Next Article in Journal
A Control Theory Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Cognitive Wellbeing
Previous Article in Journal
Reconceptualising Communication for Development: An Introduction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/socsci14030157
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Postsecondary Participants’ Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues

by
Seth Jordan
1,*,
Gary Wingenbach
1,
C. Cameron Baker
2 and
Rafael Landaverde
1
1
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2116, USA
2
Technology Services, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1356, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(3), 157; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030157
Submission received: 23 December 2024 / Revised: 12 February 2025 / Accepted: 26 February 2025 / Published: 3 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section International Politics and Relations)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Teaching university students about international food and agricultural issues is paramount to preparing a globally competent workforce. Given future demands for foodstuffs needed to sustain a global populace exceeding nine billion, educators are tasked with promoting understanding of international agricultural issues. Studying students’ beliefs about international agriculture and the information sources and experiences used to form those beliefs is necessary in preparing a globally competent workforce. The purpose of this study was to explore university participants’ beliefs about international agriculture issues and the information sources and experiences used to learn about such issues using a cross-sectional design with random samples at Texas A&M University. Results showed that beliefs about international agriculture issues were strong; graduate students held the strongest beliefs. Those with an international experience, family in agriculture, or majors in agriculture held stronger beliefs about the diversity of international agriculture. Respondents with international experience(s) perceived internal and external sources and experiences as beneficial to learning about international agricultural issues. Efforts to create a more inclusive curriculum for international agricultural issues can be enhanced through specific information sources and experiences in postsecondary education. Research is needed to explore complex factors (e.g., educator–learner and peer-to-peer homophily, experience abroad) affecting beliefs about international agricultural issues.

1. Introduction

The importance of teaching students about international food and agriculture issues cannot be overstated given the projected world population growth by 2050. Current estimates show that the world population will exceed 9.5 billion by 2050 (Gu et al. 2021). Globalization of food and agricultural sectors, mainly through shared technologies, products, and knowledge systems that cross national borders (Anderson 2010; Schneider et al. 2011), is necessary to ensure food security for the world’s population, now and in the future.
Universities play a key role in educating agriculture and non-agriculture students about the effects of globalization in the food and agricultural industries. Globally, universities mention internationalization in 90% of their mission statements or strategic plans (Marinoni and de Wit 2019). Many universities have increased their efforts to integrate international-focused curricula and experiential learning into academic offerings (de Wit and Altbach 2020), including more emphasis on preparing globally competent individuals to meet future agriculture workforce demands (Christiaensen et al. 2021). Agriculture-focused programs in higher education provide diverse internal and external options tailored to developing global citizens, but these programs often experience low student participation (Brooks et al. 2006; Wooten and Wingenbach 2024). External activities focus primarily on long- and short-term experiences in cultural and/or learning environments abroad (de Wit and Altbach 2020). Internal strategies focus more on classroom activities and learning environments enhanced by locally sourced information (e.g., incorporating international students’ perspectives into class discussions) and/or communication technologies that facilitate students learning about foreign economies (Altbach et al. 2019; Sarkar 2012).

1.1. The Postsecondary Learning Environment

Postsecondary education includes an array of personnel who influence students’ academic beliefs and career trajectory. Faculty instructors may exert high degrees of influence on students’ psychosocial wellbeing and academic achievements (Komarraju et al. 2010; Plecha 2002). University staff can also greatly influence students’ beliefs and academic performance. Additionally, research shows that academic advisors influence student success, increasing students’ self-perceived efficacy and academic achievements (Versfeld and Mapaling 2024).
Peers play crucial roles in others’ learning and belief formation processes through peer-to-peer learning. Research shows that universities can enable positive environments that foster peer-to-peer learning, but some students may feel embarrassed to ask peers about unfamiliar or unknown topics (Mustafa 2017). Peer-to-peer learning encourages international students to become more engaged and comfortable in sharing their experiences and ideas in mixed classrooms (Chilvers 2016; Urbanovska and Pleschová 2024). Limited research exists about peer interactions influencing students’ beliefs about international issues because most studies focus on study abroad experiences (Tonkin and Bourgault du Coudray 2016).

1.2. Beliefs About International Agriculture

Knowledge of international issues among those working in agricultural and life sciences careers is tantamount to developing global perspectives and competencies that provide personal and professional advantages when entering the workforce (Hurst et al. 2015; Irani et al. 2006; Vetter and Wingenbach 2019; Wingenbach et al. 2003; Wingenbach et al. 2024). Global education requires a comprehensive approach that combines theory, intercultural exposure, and international experiences (Jordan et al. 2024). However, agricultural students historically have less exposure to these experiences (Briers et al. 2010; Chang et al. 2013; Wooten and Wingenbach 2024). Agricultural education researchers found that a lack of cultural knowledge, limited financial resources, language barriers, and misconceptions about international agriculture led to low participation rates of agricultural students in international experiences (Chang et al. 2013). Likewise, low levels or misconceptions about international agriculture prevent students from effectively transferring theoretical and technical knowledge to global contexts (Morales et al. 2017).
Several researchers (Morales et al. 2017; Coers et al. 2012; Wingenbach et al. 2003; Wingenbach et al. 2006) have documented how global education develops students’ critical thinking, leadership, and intercultural awareness skills. However, less knowledge about international issues and Eurocentric beliefs about international agriculture were reported in some student populations (Jordan et al. 2024). There exists a demand for globally competent employees among agricultural employers (Moore et al. 2011; Vetter and Wingenbach 2019). Studying students’ beliefs about international agriculture is necessary to understanding attitudinal formation about international issues. Attitudes about food production and consumption influence students’ awareness and learning of pressing global issues key to feeding >9.5 billion people by 2050. An agricultural workforce that responds to today’s globalized and interconnected world is dependent upon deeper understanding of students’ beliefs about international agriculture.

1.3. Information Sources and Experiences

Most postsecondary education programs have adapted their instructional resources and experiences to include perspectives from beyond their campuses. Technological advancements and access to information allow students and instructors to use various materials more efficiently and faster than previous methods. Internet resources have reformed universities’ abilities to incorporate new and difficult-to-access knowledge in ways where students’ knowledge expands exponentially (Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. 2021). Nevertheless, some researchers (Baron et al. 2017; Chavali and Gundala 2022; Ji et al. 2014) found that students still preferred reading physical materials and relying on physical texts when students have limited access to online sources. Although vast technological advancements have transformed postsecondary education through online accessibility, some students may prefer offline sources such as knowledgeable guest speakers, professors, and/or family members (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003; Wingenbach et al. 2024). Preferences for online or in-person learning also shifted in post-COVID-19 learning environments, with students preferring online and face-to-face learning environments equally (Bright and Vogler 2024; Mehta et al. 2024; Nikolopoulou 2022).
Learning about the globalization of food and agricultural industries has been shown to influence students’ worldviews positively (Bletscher et al. 2022; Roberts et al. 2018; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Roberts et al. (2018) found that students traveling abroad could think more critically about international agriculture issues. Beyond international experiences abroad, information sources have shifted to include international context and voices, positively impacting our beliefs about global problems such as water (Eck et al. 2020), climate-smart agriculture (Bavorová et al. 2020), and online learning preferences (e.g., social media) (Scott et al. 2020). Social media, for example, has connected people worldwide and provided a platform for real-time communication across geographical boundaries (Yu et al. 2010).
Many issues remain for effectively integrating international sources and experiences into postsecondary education curricula. Research shows that the top challenges prohibiting students’ willingness to engage in global education opportunities in post-COVID-19 programs were program affordability, language skills, and safety concerns (Wooten and Wingenbach 2024). Faculty and students at land-grant universities face similar limitations to engaging internationally, such as financial and time constraints (Estes et al. 2016). Internal to some institutions, global expertise is under-utilized because of language and cultural barriers (Foote et al. 2008; Medved et al. 2013). Social media use in education has positive impacts, including enhanced interactions in the classroom and improved academic performance (Zhang et al. 2024). Still, excessive social media usage is linked to increased mental health challenges because connections through social media are often shallow and lack long-term engagement (Twenge and Farley 2021). Information sources and experiences are often unique to the university and student, but consensus of importance and use is crucial for postsecondary institutions to shape policies and pedagogies that increase student success.

1.4. Study Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to explore university participants’ beliefs about international agriculture issues and the information sources and experiences used to learn about such issues. The objectives were to (1) measure respondents’ beliefs about international agricultural issues, (2) assess information sources and experiences to learn about such issues, and (3) determine if significant differences existed in beliefs or information sources and experiences when compared by selected demographics or previous international experiences. The selected methods in this paper were part of a larger project; similarities in research design and demographics are reported elsewhere (Jordan et al. 2024) but are described fully in this paper.

2. Materials and Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was used to investigate the purpose and objectives (Fraenkel et al. 2019). Cross-sectional surveys (Creswell 2013; Field 2000) are commonly used in educational settings (Fraenkel et al. 2019). The study population (N ≈ 75,000) was students, faculty, and staff at a large southern U.S. university in spring 2021. The accessible population (n = 4100) included students (n = 3150) enrolled in one or more of 75 courses with the words “global or international” in the course descriptors and the faculty and staff (n = 950) associated with those courses. All student, faculty, and staff responses were used for data analysis. Stratified random samples were drawn from the 75 courses after receiving ethics review board approval ([University]; IRB2020-1445M). A sample of 351 would suffice for an accessible population of 4100; we rounded the sample up to 400. Repeated email reminders (Dillman et al. 2009) produced an 82% (n = 328) response rate; it was reduced to 45% (n = 181) after removing invalid and incomplete responses.
According to Dillman et al. (2009), sampling and nonresponse error represent two of the four possible sources of error in survey research. We used Lindner and Wingenbach’s (2002) method of comparing early to late respondents after defining respondents’ input based on waves of email invitations/reminders. All responses from the last week of February 2021 were considered early (n = 62); those received after 1 March were coded as late (n = 126). Independent samples t-tests were conducted using early (M = 34.18, SD = 4.08) and late (M = 34.74, SD = 4.16) respondents’ summed belief statement scores for international agricultural issues. No significant differences existed; t(186) = −0.88, p = 0.56. Respondents’ beliefs about international agricultural issues were not affected by response type. Therefore, results are indicative of the nonrespondents and are representative of the target population.
We note that Lindner and Wingenbach’s (2002) method was based on achieving a minimum response rate of 50%, which was first proffered by Babbie (1990) and, later, Fowler (2001). We do not dispute those recommendations but contend they were made before and during the onset of online data collection methods. Given the dearth of studies using online data collection and participants’ weariness of online surveys, we believe that a 45% response rate was sufficient to achieve the purpose of this study. Lindner and Wingenbach (2002) recommended that late respondents be defined operationally as the latter 50% of the respondents; 67% of our respondents were considered as late respondents. Nevertheless, caution is warranted in generalizing the results beyond the participants because of a low usable response rate (45%).
The research instrument had three sections. The first section (seven items) measured respondents’ beliefs about international agricultural issues. This section was adapted from previous works (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Respondents rated their agreement levels for seven items using a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree… 6 = strongly agree). Sample statements include the following: international agriculture involves more than farming; the U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries; and competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store. Post hoc reliability analysis revealed a lower Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α = 0.67) than found in previous works (αs = 0.81–0.95) but that was acceptable for this study because of the similar population of interest (i.e., university students).
The second section (12 items) assessed respondents’ agreement levels regarding information sources and experiences for learning about international agricultural issues. This section was adapted from previous research (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Respondents rated their agreement levels on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree …6 = strongly agree). Sample statements include the following: I learn about international agricultural issues from international students at my university; I learn from taking vacations in other countries; and I learn by engaging with my university professors. Post hoc reliability analysis produced a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α = 0.85) comparable to previous works (αs = 0.81–0.97); it was reliable for this study.
The third section included several demographic questions (e.g., gender, race, college) to describe the respondents. Three questions relative to family background (active engagement in agriculture), career (current or future career in agriculture), and previous international experience (e.g., international youth exchange in 4-H, FFA, other; study or work abroad) were included to determine if differences existed regarding beliefs about international agricultural issues when compared by presence/absence of an agricultural background or previous international experience.
Data were gathered online (Qualtrics), beginning in late February and concluding in mid-March (about 21 days). Descriptive statistics were used to report the data for Objectives 1 and 2, while data for Objective 3 were analyzed using ANOVA with partial Eta squared (η2) or independent samples t-tests with Cohen’s d as measures of effect size. The descriptors “small, medium, and large” are relative to each other and do not imply practicality of differences in behavioral science research (Lovakov and Agadullina 2021). Caution is warranted in interpreting effect sizes and/or in generalizing the results beyond the respondent group. All tests of significance were conducted with an a priori alpha level of 0.05.

3. Results

Participants (N = 181) were categorized by race/ethnicity, gender, class, college, family status in agriculture, career plans in agriculture, and previous international experience. The majority described themselves as white (78%, n = 141), female (60%, n = 109), undergraduate (54%, n = 98), seniors (19%, n = 35), and in the college of agriculture (33%, n = 59) (Table 1). By a ratio of 2:1, respondents’ families were not engaged (66%, n = 119) in the agricultural industry, and 71% (n = 129) were not planning for a career in agriculture. The majority (51%, n = 92) had not participated in at least one international experience, but for those who did, they had study (23%, n = 42) or work (23%, n = 41) experiences abroad.

3.1. Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues

The first objective was to measure respondents’ beliefs about international agricultural issues (Table 2). As a group, responses ranged from agreeing (M = 4.32, SD = 1.22) with “competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store” to somewhat agreeing (M = 5.37, SD = 0.76) with “global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year” (Table 2). Individual group responses ranged from faculty somewhat agreeing with “Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store” (M = 3.77, SD = 1.30) to graduate students strongly agreeing with “international agriculture involves more than farming” (M = 5.82, SD = 0.39).

3.2. Information Sources and Experiences to Learn About International Agricultural Issues

The second objective was to assess respondents’ information sources and experiences to learn about international agricultural issues (Table 3). As a group, respondents agreed most with the source “knowledgeable guests” (M = 4.83, SD = 1.02) and somewhat disagreed (M = 3.02, SD = 1.50) with the experience “I learn from international students at my university” (Table 3). Responses for sources and experiences ranged from somewhat disagree to agree. Individual group responses ranged from disagreeing with “I learn from international students at my university” (undergrads; M = 2.73, SD = 1.40) to somewhat agreeing with “knowledgeable guest speakers help me learn about global agriculture” (grads; M = 5.35, SD = 0.71).

3.3. Differences in Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues

The third objective was to determine if significant differences existed in respondents’ beliefs about international agricultural issues when compared by selected demographics (i.e., respondent group, college, family/future in agriculture). Table 4 displays the results of one-way ANOVA for beliefs about international agricultural issues by respondent group (N = 179). Significant differences were found for three belief statements. The first difference occurred for the belief that “international agriculture involves more than farming”, F(3,176) = 4.66, p < 0.001 (η2 = 0.074, indicating a medium effect). The second difference was for the belief that “global agriculture is different from one country to another”, F(3,176) = 2.88, p = 0.04 (η2 = 0.047, small effect). Finally, the third difference occurred for the belief that “during famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid”, F(3,176) = 2.80, p = 0.04 (η2 = 0.046, small effect).
Table 5 displays results of the post hoc tests (Tukey HSD) for those beliefs where significant differences existed between groups. Post hoc tests showed that graduate students agreed (M = 5.82, SD = 0.39) significantly more than staff did (M = 5.04, SD = 1.02) with the belief “international agriculture involves more than farming”. Graduate students agreed (M = 5.32, SD = 0.99) significantly more than staff did (M = 4.70, SD = 0.98) with the belief “global agriculture is different from one country to another”. Finally, a post hoc test showed that undergraduate students agreed (M = 4.85, SD = 0.93) significantly less than did graduate students (M = 5.36, SD = 0.98) or faculty (M = 5.38, SD = 1.19) with the belief “during famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid” (Table 5).
The second demographic comparison focused on college type (agriculture vs. non-agriculture). The majority (67%, n = 120) of respondents were from non-agriculture colleges (e.g., Liberal Arts, Engineering, Sciences). Responses ranged from somewhat disagree (M = 2.71, SD = 1.26) for agricultural college responses to capitalism to somewhat agree (M = 4.19, SD = 1.33) for agricultural college responses to family structure. Independent samples t-tests (Table 6) revealed significant differences in two of the statements. The first difference occurred for the belief “international agriculture involves more than farming”, t(177) = 2.14, p = 0.03, producing a small effect (d = 0.341) as the practical difference between groups. The second difference occurred for the belief “the U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries”, t(178) = 2.04, p = 0.04, producing a small effect (d = 0.324) as the practical difference between groups.
The third demographic comparison focused on family background in agriculture (active vs. non-active). Respondents indicated yes or no to the question, “Is your family engaged actively in agriculture?” (Table 7). The majority (66%, n = 119) of respondents’ families were not active in agriculture. Responses mostly somewhat agreed (M = 2.51–3.50) to strongly agreed (M = 5.51–6.00) with beliefs about international agricultural issues. Independent samples t-tests showed that the largest significant difference existed for the belief “international agriculture involves more than farming”, t(179) = 2.66, p < 0.01, producing a small effect (d = 0.418) as the practical difference between groups. Respondents with active family involvement in agriculture strongly agreed (M = 5.56, SD = 0.62) with the belief, while those with no family involvement in agriculture agreed (M = 5.21, SD = 0.92) to a lesser extent.
The fourth comparison focused on a future career in agriculture (yes/no). Respondents indicated yes or no to the question “Are you planning a future career in the agricultural industry?” (Table 8). The majority (71%, n = 128) of respondents’ families were not active in agriculture. Responses mostly somewhat agreed (M = 2.51–3.50) to strongly agreed (M = 5.51–6.00) with beliefs about international agricultural issues. Independent samples t-tests revealed the greatest significant difference for the belief “international agriculture involves more than farming”, t(179) = 3.19, p < 0.001, producing a medium effect (d = 0.524) as the practical difference between groups.

3.4. Differences in Information Sources and Experiences

The third objective was to determine if significant differences existed in respondents’ preferred information sources and experiences to learn about international agricultural issues when compared by college or previous international experience. For college type (agriculture vs. non-agriculture), those in the college of agriculture (n = 59) rated five of the twelve sources/experiences significantly (ps < 0.001 to 0.05) higher than those in other colleges (Table 9). Independent samples t-tests revealed the greatest significant difference was for the source “engaging with university professors”, t(173) = 3.72, p < 0.001, producing a medium effect (d = 0.34) as the practical difference between groups.
When respondents’ preferred information sources and experiences were compared by previous international experience (yes/no), those (50%, n = 89) with previous international experience rated 10 of the 12 sources/experiences significantly (ps < 0.001 to 0.05) higher than those without previous experience (Table 10). Independent samples t-tests revealed the greatest significant difference for “international students at my university”, t(175) = −4.65, p < 0.001, producing a medium effect (d = 0.699) as the practical difference between groups.

4. Discussion

Postsecondary education institutions, driven by a need to enhance students’ global understanding and competence, encounter complex and competing sources that influence students’ attitudes toward and beliefs about international food and agricultural issues. As found in previous studies (Altbach et al. 2019; Bletscher et al. 2022; de Wit and Altbach 2020; Roberts et al. 2018; Sarkar 2012; Wingenbach et al. 2003), challenges persist in identifying and incorporating an effective mix of internal and external information sources and experiences to elevate students’ awareness and understanding of international agricultural issues.
Respondents with previous international experiences preferred locally sourced information sources and experiences (e.g., knowledgeable guest speakers, on-campus international students, classroom interactions with international students) and external sources (e.g., study abroad, taking family vacation in other countries) to learn about international agricultural issues more than respondents without previous international experiences did. These findings contribute to understanding the impact of educator–learner homophily (Moscarelli et al. 2023) and may necessitate additional research on peer-to-peer homophily as methods to increase understanding of international agricultural issues.
Likewise, students in the agricultural college preferred knowledgeable guest speakers and engaging with university professors to learn about international agricultural issues more than respondents in other colleges did. Our results, particularly those showing that students preferred learning from on-campus international students and classroom interactions with international students, contradict some previous findings (Foote et al. 2008; Medved et al. 2013) while affirming other studies (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003; Wingenbach et al. 2024). Oddly, social media sources (Facebook, Twitter) were not preferred information sources to learn about international food and agricultural issues, negating others’ praises and warnings (Twenge and Farley 2021; Yu et al. 2010; Wooten and Wingenbach 2024) about potential uses of social media in postsecondary teaching/learning environments. Perhaps respondents viewed their social media use as disconnected with their beliefs about international agricultural issues in this study. Additional study should examine more closely if students’ social media use is confined to awareness levels (Wooten and Wingenbach 2024) or if it ignites deeper curiosities about international agricultural issues, leading to engaging with university professors and international students on their campuses (Chang et al. 2012a, 2012b, 2013).
Respondents with previous international experiences found family members to be a more important source of information about international agriculture issues. Due to the emotional and financial support needed to study abroad (Estes et al. 2016; Wooten and Wingenbach 2024), those with international experiences may come from families who value and support global exploration. Family income and associated education level may also influence these findings, as previous research shows a strong relationship between income and support (Lewis 2016). We recommend conducting more research to study relationships and factors associated with family beliefs, resources, and student engagement in international agriculture experiences.
We found that graduate students held more positive beliefs about international agriculture issues; however, undergraduates, faculty, and staff also held strong beliefs. Participants’ beliefs about international agricultural issues were similar to those in previous studies (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003). When beliefs were examined by groups (i.e., family in agriculture, major, and previous international experience), there existed significant practical and statistical differences, centered primarily on the statement, “international agriculture involves more than farming”. The statement is a key indicator of one’s beliefs about the food and agricultural industries including more than farming operations. It includes activities such as agroforestry, livestock production, and aquaculture (Scanes 2018; Smith et al. 2014). Future research should focus on perceptions of international agricultural production practices and people’s understanding of global agriculture economics, including trade issues and tariff effects on global markets.
Our results affirm previous literature, which showed that educators held stronger beliefs about international agricultural issues than did undergraduate students (Hurst et al. 2015; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Wingenbach et al. (2024) found significant differences existed between faculty and staff perceptions of global citizenship. We found that significant differences existed between graduate students and other groups. Faculty and graduate students have more knowledge and experience with international agricultural issues, given their additional learning experiences in higher education. Considering the fact that undergraduate and staff shared similar beliefs that were less positive that faculty and graduate students’ beliefs about international agriculture, it behooves faculty and graduate students to share their knowledge and experiences more assertively with others in postsecondary education. Universities cannot achieve their missions of preparing students to become global citizens if a significant number of staff have less-than-positive attitudes toward international agriculture. Learning and attitude formation is not confined to the classroom; it becomes enlivened through conversations with university staff and associated attitudes toward the topic outside of classrooms.
Differences in beliefs, when examined by respondents’ family background (i.e., active in agriculture vs. non-agricultural families), were similar to those found among high school students (Radhakrishna et al. 2003); that is, family background and attitude toward agriculture are significantly associated or disassociated from each other. The differences we found, not only in family background but also when comparing groups by academic major (agriculture vs. non-agriculture), may be explained by respondents’ exposure to agriculture and subsequent knowledge of the interconnectedness of global agriculture production and consumption. Those with agriculture-based degrees may understand global connections better because many have studied or know that U.S. production exceeds demand, thereby necessitating exports to foreign markets. However, as foreign agricultural industries improve their competitiveness through investments, policies, and technologies, foreign household income increases, which creates demand for more expensive inputs (U.S.-based inputs) worldwide. We speculate that study of and exposure to agriculture influences one’s beliefs about international food and agricultural production. Postsecondary educators and universities who are concerned with the challenges of feeding >9.5 billion people by 2050 should seek ways to increase students’ knowledge and experience in food and agricultural issues. Our research indicates that several positive sparks have been ignited; students’ preferences for knowledgeable guest speakers, engagement with university professors, and participation in study abroad to learn about international agriculture is a sound start to expanding the number of global citizens who may help feed the future global populace.
Respondents within the college of agriculture had stronger beliefs about international agriculture involving more than farming and whether the U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries than did respondents in other colleges. We speculate that college of agriculture faculty and students discuss global issues such as the need to produce sufficient foodstuffs to feed 9.5 billion people by 2050 more frequently than it is discussed in other colleges. Research (Martin and Enns 2017) shows that ideological differences exist between agricultural students within colleges of agriculture, primarily along the lines of agrarian populism (e.g., conventional agricultural production practices, rural lifestyle values) versus neo-agrarianism, which shares some nonconventional agricultural values (e.g., sustainable agricultural practices that balance ecological and social issues). If such ideological differences exist within colleges of agriculture, surely, they persist outside of agricultural studies. We believe that promoting the importance of agriculture and its role in meeting the needs of an ever-expanding world populace cannot be confined to those within the college of agriculture or solely within the agricultural industry. Discussions about international agricultural issues must be expanded beyond the realm of agriculture. An important starting point is to craft a more inclusive agricultural sciences curriculum that incorporates studies and practices in sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture (Sitienei and Morrish 2014). Balanced and blended approaches to study of international agriculture, such as holistic views of social, economic, and natural resource management, will likely attract students from non-agriculture related studies to more fully engage in international agricultural issues (Bletscher et al. 2022; Keating et al. 2010). Perhaps a more focused effort to achieve an inclusive agricultural sciences curriculum will aid agricultural and non-agricultural students alike in acquiring heightened feelings of efficacy when discussing contentious issues such as global food production challenges (Strong and Baker 2020).
Differences in beliefs statements when examined by previous international experience aligns with previous literature, which showed that those with international experiences inhibited or strengthened their beliefs about the importance of global agriculture production (Hurst et al. 2015; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Notably, 49.7% of our respondents had at least one international experience, which was greater than found in some studies (Wingenbach et al. 2003) but lower than in others (Hurst et al. 2015).
Additional research on this topic may help determine which factors influence participants’ decision-making processes to learn more about international agricultural issues. For example, do global pandemics such as COVID-19 dissuade our curiosities about others’ cultures? Do these global events prohibit our interactions with international people on our campuses? Do international students share their viewpoints or experiences in classrooms when geopolitical events create unrealistic attitudes and/or behaviors toward those not of our culture/nationality? Future research should investigate specific pedological strategies to increase peer-to-peer learning and its impact on students’ beliefs about international agricultural issues to enhance international students’ contributions in classes. We need to study these issues to more fully understand their effects on food and the agricultural production needed to feed >9.5 billion people by 2050.

Limitations

Some limitations were noted, particularly in the study design, response scales, self-reported data, and generalizability of the findings. The cross-sectional design limited our ability to draw causal inferences. We drew random samples to produce selected participants, but all were from Texas A&M University, thereby limiting generalizability of the results to other universities or student populations. We relied on participants’ self-reported data, which may have included characteristic bias. Although data collection provided anonymity, espousing one’s beliefs about international issues may be a personally sensitive issue for some. Therefore, it is possible that social desirability bias affected some respondents’ input. Participants may have answered questions according to how they thought we wanted them to respond, not necessarily reflective of their true beliefs. We realize that significant differences found in our analysis may be limited by the true practical differences they might have in social and behavioral sciences. Again, we caution readers to interpret effect sizes as relative terms and to restrain the generalizability of our finding beyond the respondent group. Finally, we replicated authors’ research instruments that used six-point response scales (Hurst et al. 2015; Morales et al. 2017; Wingenbach et al. 2003). Future researchers should consider testing five- or seven-point scales to allow for neither agree nor disagree categories. Also, they may consider building and testing hypotheses based on recent literature of the phenomenon under study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.W. and S.J.; methodology, G.W.; validation, S.J., G.W., R.L. and C.C.B.; formal analysis, G.W., S.J. and C.C.B.; investigation, G.W. and S.J.; data curation, G.W. and S.J; writing—original draft preparation, S.J., G.W., R.L. and C.C.B.; writing—review and editing, G.W., S.J. and R.L.; supervision, G.W. and R.L.; project administration, G.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was determined by the Institutional Review Board of Texas A&M University (IRB2020-1445M) on 11 December 2020 that this research met the criteria for Exemption in accordance with 45 CFR 46.104; the study was revalidated on 14 November 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy issues.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Altbach, Philip G., Liz Reisberg, and Laura E. Rumbley. 2019. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. Leiden: Brill, vol. 22. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Kym. 2010. Globalization’s effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 3007–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Babbie, Earl R. 1990. Survey Research Methods, 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron, Nancy S., Richard M. Calixte, and Michael Havewala. 2017. The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics 34: 590–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bavorová, Miroslava, İlkay Unay-Gailhard, Elena V. Ponkina, and Tereza Pilařová. 2020. How sources of agriculture information shape the adoption of reduced tillage practices? Journal of Rural Studies 79: 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bletscher, Caitlin, Megan Gould, and Shuyang Qu. 2022. The Exploration of undergraduate attitudes and knowledge about international agricultural issues and US agricultural policy. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 29: 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Briers, Gary E., Glen C. Shinn, and Anh N. Nguyen. 2010. Through students’ eyes: Perceptions and aspirations of college of agriculture and life science students regarding international educational experiences. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 17: 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bright, Kristi, and Jane S. Vogler. 2024. Learning online vs. learning in person: A mixed-methods approach to understanding how student preferences and perceptions have evolved since the pandemic. Online Learning 28: 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brooks, Shannon E., Martin Frick, and Thomas H. Bruening. 2006. How are land grant institutions internationalizing undergraduate agricultural studies? Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13: 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, Chia-Wei, Orry Pratt, Christopher Bielecki, Melanie Balinas, Anna McGucken, Tracy Rutherford, and Gary Wingenbach. 2013. Agriculture students’ interests, preferences, barriers and perceived benefits of international educational experiences. NACTA Journal 57: 97–103. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.57.3a.97 (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  11. Chang, Chia-Wei, T. Rutherford, and G. Wingenbach. 2012a. College of agriculture students’ interests and factors affecting their international education experiences. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 19: 158–60. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, Chia-Wei, T. Rutherford, and G. Wingenbach. 2012b. College of agriculture students’ perceptions of international education experiences. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 19: 95–97. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chavali, Kavita, and Raghava R. Gundala. 2022. The textbook dilemma: Digital or print? Evidence from a selected US university. TEM Journal 11: 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chilvers, Lucy. 2016. Communities of practice for international students: An exploration of the role of peer assisted study sessions in supporting transition and learning in higher education. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Christiaensen, Luc, Zachariah Rutledge, and J. Edward Taylor. 2021. The future of work in agri-food. Food Policy 99: 101963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Coers, Natalie, Mary T. Rodriguez, T. Grady Roberts, H. Charlotte Emerson, and R. Kirby Barrick. 2012. Examining the student impacts of three international capstone experiences. NACTA Journal 56: 55–63. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.56.2.55 (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  17. Creswell, John. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  18. de Wit, Hans, and Philip G. Altbach. 2020. Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5: 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dillman, Don A., Glenn Phelps, Robert Tortora, Karen Swift, Julie Kohrell, Jodi Berck, and Benjamin L. Messer. 2009. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research 38: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eck, Christopher J., Kevin Wagner, Binod Chapagain, and Omkar Joshi. 2020. Postsecondary students’ perceptions of water issues and water-related educational interests. The Journal of Extension 58: 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Estes, Stuart, Maggie Jo Hansen, and Leslie D. Edgar. 2016. University student and faculty needs, barriers, and expectations of international efforts and opportunities: A closer look at one land-grant university’s college of agriculture. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 23: 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Field, Andy. 2000. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for the Beginner. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  23. Foote, Kenneth E., Wei Li, Janice Monk, and Rebecca Theobald. 2008. Foreign-born scholars in US universities: Issues, concerns, and strategies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32: 167–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fowler, Floyd J., Jr. 2001. Survey Research Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fraenkel, Jack R., Norman E. Wallen, and Helen Hyun. 2019. How to Design Research in Education, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gu, Danan, Kirill Andreev, and Matthew E. Dupre. 2021. Major trends in population growth around the world. China CDC Weekly 3: 604–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hurst, Sara D., T. Grady Roberts, and Amy Harder. 2015. Beliefs and attitudes of secondary agriculture teachers about global agriculture issues. Journal of Agricultural Education 56: 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Irani, Tracy, Nick T. Place, and Curt Friedel. 2006. Beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and barriers toward international involvement among college of agriculture and life science students. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13: 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ji, Sung Wook, Sherri Michaels, and David Waterman. 2014. Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education 21: 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jordan, Seth, C. Cameron Baker, Gary Wingenbach, and Rafael Landaverde. 2024. Land grant university participants’ Eurocentric attitudes about agriculture: An ideological constraint to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 16: 2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Keating, Mark, Victoria Bhavsar, Herbert Strobel, Larry Grabau, Michael Mullen, and Mark Williams. 2010. Engaging agriculture and non-agriculture students in an interdisciplinary curriculum for sustainable agriculture. NACTA Journal 54: 24–29. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/nactajournal.54.4.24 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  32. Komarraju, Meera, Sergey Musulkin, and Gargi Bhattacharya. 2010. Role of student–faculty interactions in developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal of College Student Development 51: 332–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lewis, Winsome. 2016. Study abroad influencing factors: An investigation of socio-economic status, social, cultural, and personal factors. Ursidae: The Undergraduate Research Journal at the University of Northern Colorado 5: 6. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lindner, James R., and Gary J. Wingenbach. 2002. Communicating the handling of nonresponse error in Journal of Extension research in brief articles. Journal of Extension 40: 6RIB1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lovakov, Andrey, and Elena R. Agadullina. 2021. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Jounal of Social Psychology 51: 485–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marinoni, Giorgio, and Hans de Wit. 2019. Is strategic internationalization a reality? International Higher Education 98: 12–13. Available online: https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/11187 (accessed on 23 December 2024).
  37. Martin, Michael J., and Kellie J. Enns. 2017. The conflicts of agriculture: Exploring the agricultural ideologies of university agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural Education 58: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Medved, Dennis, Antonio Franco, Xiang Gao, and Fangfang Yang. 2013. Challenges in Teaching International Students: Group Separation, Language Barriers and Culture Differences. Lund: Genombrottet, Lunds Tekniska Högskola. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mehta, Kosha J., Javier Aula-Blasco, and Julia Mantaj. 2024. University students’ preferences of learning modes post COVID-19-associated lockdowns: In-person, online, and blended. PLoS ONE 19: e0296670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moore, Lori L., Jennifer Williams, Barry L. Boyd, and Chanda D. Elbert. 2011. International experiences of agricultural leadership and development seniors. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research 2: 117–23. [Google Scholar]
  41. Morales, Sarahi, Todd Brashears, Cindy Akers, Jaime Malaga, and Gary Wingenbach. 2017. United States and Latin American undergraduate students’ knowledge, attitudes and perception of global agricultural issues. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 24: 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moscarelli, Michael, Gary Wingenbach, and Robert Strong. 2023. Educator–learner homophily effect on participants’ adoption of agribusiness recordkeeping practices. Agriculture 13: 2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mustafa, Gamal M. M. 2017. Learning with each other: Peer learning as an academic culture among graduate students in education. American Journal of Educational Research 5: 944–51. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nikolopoulou, Kleopatra. 2022. Face-to-face, online and hybrid education: University students’ opinions and preferences. Journal of Digital Educational Technology 2: ep2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Plecha, Michelle. 2002. The impact of motivation, student-peer, and student-faculty interaction on academic self-confidence. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, April 1–5; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464149.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2024).
  46. Radhakrishna, Rama B., Francisco C. Leite, and Stacie L. Domer. 2003. An analysis of high school students’ attitudes and beliefs toward international agricultural concepts. Paper presented at 19th Annual Conference of the Association for International and Agricultural and Extension Education, Raleigh, NC, USA, April 8–12, vol. 19, pp. 540–49. [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts, T. G., Becky Raulerson, Ricky Telg, Amy Harder, and Nicole Stedman. 2018. The impacts of a short-term study abroad on critical thinking of agriculture students. NACTA Journal 62: 168–74. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/90022552 (accessed on 27 March 2024).
  48. Sarkar, Sukanta. 2012. The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education for the 21st century. Science 1: 30–41. [Google Scholar]
  49. Scanes, Colin G. 2018. Animal agriculture: Livestock, poultry, and fish aquaculture. In Animals and Human Society. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 133–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schneider, Uwe A., Petr Havlík, Erwin Schmid, Hugo Valin, Aline Mosnier, Michael Obersteiner, Hannes Böttcher, Rastislav Skalský, Juraj Balkovič, Timm Sauer, and et al. 2011. Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption. Agricultural Systems 104: 204–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Scott, Micayla, Abigail Borron, Jessica Holt, and Jason Peake. 2020. A quantitative analysis of perceptions and preferences of college online engagement methods among college of agriculture and non-college of agriculture students. NACTA Journal 65: 212–22. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27157846 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  52. Sitienei, Isaac, and Douglas G. Morrish. 2014. College students’ knowledge of sustainable agriculture and its implications on the agricultural education curriculum. NACTA Journal 58: 68–72. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/nactajournal.58.1.68 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  53. Smith, Pete, Mercedes Bustamante, Helal Ahammad, Harry Clark, Hongmin Dong, Elnour A. Elsiddig, Helmut Haberl, Richard Harper, Joanna House, Mostafa Jafari, and et al. 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 811–922. [Google Scholar]
  54. Strong, Robert, and Carrie Baker. 2020. Are food security and climate change contentious issues? Establishing agricultural students’ sense of urgency to lead change. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, Saint Petersburg, FL, USA, April 20–23; pp. 274–77. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tonkin, Kati, and Chantal Bourgault du Coudray. 2016. Not blogging, drinking: Peer learning, sociality and intercultural learning in study abroad. Journal of Research in International Education 15: 106–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Twenge, Jean M., and Eric Farley. 2021. Not all screen time is created equal: Associations with mental health vary by activity and gender. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services 56: 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Urbanovska, Jana, and Gabriela Pleschová. 2024. “It takes you out of your shell”: Using peer learning to enhance the interaction and learning of international and home students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Versfeld, Jessica, and Curwyn Mapaling. 2024. A qualitative study illustrating factors that enable and constrain academic advising practices in a Global South context. In Frontiers in Education. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA, vol. 9, p. 1419070. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vetter, Austin, and Gary Wingenbach. 2019. Self-perceived employability skills from agricultural study abroad experiences. NACTA Journal 63: 164–72. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27128510 (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  60. Wingenbach, G., S. Jordan, C. C. Baker, and R. Landaverde. 2024. Relationships between beliefs and information sources for international food and agricultural issues. EDULEARN24 Proceedings 16: 7047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wingenbach, Gary J., Barry L. Boyd, James R. Lindner, Shanna Dick, Sergio Arispe, and Sharon Haba. 2003. Students’ knowledge and attitudes about international agricultural issues. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 10: 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wingenbach, Gary J., Noelle Chmielewski, Jenna Smith, Manuel Piña, Jr., and Wayne T. Hamilton. 2006. Barriers to international experiential participation. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13: 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wooten, Alison, and Gary Wingenbach. 2024. Factors influencing students’ decision to engage in international education opportunities post-COVID. NACTA Journal 68: 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yu, Angela Yan, Stella Wen Tian, Douglas Vogel, and Ron Chi-Wai Kwok. 2010. Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers & Education 55: 1494–503. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zhang, Xueyuan, Jaffar Abbas, Muhammad Farrukh Shahzad, Achyut Shankar, Sezai Ercisli, and Dinesh Chandra Dobhal. 2024. Association between social media use and students’ academic performance through family bonding and collective learning: The moderating role of mental well-being. Education and Information Technologies 29: 14059–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Olga, Johannes Hartig, Frank Goldhammer, and Jan Krstev. 2021. Students’ online information use and learning progress in higher education—A critical literature review. Studies in Higher Education 46: 1996–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics (N = 181).
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics (N = 181).
CharacteristicsCategoriesf%
Race/ethnicity aWhite14177.9
Hispanic2413.3
Asian116.1
Another race/ethnicity31.7
Black21.1
GenderFemale10960.2
Male6837.6
Another42.2
StatusUndergraduate9954.7
Staff4726.0
Graduate2212.2
Faculty137.2
ClassSenior3418.8
Junior2312.7
Graduate2312.7
Sophomore168.8
Freshman95.0
CollegeAgriculture5932.6
Another college b3117.1
Liberal Arts2413.3
Engineering179.4
Sciences179.4
Business126.6
Health Sciences116.1
Education84.4
Law10.6
Family in agricultureNo family are engaged in agriculture11965.7
Yes, my family is engaged in agriculture6234.3
Career in agricultureNot planning a career in agriculture12971.3
Yes, I am planning a career in agriculture5228.7
International experiences cDid not participate in an international experience9250.8
Yes, at least one experience (e.g., study or work abroad)8949.2
Frequencies may not equal 100% because of missing data. a Another race/ethnicity included multiple races. b Another college did not require specific input. c International experience included international youth exchange (4-H, FFA, other), study abroad, work abroad, semester or longer study abroad at a non-U.S. university/college, and virtual study abroad (participant at a U.S. campus location).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 180).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 180).
Undergrads
(n = 98)		Grads
(n = 22)		Staff
(n = 47)		Faculty
(n = 13)		Total
(N = 180)
Belief StatementsM (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
Global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year.5.38 (0.78)5.68 (0.57)5.26 (0.79)5.23 (0.73)5.37 (0.76)
International agriculture involves more than farming.5.37 (0.79)5.82 (0.39)5.04 (1.02)5.23 (0.73)5.33 (0.84)
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.5.09 (0.87)5.32 (0.99)4.70 (0.98)5.00 (0.82)5.01 (0.93)
Natural disasters affect the price of food in my local grocery store.4.89 (1.09)5.18 (0.80)5.15 (0.75)5.00 (0.91)5.00 (0.97)
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.4.85 (0.93)5.36 (0.90)5.00 (0.81)5.38 (1.19)4.99 (0.93)
The U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries.4.52 (1.07)4.95 (0.95)4.83 (0.89)4.92 (0.86)4.68 (1.01)
Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store.4.29 (1.22)4.73 (1.12)4.36 (1.21)3.77 (1.30)4.32 (1.22)
Six-point scale; responses ranged from somewhat agree to strongly agree.
Table 3. Sources and experiences to learn about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
Table 3. Sources and experiences to learn about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
Undergrads
(n = 98)		Grads
(n = 22)		Staff
(n = 46)		Faculty
(n = 13)		Total
(N = 179)
Sources and ExperiencesM (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
Knowledgeable guest speakers4.67 (1.06)5.41 (0.67)4.92 (0.86)4.87 (1.02)4.83 (1.02)
A variety of materials (websites)4.74 (0.99)5.05 (0.84)4.85 (0.69)4.78 (0.89)4.80 (0.93)
Taking vacations in other countries3.88 (1.56)4.27 (1.03)4.67 (1.15)4.53 (1.24)4.15 (1.43)
Watching television programs3.86 (1.37)4.36 (1.36)4.42 (0.90)4.46 (1.03)4.11 (1.28)
Participating in study abroad3.98 (1.68)3.81 (1.54)5.00 (1.29)4.22 (1.64)4.10 (1.64)
Engaging with my university professors4.50 (1.27)4.27 (1.28)4.75 (1.14)4.13 (1.32)4.39 (1.28)
Events (international fairs or shows)3.59 (1.64)4.00 (1.45)4.23 (1.17)4.09 (1.44)3.81 (1.55)
Listening to selected podcasts3.91 (1.57)3.95 (1.65)3.58 (1.08)4.09 (1.18)3.94 (1.45)
Talking with family members3.63 (1.40)3.14 (1.61)3.42 (1.08)3.87 (1.39)3.62 (1.41)
Interacting with international students in classes2.90 (1.46)3.59 (1.71)3.83 (1.34)3.68 (1.51)3.24 (1.54)
Social media (Facebook, Twitter)4.27 (1.50)4.09 (1.77)3.50 (0.52)3.49 (1.46)3.99 (1.51)
International students at my university2.72 (1.40)3.18 (1.74)3.67 (1.30)3.42 (1.54)3.02 (1.50)
Six-point scale; responses ranged from somewhat agree to strongly agree.
Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
Belief StatementsSSdfMSFSig.η2
International agriculture involves more than farming.9.3933.134.66 **0.000.074 b
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.7.2032.402.88 *0.040.047 a
Global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year.3.0131.001.750.16
Natural disasters affect the price of food in my local grocery store.3.0031.001.070.36
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.7.1132.372.80 *0.040.046 a
The U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries.5.9731.992.000.12
Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store.7.7732.291.760.16
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001. Eta squared: a small (η2 = 0.01), b medium (η2 ≥ 0.059).
Table 5. Post hoc tests (Tukey HSD) for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
Table 5. Post hoc tests (Tukey HSD) for beliefs about international agricultural issues by group (N = 179).
BeliefsGroups (I)Groups (J)MD (I-J)S.E.Sig.95% CI
LowerUpper
International agriculture involves more than farming.UndergradGraduate−0.4510.1930.095−0.950.05
Faculty0.1370.2420.942-0.490.76
Staff0.3250.1450.118−0.050.70
GraduateUndergrad0.4510.1930.095−0.050.95
Faculty0.5870.2870.174−0.161.33
Staff0.776 *0.2120.0020.231.32
FacultyUndergrad−0.1370.2420.942−0.760.49
Graduate−0.5870.2870.174−1.330.16
Staff0.1880.2570.884−0.480.85
StaffUndergrad−0.3250.1450.118−0.700.05
Graduate−0.776 *0.2120.002−1.32−0.23
Faculty−0.1880.2570.884−0.850.48
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.UndergradGraduate−0.2260.2150.720−0.790.33
Faculty0.0920.2700.986−0.610.79
Staff0.3900.1620.080−0.030.81
GraduateUndergrad0.2260.2150.720−0.330.79
Faculty0.3180.3190.752−0.511.15
Staff0.616 *0.2360.0480.001.23
FacultyUndergrad−0.0920.2700.986−0.790.61
Graduate−0.3180.3190.752−1.150.51
Staff0.2980.2860.726−0.441.04
StaffUndergrad−0.3900.1620.080−0.810.03
Graduate−0.616 *0.2360.048−1.230.00
Faculty−0.2980.2860.726−1.040.44
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.UndergradGraduate−0.517 *0.2170.018−0.94−0.09
Faculty−0.538 *0.2710.049−1.070.00
Staff−0.1530.1630.350−0.480.17
GraduateUndergrad0.517 *0.2170.0180.090.94
Faculty−0.0210.3220.948−0.660.61
Staff0.3640.2380.128−0.110.83
FacultyUndergrad0.538 *0.2710.0490.001.07
Graduate0.0210.3220.948−0.610.66
Staff0.3850.2880.184−0.180.95
StaffUndergrad0.1530.1630.350−0.170.48
Graduate−0.3640.2380.128−0.830.11
Faculty−0.3850.2880.184−0.950.18
* p < 0.05.
Table 6. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by college type (N = 178).
Table 6. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by college type (N = 178).
Agriculture
(n = 59)		Non-Agriculture
(n = 120)
Belief StatementsM (SD)M (SD)tpd
International agriculture involves more than farming.5.53 (0.80)5.24 (0.85)2.14 *0.0330.341 a
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.5.20 (0.98)4.93 (0.88)1.800.076
Global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year.5.46 (0.82)5.33 (0.74)1.020.308
Natural disasters affect the price of food in my local grocery store.5.12 (1.00)4.94 (0.96)1.150.253
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.4.92 (1.02)5.03 (0.89)−0.740.462
The U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries.4.90 (0.98)4.58 (1.01)2.04 *0.0430.324 a
Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store.4.49 (1.36)4.24 (1.15)1.270.204
* p < 0.05. Cohen’s d: a small (d = 0.20).
Table 7. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by family in agriculture (N = 180).
Table 7. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by family in agriculture (N = 180).
Yes (n = 61)No (n = 119)
Belief StatementsM (SD)M (SD)tpd
International agriculture involves more than farming.5.56 (0.62)5.21 (0.92)−2.66 **0.0090.418 a
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.5.25 (0.89)4.89 (0.93)−2.47 *0.0150.388 a
Global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year.5.48 (0.67)5.32 (0.80)−1.300.194
Natural disasters affect the price of food in my local grocery store.5.10 (1.09)4.95 (0.90)−0.980.331
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.4.74 (1.05)5.12 (0.85)2.63 *0.0160.414 a
The U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries.4.61 (1.14)4.72 (0.93)0.730.465
Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store.4.44 (1.26)4.26 (1.20)−0.930.351
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Cohen’s d: a small (d = 0.20).
Table 8. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by future career in agriculture (N = 180).
Table 8. Independent samples t-tests for beliefs about international agricultural issues by future career in agriculture (N = 180).
Yes (n = 52)No (n = 128)
Belief StatementsM (SD)M (SD)tpd
International agriculture involves more than farming.5.63 (0.56)5.20 (0.91)−3.19 ***0.0000.524 b
Global agriculture is different from one country to another.5.29 (0.89)4.90 (0.92)−2.60 **0.0100.427 a
Global food production allows me to eat a variety of products all year.5.42 (0.85)5.35 (0.73)−0.570.570
Natural disasters affect the price of food in my local grocery store.5.13 (0.95)4.95 (0.97)−1.190.236
During famine, the U.S. should help other countries with food aid.4.83 (1.13)5.05 (0.84)1.490.193
The U.S. should help other countries develop their agricultural industries.4.85 (1.00)4.62 (1.00)−1.390.167
Competition worldwide keeps food prices low in my grocery store.4.71 (1.16)4.17 (1.21)−2.77 **0.0060.456 a
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Cohen’s d: a small (d = 0.20), b medium (d = 0.50).
Table 9. Independent samples t-tests for sources and experiences by college type (N = 179).
Table 9. Independent samples t-tests for sources and experiences by college type (N = 179).
Agriculture
(n = 59)		Non-Agriculture
(n = 120)
Sources and ExperiencesM (SD)M (SD)tpd
Knowledgeable guest speakers5.19 (0.93)4.67 (1.02)3.29 ***0.0010.527 b
A variety of materials (websites)5.10 (0.89)4.66 (0.91)3.07 **0.0020.491 a
Engaging with university professors4.88 (1.19)4.15 (1.26)3.72 ***<0.0010.594 b
Participating in study abroad4.38 (1.72)3.96 (1.59)1.610.109
Taking vacations in other countries4.32 (1.42)4.06 (1.43)1.160.249
Listening to selected podcasts4.25 (1.43)3.78 (1.45)2.07 *0.0400.331 a
Social media (Facebook, Twitter)4.24 (1.59)3.87 (1.46)1.520.131
Watching television programs4.19 (1.37)4.08 (1.24)0.540.589
Events (international fairs or shows)4.14 (1.59)3.66 (1.51)1.96 *0.0520.314 a
Talking with family members3.78 (1.39)3.54 (1.42)1.070.284
Interacting with international students in my classes3.41 (1.58)3.16 (1.51)1.000.320
International students at my university3.22 (1.65)2.92 (1.42)1.240.241
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Cohen’s d: a small (d = 0.20), b medium (d = 0.50).
Table 10. Independent samples t-tests for sources and experiences by previous international experience (N = 179).
Table 10. Independent samples t-tests for sources and experiences by previous international experience (N = 179).
Yes (n = 89)No (n = 90)
Sources and ExperiencesM (SD)M (SD)tpd
Knowledgeable guest speakers5.12 (0.94)4.54 (1.02)−3.95 ***<0.0010.591 b
A variety of materials (websites)4.99 (0.82)4.61 (0.99)−2.78 **0.0060.415 a
Engaging with university professors4.62 (1.19)4.17 (1.33)−2.35 *0.0200.356 a
Participating in study abroad4.55 (1.44)3.65 (1.70)−3.78 ***<0.0010.570 b
Taking vacations in other countries4.51 (1.29)3.79 (1.47)−3.49 ***<0.0010.524 b
Watching television programs4.31 (1.23)3.92 (1.32)−2.02 *0.0450.302 a
Listening to selected podcasts4.15 (1.40)3.73 (1.48)−1.930.056
Events (international fairs or shows)4.14 (1.38)3.49 (1.65)−2.81 **0.0060.422 a
Social media (Facebook, Twitter)4.14 (1.48)3.85 (1.54)−1.240.215
Talking with family members3.86 (1.38)3.38 (1.41)−2.32 *0.0220.348 a
Interacting with international students in my classes3.70 (1.47)2.80 (1.47)−4.07 ***<0.0010.614 b
International students at my university3.52 (1.51)2.53 (1.33)−4.65 ***<0.0010.699 b
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Cohen’s d: a small (d = 0.20), b medium (d = 0.50).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jordan, S.; Wingenbach, G.; Baker, C.C.; Landaverde, R. Postsecondary Participants’ Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030157

AMA Style

Jordan S, Wingenbach G, Baker CC, Landaverde R. Postsecondary Participants’ Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(3):157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030157

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jordan, Seth, Gary Wingenbach, C. Cameron Baker, and Rafael Landaverde. 2025. "Postsecondary Participants’ Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues" Social Sciences 14, no. 3: 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030157

APA Style

Jordan, S., Wingenbach, G., Baker, C. C., & Landaverde, R. (2025). Postsecondary Participants’ Beliefs About International Agricultural Issues. Social Sciences, 14(3), 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030157

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop