Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Knowledge and Attitudes of Tennessee Agriculture Education Teachers
to Agri-tourism and Marketing Issues
A Project Presented for the Master of Systems Science in Agriculture Degree
The University of Tennessee, Martin
Doug Snider
May 2011
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people that I would like to thank for helping me complete this
major accomplishment in my life. I would like to acknowledge all my professors. Their
assistance and experience was an integral part of this project. I would like to thank Dr.
Barbara Darroch and Dr. Scott Parrott for their assistance in the statistical portion of the
project. I would like to thank Dr. Joey Mehlhorn for his assistance for helping me come
up with this project as well as keeping me on target through this process. I would also
like to thank Dr. Timothy Burcham for his assistance in helping me develop better time
management skills. All of these professors were encouraging and very considerate,
which made me feel like I was a part of the MSANR family.
Special acknowledgement goes to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Snider, my parents, for
their love, understanding, and encouragement through many years of education.
iii
ABSTRACT
Agri-tourism in Tennessee is an expanding and important concept that is
attracting interest. Increasing farm profits, enhancing regional revenues and allowing
visitors realize the importance of Tennessee’s agricultural economy is a priority in the
state’s economic plan. It is important for the future of Tennessee that the students
enrolled in agricultural classes understand the importance of agri-tourism. More
importantly, research that documents agricultural teacher’s knowledge, understanding,
and perception of agri-tourism is vital. The objectives of this study were designed to
determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s high schools and to discover
agriculture teachers’ perceptions of agri-tourism and marketing issues.
A 45-question survey was developed to address the objectives of the study.
Questions on the survey asked respondents about their knowledge and perceptions of
agri-tourism, as well as their attitudes towards agri-tourism and alternative agricultural
markets. The survey was sent to 322 high school agriculture teachers with a 23%
return rate.
This study suggests it may be beneficial to both teachers and students if more
outreach programs are developed and the state government begins incorporating agri-
tourism into Tennessee’s agriculture curriculum. The data illustrate that a significant
number of respondents know about agri-tourism and its importance, but there is more
that can be done to inform educators about the importance of agri-tourism to their local
economy. Thirty six percent of west Tennessee respondents failed to see this
importance. West Tennessee policy makers need to investigate the importance of agri-
tourism through the help of further education and promotion.
iv
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................................................... 4
Defining Agri-tourism ............................................................................................................................. 4 Agri-tourism in Tennessee .................................................................................................................... 5 Types of Agri-tourism Attractions in Tennessee ................................................................................ 6 Location of Attractions ........................................................................................................................... 9 Benefits of Teaching Agriculture in Schools ....................................................................................... 9 Requirements of Teachers .................................................................................................................. 12 Present Requirements and Curriculum ............................................................................................. 12 How Materials Are Taught .................................................................................................................. 13
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Instrument Design ................................................................................................................................ 15 Survey Population ................................................................................................................................ 16 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Variables ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 17
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Survey Results for each Research Objective .................................................................................. 23 Objective 1: To determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s agricultural
curriculum. ............................................................................................................................. 23 Objective 2: To determine if Tennessee agricultural teachers believe agri-tourism is a
viable aspect to Tennessee’s economy and national economy. ................................... 26 Objective 3: To determine how Tennessee agricultural teachers perceive agri-tourism. ......... 33 Objective 4: To determine if Tennessee’s agricultural teachers would be willing to use
other resources to teach agri-tourism. ............................................................................... 33
SUMMARY, KEY FINDINGS, AND IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................... 39
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 39 Key Findings and Implications ............................................................................................................ 39
Objective 1: To determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s agricultural curriculum .......................................................................................................................................... 40
Objective 2: To determine if Tennessee agricultural teachers believe agri-tourism is a viable aspect to Tennessee’s economy and the national economy ...................................... 40
v
Objective 3: To determine how Tennessee agricultural teachers perceive agri-tourism ...... 42
Objective 4: To determine if Tennessee’s agricultural teachers would be willing to use other resources to teach agri-tourism ............................................................................... 42
Implications of Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 43
Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A IRB Letter from University of Tennessee at Martin ....................................................... 47
Appendix B Survey Questions ............................................................................................................... 48
Appendix C Results of Questionnaire from Survey Monkey ............................................................. 52
vi
List of Tables Table 1: Number of Tennessee agri-tourism enterprises and types of attractions
in 2004 according to Bruch and Holland (2004) ............................................................... 8 Table 2: Secondary course enrollment by program area and percentage of CTE
students enrolled per area in Tennessee during 2008 ................................................... 11 Table 3: Geographic breakdown of Tennessee into three regions and the counties
located within each region ................................................................................................... 22 Table 4: Comparison of P-Values from chi-squared analysis to determine relationships
and responses to selected survey questions among age of teachers, three major regions of Tennessee, and number of years teaching......................................... 25
Table 5: Results of using ordered logit for determining how respondents interpret the
importance of agri-tourism to the economy of their county according to the three regions of Tennessee ................................................................................................ 32
Table 6: Results of using ordered logit for determining the likelihood of Tennessee
high school agriculture teachers to include agri-tourism into course curriculum according to three regions of Tennessee ...................................................... 36
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Locations of agri-tourism enterprises responding to surveys on agri-tourism in Tennessee in 2003 and 2004 (from Bruch and Holland, 2004) .................................. 7
Figure 2: Demographic of respondents’ age .................................................................................... 19 Figure 3: Demographic of respondents’ educational background ................................................ 19 Figure 4: Demographic of number of years respondents’ have been teaching .......................... 20 Figure 5: Demographic of high school classification of respondents’ schools ............................ 20 Figure 6: Demographic of average classroom size ......................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Comparison of the number of respondents in each region of Tennessee .................. 24 Figure 8: Comparison of premium percentages that respondents are willing to pay for
locally grown products ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 9: Interpretation of the importance agri-tourism has in the U.S. agricultural
economy by region of Tennessee ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 10: Interpretation of the importance agri-tourism has in the U.S. agricultural
economy by number of years teaching ............................................................................. 29 Figure 11: Respondent’s interpretation of the importance of agri-tourism to county,
state, and the U.S. agricultural economy .......................................................................... 30 Figure 12: Respondents’ attitudes toward the importance of agri-tourism in their
county by region of Tennessee .......................................................................................... 30 Figure 13: Likelihood that teachers would include agri-tourism in course curriculum
according to region of Tennessee ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 14: Likelihood that teachers would include agri-tourism in course curriculum by age .. 38
viii
1
INTRODUCTION
The opportunity for a consumer to spend the day as a farmer or participate in
rural living is beginning to become very popular. Rural bed and breakfasts, pick-your-
own Christmas tree farms, on-farm horseback riding, on-farm fishing, corn mazes, and
farmers’ markets are just a few of the agricultural attractions that are developing across
the nation. As commodity prices fluctuate and input costs continue to increase, many
farmers look for alternative ways to insure the sustainability of the farm operation. Agri-
tourism can be a viable option for such farmers. The importance of agri-tourism can be
seen in today’s rural areas. According to Carpio et al. (2008), agri-tourism brings
diversification opportunities to farmers and ranchers, which can help buffer fluctuating
markets, and can be looked at as an integral part of the producer’s overall business
plan. Agri-tourism is both demand and supply driven. On the supply side, farmers and
ranchers have used agri-tourism to diversify their income because of economic
pressures. People’s interest in the farm and farm activities has increased the demand
for agri-tourism (Carpio et al., 2008). In 2008, it was estimated that U.S. agri-tourism
generated $800 million to $3 billion per year (Carpio et al., 2008). There is no doubt
that agri-tourism can play a role in rural economics. It is vital that today’s farmers have
an understanding of how important agri-tourism is to their survival and economic
stability. An assessment of the awareness of agri-tourism and agri-business by
Tennessee high school educators is needed to develop a base line for future studies.
2
Significance of the Study
It is vital that today’s farmers have an understanding of how important agri-
tourism is to their survival and economic stability. Agri-tourism is not only important to
the income of the farmer, but it is an important aspect of the national economy. Before
farmers can benefit from agri-tourism they must be aware of what it is and how they can
increase revenue from these endeavors. An assessment of the awareness of agri-
tourism and agri-business by Tennessee high school educators is needed to develop a
base line for future studies.
First, the study will determine if teachers understand what agri-tourism actually
means. Teachers who understand what agri-tourism means are more likely to include it
when teaching future farmers and employers. A study of this type can show how agri-
tourism is taught or if it is even taught at all.
Second, it is important to understand how high school teachers feel about
agricultural and general economics. Understanding teacher’s perception of economics
would give more insight into how they are teaching agricultural economics in their
agricultural classes.
Finally, this study can show if teachers would be willing to use other forms of
materials such as the internet, magazines, books, PowerPoint, or pamphlets as
teaching aids. This could provide insight on ways to improve the curriculum to include
topics such as agri-tourism.
This study can make an impact educationally. With feedback from secondary
agricultural teachers, Tennessee’s curriculum could be analyzed and improved. For
3
example, if feedback shows that teachers don’t know much about agri-tourism, then a
curriculum could be developed that incorporates agri-tourism. Research on the current
curriculum in Tennessee would ultimately improve the awareness and importance of
agri-tourism to students. Improvement in the curriculum is important because agri-
tourism is an important tool that can enhance revenues for small farms.
Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of how high school
vocational agriculture teachers perceive agri-tourism. Specifically four objectives were
identified:
1. To determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s agricultural
curriculum;
2. To determine if agricultural teachers in Tennessee believe agri-tourism is a
viable aspect to Tennessee’s economy and to the national economy;
3. To determine how agricultural teachers in Tennessee perceive agri-tourism;
4. To determine if Tennessee’s agricultural teachers would be willing to use
other resources to teach agri-tourism.
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Defining Agri-tourism
Agri-tourism comes from two basic words: agriculture and tourism. Because this
concept is relatively new and the agricultural industry is always changing, it is difficult to
characterize by one definition. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
agri-tourism is defined as “the practice of touring agricultural areas to see farms and
often to participate in farm activities” (Merriam-Webster, 2010). The United States
Department of Agriculture describes agri-tourism as “any farm-based recreation or on
farm entertainment–related activities, including hunting, fishing, petting zoos, horseback
riding, and on-farm rodeos” (Brown and Reeder, 2007). Because agri-tourism is
becoming more important, other agencies have defined it in the following ways:
• Colorado Department of Agriculture: “Activities, events and services related to
agriculture that take place on or off the farm or ranch, and that connect
consumers with the heritage, natural resource or culinary experiences they
value” (Colorado Department of Agriculture, 2010).
• National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: “New, highly consumer-
focused types of agriculture” (Adam, 2004).
• Virginia law: “Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of
the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to
view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical,
cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions” (Walker,
2009).
5
Clearly, there is more than one definition for agri-tourism; a ‘universal’ definition
does not exist. For the purpose of this study, the following definition of agri-tourism will
be used: “An activity, enterprise or business which combines primary elements and
characteristics of Tennessee agriculture and tourism and provides an experience for
visitors which stimulates economic activity and impacts farm and community income”
(Center for Profitable Agriculture, 2003).
The importance of agri-tourism is being realized around the nation and has
recently been acknowledged. In May 2003, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture
(TDA) proposed a new and innovative idea. The Tennessee Agri-tourism Initiative is a
long-term business campaign aimed at increasing farm income, rural economic activity,
and generating exposure for Tennessee’s agricultural-based attractions (Center for
Profitable Agriculture, 2003). The initiative has great potential to help many farms and
other operations in Tennessee by increasing income to both individuals and the state.
Agri-tourism in Tennessee
A recent report from the Center for Profitable Agriculture at the University of
Tennessee showed the importance of agri-tourism in Tennessee. According to tourism
officials, more than 37 million travelers come to Tennessee every year (Bruch and
Holland, 2004). In 2002, 3.5 million people visited agri-tourism attractions in Tennessee
and brought an average of $400 to each agri-tourism attraction that was visited. This
resulted in more than $10 billion dollars added to Tennessee’s economy helping to
support more than 173,000 people employed in the agri-tourism industry (Bruch and
Holland, 2004).
6
Bruch and Holland (2004) conducted a study to identify characteristics of the
agri-tourism enterprises that may be addressed through research, teaching, and
outreach. Of the 625 existing enterprises that were contacted by telephone, 210 agri-
tourism enterprises responded to the survey; the response rate was 34% (Bruch and
Holland, 2004). The following year, another report was conducted by the Tennessee
Agri-Tourism Steering Committee. A follow-up study gathered more detailed
information and determined if there was any change within a year (Bruch and Holland,
2004). The 2004 study was sent by email and had a response rate of 48 percent
(Jensen et al., 2005). Agri-tourism attractions that responded to the survey were
located throughout the state of Tennessee (Figure 1).
Types of Agri-tourism Attractions in Tennessee
The type of attraction offered by a farm depends on the type of farm and the
person running the operation. Many farms have more than one attraction. Bruch and
Holland (2004), reported that 80% of survey respondents offered more than one
attraction. The survey asked the respondents to identify the type of enterprise
according to the survey’s 17 predetermined categories which included: on-farm retail
market, on-farm tours, pick-your-own attraction, etc. The survey showed that 61.4% of
respondents had on-farm retail markets, 43.8% had on-farm tours, 25.2% offer a pick-
your-own attraction, and 51.4% included an attraction in the “Other” category (Table 1).
7
Figure 1: Locations of agri-tourism enterprises responding to surveys on agri-tourism in Tennessee in 2003 and 2004 (from Bruch and Holland, 2004)
8
Table 1: Number of Tennessee agri-tourism enterprises and types of attractions in 2004 according to Bruch and Holland (2004)
Attraction Type Number of Enterprises
Percent of Enterprises
On-farm retail market 129 61.4 On-farm tour 92 43.8 Pick-your-own farm 53 25.2 On-farm petting zoo 39 18.6 Pumpkin patches 39 18.6 Agriculture-related festival 36 17.1 "Century" farms 24 11.4 Agriculture-related fair 23 11 Corn maze 22 10.5 Cut-your-own Christmas trees 20 9.5 Farmers' market 20 9.5 Agriculture-related museum 18 8.6 On-farm bed and breakfast 15 7.1 Winery 15 7.1 On-farm vacation 11 5.2 On-farm fee-fishing 8 3.8 On-farm horseback riding 8 3.8 Other 108 51.4
9
Location of Attractions
Agri-tourism attractions are located across the state of Tennessee (Figure 1), but
the diversity of attractions varies with region. In less populated areas, there tends to be
fewer attractions. Highly populated areas of the state and areas with larger numbers of
tourists had more attractions. Bruch and Holland (2004) divided the state into three
regions and determined where the greatest densities of attractions were located. The
report showed that east Tennessee had more agri-tourism attractions.
Benefits of Teaching Agriculture in Schools
The history of agriculture being taught in U.S. school systems can be traced back
to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The Smith-Hughes Act was passed by congress and
gave federal funding to school systems for the vocational teaching of any students who
wanted to go into the agricultural industry. With the passing of the Smith-Hughes Act in
1917, agricultural education joined other areas and became vocational in nature
(Hillison, 1996). Before the Smith-Hughes Act was passed, there was no coordinated
curriculum for agriculture.
Hillison (1996) agrees that all students need an understanding of science and
that teaching science through agriculture would incorporate more agriculture into a
curriculum. Before the Smith-Hughes Act was passed, schools were uncertain about
the requirements for agriculture teachers and whether or not they needed to find
specific people to teach agriculture (Hillison, 1987). After the Smith-Hughes Act was
passed, there was a dramatic increase in the number of schools that offered instruction
in agriculture. Roberson and Jenks (1913) reported that in the 1906-07 school year
there were fewer than 100 schools that offered agriculture instruction. In the following
10
year, the number increased to 250 schools, then doubled to 500 in the 1908-09 school
year. By the 1909-10 school year, there were 1,800 schools that were offering
instruction in agriculture (Roberson and Jenks, 1913). The number grew to 3,675
schools, with more than 73,000 students enrolled in agriculture programs, in the 1915-
16 school year (True, 1929). The need for qualified teachers and proper requirements
was now apparent.
In 2008/2009, the Tennessee Career and Technical Education Council released
their biennial report where they noted that there were 377,634 students in grades 7
through 12 enrolled in career and technical education (CTE) courses. There are 104
programs of study that have been developed, and these are taught in 125 Tennessee
school districts (Tennessee Department of Education, 2010b). Tennessee also has the
most secondary Career and Technical Student Organizations (CTSOs) in the nation. In
2008, 65,000 students enrolled in these organizations. The eight major organizations
are DECA (Marketing), FBLA (Business), FCCLA (Family and Consumer Sciences),
FFA (Agriculture), HOSA (Health Sciences), Skills USA (T&I), TSA (Technology
Engineering), and TCA (Jobs of Tennessee Graduates) (Tennessee Department of
Education, 2010b). These organizations are critical to the curriculum because they
prepare students for jobs and leadership roles they will face once they leave high
school. In 2008, Agriculture was the fourth largest program area in career and technical
education course with 11% of CTE students (Table 2). It fell behind Business
Technology, Trade and Industry, and Family and Consumer Sciences. Because of
these organizations, graduation rates in Tennessee have reached 92.3% (Tennessee
Department of Education, 2010b).
11
Table 2: Secondary course enrollment by program area and percentage of CTE students enrolled per area in Tennessee during 2008
Program Area Enrollment Percentage Agriculture 33,822 11 Business Technology 92,093 29 Family and Consumer Sciences 55,652 17 Health Sciences 24,562 8 Marketing 16,663 5 Technology Engineering 9,137 3 Trade and Industry 87,722 27 Total 319,651
*From Tennessee Department of Education, 2010b
12
Requirements of Teachers
After dramatic increases in enrollment in agriculture programs in the early 1900s,
there was increased demand for agricultural teachers in the schools. At first, there was
difficulty in determining who would teach agriculture classes. Garland Bricker (1914)
believed that the most qualified people for teaching agriculture were those who had
been raised on a farm (as sited in Hillison, 1987). Bricker believed that people who had
been raised on a farm would have the best experience because they had been in the
agricultural industry. However, Bricker’s idea caught much criticism, so he proposed
that teachers should come from agriculture education departments of normal schools or
colleges, and that colleges should give definite training in theory and practice of
teaching the subject to all grades of educational institutions (Bricker, 1914).
Present Requirements and Curriculum
The requirements for today’s teachers are similar to those established by
Garland Bricker in 1914. According to the Tennessee Department of Education,
teachers pursuing careers in Tennessee must meet the following requirements:
1) Successfully complete a preparation program in the area of interest at an
approved teacher education institution;
2) Pass Praxis Series Exams required by Tennessee;
3) Be recommended for licensure by the Dean of Education and the
Certification Office of the college/university;
13
Upon completion of these requirements, the teacher is allowed to teach in the
area of agricultural education (Tennessee Department of Education, 2010b). Bricker
realized the importance of using people in the agriculture industry to teach agricultural
classes. This means that the teacher doesn’t have to come straight from a farm, but
must have training in agricultural education.
How Materials Are Taught
In addition to the standard agriculture curriculum, supervised agricultural
experience (SAE) programs have been an important tool for teaching students since the
Smith-Hughes Act. SAE programs allow students to put agricultural experiences into
practice under the supervision of an advisor (Southerland, 2010). Dyer (1997)
conducted research on the benefits of SAE programs over a thirty year period, from
1964 to 1993. He did a library search of articles, papers and dissertations, and found
that teachers in Tennessee perceived the greatest benefits from SAE programs,
compared to teachers in New York, Missouri, Alabama, and Texas. Teachers in
Tennessee noted that the program enhanced classroom instruction, developed
management skills, aided in career preparation, linked agriculture with FFA, and built
character (Dyer, 1997). Students also gained from SAE programs. Students showed
interest learning on their own, accepted responsibility better, developed independence,
took pride of ownership, and learned to appreciate work (Pals, 1988).
The Tennessee Department of Education’s Agriculture Standards and
Competency profiles for the 2009-2015 Agri-business, Food Products, and Process
Systems curriculum do not require teachers to teach agri-tourism (Tennessee
Department of Education, 2010a). The principles of agricultural business, agricultural
14
economics, agricultural marketing, and communications are taught primarily to 11th and
12th grade students (Tennessee Department of Education, 2010a). Holland and Bruch
(2004) noted that one of the main obstacles that agri-tourism enterprises faced was the
need for education and outreach.
15
METHODOLOGY
Agri-tourism is a growing part of the agricultural industry both nationally and in
the state of Tennessee. The methodology of this study was designed to address the
objectives of this study.
Instrument Design
A 45-question survey was developed to address the objectives of the study
(Appendix B). Questions on the survey asked the respondents about their knowledge
and perceptions of agri-tourism and marketing and their attitudes towards agri-tourism
and alternative agricultural markets. A Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly
agree was used where appropriate. The survey included both qualitative and
quantitative questions. The last portion of the survey included demographic questions
including gender, age, years of teaching experience, and background.
The first page of the survey explained to the respondent the purpose and design
of the research. It clearly stated that no personal information would be assigned and
that all participation was completely voluntary. Before being electronically sent, the
survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Tennessee
at Martin (IRB 11-27-EOS-4005/Snid,Dou; Appendix A). Prior to sending the survey, a
panel of students and professors were given the survey to confirm its validity. Students
given the survey were about the same age as teachers beginning their careers after
leaving college.
16
Survey Population
The mailing list for the survey was comprised of all high school agriculture
teachers in Tennessee. The list was provided by the University of Tennessee at
Martin’s Department of Agriculture, Geosciences, and Natural Resources. A total of
322 email addresses were placed into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. If a contact on
the list had more than one email address, then the school email address was used to
increase the probability of contact. Of the 322 emails sent, only 10 contacts requested
to “not receive any more surveys”. These contacts were removed from the list.
Data Collection
Survey MonkeyTM was used to administer the survey and to collect data for this
study. The survey was emailed on September 17, 2010 to all respondents. On
September 24, 2010, a second email was sent to remind the participants of the due
date. Survey Monkey kept track of all participants that had completed the survey to
insure that those who completed the survey would not receive further emails. At this
point there were a total of 30 responses. On October 1, 2010, the last reminder was
emailed to the survey participants informing them of the due date of October 8, 2010.
The survey was completed on October 8, 2010. A total of 73 surveys were completed
for a 23% response rate.
Once the survey was completed, Survey Monkey results were downloaded into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis.
17
Variables
The independent variables in the study were the agricultural teachers’
demographics, including their age, location (west, middle, or east Tennessee),
educational background, total years teaching, are they currently farming, classification
of school, and knowledge of agri-tourism and marketing.
The dependent variable was the respondents’ attitudes towards agri-tourism and
alternative agricultural marketing.
Data Analysis
SAS 9.2 statistics software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used for data analysis.
The data analyzed was chosen to fulfill the needs of the four study objectives. The chi-
squared test using the Proc FREQ procedure was used because the data were
categorical. A maximum significance level of 0.10 was used to establish whether or not
the hypothesized relationships were statistically significant. In order to develop a
deeper and more detailed understanding the survey responses, ordered logit models
were also developed. The ordered logit models are particularly useful for
polychotomous dependent variables that have a natural ranking. These models are
appropriate for this study since respondents were asked to rank their opinions of several
key questions.
18
RESULTS
Detailed results for each question in the survey can be seen in Appendix C. Of
the 73 respondents, 72.9% (51 respondents) were male and 27.1% (19 respondents)
were female. The age categories for this study ranged from 20 to 61+. The largest
group of participants (20%) was 51-55 years of age followed by 17% in the 31-35
category, and 14% in the 20-25 category (Figure 2).
The highest education levels of the respondents varied from a bachelor’s degree
(47%), to a master’s degree (31%) (Figure 3). Some of the respondents had a master’s
degree plus 30 credit hours (9%) or a master’s degree plus 45 credit hours (9%). Only
2 respondents had their doctorate. There was also a wide range of the number of years
experience teaching. The largest group (29%) had been teaching for 1-5 years, while
7% had been teaching for more than 35 years (Figure 4). More than 60% of the
respondents have been teaching for less than 15 years. School size of the respondents
was distributed more evenly, with most of the respondents teaching in class 1A, 3A, 4A,
and 5A schools (Figure 5).
When asked about average class size, most respondents had either 21-25
students per class (47% of the respondents) or 16-20 students per class (40% of the
respondents) (Figure 6).
The state of Tennessee is comprised of 95 counties. These counties comprise
three geographic locations within Tennessee. These locations are west, middle, and
east (Table 3). In terms of geographic location of the respondents, 37.3% (25
respondents) were located in west Tennessee, 22.4% (15 respondents) were located in
19
Figure 2: Demographic of respondent’s age
Figure 3: Demographic of respondent’s educational background
10
7
12
65
7
14
54
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Age
33
22
6 6
1 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Education
20
Figure 4: Demographic of how many years respondents have been teaching
Figure 5: Demographic of high school classification of respondents’ schools
20
11
14
5
8
3 4 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Number of Years Teaching
14
9
15
1112
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
High School Classification
21
Figure 6: Demographic of average classroom size
3 3
29
34
2 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Average Size of Classroom
Table 3l
*Maps of http://ref
: Geographlocated wit
R
M
Tennessee aference.findta
hic breakdthin each rRegion
West
Middle
East
re from arget.com/se
down of Teregion
arch/Grand%
22
nnessee in
BentonDyer, FHaywoLauderTipton,
BedforCumbeFentreHumphLincolnMontgoPutnamStewarWarren
AndersCampbGreeneHawkinMarionPolk, RSulliva
%20Divisions%
nto three r
n, Carroll, ChFayette, Gibood, Hendersrdale, Madis, Weakley
rd, Cannon, erland, Davidss, Franklinhreys, Jacksn, Macon, Momery, Moom, Robersonrt, Sumner, Tn, Wayne, W
son, Bledsoebell, Carter, e, Grundy, Hns, Jeffersonn, McMinn, MRhea, Roanean, Unicoi, U
%20of%20Ten
egions and
Counties
hester, Crocson, Hardemson, Henry,
son, McNairy
Cheatham, dson, Dekal, Giles, Hick
son, Lawrencarshall, Maure, Overton,n, RutherfordTrousdale, V
White, William
e, Blount, BrClaiborne, C
Hamblen, Han, Johnson, Meigs, Monroe, Scott, Seqnion, Washi
nnessee/
d the coun
ckett, Decatuman, HardinLake,
y, Obion, Sh
Clay, Coffeeb, Dickson,
kman, Houstce, Lewis, ury, Perry, Pick
d, Smith, Van Buren, mson, Wilso
radley, Cocke, Grainancock, Knox, Loudooe, Morgan,quatchie, Sengton
nties
ur, ,
helby,
e,
on,
ett,
n
nger,
on,
evier,
23
middle Tennessee, and 40.4% (27 respondents) were located in east Tennessee
(Figure 7).
Survey Results for each Research Objective
The following results are presented in the order of the objective they answer.
Objective 1: To determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s
agricultural curriculum.
A little more than half of the respondents (52%) said that they currently teach
Agriscience, while 48% indicated that they do not. Of the teachers that said they teach
Agriscience, 12% were from west Tennessee, 10% were from middle Tennessee, and
26% were from east Tennessee. According to the chi-squared analysis, there was no
relationship between region and whether or not the respondents taught agriscience
(Table 4). When asked if the teachers also taught a course in Agribusiness or any
business related field; only 27% answered “Yes”, and 73% answered “No”. A majority
(57%) said they did cover material related to agri-tourism in any of their courses,
whereas 43% said they did not cover agri-tourism. In addition, 83% of the respondents
said they cover material related to agricultural marketing in their courses.
The most important data for Objective 1 came from examining responses to “Do
any of your textbooks cover agri-tourism topics” and “Agri-tourism should be a topic in
an Agriscience class”. A majority (82%) said their textbooks do not cover agri-tourism
topics; only 18% of respondents used textbooks that covered agri-tourism topics. The
majority of respondents (89%) agreed that agri-tourism should be a topic in an
Agriscience class.
24
Figure 7: Comparison of the number of respondents in each region of Tennessee
25
15
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
West Middle East
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Region of Tennessee
25
Table 4: Comparison of P-Values from chi-squared analysis to determine relationships and responses to selected survey questions among ages of teachers, three major regions of Tennessee, and number of years teaching
P - Value
Question
Age Region of
Tennessee
Years Teaching
Agriculture 1. Currently teach Agriscience 0.5492 0.7705 0.8342 2. Do your textbook cover agri-tourism 0.9864 0.8485 0.6280 3. Agri-tourism should be a topic in agriscience class 0.4860 0.6971 0.9267 4. Agri-tourism is important to county's economy 0.5689 0.0958 0.9234 5. Agri-tourism is important to Tennessee's agriculture
economy 0.6578 0.7687 0.3058
6. Agri-tourism is Important to U.S. agriculture economy 0.5955 0.0860 0.0276 7. To be considered agri-tourism activities must take place
on farm 0.8849 0.5985 0.2113
8. How likely would be to include agri-tourism in your course curriculum if materials were readily available
0.0211 0.0155 0.5997
*All highlighted P-Values are significant (P≤0.10).
26
Objective 2: To determine if Tennessee agricultural teachers believe agri-
tourism is a viable aspect to Tennessee’s economy and national economy.
The economic and marketing concepts concerning agri-tourism were defined by
the respondents’ answers to questions in the survey.
Questions 16 and 17 of the survey asked the respondents if they would be willing
to pay a premium for locally grown products. An overwhelming majority (99%, n=70)
said that they preferred local products over retail outlets, but only 51% of the
respondent said they would pay a premium for local products, while 49% said they
might.
Question 30 asked the respondents if they preferred to buy their food from local
sources whenever possible and 99% (70 respondents) agreed. In addition, 82% (59
respondents) agreed that local, state, and federal money should be used to help market
those local products. Question 18, which was a follow up to Question 17, asked what
would be the highest premium percentage that the respondents would be willing to pay
for locally grown products. The majority (74%) of the respondents would be willing to
pay a premium of 5 and 10% (Figure 8).
Question 25 of the survey asked the respondents if they thought that organic
products were healthier than products produced by traditional farming techniques. A
majority of 57% (41 respondents) disagreed and 35% (25 respondents) agreed.
Finally, questions 33, 34, and 35 of the survey provide the most important data
concerning Objective 2. Question 34 asked the respondents if they believed that agri-
tourism was important to Tennessee’s economy. A majority (96%) agreed. When
27
Figure 8: Comparison of premium percentages that respondents are willing to pay for locally grown products
18
28
8
71
5% Percent
10% Percent
15% Percent
20% Percent
25% Percent
>25% Percent
28
respondents were asked about the importance of agri-tourism in the U.S. agricultural
economy, 93% of respondents agreed. Chi-square analysis showed a significant
relationship (P=0.0860) between the region of the state and whether the teachers
thought agri-tourism was important to the U.S. agricultural economy (Table 4). There
were 61 of 65 respondents who agreed that agri-tourism was important to the U.S.
economy. Ninety-six percent of respondents in both east and west Tennessee agreed,
while only 86% of the respondents in middle Tennessee agreed with that statement
(Figure 9).
There was also a relationship between the number of years teaching and
the importance of agri-tourism to the U.S. economy (P=0.0276; Table 4). Of the 67
respondents that answered this question, 62 agreed. Ninety to ninety-seven percent of
teachers who had been teaching for one to 30 years agreed that agri-tourism is
important to the U.S. economy (Figure 10). Of those teaching for 31 years or more,
67% (4 respondents) agreed while 33% (2 respondents) admitted that they did not
know. There were only two that disagreed with this question. One had been teaching
for 1-10 years and the other has been teaching for 21-30 years.
When respondents were asked about the importance of agri-tourism in their
county, 70% agreed (Figure 11). Chi-square analysis did show a significant relationship
(P=0.0958; Table 4) between the region of the state and the importance of agri-tourism
to the county’s economy. Forty-seven of the 67 respondents that answered this
question agreed that agri-tourism was important to their county’s economy. Within
Tennessee, 64% (west Tennessee) to 80% (middle Tennessee) of respondents
indicated that agri-tourism was important to their county’s economy (Figure 12).
29
Figure 9: Interpretation of the importance agri-tourism has in the U.S. agricultural economy by region of Tennessee
Figure 10: Interpretation of the importance agri-tourism has in U.S. agricultural economy by numbers of years teaching
96%86%
96%
4% 4%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
West Middle East
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
W
ithin
Eac
h R
egio
n
Region
AgreeDisagreeDon’t Know
97% 95%90%
67%
3%10%
5%
33%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1‐10 11‐20 21‐30 >31
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
W
ithin
Eac
h A
ge G
roup
Number of Years Teaching
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
30
Figure 11: Respondent’s interpretation of the importance of agri-tourism to county, state, and the U.S. agricultural economy
Figure 12: Respondents’ attitudes toward the importance of agri-tourism in their county by region of Tennessee
50
68 65
17
1 20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
County Tenneessee's Agricultural Economy
U.S. Agricultural Economy
Num
ber of Respo
nden
ts
Type of Economy
AgreeDisagree
68%
80%
96%
28%
7% 4%4%13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
West Middle East
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
W
ithin
Eac
h R
egio
n
Region
Likely
Unlikely
Don’t Know
31
Thirty-six percent of respondents in west Tennessee indicated that agri-tourism was not
important to their county’s economy. This is probably a reflection of the lower numbers
of agri-tourism operations in west Tennessee (Bruch and Holland 2004) and the large-
scale size of most farms in west Tennessee.
Table 5 shows a breakdown of the ordered logistic results for importance by
county. The dependent variable for this regression was numerically coded using the
following procedure: strongly agree=5, agree=4, don’t know=3, disagree=2 and strongly
disagree=1. The negative signs on the region dummy variable estimates indicate
decreased probability that respondents in the different regions will rank the question
highly. To interpret the negative signs, the values across regions should be ranked
from lowest to highest. Following this interpretation, the coefficient for east Tennessee
was the least negative, followed by middle Tennessee. The coefficient for west
Tennessee was the most negative leading to the inference that respondents from this
region were the least likely to rank this question highly. Respondents from east
Tennessee were the most likely of the three regions to rank this question highly.
Respondents from middle Tennessee fell in the middle of this ranking. All the regional
coefficients were significant at the 0.05 level.
Results from the ordered logit regression can also be used to develop
probabilities of ranking this question across the different categories by region. For
example, there is a 19% probability that respondents from east Tennessee will rank this
question as strongly agree compared to only a 9% probability that respondents from
west Tennessee would strongly agree with this question (Table 5). On the other hand,
respondents from west Tennessee have a 29% probability of disagreeing with this
32
Table 5: Results of using ordered logit for determining how respondents interpret the importance of agri-tourism to the economy of their county according to the three regions of Tennessee
Importance of Agri-tourism
Region Estimate Strongly Agree Agree
Don’t Know Disagree
Strongly Disagree
East -1.4363*** 19% 58% 6% 16% 1% Middle -1.6136** 17% 57% 7% 18% 1% West -2.2373*** 9% 51% 9% 29% 2% *significant at p<0.05; **significant at p<0.01; *** significant at p<0.001
33
question compared to a 16% probability of disagreeing from east Tennessee
respondents.
Objective 3: To determine how Tennessee agricultural teachers perceive agri-
tourism.
The details regarding teachers’ understanding and perception of agri-tourism
were defined by respondents’ answers to questions asked throughout the survey.
When asked if teachers believed agri-tourism activities had to be activities that
take place on a farm, 79% (55 respondents) disagreed and 19% (13 respondents)
agreed. A majority (84%) agreed that Farmers Markets provide a large variety of
choices. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents agreed that it is important for
agricultural students have an understanding of agri-tourism.
Objective 4: To determine if Tennessee’s agricultural teachers would be willing to
use other resources to teach agri-tourism.
The details regarding teachers’ willingness to use alternative methods and
materials to teach agri-tourism were defined by respondents’ answers to questions at
the beginning of the survey.
When asked if the respondents would be willing to include agri-tourism in the
curriculum if materials were readily available, 81% said they would be likely to include it
in their course curriculum while another 14% said it would be unlikely that they would
add it. Chi-square analysis showed a significant relationship (P=0.0155) between
regions of the state and likelihood of teachers including agri-tourism in their curriculum
(Table 4). Data showed that 55 of the 67 respondents would be willing to include agri-
34
tourism. The region that showed the best likelihood to include agri-tourism in the
curriculum was east Tennessee (96%; Figure 13). Middle Tennessee (80%) had the
next highest percentage, followed by west Tennessee with 68%. West Tennessee had
the greatest proportion of respondents (28%) who would be unlikely to include agri-
tourism.
Results from the ordered logit analysis for this question are illustrated in Table 6.
The dependent variable for this regression was numerically coded using the following
procedure: very likely=5, likely=4, don’t know=3, unlikely=2 and very unlikely=1. The
coefficient for east Tennessee was the least negative, followed by middle Tennessee.
The coefficient for west Tennessee was the most negative leading to the inference that
respondents from this region were the least likely to rank this question with a higher
ranking. Respondents from east Tennessee were the most likely of the three regions to
rank this question highly. This test was valid because all coefficient estimates were
significant at the 0.05 level.
Using the probabilities provided by the model, there is a 29% likelihood
respondents from east Tennessee will rank this question with “very likely” compared to
only a 13% probability that respondents from west Tennessee would rank this question
as “very likely” (Table 6). On the other hand, respondents from west Tennessee have a
17% probability of ranking this question as “very unlikely” compared to a 7% probability
from east Tennessee respondents.
Analysis also showed a significant relationship (P=0.0211) between the age of
teachers and their willingness to add agri-tourism into their course curriculum (Table 4).
35
Figure 13: Likelihood that teachers would include agri-tourism in course curriculum according to region of Tennessee
68%
80%
96%
28%
7% 4%4%13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
West Middle East
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
W
ithin
Eac
h R
egio
n
Region
Likely
Unlikely
Don’t Know
36
Table 6: Results of using ordered logit for determining the likelihood of Tennessee high school agriculture teachers to include agri-tourism into course curriculum according to three regions of Tennessee
Likelihood to Include Agri-tourism
Region Estimate Very
Likely LikelyDon’t Know Unlikely
Very Unlikely
East -0.8886* 29% 59% 3% 2% 7%Middle -1.6162** 17% 61% 5% 3% 14%West -1.9035*** 13% 60% 6% 4% 17%*significant at p<0.05; **significant at p<0.01; *** significant at p<0.001
37
Of the 56 respondents, the three age groups that had the highest proportion of
respondents who were likely to add agri-tourism were in the 20-30 and 31-40 age
groups (Figure 14). The largest proportions of those unlikely to include agri-tourism
were in the 41-50, 31-40, and 61+ age groups.
The respondents also ranked which types of educational materials were most
preferred, 1 being “most preferred” and 4 being “least preferred”. Video/DVD was the
most preferred with 59% of the respondents listing it as most preferred. Textbooks
were their least favorite teaching aid for 56% of respondents. PowerPoint slides and
internet articles were ranked between these two formats by most respondents.
Concerning the Internet as a teaching tool, respondents were asked about their
knowledge of agri-tourism information on the Internet related to websites that are
available to the public. In the past six months, 83% (n=59) of the respondents said they
had been to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture website, but only 54% (n=39) had
noticed the link for Agri-tourism. Of those who noticed the link for Agri-tourism, only
28% (n=20) actually clicked on the link. When asked if the respondents were familiar
with the Pick Tennessee Products program, 99% (n=70) stated that they were familiar
with the program. When asked if they were familiar with the Tennessee Farm Fresh
program, 70% (n=50) stated that they were familiar with it.
38
Figure 14: Likelihood that teachers would include agri-tourism in course curriculum by age
94%
63%67%
95%
75%
26%33%
25%
6%11%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 61Perc
enta
ge o
f Lik
elyh
ood
to In
clud
eA
gri-
tour
ism
into
Cou
rse
Cur
riclu
m
Age of Teacher
Likely
Unlikely
Don't Know
39
SUMMARY, KEY FINDINGS, AND IMPLICATIONS
The data used in this study were collected using responses from a survey sent to
Tennessee vocational teachers in September 2010 and returned through October 2010.
The survey asked questions regarding Tennessee’s vocational teachers’ perceptions of
agri-tourism, agricultural economics and marketing, current agricultural curriculum
throughout Tennessee, and the willingness for teachers to incorporate agri-tourism in
the curriculum. Of the 322 surveys emailed, 73 were returned giving a response rate of
23 %.
Limitations of the Study
The mailing list for the survey was comprised of all high school agricultural
teachers in Tennessee. If a teacher did not want to be included in this study then their
name was removed from the email list. Of the 322 surveys that were emailed, 73 of
them were returned (23% response rate). Although it is difficult to generalize these
findings beyond those who responded, they do shed light on how Tennessee’s
secondary teachers perceive agri-tourism and related marketing concepts.
Key Findings and Implications
Agri-tourism is a growing and expanding portion of agricultural industry in the
United States. The purpose of this study was to find out how Tennessee’s secondary
teachers perceive agri-tourism and related marketing concepts. The following
discussion highlights the key findings and their implications with respect to the study.
40
Objective 1: To determine if agri-tourism is being taught in Tennessee’s
agricultural curriculum
A little more than half (52%) of the respondents indicated that they teach
Agriscience. While 27% indicated they also teach a course in agribusiness or a
business related. It is difficult to determine if agri-tourism should be part of either an
Agriscience class or an agribusiness class. The data showed that both Agriscience and
agribusiness are being taught throughout the state.
More than half (57%) of the teachers who responded cover agri-tourism in their
coursework. With over three quarters (83%) of the respondents saying that they do
cover agricultural marketing, it is apparent that marketing and regional agricultural
attractions are important enough for teachers to include in their classes.
Because agri-tourism is still a relatively new topic in the agricultural industry, it is
not surprising that 82% of respondents reported that their textbooks do not cover agri-
tourism. It is apparent that the textbooks are not up-to-date. A majority (89%) of
respondents stated that agri-tourism should be taught in an Agriscience class. Whether
or not teachers are currently covering the topic of agri-tourism, it is evident that agri-
tourism is considered to be an important topic that should be incorporated into the
curriculum.
Objective 2: To determine if Tennessee agricultural teachers believe agri-tourism
is a viable aspect to Tennessee’s economy and the national economy
It was evident that the teachers surveyed would pay a premium for locally grown
products when 99% of the respondents agreed to this question. Also, 82% of the
41
respondents agreed that local, state, and federal money should be used to help market
local products. This could be for two reasons: they know local farmers and their
practices or they might want to keep their money within their region. If people know the
practices of local farmers then they have a good idea of how the farmers are growing
produce for market. If the people want to keep their money in the region, they may
believe in community supported agriculture. These operations are very connected to
the community and the surrounding area because they know that the people are willing
to pay extra for their products. Laroche et al. (2001) investigated demographic,
psychological and behavioral profiles of consumers that would be willing to pay higher
premiums for environmentally friendly products. She found that consumers who were
more likely to pay were females or someone with at least one child.
A large proportion (74%) of the respondents are willing to pay 5-10% premiums
for local products. Of those who are not, it is possible that their incomes do not allow
them to pay a premium for locally grown products.
The most important questions that answered objective 2 were questions that
related to the economy, both at the state and national level. Ninety-six percent of the
respondents believed that agri-tourism was important to Tennessee’s economy, and
93% agreed that it was important to the U.S. agricultural economy. When asked if agri-
tourism was important to their county’s economy, only 67% agreed that it was.
Regional differences reflected the relative number of agri-tourism operations within
Tennessee.
42
Data concerning the importance of agri-tourism to the U.S. economy showed a
significant (P< 0.10) relationship. Statistical analysis showed that teachers that have
been teaching for 1-10 years see the importance of agri-tourism. This might be
because agri-tourism is still a new concept that has become increasingly important in
the past 10 years; teachers who have received their education in the past 10 years are
more likely to have learned the importance of agri-tourism to the U.S. agriculture
economy.
Objective 3: To determine how Tennessee agricultural teachers perceive agri-
tourism
A portion (19%) of the respondents agreed that agri-tourism activities have to
take place on a farm. This might indicate that there is a misunderstanding in
terminology. When they think of agriculture most people typically think of farms,
tractors, barns, etc., but in reality agriculture is much broader than that. It was
reassuring to see that 97% of the respondents agreed that agricultural students need to
have an understanding of agri-tourism. This illustrates the teachers understand that the
agri-tourism industry is growing every day and will be important when current students
graduate. These students need to be prepared so they can better contribute to the
agricultural industry.
Objective 4: To determine if Tennessee’s agricultural teachers would be willing to
use other resources to teach agri-tourism
A majority (81%) of respondents said they would be likely to incorporate agri-
tourism in the curriculum. There were significant relationships between the willingness
for teachers to add agri-tourism into their course curriculum and teacher’s age and
43
between willingness to add agri-tourism and what region of Tennessee. Some
respondents may be unwilling to incorporate agri-tourism because of lack of time to
develop new material or lack of time within the course itself.
A target region that needs to be further investigated is west Tennessee. Analysis
showed this region was the most reluctant to include agri-tourism into its course
curriculum. When asked about the importance of agri-tourism to the county’s economy,
36% of west Tennessee respondents failed to see the importance. It may be beneficial
for west Tennessee policy makers to further investigate the importance of agri-tourism
through the help of further education and promotion.
Further research is needed to find out why some teachers would not add agri-
tourism to courses, but some probable causes include budget restraints, lack of time, or
the need to follow a strict curriculum for a given region. The materials that teachers are
willing to use reflect this assumption. When asked to rank their preference for materials
to be used in teaching agri-tourism, the majority (59%) ranked video/DVD as most
preferred. Textbooks were ranked as least preferred by a majority (56%) of
respondents while PowerPoint slides and internet articles were ranked in the middle.
These data illustrate that teachers are willing to use other materials to aid teaching agri-
tourism topics. When the state is ready to change the curriculum or when agri-tourism
is given more emphasis in the curriculum, these statistics may change.
Implications of Key Findings
A point of interest for future studies would be to determine if teachers in west
Tennessee are more receptive to teach agri-tourism. Another point of interest would be
44
to determine if policy makers better understand the importance of agri-tourism to include
it in the curriculum.
Individuals who work closely with the agriculture industry, especially agricultural
educators should note specific details in this study. Most of the secondary educators in
Tennessee who responded to this survey are willing to use materials to aid in teaching
students, have an understanding of agri-tourism, and understand the importance of agri-
tourism. Educators need more material in the classroom to properly insure that students
gain a better understanding of agri-tourism. Therefore, it may be beneficial to both
teachers and students if more outreach programs are developed. In addition, the state
government would need to start incorporating agri-tourism into Tennessee’s curriculum.
The data illustrate that a significant number of respondents know about agri-tourism and
its importance, but there is more that can be done to teach some educators the
importance of agri-tourism to local economy. This study suggests that teachers need
more information to better teach students about the benefits of agri-tourism in the state
of Tennessee and for the U.S. as a whole.
Ultimately, local and state-wide outreach programs might consider hosting
workshops for educators that focus not only on the importance of marketing and
economics, but also on a better understanding of agri-tourism in Tennessee.
Educators in agricultural communication and agricultural business programs need to
emphasize the importance of agri-tourism. Since this study represents such a small
sample in Tennessee, further studies should look at other ways to improve the
curriculum with regard to dealing with agri-tourism to see how they compare to the
findings of this study.
45
Literature Cited
Adam, K. L. 2004. Entertainment Farm and Agritourism Business Management Guide [Online]. Available at http://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/entertainment.html (Verified 13 Sept. 2010). Bricker, G.A. 1914. Agricultural Education for Teachers. New York: American Book
Company. Brown, D.M., and Reeder, R.J. 2007. Farm-Based Recreation: A Statistical Profile
[Online]. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR53/ERR53.pdf (Verified 11 Sept. 2010).
Bruch, M. and Holland, R. 2004. A Snapshot of Tennessee Agritourism: Results from the 2003 Enterprise Inventory. In Center for Profitable Agriculture [Online]. Available at http://cpa.utk.edu/level2/agri-tourism/inventory.html (Verified 24 Sep. 2010).
Carpio, C.E., Wohlgenant, M.K., and Boonsaeng, T. 2008. The Demand for Agritourism in the United States. West Agriculture Economics Association. 33(2):254-269.
Center for Profitable Agriculture. 2003. Tennessee Agri-tourism Initiative: Turning Small Farms into Big Opportunities-USDA Rural Development and TDA Market Development [Online]. Available at http://utk.edu/level2/funding/fundingprojects/agritourism52803.htm (Verified 20 Sep. 2010).
Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2010. Colorado Agritourism [Online]. Available at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Agriculture-Main/CDAG/1178305859683 (Verified 9 Sept. 2010).
Dyer, J.E. 1997. Benefits of Supervised Agricultural Experience Programs: A Synthesis of Research . Journal of Agricultural Education 38:50-58.
Find Target. 2011. Grand Divisions of Tennessee [Online]. Available at
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Grand%20Divisions%20of%20Tennessee/ (Verified 11 May 2011).
Hillison, J. 1987. Agricultural Teacher Education Preceding the Smith-Hughes Act.
Journal of Agricultural Education 28(2):8-17. Hillison, J. 1996. The Origins of Agriscience: Or Where Did All That Scientific
Agriculture Come. Journal of Agricultural Education. 37: 8-13.
46
Jenson, K., Lindborg, C., and English, B. 2005. Visitors to Tennessee Agri-tourism Attractions [Online]. Available at http://web.utk.edu/~aimag/pubs/research%20report%20visitors%20surveys3.pdf (Verified 11 May 2011).
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., and Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6):503 – 520.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2010. Agri-tourism [Online]. Available at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agritourism (Verified 11 May 2011). Pals, D. A. 1988. The Value of Supervised Occupational Experience Programs as
Perceived by Students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 29(2), 32-39. Roberson, G.H., and Jenks, F.B. 1913. Agricultural Instruction in High Schools. U.S.
Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 27. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Southerland, D.M. 2010. Importance of Supervised Agriculture Experience Programs in High School Agriculture Education Departments [Online]. Available at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2883774/importanceofsupervisedagriculture (Verified 12 Sept. 2010).
Tennessee Department of Education. 2010a. Agriculture Standards and Competency Profiles 2009-2015 [Online]. Available at http://www.tn.gov/education/cte/standardscurr/ag0910.shtml (Verified 25 Aug. 2010). Tennessee Department of Education. 2010b. Obtain a Tennessee Teacher License by
Attending a College/University in Tennessee [Online]. Available at http://www.tn.gov/education/lic/in.shtml (Verified 25 Aug. 2010)
True, A. C. 1929. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States 1785-1925.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications No. 36. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walker, M.A. 2009. Agri-tourism: Ideas and Recourses [Online]. Available at http://www.tn.gov/education/cte/standardscurr/ag0910.shtml (Verified 15 Sept. 2010).
47
Appendix A
IRB Letter from the University of Tennessee at Martin
48
Appendix B
Survey Questions
Question 1: Do you currently teach Agriscience?
Question 2: Do you currently teach a course in agribusiness or business related field?
Question 3: What is the classification of the high school in which you currently teach?
Question 4: What is your average class size?
Question 5: Do you cover material related to agri-tourism in any of your courses?
Question 6: Do you cover material related to agricultural marketing in any of your
courses?
Question 7: Do any of your textbooks cover agri-tourism topics?
Question 8: If material were readily available on the topic of agri-tourism, how likely
would you be to include it in your course curriculum?
Question 9: What format would be most useful for you to receive materials on agri-
tourism for teaching purposes?
Question 10: Does your FFA chapter sponsor an agricultural marketing project or farm
entertainment during the year (i.e. Plant sales, haunted corn maze,
pumpkin patch, etc.)
Question 11: Are you familiar with the Pick Tennessee Product program?
49
Question 12: Are you aware of a farm business that participates in the Pick Tennessee
Products Program in your county?
Question 13: Are you familiar with the Tennessee Farm Fresh program?
Question 14: Are you aware of any farm business that participates in the Tennessee
Farm Fresh Program in your county?
Question 15: Are you familiar with the term Community Supported Agriculture?
Question 16: If prices were similar, would you prefer to buy food products from a local
producer or a retail outlet?
Question 17: Would you be willing to pay a premium for locally grown products?
Question 18: If yes, what is the highest percentage premium you would be willing to
pay?
Question 19: Have you patronized a business engaged in agri-tourism (i.e. corn maze,
winery, pumpkin patch, etc.) in the past year?
Question 20: Have you visited the Tennessee Department of Agriculture website in the
past six months?
Question 21: Did you notice the link for Agri-tourism on the Tennessee Department of
Agriculture website?
Question 22: Did you click on the link for Agri-tourism link on the Tennessee
Department of Agriculture website to learn more?
50
Question 23: Agri-tourism should be a topic in an Agriscience class?
Question 24: I believe that local, state, and federal money should be used to help
market local products?
Question 25: Organic products are healthier than products produced using traditional
farming techniques?
Question 26: I would be willing to pay a premium price for organic products.
Question 27: Genetically modified crops should not be included as organic.
Question 28: Farmers’ Markets provide a large variety of choices for consumers.
Question 29: Farmers’ Markets are usually less expensive than retail outlets.
Question 30: I prefer to buy my food from local sources whenever possible.
Question 31: To be considered “locally grown,” products should be grown in the county
in which they are sold.
Question 32: Locally grown products are of higher quality than products sold in a retail
food outlet.
Question 33: Agri-tourism is important to the economy of your county.
Question 34: Agri-tourism is important to the Tennessee agriculture economy.
Question 35: Agri-tourism is important to the U.S. agriculture economy.
Question 36: In order to be considered agri-tourism, activities must take place on a
farm.
51
Question 37: It is important for agriculture students to have an understanding of agri-
tourism.
Question 38: Gender
Question 39: Age
Question 40: Please type the name of your county of residence in the box below.
Question 41: Did you grow up on a farm?
Question 42: Do you currently farm on a part time or full time basis?
Question 43: What is your highest educational attainment?
Question 44: How many total years have you taught?
Question 45: How many total years have you taught agriculture?
52
Appendix C
Results of Questionnaire from Survey Monkey
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
