Cultivating Environmental Citizenship: Agriculture Teachers’ Perspectives Regarding the Role of Farm-Schools in Environmental and Sustainability Education

Abstract

Agricultural education is a fertile framework for environmental and sustainability education (ESE). Hence, ‘farm-schools’, which are learning settings around agriculture, can and should play a crucial role in promoting ESE. Farm-school teachers are key to realizing this potential. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of farm-school teachers concerning the role of farm schools in conducting ESE and their role as environmental and sustainability educators. The research employed a mixed methodology. Quantitative data from close-ended sections of the questionnaire enabled evaluation of the teachers’ environmental literacy and citizenship attributes, which are fundamental for their capacity to incorporate ESE within their teaching. Open-ended sections of the questionnaire and interviews provided in-depth information regarding the teachers’ perspectives and practices concerning ESE (content, values, and pedagogies) within the framework of farm schools. Findings indicate that these teachers have pro-environmental dispositions in their individual lives and as educators and that they incorporate ESE within their teaching, but they exhibit a relatively narrow perspective regarding ESE, focusing largely on content knowledge, with limited focus on values discourse. Providing professional development tailored to the specific attributes and needs of these agriculture teachers will strengthen their capacities in teaching the strategies inherent to ESE, such as facilitating in-depth critical discourse around socio-environmental dilemmas. This will contribute to realizing the full potential of farm schools in terms of contributing to the crucial area of ESE within the educational system, employing agriculture as the curricular platform.

1. Introduction—Rationale for the Study

Agricultural education is increasingly being acknowledged as a fertile and important framework for incorporating environmental and sustainability education (ESE) [1,2,3]. This is anchored in several inter-related arguments. From the environmental perspective, the agriculture industry has a major environmental impact. Intensive industrialized agriculture is a major human intervention in the natural environment, with significant detrimental environmental implications (e.g., water and soil pollution, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change), with direct and indirect negative socio-economic consequences such as on human health, food security, and the local economy [4,5,6]. Sustainable agriculture (SA) is an essential component of sustainable development [7]. It is, therefore, imperative that educational institutions that engage in agricultural education incorporate the environmental perspective realizing sustainable approaches in the agriculture system [8]. This is relevant not only for educating those individuals who will choose a profession in the agriculture industry but also for developing the environmental literacy and environmental citizenship of all individuals, as consumers, voters, or policymakers, in terms of the environmental implications of individual decision-making as consumers of agricultural products and options to support sustainable agriculture (SA) practices, both directly and indirectly. Agricultural literacy can be regarded as a component of environmental literacy (EL) and environmental citizenship (EC) since it concerns environmental knowledge, dispositions, and behavioral dimensions regarding our relationships and interactions with the natural world [2,9,10]. A critical, conscientious, responsible citizenry with a sustainability-oriented mindset is essential for realizing sustainable development (hereafter denoted as SD).

Despite the ongoing increase in demand for food, technological advances have led to fewer and fewer people being employed in agriculture. Urbanization worldwide is another factor contributing to the disconnect between agriculture and its consumers [11]. Thus, while in the past, agriculture was an important topic in schools, currently, most school-age students do not learn about agriculture [2,3]. A systematic review of the literature concerning studies with school-age students indicates poor agricultural literacy [12]. It is necessary to provide students with combined agricultural education and ESE to develop their EL-EC awareness regarding the sustainability-related aspects of agriculture (i.e., agricultural literacy) and to encourage their responsible decision-making as future consumers, future supporters of sustainable policymaking as voters and potential officials, and possible up-takers of agricultural practice. Despite the intersection between agricultural literacy and environmental literacy, educational research combining these fields is scanty.

Another argument for incorporating ESE within agricultural education lies in the pedagogical benefits of agricultural education, specifically when this is conducted in authentic settings. Agricultural education can take place in different settings. While, as academic content, it may be theoretically studied in the classroom, from the pedagogical perspective our focus is on agricultural education conducted in real-world environments—on farms or in other authentic farming settings. Extensive discourse juxtaposes classroom learning with real-world contexts that enable learners to experience the learning content in authentic settings and supports learner-centered, active constructivist learning, such as ‘learning by doing’ (hands-on) or ‘experiential learning’, which contribute to meaningful learning and are central to ESE (e.g., [13,14,15]).

In Israel, there are currently over 60 ‘farm schools’ situated throughout the country in rural and urban areas, serving Jewish and Arab communities. These farm-schools are formally recognized educational institutions in which agricultural education is traditionally based on the national K-12 curriculum on Agriculture Sciences. They provide a real-world learning environment around agriculture that does not exist in regular schools. Learning at these farm schools is embedded to different extents into the participating schools’ curriculum, and students are bussed to the farm-schools from their home school as part of their regular weekly schedule.

These unique farm schools, termed ‘Farms for Agricultural Education and Environmental Studies’, offer a unique and under-studied opportunity to conduct ESE around agriculture. This study concerns the issue of whether these farm schools are realizing their potential for ESE, in line with reform policy documents in science education (Next Generation Science Standards), whereby agriculture provides an example of human impact on the environment that enables interdisciplinary learning around crosscutting concepts and core ideas and encourages making connections in science education, among science, technology, society, and the environment [1]. Teachers are key agents to realizing this capacity; if the teachers lack the competencies and commitment, it is unlikely that they will incorporate ESE within their teaching. To date, studies in Israel that have explored ESE within the teacher pipeline [16,17,18] have largely overlooked the farm schools. This study provides a response to this gap. It explores the EL-EC characteristics of the farm- school teachers, how they perceive the role of these schools in conducting ESE, and their role as environmental and sustainability educators.

To this end, the authors posed four research questions:

(1)

What are the EL-EC attributes of farm-school teachers?

(2)

How do the teachers perceive the role of the farm-school in incorporating ESE?

(3)

How do the teachers perceive their role as environmental and sustainability educators and how do they manifest this?

(4)

What barriers and challenges do these teachers identify to implementing ESE in the framework of the farm-school?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Educational Settings around Agriculture

We conducted a search using the terms ‘farm school’ and ‘school farm’ to identify prominent types of educational settings for learning around the topic of agriculture in an attempt to determine if the Israeli type of farm school resembles those existing elsewhere. This search identified some major forms that all seem to differ from established in Israel.

‘Farm-to-school’ is one type related to agriculture or farming education, with different modes of implementation and offering diverse ‘Farm-to-school programs’. ‘Farm-to-school’ is essentially a community-based approach developed in the USA in the 1990s that connects schools with local and regional farmers, for the benefit of both the farmers (providing food-related services in which the schools become an institutional-scale market for local and regional farmers) and the students (e.g., combatting unhealthy nutrition) and promoting education in the context of agriculture. Farm-to-school programs include field trips to farms and the development of school gardens where students can grow their own food. Both provide learning-by-doing education, which, in some instances, has evolved into a curricular strategy including environment-based and science education running parallel to a general approach to the learning process [19]. In several California districts, farm-to-school programs further developed as a foundation for creating a healthy, sustainable school environment. In the USA, farm-to-school programs have evolved into a national movement—the ‘National Farm to School Network’—which “can be viewed as part of a larger international movement toward sustainable development” [20] (p. 283).

A different form has developed in the UK, known as ‘school farms’ [21]. This form of school farm is defined as “a teaching facility within the school grounds or directly managed by a school that provides some of the following: access to farm livestock, the facilities and land needed for their upkeep, small-scale food growing or horticultural units, green houses or poly tunnels” [21] (p. 3). There are different types of such school farms, grouped by school age (preparatory, primary/junior, secondary, mixed, special needs) and by size, from old school farms (late 19th century) to new ones, the majority being within primary schools. Students from other educational settings can also use the school farm.

There are many examples of ‘farm education’, in which agricultural education is conducted on farms as an authentic, real-world learning environment (e.g., [15]). In some cases, the farmers undertake such non-agricultural activity with the social goal of sharing the values inherent to farming. In the EU, such working farms that open their doors to visitors with the aim of providing people with an understanding of agriculture and promoting consumer awareness regarding food production are known as ‘open farms’. Such ‘open farms’, which have developed the facilities and organizational structure that specifically support educational activities, are termed ‘educational farms’ [22]. The literature also refers to ‘teaching farms’ [13,23], and ‘pedagogical farms’ [24]. In all these cases, in the context of formal education, which is the focus of the present study, the farms serve as a living laboratory, enabling active pedagogies that complement the school program.

2.2. ‘Farm Schools’ in Israel

A literature search on educational farms seems to indicate that the form of farm school established in Israel is unique. Contrary to ‘farm-to-school’ programs, ‘educational farms’, or ‘learning farms’, the Israeli farm schools are not working farms that have taken on an educational function, and they are not agricultural teaching facilities within the regular schools, such as the UK’s ‘school farms’.

The Israeli farm schools, called ‘Farms for agricultural education and environmental studies’, are formally recognized educational institutions, which are jointly supervised and supported by the Ministry of Education and the local municipality and serve K-12 for the local municipality or regional council. From the perspective of pedagogical philosophy, these unique schools “…provide a holistic green learning environment in which the pupils grow vegetables, herbs, flowers and house plants, fruit trees and animals. The students learn, work, and engage in a meaningful, creative, and diverse experience that serves to develop a healthy lifestyle and provides a response to modern lifestyle that distances us from the land and from fresh healthy sources of food” [25].

How these farm schools identify themselves in terms of their educational vision and connection to the school curriculum has evolved, leading to diversity in the nature of the content focus and learning experience in different farm schools. While some maintain a more traditional approach, with a tighter connection to the formal Agriculture Sciences curriculum, many, especially the more recently established farm schools, have evolved to reflect a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach regarding the education system curricula, expanding the learning contexts and the type of learning experience for which the students come to these farms. The experiential outdoor learning offered at these farms supports the learners in developing not only cognitive competencies but also diverse skills and enables physical activity, well-being, interpersonal competencies, and connection with the natural world. In all cases, despite the diversity, it is the authentic agriculture-oriented environment that enables the holistic experience.

The educational resources of these schools include classrooms, extensive outdoor plots for different types of horticulture (e.g., field crops, flowers, medicinal plants, and orchards), greenhouses, and various agricultural technologies for hands-on inquiry-based learning. Additional learning resources may include ecological ponds, small-animal zoos, and infrastructure connected to agricultural traditions in Israel (e.g., an antique-style olive press or winery). Some are more typical of botanical gardens. In all cases, these schools provide an authentic and hands-on learning environment around agriculture and horticulture that does not exist in schools. There are over 60 such farm schools situated throughout the country, in both urban and more rural settings, and in Jewish (secular and religious) and Arab communities. Learning at these farm schools is embedded to different extents within the participating schools’ curriculum as part of their regular weekly schedule. While the farm schools traditionally teach according to the national Agriculture Sciences curriculum, more than often, the specific curriculum is tailored for each participating school according to the specific requirements of the school and locally relevant interests. Thus, the curriculum is dynamic and diverse and is oriented to the needs and interests of the local communities, reflecting a place-based and often community-oriented approach.

While some of the farm schools explicitly identify sustainability in their vision, in others, the extent to which these settings are utilized, in practice, for incorporating the sustainability perspective is largely dependent on the teachers—their understanding of the importance of ESE, motivation to incorporate this perspective, and competencies for doing so. This grounds the aim and objectives of the present study (see Introduction).

2.3. Theoretical Framework for Core Concepts

Agricultural education and agricultural literacy—The literature on education around agriculture distinguishes between agricultural education and agricultural literacy. Agricultural education is essentially about “preparing students for work within the field of agriculture” [2] (p. 102). It is education in agriculture that focuses on the vocational aspects: the systematic program of instruction and training around agriculture, implementing theoretical and hands-on real-world teaching, with the aim of training students and individuals about the science, technology, and business of plant and animal production and the management of the land, environmental, and natural resources [26,27]. It is geared, especially in college or university programs, toward preparing individuals considering a career in the farming and agricultural sector [28].

Alternatively, agricultural literacy is educating about the field of agriculture. It is anchored in the understanding that since agriculture involves technology, economics, politics, sociology, environmental consequences, and more, with the inherent environmental, economic, and social tradeoffs, learning about agriculture should not be limited to those with the goal of a career in agriculture but should be offered to all K-12 students [2,26]. As originally stated by the NRC Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools, agricultural literacy is the “ability to think critically and make value judgments about the impact of agriculture as an economic and environmental activity and the concurrent societal and political pressure that result from those judgments” [29]. It involves developing knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs regarding the agricultural system, including the environmental consciousness of citizens so they can recognize the impacts of their decisions on the environment, evaluate trade-offs, and make informed and wise choices as consumers and in their role as citizens in policy decisions. Thus, agricultural literacy is linked to environmental literacy: connecting agriculture to ESE, ESD, and reform approaches in science education [1,2,29], based on the perspective that agriculture, as an authentic and relevant issue that impacts everyone either directly or indirectly, provides an effective platform enabling interdisciplinary learning around crosscutting concepts and core ideas, making connections in science education and ESE among science, technology, society, and the environment. An agriculturally literate individual understands the socio-cultural, economic, and environmental aspects of agriculture, can critically evaluate the validity of media, and can assess arguments based on scientific evidence [12,30].

Based on this distinction, despite using the term ‘agricultural education’ in their title, the farm schools in Israel reflect a broader educational perspective, employing agriculture as a theme for cultivating agricultural literacy. Accordingly, they (a) provide an organizing core for studies in several domains—agriculture sciences, environmental studies, science education, and nutrition, (b) provide an urban green island, (c) educate the future generation for awareness and responsibility, (d) employ diverse teaching methods that integrate theoretical and practical learning adapted to the school’s curriculum, and (e) emphasize developing thinking skills [25]. Thus, in this paper, our use of the term ‘agricultural education’ refers to cultivating agricultural literacy.

Environmental literacy (EL), environmental citizenship (EC), and ESE—ESE plays a crucial role in achieving the goals of SD to promote environmentally sustainable and socially just economies, technologies, and businesses, and to encourage individuals and societies to adopt sustainable ways of living [31]. The stated goal of ESE is developing an environmentally literate citizenry, according to which the environmentally literate individual is “someone who, both individually and together with others, makes informed decisions concerning the environment; is willing to act on these decisions to improve the well-being of other individuals, societies, and the global environment; and participate in civic life” [32] (p. 2–3). ESE emphasizes cultivating abilities for critical thinking, for raising critical questions concerning what is going on in society and how to act on these observations. Developing environmental citizenship (EC) is also acknowledged as a goal of ESE [33]. The European Network for Environmental Citizenship defines EC as the ability “…to identify the underlying structural causes of environmental degradation and environmental problems and has the willingness and the competences for critical and active engagement and civic participation to address these structural causes…” [34]. Both constructs, EL and EC, have been elaborated elsewhere [16,17,34]. Both encompass three domains—cognitive (knowledge and skills), affective (values, beliefs, and dispositions regarding the environment), and behavioral. Regarding the cognitive domain, socio-political knowledge that is combined with ecological-environmental knowledge and citizenship skills alongside higher-order thinking skills are crucial. Environmental dispositions influence the individual’s commitment and motivation to act on environmental issues. The behavioral domain is the ultimate expression of EL and EC; ultimately, the individual’s EL and EC should be expressed in his/her involvement in pro-environmental actions.

Obviously, the distinction between EL and EC is blurred, and both are the identified goals of ESE. Despite this overlap, the more recent term of EC better resonates the notion that environmental responsibility is an inherent component of citizenship. Based on the theoretical literature, agricultural literacy is an expression of EL and EC since it concerns environmental and social knowledge and skills, dispositions, and behavioral dimensions regarding our relationships, and interactions with the natural world in the context of the agricultural system.

3. Research Hypotheses and Assumptions

Hypotheses were posed for the empirical component of the study—characterizing the EL-EC attributes of ‘farm school’ teachers (RQ1). The point-of-departure of the hypotheses is the absence of previous research studying the population of ‘farm-school’ teachers in Israel. From the international perspective, agriculture teachers’ environmentalism and engagement in ESE is also an under-studied area.

(1)

Based on the inclusion of an environmental perspective in the formal Agriculture Science curriculum and the pedagogical philosophy guiding the farm-schools [25], we assume that these teachers will express an above-moderate level of environmental literacy and citizenship, as reflected in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains (scores > 3.5/5).

(2)

Concerning the relationships among the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of EL and EC, studies conducted in Israel with student teachers and teachers indicate significant positive correlations among these variables [17,35]. Additionally, subjective knowledge (the sense of ownership of knowledge concerning environmental content and issues) and environmental dispositions are significant predictors of involvement in environmentally responsible actions [17]. Building on these findings, we hypothesize significant correlations among the farm-school teachers’ knowledge, dispositions, and involvement; furthermore, that these teachers’ subjective knowledge will significantly predict their environmental dispositions and involvement in pro-environmental actions as individuals in their personal lives and their incorporation of the environment in their teaching at the farm-school.

(3)

In the context of the teacher pipeline, very few studies have explored the relationship between academic major and EL-EC. These studies compared student teachers majoring in environment-related fields and those in non-environment-related subjects. The overall data supported that student teachers in environment-related subjects demonstrate a higher knowledge level, more pro-environmental dispositions, and greater involvement in environmentally responsible actions [36,37]. This overall picture led to the hypothesis of this study that those teachers with an environment-affiliated academic background will express a higher level of EL-EC compared to teachers whose academic background is in a non-environment-affiliated field.

Regarding the qualitative component of this study, since ESE is a relatively novel educational focus in farm schools and is a complex, multi-dimensional theme characterized by ongoing development, we assume that the importance of professional development (PD) will emerge from the teachers’ perspectives, either directly (i.e., specific assertations of teachers regarding the need for PD suited to their needs) or indirectly (i.e., gaps identified in the teachers’ competencies in ESE).

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Approach

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining the advantages of quantitative and qualitative research methods to provide a more comprehensive response to the research questions [38]. The quantitative data obtained from the close-ended sections of the questionnaire enabled understanding of the teachers’ EL-EC attributes in relation to agriculture, which is fundamental for their capacity to incorporate ESE within their teaching. The qualitative data obtained from the open-ended questions explored their perspectives regarding the role of farm-schools in ESE and their role as environmental and sustainability educators and how they manifest this in their teaching. Interviews were conducted to provide richer information regarding these perspectives.

4.2. Research Settings and Participants

Some 420 teachers were employed in the farm schools. The sample of teachers was obtained as follows. The study was presented to the Superintendent of Agriculture Education in the Ministry of Education for his approval. He then presented the study, stating his support, during professional workshops with the farm-school principals, who relayed this to their own teachers and requested their participation in responding to the questionnaire. The online digital questionnaire was distributed to the principals of all the farm schools with a document showing the superintendent’s support, followed by a phone call to the principals emphasizing the importance of their own support. A total of 74 teachers responded. The conservative response rate (~18%) may be attributed to the challenges that teachers were confronted with during the COVID-19 pandemic (spring/summer 2020), conditions that also did not enable increasing response by conducting the survey face-to-face. Gender distribution was 66% female and 34% male. Of these, 60% of the teachers had an academic background in an environment-affiliated field (environmental studies, biology, science, agriculture, and geography), and 40% had an academic background that was non-environment-affiliated (e.g., history, arts, languages, mathematics, and literature). Interviews were conducted with 10 of the participating teachers who consented on the questionnaire to being interviewed.

Ethics statement—This study and its research instruments were approved by the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education and were supported by the Superintendent of Agriculture Education in the Ministry of Education. The teachers’ response to the questionnaire was voluntary.

4.3. Research Tools

4.3.1. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was based on a validated questionnaire that was employed in a previous study investigating pre-service teachers’ EL [16,17], from which several items were adapted for the purposes and target audience of this study. The content validity of the updated questionnaire was evaluated by the principals of two farm schools, two ESE professionals, and students in A M.Ed. in EE program. The validated questionnaire was administered as a pilot test to five farm-school teachers. The final questionnaire consisted of the following five sections:

Self-reported involvement in pro-environmental actions—The participants rated the frequency with which they conduct 18 environmentally supportive actions on a 5-point Likert scale (1—never, 2—seldom, 3—sometimes, 4—quite often, and 5—almost always). This section had a reliability coefficient of α = 0.910. Exploratory factor analysis elicited four factors: pro-environmental actions in domestic settings (8 items, α = 0.857; example items: separate waste at home for recycling and conduct water- and energy-saving actions at home); incorporate the environment in teaching at the farm (3 items, α = 0.883; example item: connect agriculture-related content that I teach to global and local environmental issues); environmental conduct when purchasing (4 items, α = 0.820; example items: I purchase locally produced products and I purchase environmentally friendly products); environmental citizenship (activism) in the public sphere (3 items, α = 0.689; example item: Take part in protests to promote the environment).

Knowledge—This section investigated the participants’ subjective knowledge (sense of knowledge) and objective knowledge (actual knowledge) [39]. The participants rated how well they were informed on 10 topics that teachers in agricultural farms should be knowledgeable about, using a 5-point Likert scale (1—I have never heard of this, 2—I have heard about this but would not be able to explain what it is really about, 3—I know something about this and could explain it in general, 4—I am familiar with this and can explain it pretty well, 5—I am knowledgeable about this and can explain it in detail). This section had a reliability coefficient of α = 0.875. Exploratory factor analysis elicited two factors: sustainability topics and issues (α = 0.857, 7 items; example items: environmental consequences of consumer culture, causes of biodiversity loss, and ecological footprint), and solutions to environmental problems (α = 0.711, 3 items; example items: biological pest control and alternatives for solid waste reduction). To gauge objective knowledge, the participants were asked to provide examples or explanations for the topics. The assumption is that teachers without or with limited knowledge will provide no, incorrect, or basic examples, while the more knowledgeable will provide richer, more advanced examples.

Dispositions regarding the importance of environmental issues in general and in the educational agenda of farm-schools—The teachers rated their extent of agreement with 17 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1—definitely disagree, to 3—I have no position on this, to 5—definitely agree). This section had a Cronbach reliability of α = 0.852. Exploratory factor analysis elicited 3 factors: sense of responsibility as an individual and as a teacher (8 items, α = 0.931; example items: the farm is an ideal place to teach about the environment and sustainability and it is the farm teacher’s responsibility to include environmental content and values in their teaching); reservations regarding adopting environmental responsibility as individuals, in teaching, or in policy (5 items phrased negatively, α = 0.764; exemplar items: actions conducted by the individual citizen are useless because the authorities aren’t impressed by the “little citizen” and involvement of schools in environmental topics is sufficient and there is no need to deal with these in the farm); environmental responsibility in national policy (4 items, α = 0.774; example items: industry should be mandated to reduce pollution emissions, even if this entails higher consumer prices and the state should promote development of alternative energy resources, even if this entails increased consumer prices).

Dispositions concerning incorporating environmental and sustainability content in educational activities conducted at the farm school—To gain more in-depth information concerning the participants’ perspectives regarding the role of farm schools and their teachers in ESE, the questionnaire included two open-ended questions: (1) Is the farm school an educational setting that should conduct ESE? Explain your response. (2) Is it your role as a teacher in a farm-school to conduct ESE? Explain your response.

Background data—District of the school (north, south, central, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or Haifa); geographic environment of the school (urban, rural); teacher’s home environment (urban, kibbutz or rural, or community settlement); degree (bachelor’s, master’s, or above), and academic background (environment-affiliated fields or non-environment-affiliated fields).

4.3.2. Interviews

The aim of the interviews was to obtain more in-depth information regarding the open-ended questions of the questionnaire. The interviews addressed the following points: the teacher’s perspectives regarding ESE, farm-schools as a learning environment that should address ESE (content, values, and pedagogies), their role as environmental educators, and the challenges they encounter in conducting ESE at the farm-school.

4.4. Data Analysis

4.4.1. Questionnaire

The means, standard deviations, and frequencies of the sample were determined through descriptive statistics, using the SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 24). Results for negatively phrased disposition items were reversed so that high scores reflected pro-environmental orientation or actions. The data were then analyzed, as follows:

(a)

Objective knowledge: the open-ended responses to knowledge items were coded based on a previously reported coding procedure [17]: a provision of no response scored 0; incorrect or irrelevant responses were coded 1; correct responses expressing basic-level knowledge were coded 2; and correct responses expressing more advanced knowledge were coded 3. Distribution was calculated for the codes.

(b)

Pearson correlation was used to determine the relationships among the EL variables (subjective knowledge, dispositions, and involvement in pro-environmental actions).

(c)

Multi-regression analyses were conducted to investigate the model constructed for predicting dispositions by subjective knowledge and the model for predicting actions by subjective knowledge and by dispositions.

(d)

Student’s t-test was used to examine the influence of the background variable field of academic background. Cohen’s d for size effect was used to examine the magnitude of differences in the variables between the two groups.

(e)

Inductive content analysis was conducted on the responses to the open-ended questions. The distribution of the responses to each theme was calculated. Responses may include several themes; hence, the sum of the themes may not equal 100%.

4.4.2. Interviews

Interviews were analyzed in a hybrid manner [40]. Within the themes identified in the teachers’ responses to the questionnaire, inductive content analysis identified the emergent categories.

5. Results

5.1. Farm-School Teachers’ EL-EC Characteristics (RQ1)

Being environmentally literate and having the attributes of EC are prerequisites for educators to conduct meaningful ESE.

Table 1. Scores (1–5) for the major EL-EC variables and categories (N = 74).

Major Variable	Category	Mean ± SD
Involvement in pro-environmental actions	Environmental actions in the domestic environment	4.18 ± 0.669
	Incorporate the environment in teaching on the farm	3.95 ± 0.894
	Environmental conduct when purchasing	3.25 ± 0.882
	EC in the public sphere (activism)	2.82 ± 0.948
	Overall mean	3.71 ± 0.643
Dispositions regarding the importance of environmental issues	Sense of responsibility as an individual and as a teacher	4.30 ± 0.669
	Reservations regarding adopting environmental responsibility (*)	4.02 + 0.749
	Environmental responsibility in national policy	4. 14 ± 0.739
	Overall mean	4.18 ± 0.493
Subjective knowledge	Environmental topics/concepts and issues	3.51 ± 0.848
	Solutions to environmental problems	3.69 ± 0.833
	Overall mean	3.56 ± 0.770

* Negatively phrased items, for which the scores were reversed.

presents the teachers’ EL-EC attributes. As could be expected, these teachers expressed pro-environmental dispositions (scores > 4 in all the categories), reflected in a sense of responsibility as citizens and as teachers, as well as the need to promote SD in national policy. The teachers reported a relatively high level of involvement in pro-environmental actions, both as individuals in their domestic environment and in their professional role as farm-school teachers (scores~4). They were only moderately active in environmentally responsible purchasing (scores~3) and even less active in terms of actions reflecting public-sphere activism (scores < 3).

Overall, these teachers reported only a slightly more than modest sense of knowledge of environmental topics (scores~3.5). They felt familiar with issues that are communicated in the media, such as ‘environmental impacts of global warming’ (while the recent concept is ‘climate change’, the questionnaire (2020) employed the earlier term ‘global warming’) and the ‘environmental consequences of consumer culture’ (scores > 4), and reported a slightly above- general sense of knowledge about topics prevalent in sustainability discourse, such as ‘ecological footprint’ and ‘solutions for waste reduction’ (scores of ~3.7). They feel less knowledgeable (scores < 3) about more specific concepts such as ‘NIMBY’ or ‘environmental organizations’. Notably, these teachers reported a lower-than-expected sense of knowledge in agriculture-related content about which they are expected to be knowledgeable, such as ‘permaculture’ (score~3) or ‘biological pest management’ (score 3.7). Overall, the standard deviation values were high, indicating that these teachers comprised a heterogeneous group in terms of their sense of ownership of environmental topics prevalent in ESE.

Their explanations of the concepts reflect their actual knowledge (

Table 2. The farm-school teachers’ objective knowledge (distribution and example responses for each type of response) for selected topics.

Topic	No Response (%)	Irrelevant or Incorrect Response (%)	Basic or General Correct Response (%)	Advanced, Comprehensive Response (%)
Environmental impact of global warming (high subjective knowledge score)	21.6	14.9	48.6	14.9
		High temperatures in the greenhouse; I teach a class on this	Changes in weather; extreme weather events	I prefer the term climate change since, in certain areas, there is desertification, and in others, intense monsoons
Environmental impact of consumer culture	24.3	6.8	51.4	17.6
		Deforestation of Brazilian rainforests; groundwater pollution; I am very familiar with this	Overuse of Earth’s resources; humans purchasing more than they need	Endless, starting with excessive waste from frequent commodity turnover, through the environmental impact of producing oil-based commodities, the impact of transportation, and incorrect education that there is an alternative for everything
Biological pest management	24.3	17.6	44.6	13.5
		Natural processes in the soil that maintain the ecological balance	Managing pests by natural and not chemical processes, such as animals	Use of an animal’s natural trait to remove another organism that is an agricultural pest; using barn owls to manage voles
Causes of biodiversity loss	33.8	6.8	33.8	25.7
		I include this in my field guides	Construction, agriculture, consumerism, and tourism	For example, the reduction of aquatic habitats throughout the country due to development and infrastructure; invasive species, such as the common myna or rose-ringed parakeet
Permaculture	35.1	12.2	32.4	20.3
		I never heard of this; I teach classes on this	Environmental gardening; urban agriculture; in the farm, we leave leftover crops for animals	Sustainable agriculture that considers the interconnections among Earth’s systems; small-scale agriculture that uses existing resources with minimal environmental impact
Solutions for waste reduction	35.1	9.5	43.2	12.2
		In class at the farm; I cannot remember	Reducing consumerism, reuse and recycling; use of reusable shopping bags	Avoiding disposable utensils; production based on natural materials; separating organic material from waste and composting it will significantly reduce domestic waste to be landfilled
Ecological footprint	36.5	17.6	33.8	12.2
		How an area should look without human intervention	The amount of carbon I use as a result of my lifestyle; a parameter for human demands on Earth’s ecosystems	Attempt to quantify the area of land and water necessary to provide a population’s consumption and absorb its wastes; one way to convert human activity into resources in terms of area
Environmental organizations and their activity	45.1	9.9	33.8	11.3
NIMBY	63.5	16	21.6	9.5
		Taking responsibility; challenges in changing lifestyle	Moving waste and pollution to one’s neighbor; countries that do not want waste in their area	An aspect of environmental-social injustice; people objecting to establishing public institutions (e.g., waste treatment or antennas) near their home; the position that one is willing for the environmental hazard to exist but not in his/her proximity

). The distribution of the different levels of explanations indicates a complex picture. On the one hand, in several content areas, the distributions (Table 2) correspond with their subjective knowledge (Table 1). This is especially evident for (a) ‘NIMBY’ and ‘environmental organizations’, for which the teachers’ limited sense of knowledge (scores of <3) was paralleled by the highest percentage of teachers providing no response (>45%) and the lowest percentage of correct responses (<45%), and (b) ‘environmental impacts of global warming’ and ‘consumer culture’—areas in which the teachers’ sense of being knowledgeable (scores of >4) was paralleled by the lowest percentage of teachers providing no response (<25%) and the highest percentage (>60%) of correct responses. Conversely, in specifically agriculture-related topics, ‘permaculture’ and ‘biological pest management’, topics for which the teachers reported a less-than-expected sense of knowledge, the percentage of teachers that provided no response was moderate (24–35%) and the percentage of teachers that displayed understanding was high (>50%). It seems that regarding content specifically related to their area of teaching, there is a discrepancy between what the teachers feel they know and their actual knowledge, in favor of their actual knowledge.

5.2. Influence of Academic Background

Teachers whose academic education was environment-affiliated reported a higher level of involvement in the overall mean for pro-environmental actions compared to teachers whose academic background was in a non-environment-affiliated field (t = 1.948, p = 0.05 *; Cohen’s d = 0.45, small), and they felt more knowledgeable about environmental concepts and issues (t = 2.87103, p = 0.005 **; Cohen’s d = 0.66, medium) and solutions to environmental problems (t = 2.303, p = 0.024 *; Cohen’s d = 0.54, medium), which is reflected in a significantly higher overall mean for subjective knowledge (t = 2.984, p = 0.004 **; Cohen’s d = 0.69, medium). Despite these differences, these groups did not differ in any of the categories of environmental dispositions.

5.3. Relationships among the Teachers’ EL-EC Variables

5.3.1. Correlations

Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were found among the major EL variables. High Pearson correlation values were found between Involvement in pro-environmental actions and Subjective knowledge (r = 0.615, p = 0.000) and Dispositions (r = 0.556, p = 0.000). A relatively high correlation was found between Dispositions and Subjective knowledge (r = 0.445, p = 0.000).

A more accurate picture of the relationships is provided by the correlations among the subjective knowledge, dispositions, and actions categories (

Table 3. Pearson correlations among the categories of involvement in pro-environmental actions, dispositions regarding the importance of environmental issues, and subjective knowledge. The category with negatively phrased items of dispositions (reservations regarding responsibility) did not correlate with any category and was omitted from the table.

	Involvement in Pro-Environmental Actions				Dispositions		Subjective Knowledge
	Pro-Environmental Actions in the Home Environment	Incorporate ESE in Teaching at the Farm	Environmental Conduct When Purchasing	Activism	Responsibility as an Individual and a Teacher	Environmental Responsibility in National Policy	Environmental Concepts and Issues	Solutions to Environmental Problems
Pro-environmental actions in the home environment	1	0.501 ***	0.544 ***	0.403 ***	0.731 ***	0.487 ***	0.589 ***	0.340 **
Incorporate ESE in teaching at the farm		1	0.586 ***	0.559 ***	0.500 ***	0.408 ***	0.410 ***	0.369 **
Environmental conduct when purchasing			1	0.541 ***	0.455 ***	0.311 ***	0.445 ***	0.280 *
Activism				1	0.305 **	0.272 *	0.511 ***	0.318 **
Responsibility as an individual and a teacher					1	0.658 ***	0.449 ***	0.383 ***
Environmental responsibility in national policy						1	0.271 *	0.252 *
Environmental concepts and issues							1	0.604 ***
Solutions to environmental problems								1

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

). Overall, significant correlations (p < 0.01) were found among the majority of categories. The strongest correlation (r > 0.7) was found between their disposition regarding Responsibility as an individual and a teacher and their involvement in Pro-environmental actions in their personal life. Strong correlations (r > 0.6) were found between the disposition categories and between the subjective knowledge categories. Correlations among the pro-environmental action categories were somewhat lower (r > 0.5) than those between the disposition categories or between the subjective knowledge categories. Regarding correlations between the categories of different major variables, while these were significant, they were somewhat lower than those found between categories within the same major variable.

5.3.2. Predicting Teachers’ Dispositions and Involvement in Pro-Environmental Actions

Regression analyses explored the effect of the Subjective knowledge categories on the Dispositions categories, and the effect of the Subjective knowledge and Dispositions categories on the category of Involvement in pro-environmental actions. Only statistically significant findings are presented (

Table 4. Regression analyses for predicting the disposition category by subjective knowledge, and for predicting the four action categories by subjective knowledge and the disposition category (the table presents only the significant results).

	Disposition Category	Involvement in the Four Pro-Environmental Action Categories
Explanatory variable	Responsibility as individual and teacher (R2 = 0.221 ***)	Pro-environmental actions in home environment (R2 = 0.631 ***)	Incorporating the environment into teaching (R2= 0.346 ***)	Environmental conduct as purchasers (R2 = 0.292 ***)	Activism in the public sphere (R2 = 0.305 ***)
Sense of knowledge of environmental concepts and issues (Subjective knowledge category)	ß = 0.342 *	ß = 0.396 ***	ß = 0.294 *	ß = 0.342 *	ß = 0.501 ***
Responsibility as individual and teacher (Dispositions category)	-	ß = 0.588 ***	ns	ns	ns

* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

). Regarding predicting disposition categories, the explanatory variable Subjective knowledge of environmental concepts and issues explains 22.1% (p = 0.000) of the variance in Sense of responsibility as an individual and a teacher. This was the only disposition category predicted by this explanatory variable. With respect to predicting involvement in pro-environmental actions, Subjective knowledge and Dispositions explain 63.1% (p = 0.000) of the variance in Involvement in pro-environmental actions at home, 35.6% of the variance in Incorporating ESE in teaching (p = 0.000), 30.5% of the variance in Activism in the public sphere (p = 0.000), and 29.2% of the variance in Environmental conduct when purchasing (p = 0.000). Pro-environmental action at home is significantly predicted by Subjective knowledge of environmental concepts and by Sense of responsibility as an individual and a teacher. The other three categories of involvement in pro-environmental action are significantly predicted only by Subjective knowledge of environmental concepts and issues, while Sense of responsibility as an individual and a teacher did not influence them. These findings indicate the significant role of these teachers’ sense of ownership of knowledge concerning environmental content and issues in influencing their involvement in environment-related actions in their personal lives, as farm-school teachers, and in public-sphere activism. Contrary to expectations, Sense of responsibility as an individual and a teacher did not influence Incorporation of ESE in their teaching.

5.4. Teachers’ Perspectives Concerning Farm Schools and ESE

5.4.1. The Role of Farm Schools in ESE (RQ2)

In their response to this question, all the teachers (n = 74) viewed the farm school as an educational setting that should conduct ESE, but perceived the essence of this function differently, as reflected in the themes elicited from the inductive content analysis of their explanations.

Table 5. Teachers’ reasons for the role of farm schools in ESE.

Addressing Interrelations between Agriculture and Environment and Environmental Protection (74%)	An Opportunity for Connecting Children to Nature (22%)	Educational Setting and Resource for Implementing Contemporary Pedagogies Associated with ESE (18%)	Platform for Addressing Dilemmas and Promoting Value Education (11%)
“Agriculture directly impacts environmental quality, so learning agriculture must integrate the environmental context”. “It’s important that the farm is connected to its surroundings and to environmental issues arising from life in Israel. “The farm provides the opportunity to connect children to our ecological reality, to see problems caused when we don’t protect the environment and possibilities to protect it”.	“Learning at the farm goes hand-in-hand with EE, this is our connection to nature—an area that is disappearing”. “It’s a place that enables children to connect to nature and from there, to think about the importance of protecting it”. “The farm’s major aim is connecting children to love the environment, something that is really missing today in schools”.	“The farm is an excellent setting for learning these issues through inquiry, experiencing, and enrichment”. “Experiments finding alternatives to chemical fertilizers and pest management”. “The outdoors and agriculture settings enable students to encounter organisms and environmental issues of agriculture such as pest management”.	“Parallel to learning agriculture, the farm must deepen the students’ understanding of the environment, humanity’s responsibility to protect it, and ways for doing so”. “The farm implements the values of sustainability, such as ecosystem services; it embodies sustainability”. “The farm should provide a model for the students by presenting dilemmas and solutions to them”.

The sum of the themes is not 100% since teachers’ responses may include several themes.

presents example quotes for each theme. The majority (74%) identified this role in the subject matter. 22% viewed this role as a response to one of the contemporary challenges of ESE—the issue of disconnect from nature, identifying the farm-school as an Opportunity for connecting children to nature. 18% of the teachers perceived this role from a pedagogical perspective, and 11% identified this role in terms of values education (

Table 6. Teachers’ perceptions of their role as environmental educators and how they manifested this regarding the role of farm schools in ESE.

Include EE in Their Teaching Content and Activities (56%)	Encourage Environmentally Responsible Actions (29%)	Role-Model for Sustainability (20%)	Addressing Value Discourse around Sustainability (11%)
“Together we build a butterfly garden—the importance of protecting local species”. “Agriculture provides an example; it can be viewed through the environmental lens, conducting discussions that raise dilemmas regarding its benefits and shortcomings such as soil degradation, use of toxic chemicals, loss of green areas, as opposed to providing food, connecting to the land and to animals”.	“Building a green wall planted with herbs that reduces noise and contributes aesthetics to the farm fence”. “The students compost their leftovers, and we don’t use disposable kitchenware”. “Developing the students’ interest in cultivating a home garden”. “I emphasize options for re-use at the farm and in their homes”.	“We are the gatekeepers”. “If not us then who?” “My individual example as an educator influences the children and their ecological worldview”.	“I talk with them about the loss of bees around the world and the causes of this and is it our prerogative to extract the honey from hives”. “Issues of open space and population growth, aquaculture in the Red- Sea Gulf, and the Trans-Israel highway”. “Issues related to biodiversity loss, such as should we be eliminating organisms that are pests”.

).

Interview findings corresponded with the responses to the open-ended question in the questionnaire, but the opportunity to speak freely contributed a richer and more elaborate picture. For example, in relation to the theme of ‘ESE as values education’, the necessity for age-appropriateness was raised regarding the differences between younger and older children, with conflicting perspectives. One teacher stated that ESE is easier with the younger age groups, as they “…are more open, express more wonder, but this works less with older children who don’t want to be here, so the focus is less value-oriented and more scientific and practical: programs on entrepreneurship and excellence”. Conversely, another teacher claimed that when working with junior high school students, she is more of an environmental educator than with primary students since “I am not their homeroom teacher but their subject teacher, so I am hesitant to work with the younger children on sensitive controversial issues and taking on the role of homeroom teacher”.

5.4.2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Role as Environmental Educators and How They Manifest This (RQ3)

In their response to the second open-ended question in the questionnaire, while 12% of the teachers responded that ESE is not part of their function as farm-school teachers, the majority of teachers responded positively. Of these, 11% explicitly stated that they identify themselves as environmental educators as part of their professional identity. Content analysis of the teachers’ explanations elicited several themes regarding how they implement this (Table 6). The majority (56%) Include EE in their teaching content and activities. About a third (29%) Encourage environmentally responsible actions, while 20% of the teachers viewed themselves as a Role model for sustainability. Corresponding with the teachers’ perception of the role of farms-schools in values education, 11% also manifest this in their teaching by Addressing value discourse around sustainability.

Interviews supported the teachers’ conviction of their role as environmental educators. For example: “My personal connection to the students is deeper, enabling me to be more of an environmental educator since I have the opportunity to provide an individual example via the learning content and my conduct”; “Working outside in nature encompasses the educational and teaching dimensions, it’s important to me to convey to the students the values I endorse and views I understand as worthy”.

The interviews also revealed a rich repertoire of contemporary pedagogies associated with ESE that is enabled in the farm-schools, in contrast to the students’ regular school: Outdoor learning [41], as opposed to learning in the classroom; Hands-on learning outdoors, versus watching the teacher or a movie in the classroom; Experiential learning and multi-sensory experiences [42,43] that support the development of environmental values. For example, in a program for primary students on hunter-gatherer skills: “The students experience techniques such as ropemaking and flint-working instead of theoretical learning about hunter-gatherer culture”. Another teacher described this as “Learning by doing—harvesting olives, basket-making”. In the farm-school, topics are “addressed in a holistic perspective, creating a broader environmental context, and through this supporting critical thinking”. For example, in learning about greywater, “we visited the local sewage treatment plant and met with the specialist who described the facility and its environmental, economic and social benefits for the surrounding community, and we then conducted a debate around the benefits and limitations of household greywater systems, which are still not legal in Israel”. Inquiry-based learning [1] is inherent in the agriculture curriculum. With younger children, this involves learning about plant life cycles, seasons, and the connection between Jewish holidays and agriculture, which comprise much of the primary school agriculture curriculum content. With older age levels, this involves learning about the dilemmas associated with the environmental impacts of modern agriculture. Another aspect mentioned by teachers pertains to well-being and the “physical activity of agricultural work versus the uninviting settings of sitting near tables that contributes to the body and soul”.

5.4.3. Barriers and Challenges to Conducting ESE in the Farm School (RQ4)

This research question was only explored through interviews. Parallel to the strengths of farm-schools as a learning environment for ESE, the teachers identified several challenges confronting them in implementing ESE in the farm schools. Content analysis elicited four themes, highlighting different types of challenges:

ESE as a component of the educational agenda of the farm school—Several of the teachers stated that while they deal with aspects concerning ESE, which is significant for them, this is not part of the educational agenda since, according to the farm school principal, “Agriculture doesn’t preserve the environment”. Another teacher noted that “Older farm schools maintain traditions characterizing farm-schools of the 1960s and ‘70s when the environment wasn’t on their agenda. ESE and dealing with the environment is relatively modern and not part of the older traditions. While teachers may acknowledge the importance of dealing with the environment, this remains an idea while teaching at the farm school is practical, the topics are superficial and technical, and the staff’s practice doesn’t reflect involvement in burning environmental issues”. This theme reflects a challenge that is dependent on the extent to which farm schools have evolved from older traditional approaches in agriculture education to contemporary, more holistic educational approaches. Thus, in some farm schools, there is a gap between their formal label as ‘Farms for Agricultural Education and Environmental Studies’ and what schooling is conducted in practice.

Professional development—Teachers, especially those not formally educated in the sciences, indicated a lack of sufficient built-in in-service PD suited to their content needs: “…available are programs providing tools for schoolteachers, not relevant for me; options for my professionalization are not acknowledged by the Ministry of Education”. This emphasizes these teachers’ need for ongoing professional support suited to their specific needs, which are different from those of teachers in regular schools.

The following two themes concern relationships between the farm school and the regular school.

Fragmented learning process—The ability to conduct an ongoing in-depth learning process at the farm school depends on the format by which the students visit the farm from their regular school, as well as the type of relationship found between the farm school and the home school. When visits are either short, biweekly, or short-term, “Our ability to enter a continuous process is limited”. Furthermore, “While at the farm, we teach science processes that are learned theoretically in school through experience in the field, making the connection with the school so that our work is complementary is always problematic. I always feel that the school’s perspective is that what the students do at the farm is for fun and not for learning”.

Incorporating controversial issues—Teachers raised the issue that regular schools often do not support addressing those environmental issues for which there often is no one unequivocal answer at the farm schools since it is the role of the regular school to deal with such topics. As one respondent stated, “I refrain from addressing topics taught at school, since when I try to discuss dilemmas with the students, the schoolteachers don’t like the information the students bring, and a teacher even requested that I don’t deal, in the farm-school, with controversial issues”.

6. Discussion

Farm schools can and should play a role in conducting ESE. This study examined the views of farm-school teachers concerning this function and their role as environmental and sustainability educators. To this end, we employed a mixed methodology to provide a more comprehensive response to the research questions. The quantitative data from the close-ended sections of the questionnaire contribute to understanding the teachers’ EL-EC attributes, which is fundamental for their capacity to incorporate ESE within their teaching. The qualitative data from the open-ended sections of the questionnaire and interviews provide in-depth information regarding the teachers’ perspectives regarding ESE (content, values, and pedagogies) in the framework of farm-schools. The discussion is organized around those points arising from the combined findings that contribute insights for realizing the full potential of the farm schools regarding engaging students in the crucial area of ESE.

6.1. Farm School Teacher’s EL-EC Characteristics

Limited research has been conducted in Israel, as well as in other countries, exploring the EL-EC attributes of agriculture teachers. This void lends value to this descriptive aspect of the current study. Supporting the first hypothesis, overall, these teachers expressed relatively well-developed EL-EC in both their personal and professional lives (as teachers), providing a suitable foundation for them to function as ESE educators. In topics with high visibility in the media and those that receive more attention in mainstream environmental studies discourse (global warming and consumer culture), these teachers are highly knowledgeable (subjective and objective knowledge), while in topics that have less visibility in public discourse but more explicitly reflect the socio-economic-political dimensions of environmental issues (e.g., NIMBY), the teachers are less knowledgeable (subjective and objective knowledge). This picture corresponds with the findings of another study involving teachers in Israel [17], and infers the importance of enriching, via in-service PD, the teachers’ repertoire in current sustainability discourse, including issues that overtly resonate with the tensions among the social, economic, political, and ecological dimensions of sustainability issues and provide a fruitful substrate for developing students’ critical thinking around controversial socio-environmental dilemmas and socio-scientific issues.

Contrary to expectation, in specifically agriculture-related content, in which these agricultural teachers are expected to be highly knowledgeable, there is a discrepancy between their actual knowledge and their sense of command of this content in favor of their actual knowledge. This stands in contrast to the reported ‘disconnect’ that has been found between the subjective and objective knowledge of consumers, for example, around GMO food products, by which individuals with high subjective knowledge have low objective knowledge [44]; this is consistent with the Dunning–Kruger effect, by which individuals with limited knowledge or skills in a domain often overestimate their efficacy in the area [45]. A possible explanation for the finding with these teachers is that they reflect the “high performers” in the Dunning–Kruger effect by underestimating how well they are doing relative to their peers. Regarding content that is specifically relevant to one’s professional area of work, individuals may be more cautious concerning their knowledge proficiency, leading them to feel that they know less than they actually know.

In line with our second hypothesis, in addition to the significant positive correlations among the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, regression analyses indicate the significant impact of these teachers’ sense of ownership regarding environmental knowledge on their involvement in pro-environment actions in their personal lives, as farm-school teachers, and in public-sphere activism. This corresponds with other studies in Israel conducted with teachers and higher-education students [17] and youth who guide educational activities in youth movements [46], in which subjective knowledge is a significant determinant of environmentally responsible behavior. Studies exploring the influence of consumers’ objective and subjective knowledge on their food choices also support the highest explanatory capacity of subjective knowledge (e.g., [44,47,48]). The importance of the teachers’ sense of ownership of knowledge their involvement in bringing ESE into their teaching implies the need to reinforce their sense of efficacy.

EL-EC should be expressed in the individual’s involvement in pro-environmental actions (see the literature review). An encouraging finding concerning these teachers is the extent to which they incorporate the environment within their teaching. Some studies have explored agricultural teachers’ perceptions regarding sustainable agriculture (SA) [49,50,51], but studies specifically targeting their incorporation of sustainability within their teaching of agriculture are scarce. Soler [52] found that while agricultural teachers in Louisiana high schools perceive the benefits of ESE for students, in practice, they incorporate it sparingly and not regularly in their curriculum, limiting the subject’s potential impact on cultivating the students’ EL. A study in 12 Midwest US states, regarding agriculture teachers’ beliefs and perceptions concerning SA and how these relate to their teaching, found that the teachers taught SA to a moderate extent, regardless of their beliefs, while their perceptions regarding SA influenced the extent to which they teach it [51].

6.2. ESE in Practice in Farm Schools

The qualitative findings corroborate the quantitative findings regarding the farm-school teachers’ engagement in incorporating the sustainability perspective within their teaching. They recognized the importance of ESE and the role of the farm school in engaging in ESE but grounded this function of the farm-school differently and incorporated ESE in their teaching differently. ESE targets cultivating several domains (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) that, together, comprise EL-EC (e.g., [16,32,53,54,55]). While these three domains are reflected in the teachers’ responses concerning both the role of the farm school and how they incorporate ESE, their major focus is on the cognitive domain of content knowledge. While developing a knowledge foundation concerning human–environment interrelations is crucial, focusing solely on knowledge is insufficient in cultivating responsible citizenship. Despite this, ESE often still takes a transmissive, instrumental, and linear approach, with an emphasis on providing content, based on the assumption that raising knowledge will inevitably lead to increased awareness and pro-environmental attitudes, which, in turn, will lead individuals to adopt more environmentally responsible behavior. Tackling the affective domain via a transformative and critical education approach that stimulates examining one’s values and nurtures critically reflective thinking capacities to form a foundation for informed decision-making is crucial to promote a critical citizenry who are prepared to deal with the challenges of sustainability as ‘wicked problems’ [56,57,58,59]. Despite this, only ~10% of the teachers in this study identified the farm school as an opportunity for engaging in values discourse and do so, suggesting that these teachers exhibit a relatively narrow perspective regarding ESE.

Furthermore, parallel to the limited percentage of teachers that identify addressing dilemmas as a function of the farm school in ESE, addressing controversial issues was indicated in the interviews as a challenge for conducting ESE. These findings correspond with other studies indicating teachers’ hesitance in addressing controversial socio-environmental dilemmas [60,61,62,63]. Several reasons stated in the literature may underlie the farm school teachers’ avoidance of addressing agriculture-related socio-environmental dilemmas, including partial understanding of the inherently controversial nature of sustainability issues; lack of sufficient knowledge, pedagogical strategies, or experience of teaching this; absence of this aspect from the curricula or standards (i.e., meeting curricular objectives); the teachers’ personal beliefs and views regarding the controversial issue; official or political pressure/censorship from the school or public, leading teachers to refrain from discussing such topics which may be considered by the administration or parents to be subversive activity [60].

While ESE emphasizes providing opportunities for student engagement in pro-environmental actions, it is surprising that only about one-third of the teachers take advantage of the farm school setting to include such educational activities.

Together, these findings regarding the teachers’ focuses concerning ESE imply that there is room for PD suited to the specific needs of these teachers, as also indicated in other studies involving agriculture teachers (e.g., [51]) and as discussed later.

6.3. Teaching Strategies for Meaningful Learning in ESE

Learning around agriculture, especially when conducted in authentic real-world settings, is associated with constructivist conceptions of learning, including hands-on, experiential pedagogies that actively engage the students [13,14,15], learning outdoors [41], and place-based learning [64]. Findings among students indicate better learning outcomes in farm education when it is conducted in an authentic learning environment, employing active learning methods [15]. These teaching strategies are associated, in the theoretical and empirical literature, with meaningful ESE [31,53,55,65]. In the interviews, the teachers elaborated on their use of these pedagogies, another indication of the strong platform that the farm school settings provide for incorporating ESE. While they employ these pedagogies in their teaching, only ~20% associated them specifically with ESE. Making the connection between these pedagogies and ESE, and between agriculture and ESE, and clarifying how these pedagogies may facilitate meaningful ESE and not only agricultural education is another area in which PD can contribute.

6.4. Connecting to Nature

Extensive theoretical and empirical studies in the literature identify human-nature disconnect as a consequence of modern, urban, technological, and increasingly digital lifestyles that leads to humanity’s abuse of nature. Cultivating ‘connectedness to nature’ as part of the individual’s identity is key to nurturing positive emotions regarding the natural environment and embracing environmentally responsible behaviors (e.g., [66,67,68,69]). In this vein, research indicates the importance of direct positive experiences in natural environments for cultivating such dispositions, preferably beginning in childhood, as a foundation for the environmental commitment that is required later in life [66,70]. The farm schools provide ideal educational settings for enabling such positive interactions between students and nature. Thus, one might expect that more of these teachers would target the value of the farm school for ESE via its contribution to cultivating the students’ connection to nature, all the more so since much of the learning is conducted outdoors. The finding that only about one-fifth of the teachers explicitly specified this function of the farm-school may reflect the possibility that for the majority of these teachers, this aspect is obvious and inherent to their teaching and, thus, need not be explicitly pinpointed. Alternatively, it is also possible that in some farms, connecting to nature is not an explicit component of the educational emphasis; rather, the teachers perceive the farm school environment through the agricultural lens and, accordingly, focus on agriculture-oriented activities and not on the opportunity for “connecting to nature”.

6.5. Professional Development

The combined findings of the study highlight those areas in which the PD of farm-school teachers will strengthen their incorporation of ESE in their teaching of agriculture. Similar to other countries, in the past, agriculture was a core subject in the Israeli curriculum and all students in primary schools studied agriculture [3]. The farm schools were established against this backdrop; thus, they have a long tradition of teaching agriculture. ESE is a more recent trend, requiring a broadened approach by the farm schools in terms of their educational agenda and emphases. Maintaining traditional approaches to learning agriculture was raised as a challenge pertaining to some of the farm schools. This is corroborated by findings concerning how farm-school teachers incorporate the sustainability perspective in their teaching, indicating diversity among these teachers in terms of their competencies in ESE, including their comprehension of the connections between agricultural education and ESE. Together, these findings point to the importance of providing farm-school teachers with PD that exposes them to contemporary sustainability discourse, approaches in agricultural education geared to developing agricultural literacy (EL-EC), and strategies for incorporating ESE within mainstream learning at farm schools. This is especially pertinent for those teachers whose academic background is not environmentally oriented, who feel less knowledgeable, and who incorporate sustainability in their teaching less frequently compared to their peers with an environment-related academic background.

This study has some limitations. One is the modest sample size, resulting from the limited response rate (18%). Such conservative response rates from teachers are not uncommon and have been reported in other studies [50,71] Additionally, the teachers’ response was voluntary, possibly leading to self-selection bias. Together, these may limit the generalization of the findings to the whole population of farm-school teachers. The sample may also not reflect the full diversity of farm schools in terms of their educational agenda and goals specifically regarding ESE, which is a more recent direction taken by the farm schools. Despite these limitations, the notable coherence between data from the interviews and from the open-ended responses to the questionnaire supports the findings regarding the sample.

The data were collected in mid-2020. In view of the dynamic and continuously evolving nature of ESE, both in theory and in educational practice, it is recommended that later studies should explore farm-school teachers’ current perspectives. For example, the study was conducted prior to the 2023 reform regarding climate change education in the Israeli education system, by which climate change education was mandated [72]. It is suggested that future studies investigate if and how this reform has influenced the environment-related content taught at farm schools.

7. Conclusions and Implications

This study highlights the important function that farm schools can have in exposing students in the education system to ESE. It found that farm-school teachers express relatively well-developed EL-EC attributes, which is fundamental for their capacity to incorporate ESE within their teaching. They recognize the importance of ESE, are willing to incorporate it into their teaching, and employ diverse learner-focused experiential pedagogies that are inherent in agricultural education, and which are associated with meaningful learning and ESE. The findings also indicate that there is room for strengthening ESE implementation in these schools and offer some practical implications toward achieving this:

Professional development—Providing this group of teachers with PD opportunities tailored to their specific needs will enhance their capacities for incorporating ESE. While their focus on environmental content knowledge is evident, there is room to strengthen their capacities in various aspects, inherent in ESE, in which they appear to be less proficient. This includes leading in-depth critical discourse with young people around socio-environmental dilemmas, which entails exposing and exploring values and has been identified as being crucial in developing an individual’s EL-EC. Additionally, since some farm schools maintain a more traditional approach to learning about agriculture, with less emphasis on cultivating agricultural literacy, it is recommended that contemporary sustainable agriculture discourse be included within PD to promote these teachers’ integration of this discourse into their teaching, which is in line with such calls in the current international literature [51]. This will strengthen the role of farm-schools as an arena for ESE, employing agriculture as the platform for critical discourse regarding the deep interconnections among individuals’ behavioral decision-making and their decisions’ social-economic-environmental consequences.

Coordination with homeschools—The findings indicate that there is room for better coordination between the farm schools and homeschools around the curriculum (content and learning activities). Reinforcing the pedagogical ties between the farm-school teachers and the homeschool teachers may increase the latter’s awareness regarding the learning opportunities enabled at the farm schools, in view of their learning environment and educational resources, and their potential to complement the more conservative teacher-oriented learning methods that are mainstream in schools. This may contribute to more effective utilization of the farm schools as an integral component of the school curriculum in science as well as in other subjects, enhancing the educational contribution of the farm schools to students’ learning.

In conclusion, this pioneering study of Israeli farms schools emphasizes the significant value of these educational settings as an important arena for conducting ESE while employing agriculture as the curricular platform, which is in line with the increasing recognition of the relevance of merging agriculture education and ESE to cultivating a critical, conscientious, responsible citizenry, a task that is essential for realizing sustainable development [9]. This study focuses on the perspectives and educational practices of the farm-school teachers. Further insights for realizing the ESE potential of the farm-school framework may come from studies focusing on the students’ perspective regarding learning at the farms, as well as their learning outcomes via the ESE lens, which is not limited to the cognitive domain but instead emphasizes the affective domain and action competences.