same c) The ball weighs more than the pancake shaped piece 1b. because a) The flattened piece covers a larger area. b) The ball pushes down more on one spot. c) When something is flattened it loses weight. d) Clay has not been added or taken away. e) When something is flattened it gains weight. 2a. To the right are drawings of two cylinders filled to the same level with water. T he cylinders are identical in size and shape. Also shown at the right are two marbles, one glass and one steel. The marbles are the same size but the steel one is much heavier than the glass one. When the glass marble is put into Cylinder 1, it sinks t o the bottom and the water level rises to the 6 th mark. If we put the steel marble into Cylinder 2, the water will rise a) To the same level as it did in Cylinder 1 b) To a higher level than it did in Cylinder 1 c) To a lower level than it did in Cylinder 1 2b. b ecause a) The steel marble will sink faster. b) The marbles are made of different materials. c) The steel marble is heavier than the glass marble. d) The glass marble creates less pressure. e) The marbles are the same size.

PAGE 557

557 3 a. To the right are drawings of a wide and narrow cylinder. The cylinders have equally spaced marks on them. Water is poured into the wide cylinder up to the 4 th mark (see A). This water rises to the 6 th mark when poured into the narrow cylinder (see B). Both cylinders are emptied (not show n) and water is poured into the wide cylinder up to the 6 th mark. How high would this water rise if it were poured into the empty narrow cylinder? a) To 8 b) To 9 c) To 10 d) 12 e) None of these answers is correct 3b. because a) The answer cannot be determined with the in formation given. b) It went up 2 more before, so it will go up 2 more again. c) It goes up 3 in the narrow for every 2 in the wide. d) The second cylinder is narrower. e) One must actually pour the water and observe to find out. 4a. Water is now poured into the narro w cylinder (described in Item 5 above) up to the 11 th mark. How high would this water rise if it were poured into the empty wide cylinder? a) To 9 b) To 8 c) To 7 d) To 7 1/3 e) None of these answers is correct 4b. because a) The ratios must stay the same. b) One must actu ally pour the water and observe to find out. c) The answer cannot be determined with the information given. d) It was 2 less before so it will be 2 less again. e) You subtract 2 from the wide for every 3 from the narrow.

PAGE 558

558 5a. At the right are drawings of th ree strings hanging from a bar. The three strings have metal weights attached to their ends. String 1 and String 3 are the same length. String 2 is shorter. A 10 unit weight is attached to the end of String 1. A 10 unit weight is also attached to the end of String 2. A 5 unit weight is attached to the end of String 3. The strings (and attached weights) can be swung back and forth and the time it takes to make a swing can be timed. Suppose you want to find out whether the length of the string has an effect on the time it takes to swing back and forth. Which strings would you use to find out? a) Only one string b) All three strings c) 2 and 3 d) 1 and 3 e) 1 and 2 5b. because a) You must use the longest strings. b) You must compare strings with both light and heavy weigh ts. c) Only the lengths differ. d) To make all possible comparisons. e) The weights differ. 6a. Twenty fruit flies are placed in each of four glass tubes. The tubes are sealed. Tubes I and II are partially covered with black paper; Tubes III and IV are not cove red. The tubes are placed as shown. Then they are exposed to red light for five minutes. The number of flies in the uncovered part of each tube is shown in the drawing. This experiment shows that flies respond to (respond means move to or away from): a) Red light but not gravity b) Gravity but not red light c) Both red light and gravity d) Neither red light nor gravity 6b. because a) Most flies are in the upper end of Tube III but spread about evenly in Tube II. b) Most flies did not go to the bottom of Tubes I and II I. c) The flies need light to see and must fly against gravity. d) The majority of the flies are in the upper ends and in the lighted ends of the tubes. e) Some flies are in both ends of each tube.

PAGE 559

559 7a. In a second experiment, a different kind of fly and blue light was used. The results are shown in the drawing: These data show that flies respond to (respond means move to or away from): a) Blue light but not gravity b) Gravity but not blue light c) Both blue light and gravity d) Neither blue light nor gravity 7b. because a) So me flies are in both ends of each tube. b) The flies need light to see and must fly against gravity. c) The flies are spread about evenly in Tube IV and in the upper end of Tube III. d) Most flies are in the lighted end of Tube II but do not go down in Tubes I and III. e) Most files are in the upper end of Tube I and the lighted end of Tube II. 8a. Six square pieces of wood are put into a cloth bag and mixed about. The six pieces are identical in size and shape, however, three pieces are red and three are yellow. S uppose someone reaches into the bag (without looking) and pulls out one piece. What are the chances that the piece is red? a) 1 chance out of 6 b) 1 chance out of 3 c) 1 chance out of 2 d) 1 chance out of 1 e) Cannot be determined 8b. because a) 3 out of 6 pieces are red. b) There is no way to tell which piece will be picked. c) Only 1 piece of the 6 in the bag is picked. d) All 6 pieces are identical in size and shape. e) Only 1 red piece can be picked out of the 3 red pieces.

PAGE 560

560 9a. Three red square pieces of wood, four yellow squ are pieces, and five blue square pieces are put into a cloth bag. Four red round pieces, two yellow round pieces, and three blue round pieces are also put into the bag. All the pieces are then mixed about. Suppose someone reaches into the back (without looking and without feeling for a particular shape piece) and pulls out one piece. What are the chances that the piece is a red round or blue round piece? a) Cannot be determined b) 1 chance out of 3 c) 1 chance out of 21 d) 15 chances out of 21 e) 1 chance out of 2 9b. because a) 1 of the 2 shapes is round. b) 15 of the 21 pieces are red or blue. c) There is no way to tell which piece will be picked. d) Only 1 of the 21 pieces is picked out of the bag. e) 1 of every 3 pieces is a red or blue round piece. 10a. Farmer Brown was observi ng the mice that live in his field. He discovered that all of the mice were either fat or thin. Also, all of them had either black tails or white tails. This made him wonder if there might be a link between the size of the mice and the color of their ta ils. So he captured all of the mice in one part of his field and observed them. Below are the mice that he captured. Do you think there is a link between the size of the mice and the color of their tails? a) Appears to be a link b) Appears not to be a link c) C annot make a reasonable guess 10b. because a) There are some of each kind of mouse. b) There may be a genetic link between mouse size and tail color. c) There were not enough mice captured. d) Most of the fat mice have black tails while most of the thin mice have whi te tails. e) As the mice grew fatter, their tails became darker.

PAGE 561

561 11a. The figure below at the left shows a drinking glass and a burning birthday candle stuck in a small piece of clay standing in a pan of water. When the glass is turned upside down, put ove r the candle, and placed in the water, the candle quickly goes out and water rushes up into the glass (as shown at the right). This observation raises an interesting question: Why does the water rush up into the glass? Here is a possible explanation. Th e flame converts oxygen into carbon dioxide. Because oxygen does not dissolve rapidly into water but carbon dioxide does, the newly formed carbon dioxide dissolves rapidly into the water, lowering the air pressure inside the glass. Suppose you have the ma terials mentioned above plus some matches and some dry ice (dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide). Using some or all of the materials, how could you test this possible explanation? a) Saturate the water with carbon dioxide and redo the experiment noting the amou nt of water rise. b) The water rises because oxygen is consumed, so redo the experiment in exactly the same way to show water rise due to oxygen loss. c) Conduct a controlled experiment varying only the number of candles to see if that makes a difference. d) Suctio n is responsible for the water rise, so put a balloon over the top of an open ended cylinder and place the cylinder over the candle. e) Redo the experiment, but make sure it is controlled by holding all independent variables constant, then measure the amount of water rise. 11b. What result of your test (mentioned in #21 above) would show that your explanation is probably wrong? a) The water rises to the same level as it did before b) The water rises less than it did before c) The balloon expands out d) The balloon is suc ked in 12a. A student put a drop of blood on a microscope slide and then looked at the blood under a microscope. As you can see in the diagram below, the magnified red blood cells look like little round balls. After adding a few drops of salt water to the drop of blood, the student noticed that the cells appeared to become smaller.

PAGE 562

562 This observation raises an interesting question: Why do the red blood cells appear smaller? Here are two possible explanations: I. Salt ions (Na+ and Cl ) push on the cell membranes and make the cells appear smaller. II. Water molecules are attracted to the salt ions so the water molecules move out of the cells and leave the cells smaller. To test these explanations, the student used some salt water, a very accurate weighin g device, and some water filled plastic bags, and assumed the plastic behaves just like red blood cell membranes. The experiment involved carefully weighing a water filled bag, placing it in a salt solution for ten minutes, and then reweighing the bag. Wh at result of the experiment would best show that explanation I is probably wrong? a) The bag loses weight b) The bag weighs the same c) The bag appears smaller 12b. What result of the experiment would best show that explanation II is probably wrong? a) The bag loses weight b) The bag weighs the same c) The bag appears smaller

PAGE 563

563 APPENDIX G ARGUMENTATION QUALIT Y RUBRIC Argumentation Scoring Rubric (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) # of Justifications: Score Title Description 0 No Justification Fails to provide a justification in support of position 1 Justification with no Grounds Provides justification of position but fails to support justification with any grounds (data, warrants, or backings) 2 Justification with Simple Grounds Justification is supported relatively simply b y a single ground 3 Justification with Elaborated Grounds Justification is supported by elaborate and well supported grounds 4 Justification with Elaborated Grounds and Counterposition Justification is supported by elaborate grounds and recognizes positi ons or evidence contradictory to their own

PAGE 564

564 APPENDIX H ARGUMENTATION SCENAR IO

PAGE 565

565 APPENDIX I VIEWS ON SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INSTRUMENT VOSE 1. When two different theories arise to explain the same phenomenon (ex fossils of dinosaur s), will scientists accept the two theories at the same time? A. Yes, because scientists still cannot objectively tell which one is better; therefore, they will accept both tentatively. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agr ee B. Yes, because the two theories may provide explanations from different perspectives, there is no right or wrong. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. No, because scientists tend to accept the theory the y are more familiar with. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree D. No, because scientists tend to accept the simpler theories and avoid complex theories. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Str ongly Agree E. No, the academic status of each theory acceptance of the theory. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree F. No, scientists tend to accept new theories which devi ate less from the contemporary core scientific theory. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree G. No, scientists use intuition to make judgments. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree H. No, because there is only one truth, scientists will not accept any theory before distinguishing which is best Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 566

566 2. Scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values (ex current trends, values). A. Yes, socio cultural values influence the direction and topics of scientific investigations. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree B. Yes, because scientists participating in scientific investigations are influenced by socio cultural values. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. No, scientists with good training will remain value free when carrying out research. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree D. No, because science requires objectivity, which is contrary to the subjective socio cultural values. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 3. When scientists are conducting scientific research, will they use their imagination? A. Yes, imagination is the main source of innovation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree B. Yes, scientists use their imagination more or le ss in scientific research. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. No, imagination is not consistent with the logical principles of science. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree D. No, imagination may become a means for a scientist to prove his point at all costs. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree E. No, imagination lacks reliability. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain A gree Strongly Agree

PAGE 567

567 4. Even if the scientific investigations are carried out correctly, the theory proposed can still be disproved in the future. A. Scientific research will face revolutionary change, and the old theory will be replaced. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree B. Scientific advances cannot be made in a short time. It is through a cumulative process; therefore, the old theory is preserved. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. With the accumulation of research data and information, the theory will evolve more accurately and completely, not being disproved. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 5. Scientis personal experiences, presumptions); therefore, two scientists may not make the same observations for the same experiment. A. Observations will be different, because different beliefs lead to dif ferent expectations influencing the observation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree B. Observations will be the same, because the scientists trained in the same field hold similar ideas. Strongly Disag ree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. Observations will be the same, because through scientific training scientists can abandon personal values to conduct objective observations. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Stron gly Agree D. Observations will be the same, because observations are exactly what we see and nothing more. Facts are facts. Interpretations may be different from one person to another, but observations should be the same. Strongly Disag ree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree E. Observations will be the same. Although subjectivity cannot be completely avoided in observation, scientists use different methods to verify the results and improve objectivity. Strongly D isagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 568

568 6. Most scientists follow the universal scientific method, step by step, to do their research (ex state a hypothesis, design an experiment, collect data, and draw conclusions). A. The scient ific method ensures valid, clear, logical and accurate results. Thus, most scientists follow the universal method in research. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree B. Most scientists use the scientific method becau se it is a logical procedure. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree C. The scientific method is useful in most instances, but it does not ensure results; therefore, scientists invent new methods. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree D. There is no so called the scientific method. Scientists use any methods to obtain results. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree E. There is no fixed scien tific method; scientific knowledge could be accidentally discovered. Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree E. No matter how the results are obtained, scientists use the scientific method to verify it. S trongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 569

569 APPENDIX J TEACHER CONSENT FORM

PAGE 570

570 A PPENDIX K PARENT/STUDENT CONSE NT FORM

PAGE 571

571

PAGE 572

572 LIST OF REFERENCES Agrest i, A., & Findlay, B. (2009) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (4 th ed.) Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Agricultural education. (1889) In Chamber's Encyclopedia New York: Collier Publisher. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussions on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38 67 90. doi:10.1007/s11165 007 9040 2 Alspaugh, J. W. (1 No 8). Achievement los s associated with the transition to middle school and high school. Journal of Educational Research, 92 (1), 20 25. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597572 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1 No 3/2009). Project 2061: Benchmarks for scientific liter acy. Association of Public and Land grant Universities. (2009, May) Human capacity development: The road to global competitiveness and leadership in food, agriculture, natural resources, and related sciences Retrieved from Association of Public and Land grant Universities website: http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=1639 Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural education: Attitudes of Indiana agricultu ral science and business teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43 (2), 1 10. doi: 10.5032/jae.2002.02001 Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequentia l play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (1), 59 82. doi:10.1007/s10956 006 9033 3 Beard, C., & Wilson, J. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for trainers and educators. London: Kogan Page. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socoscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (p p 117 138). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Ta xonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, N.Y: McKay. Boone, H. N., Jr. (1988). Effects of approach to teaching on student achievement, retention, and attitude. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

PAGE 573

573 Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (6), 717 733. Burry Stock, J. A. (1 No 5). Expert science teacher evaluation model ( ESTEEM) instruments. Kalamazoo, M I: Center for Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation. Callahan, B. E. (2009). Enhancing NOS understanding, reflective judgment, and argumentation through socioscientific issues. (Doctor of Philosophy, U niversity of South Florida). Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education Committee on Science Education K 12 & NetLibrary (1 No 8). Every child a scientist : Achieving scientific literacy for all. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6005 Chang Rundgren, S.N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia Pacific For um on Sc i ence Learning and Teaching, 11 (1), 1 24. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on NOS an d attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 5 803 819. doi: 10.1002/sce.20147 Colucci Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Ed ucation, 90 (2), 227 252. doi: 10.1002/sce.20109 Conroy, C. A., & Walker, N. J. (2000). An examination of integration of academic vocational subject matter in the aquaculture classroom. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41 (2), 54 64. doi: 10.5032/jae.2000. 02054 Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1986) The causal assumptions of quasi experimental practice Synthese, 68 (1), 141 180 doi: 10.1007/BF00413970 Cuffaro, H. K. (1 No 5). Experimenting with the world: John Dewey and the early childhood classroom. New Yor k, N Y : Teachers College Press. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (6), 582. Dewey, J. (1910/1 No 7) How we think. Boston, MA: D C Heath. Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education New York, NY: The Free Press.

PAGE 574

574 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, N Y: Simon and Schuster. Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How st udents understand the NOS from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (2), 234 256. Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. No. Bulletin 3. Economic Research Service/U SD A. Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.) (2011). National research agenda: American Association for Agricultural Education's research priority areas for 2011 2015. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and Communicat ions. Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1 No 9). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16 (1). Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.html Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1 No 9). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 41 1 430. Dori, Y. J., Tal, T., & Tsauschu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87 767 793. doi:10.1002/sce.10081 Drache, H. M. (1 No 6). History of U.S agriculture and its relevance to today Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, Inc. Driscoll, M. P. (1 No 4). Psychology of learning for instruction. Upper Saddle River, N J: Pearson Education. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1 No 6). Young peo ple's mages of science. Buckingham, U K: Open University Press. Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching Washington, D C: University Press of America, Inc. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation disc ourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (1), 39 72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187 Dyer, J. E. (1995). Effects of teaching approach on achievement, retention, and problem solving ability of Illinois agricultural education students with varying learning styles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

PAGE 575

575 Eastwood, J. L., Schlegel, W. M., & Cook, K. L. (2011). Effects of an interdisciplinary program on students' reasoning with socioscientific issues and p erceptions of their learning experiences. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the classroom (pp. 89 131). New York, N Y: Springer. Eilks, I. (2010). Making chemistry teaching relevant and promoting scientific literacy by focusing on authentic a nd controversial socioscientific issues. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Didactics in Chemistry and Physics, Pot SD am, Germany. Enger, S. K., & Yager, R. E. (Eds.) (1 No 8). The Iowa assessment handbook. Iowa City, IA : The University of Iowa. Federico, G. (2005). Feeding the world: An economic history of agriculture, 1800 2000 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy making: Eleven emerging issues (ED 2007/WS/51 CLD 2855.7). United Natio ns Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Section for Science, Technical, and Vocatio nal Education. Retrieved from: h ttps://www.n tnu.no/wiki/download/attachments/11273030/Fensham_SCIENCE+E DUCATION+POLICY MAKING.pdf Flowers, J. L. (1986). Effects of problem solving approach on achievement, retention, and attitudes of vocational agriculture students in Illinois. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.) (1 No 6). Constructivism. Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY : Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1982). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Halper n, D. F. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hill SD ale, N J: Erlbaum. Harvard Graduate School. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Harvard Graduate School. Harvard University, Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. (1945). General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social scie nces. New York NY : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (1 No 1). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy New York, NY: Anchor Books Doubleday.

PAGE 576

576 Hennessey, M. L., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003) Treatment fidelity in rehabilitation resea rch Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 123 126. Hillison, J. (1 No 6). The origins of agriscience: Or where did all that scientific agriculture come from? Journal of Agricultural Education, 37 (4), 8 13. doi: 10.5032/jae.1 No 6.04008 Hogan, K. (2002). A sociocultural analysis of school and community settings as sites for developing environmental practitioners. Environmental Education Research, 8 (4), 413 437. Hopkins, J. A. (1973). Changing technology and employment in agriculture Madison, WI: Da Capo Pr ess. Huck, S. W. (2008) Reading Statistics and Research (5 th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16 13 16. Jimenez Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6) 757 792. doi: 10.1002/1098 237X Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4 (1), 17 20. Ju rs, S. G., & Glass, G. V. (1971). Experimental mortality. Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 62 66. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching NOS within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teach ing, 43 110 120. Klosterman, M. I., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Multi level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (8), 1017 1043. doi:10.1080/09 500690902894512 Knobloch, N. A. (2003). Is experiential learning authentic? Journal of Agricultural Education, 44 ( 4 ), 22 34. doi: 10.5031/jae.2003.04022 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development Princ eton, N J: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A., & Kolb, A. Y. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education (p. 45 92). New York, N Y: Nova Scien ce.

PAGE 577

577 Kolsto, S. D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,...' pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 877 901. doi:10.1080/09500690010016102 Kuhn, D. (1 No 1). The Skills of A rgument. Cambridge, M A: Cambridge University Press. Lancelot, W. H. (1944). Permanent learning: A study of educational techniques. New York, N Y: John Wiley & Sons. Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004) Treatment integrity: An essential but often forgotten component of school based interventions Preventing School Failure, 48, 36 43. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. Laugksch, R. C. (1 No 9). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overvie w. Science Education, 84 (1), 71 94. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 15 11 24. Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (2001). Integrating scie nce into agricultural education: A survey of South Carolina teachers' perceptions. Preceedings of the 28 th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, L A Lederman, N. G. (2006). NOS : Past, present, and future. Mahwah, N J: Erlb aum. Lee, M. K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science technology society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (11), 1315 1327. doi:10.1080/09500690600972974 L incoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lynham, S. A. (2000) Theory building in the human resource development profession Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11 (2), 159 178. Lynham, S. A. (2002) The general method of theory building research in applied disciplines Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4 (3), 221 241. doi: 10.1177/1523422302043002 Majchrowicz, T. A. (1 No 0). Agriculture: A critical U.S. industry. In Yearbook United States Department of A gri culture (pp. 2 5). Washington, D C: United States Department of Agriculture. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112 (2), 29 48.

PAGE 578

578 Mitzel, H. (1960). Teacher effectiveness. In C. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (3 rd ed.) (p p. 1481). New York, N Y: MacMillan. Myers, B. W. (2004). Effects of investigative laboratory integration on student content knowledge and science process skill achievement across learning styles. Unpublished doctoral diss ertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Myers, B. E., Thoron, A. C., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy toward integrating science into school based agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50 (4), 120 133. d oi: 10.5032/jae.2009.04120 Myers, B. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2008). Integrating science in the agriculture curriculum: Agriculture teacher perceptions of the opportunities, barriers, and impact on student enrollme nt. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49 (2), 27 38. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.02007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). The third assessment of science, 1976 77. Denver C O: Author. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. (2010). N ational center for case study teaching in science. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/ National Education Association. (1918). Cardinal prin ciples of secondary education: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (Education Bulletin No. 35). Washington, D C: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Education Association. (1920). Reorganization of science in seco ndary schools: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 20). Washington, D C: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directio ns for education. Washington, D C: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (1 No 6). National science education standards No. 4962). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2009). Transforming agricultural educati on for a changing world Washington, D C: National Academies Press. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1 No 9). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553 576.

PAGE 579

579 Osborne, E. W. (Ed.) (n.d.). National research agenda: Agricultural education and communication, 2007 2010. Gainesville, F L: University of Florida, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of a rgumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), No 4 1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035 Parr, B., & Edwards, M. C. (2004). Inquiry based instruction in secondary agricultural education: Problem solving an old friend revisited. Jo urnal of Agricultural Education, 45 (4), 106 117. doi: 10.5032/jae.2004.04106 Pense, S. L., Beebe, J. D., Leising, J. G., Wakefield, D. B., & Steffen, R. W. (2006) The agricultural literacy of urban/suburban and rural twelfth grade students in five Illinoi s high schools: An ex post facto study. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 56 (1), 5 17. Pense, S. L., & Leising, J. G. (2004) An assessment of food and fiber systems knowledge in selected Oklahoma high schools. Journal of Agricultural Ed ucation, 45 (3), 86 96. doi: 10.5032/jae.2004.03086 Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008) Handbook on Agricultural Education (6 th ed.) Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Piaget, J. (1981) Creativity In The Learning Theory of Piaget and Inhelder edited by J. Gallagher and K. Reid, p. 221 229 Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole. Randell, R. S., Arrington, L. R., & Cheek, J. G. (1 No 3). The relationship of supervised agricultural experience program participation and student achievemen t in practical skills in agricultural science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (1), 26 32. doi: 1 0.5032/jae.1 No 3.01026 Roberts, T. G. (2006). A philosophical examination of experiential learning theory for agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultu ral Education, 47 (1), 17 29. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.01017 Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88 (2), 263 291. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 513 536. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45 1 42. Sadler, T. D. ( Ed.) (2011). Socioscientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and Research New York, N Y: Springer.

PAGE 580

580 Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives an d strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (4), 353 376. doi:10.1002/tea.20142 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37 371 391. doi: 1 0.1007/s11165 006 9030 9 Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptuions of the NOS in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (4), 387 409. doi:10.1080/0950069032000119456 Sadler, T D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006) A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation Science Education, 90 986 1004. doi: 10.1002/sce.20165 Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. I., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and s ocioscientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 45 77). New York, N Y: Springer. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). S cientific errors, atrocities, and blunders. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socoscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (p p 261 288). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Shelly Tolbert, C. A., Conroy, C. A., & Dail ey, A. L. (2000). The move to agriscience and its impact on teacher education in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41 (4), 51 61. doi: 10.5032/jae.2000.04051 Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (in press). Teachers' use of agricultural laboratori es in secondary agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education. Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2012). Considering professional identity to enhance agriculture teacher development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52 (4). doi: 10.5032/jae.201 1.04088 Showalter, V. M. (1974). What is united science education? part 5. program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism II, 2 (3/4) Simonneaus, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students' socioscientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of edu cation for sustainable development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4 657 687. doi : 10.1007/s11422 008 9141 x

PAGE 581

581 S mylie, M. A. (1 No 9). Teacher stress in a time of reform. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. & Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teach er burnout, pp. 59 84. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tal, T., Kali, Y., Magid, S., & Madhok, J. J. (2011). Enhancing the authenticity of a web based module for teaching simple inheritance. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the c lassroom: Teaching, learning and research pp. 11 38. New York, N Y: Springer. Tal, T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in israel. Science Education International, 14 (4), 3 19. The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, & Society for Human Research Management. (2006). Are they really ready to work? E mployers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The Conference Board. Thoron, A. C. (2010) Effects of inquiry based agriscience instruction on student argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesvill e, FL. Torrance, E. P. (1963). Toward the more humane education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 7 135 145. Torres, R. M., Ulmer, J., & Aschenbrener, M. S. (2008). Workload distribution among agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Educa tion, 49 (2), 75 87. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.02075 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service & Perdue University, (2 005). Employment Opportunities for College Graduates in the U.S. Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resources System (2004 38837 02875). West Lafayette, I N: Perdue University. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological proce sses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wadsworth, B. J. (1 No 6) Foundations of c onstructivism (5 th ed.) White Plains, NY: Longman. Warnick, B. K., & Thompson, G. W. (2007). Barriers, suppor t, and collaboration: A of science into the agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48 (1), 75 85. doi: 10.5032/jae.2007.01075

PAGE 582

582 Wlodkowski, R. J. (1977). Motivation and teaching: A practical guide. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. (2008). International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1417 1439. doi:10.1080/09500690701528808 World Development Report (2008) Agriculture for development: World development report 2008 (2007). Washington, D C: The World Bank. Yager, S. O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middl e school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248 260. Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university based teacher educator on the future of college and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 326. doi: 10.1177/0 022487105285893 Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17 (8 9), 7 No 803. d oi: 10.1007/s11191 007 9130 6 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74 101. doi:10.1002/tea.20281 Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in t he NOS and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86 (3) 343 367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Sci ence Teaching, 39, 35 62.

PAGE 583

583 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Catherine W. Shoulders was born and raised in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Her interest in agriculture began as a girl scout, when a trip to go horseback riding started a lifelong passion for tr aining horses. Although her high school did not offer agricultural education, Catherine spent most of her nonacademic time learning how to ride, train, and care for horses at Gwyn Meadows Farm. After graduating from the Honors Program at North Penn High S chool in 2001, Catherine pursued her undergraduate degree in Equine Science at Murray State University, in Murray, Kentucky, where she was a student of the Honors Program. During her junior year, Catherine switched majors to Agricultural Education. She bec ame a McNair Scholar, and completed an undergraduate thesis focusing on the research was accepted to be presented at the Southern Region American Association of Agricultur al Educators annual conference in 2005, where she first began to consider pursuing a Ph.D. Graduating summa cum laude with an Honors Diploma Catherine was named the 2005 Outstanding Senior in Agricultural Education. Following the completion of her B.S. d egree in 2005, Catherine accepted a female agriculture teacher. During her four years as an agriculture teacher, Catherine taught multiple courses related to animal science an d agribiology, as well as served on facility, and designed, oversaw construction, and managed the facility during her final year teaching.

PAGE 584

584 While employed as an agriculture teacher, Catherine received both her M.S. in agriculture and her M.A. in administration. Upon completion of her M.A., she enrolled in the graduate program at the University of Florida. She began a fellowship in the Communication Department in August of 2009 under the advisement of Dr. Brian E. Myers. Through her fellowship responsibilities, Catherine taught numerous courses for the department, supervised teaching interns, and conducted qualitative and quantitative re search related to the integration of science in agricultural education. Her work with the department led to her receiving several regional research awards, as well as college, university, and national teaching awards.