































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 2, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jamie A. Greig, Assistant Professor, The University of Tennessee, 320a Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, 

TN 37996-4500. jgreig@utk.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-6374  
2. Blake Colclasure, Senior Lecturer, The University of Tennessee, 236 Brehm Animal Science Building, 2506 River Drive, 

Knoxville, TN 37996. bcolclas@tennessee.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-286X  
3. Shelli Rampold, Assistant Professor, The University of Tennessee, 321D Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, 

TN 37996-4500, srampold@tennessee.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-7157  
4. Taylor Ruth, Assistant Professor, The University of Tennessee, 201B Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 

37996-4500, Truth3@utk.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-9154  
5. Tyler Granberry, Assistant Professor, The University of Tennessee, 114C McCord Hall, 2640 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, 

TN 37996-4500, tgranber@tennessee.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-0027  
 

64 

 

Enhancing Agricultural Education through Virtual Reality: 
Facilitation, Application, Reflection, and Measurement in the 

Classroom 
 

J. Greig1, B. Colclasure2, S. Rampold3, T. Ruth4, T. Granberry5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: May 31, 2023 
Accepted: July 31, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
virtual reality integration; 
agricultural literacy 
enhancement; VRFARM model 
  

Abstract 
This agricultural development methods paper presents the Virtual Reality 
Facilitation, Application, Reflection, and Measurement (VRFARM) 
framework, an approach for integrating and evaluating Virtual Reality 
(VR) in agricultural education to enhance agricultural literacy. The 
VRFARM framework is adapted from Biggs’ three key components— – 
presage, process, and product. It draws upon the principles of student 
and teacher characteristics, teaching environments, instructional 
methods, and reflective and measurement-based evaluations. The 
framework proposes a mixed-methods approach for evaluation, 
examining qualitative and quantitative data from teachers and students 
engaged with VR in the classroom. VR, when appropriately integrated 
using the VRFARM framework, is designed to improve students' 
agricultural literacy, engagement, and awareness. Major 
recommendations include using the VRFARM framework to implement 
and evaluate professional development programs for educators on VR 
use and agricultural literacy, along with fostering further research 
exploring the long-term impacts, diversity of educational settings and 
geographical locations, and inclusivity of VR in agricultural classrooms. 
This study establishes the VRFARM framework as a practical and 
research-based framework for educators, evaluators, and researchers, 
marking a significant step towards more innovative and effective VR 
agricultural education. 

mailto:jgreig@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-6374
mailto:bcolclas@tennessee.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-286X
mailto:srampold@tennessee.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-7157
mailto:Truth3@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-9154
mailto:tgranber@tennessee.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-0027


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   65 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
An agriculturally literate person is one who understands the food and fiber system and its 
economic, social, and environment impacts on all Americans (National Research Council [NRC], 
1988). A lack of connection, knowledge, and awareness of agriculture from young people 
impede their motivation and interests to pursue ag-related careers, adding strain to an industry 
that is already experiencing a shortage of qualified workers (Erickson et al., 2018). In addition, 
the public’s declining understanding and mistrust of agricultural practices can influence 
legislative changes targeting agricultural production (Ochs et al., 2019). Although a majority of 
research examining this decline in agricultural literacy has focused in the United States, Cosby 
et al. (2022) identified that these trends are occurring globally. 

Rapid advancements in the agricultural industry have led to more industrialized and globalized 
agricultural systems (Slocum & Curtis, 2017). Although these advancements offer benefits, such 
as increased efficiency, sustainability, and food security (Little, 2019), they may unintentionally 
create barriers between people and agriculture. In addition to shifts in the agricultural industry 
toward consolidation (Key, 2019), urbanization has changed global human population 
demographics, such that there are now more people living in urban areas compared to rural 
areas. These and similar trends continue to create a worrisome and growing disconnect 
between people and the agricultural industry (Dale et al., 2017; Frick et al., 1995; Kovar & Ball, 
2013; Meischen & Trexler, 2003).  

Formal and non-formal agricultural education can be a means to improve agricultural literacy 
among K-20 youth, educators, school administrators, and policymakers (Spielmaker et al., 
2014). Experiential learning has particular value to develop students’ deeper understanding of 
subject matter while building their critical thinking skills and application of gained knowledge 
(Eyler, 2009). Programs designed for youth that embrace experiential learning have been 
shown to improve agricultural literacy (Luckey et al., 2013; Pinkerton et al., 2021). The use of 
field trips that offer direct exposure to agricultural production have been especially useful in 
this endeavor for K-12 students (Bayer et al., 2020; Murrah-Hanson et al., 2022; Sigmon, 2014), 
as well as for post-secondary agriculture students through international travel experiences 
(Chen et al., 2020; Jarrell, 2019; Roberts et al., 2020). However, significant barriers exist that 
impede instructors’ use of such activities, like time, resource availability, school culture, and 
teachers’ knowledge about agriculture (Chang et al., 2013; Perticara & Swenson, 2019).  

Knobloch et al. (2007) posited that agricultural literacy professionals should change 
programming efforts to improve the integration of agricultural topics in the classroom. Modern 
technologies can be used to infuse agriculture-based, experiential learning to new audiences, 
while increasing equity and reducing the barriers of time, costs, and resources associated with 
physical travel. One way to address the growing issue in agricultural literacy while still engaging 
individuals in experiential learning is through the implementation and utilization of virtual 
reality (VR), which can be used as an educational tool to allow individuals to be immersed in 
virtual environments that mimic real life experiences. For instance, immersive VR can facilitate 
field-trip experiences and skill-based learning, eliminating the need to leave the classroom or 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   66 
 

rely on costly, bulky equipment that may also pose safety risks. Recent advancements in VR 
technology have not only reduced its cost but also enhanced its portability and usability. Unlike 
earlier VR iterations that were expensive and required high-end computers, modern versions, 
like the Meta Quest, are standalone, more affordable devices. This accessibility has simplified 
their integration into classroom settings.  

The development of VR applications in agricultural education has the potential to improve 
agricultural literacy, but an effective framework is necessary to guide successful 
implementation and evaluation of VR to enhance agricultural literacy. To help guide these 
efforts, the Virtual Reality Facilitation, Application, Reflection, and Measurement (VRFARM) 
framework was developed (Figure 1). Based on Biggs (2003) 3P model, we replace “presage” 
with “Facilitation,” “Process” with “Application,” and “Product” with “Reflection and 
Measurement.” 

Figure 1 

Virtual Reality Facilitation, Application, Reflection, and Measurement (VRFARM) model 

 
 Note. This model is adapted from Biggs 3-P Model (Biggs, 2003).  

Purpose and Procedure 
 
The purpose of this paper is to detail the (a) Facilitation, (b) Application, and (c) Reflection and 
Measurement factors related to VR agricultural classroom integration to enhance agricultural 
literacy and (d) discuss applications of the VRFARM model for both practice, evaluation, and 
research. Its intent is to equip agricultural educators, evaluators, and researchers with a 
framework that goes beyond solely evaluating or researching educational outcomes. 

To develop a comprehensive understanding of the Facilitation, Application, Reflection, and 
Measurement (FARM) of VR for agricultural literacy, we completed a comprehensive search of 
literature on topics related to VR within STEM and agricultural education. Our goal was to 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   67 
 

define characteristics and measures appropriate for the integration of VR to enhance 
agricultural literacy. The identified literature spanned topics like assessment characteristics in 
immersive educational environments, methods of classroom VR application, best practices in 
the measurement of literacy in specialized domains, and the specific nuances of gauging 
learning in virtual environments (Hamilton et al., 2021; Isaías et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2021). To 
ensure a comprehensive approach specific to VR in classroom settings, we also reviewed 
published research on best practices for VR classroom integration. We identified studies that 
elaborated on pedagogical strategies, instructional design methodologies, and reflective 
practices that have been empirically validated in the context of VR-based educational settings. 
The researchers then worked together to synthesize findings, integrate overlapping theories, 
and draw conclusions to develop the VRFARM framework. 

Facilitation 
Understanding facilitation characteristics and assessments in educational settings, especially 
within innovative platforms like VR an important process for evaluators and researchers. For 
evaluators, having a clear grasp of these characteristics enables the design of more precise and 
effective assessments. This knowledge aids in creating assessment tools that accurately 
measure learning outcomes and other educational metrics as a result of engagement with the 
VR environment. It also helps in aligning the assessments with the unique interactive and 
immersive features of VR, ensuring that the assessments are not only relevant but also 
engaging for the learners. On the other hand, for researchers, comprehending facilitation 
characteristics and assessments provides a robust framework for analyzing and understanding 
the dynamics of VR-based educational settings. It offers a lens through which the effectiveness 
and impact of VR as a learning tool can be studied. Additionally, it aids in the identification of 
areas of improvement, thus contributing to the advancement of pedagogical strategies and 
technological features in VR education. Furthermore, it provides a basis for comparative 
studies, where the outcomes of VR-based learning can be compared with traditional learning 
environments. 

In identifying and measuring the characteristics of students, teachers, and the learning 
environment within VR settings, various methodologies and frameworks have been employed. 
The assessment of students' cognitive capabilities, motivation, prior knowledge, and 
adaptability to VR has been explored through studies aimed at understanding how assessments 
are constructed to evaluate students’ learning in VR (Castenada et al., 2023). A systematic 
review spanning 20 years of empirical research on VR application in K-12 and higher education 
also provided insights into the evolving trends in VR literature concerning pedagogical 
assumptions and technological features of VR interventions (Luo et al., 2021).  The immediate 
feedback characteristic of assessments in VR showcases the potential of real-time evaluation in 
understanding students' decision-making. On the side of the educators, a large-scale survey 
investigated teachers’ perceptions towards VR technology, shedding light on their technical 
proficiency, pedagogical knowledge, engagement, and adaptability to VR environments 
(Khukalenko, 2022). These studies together build a narrative on how the characteristics of all 
stakeholders and the learning environment can be identified and measured to enhance the 
educational experience in VR settings. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   68 
 

Possible facilitation factors are outlined in Table 1. A combination of quantitative and 
qualitative measures will likely provide the most holistic understanding of the effectiveness of 
VR instruction. 

Table 1 
 
Facilitation Factors and Potential Methods of Assessment 
Facilitation 
Factor 
Category 

Facilitation 
Factors 

Assessment Description Potential Assessment Instruments 

Characteristics 
of the Student 

Cognitive 
Capabilities 
 

Assess students’ ability to comprehend, 
recall, apply, analyze, and synthesize 
information in a VR environment. 

Standard cognitive assessments 
and specific VR competency 
evaluations. 

 Motivation 
 

Evaluate students’ drive to learn in a VR 
setting. 

Self-reported surveys or 
observations of student 
engagement and participation. 

 Prior Knowledge 
and Skills 
 

Assess what the students already know 
about the subject matter and their level of 
technical skill with VR. 

Pre-assessment knowledge/skill 
tests. 

 Adaptability to 
VR 
 

Ability of students to respond positively to 
VR learning environments. 

Surveys, interviews, and 
observations of VR use and 
engagement over time. 

Characteristics 
of the Teacher 

Technical 
Proficiency 
 

Evaluate a teacher's ability to manage the 
VR technology effectively. 

Demonstrations of proficiency, 
peer reviews, and student 
feedback. 

 Pedagogical 
Knowledge 

Understand the teacher's knowledge of 
teaching methods and how well they adapt 
to VR environments. 

Teacher interviews, classroom 
observations, and student 
evaluations. 

 Engagement 
 

Measure how well the teacher interacts 
with and engages students in the VR 
environment. 

Student surveys, classroom 
observations, and teacher self-
evaluations. 

 Adaptability to 
VR 

Determine the teacher's ability to adapt 
their teaching style to the VR environment. 

Peer reviews, student feedback, 
and self-evaluations. 

Characteristics 
of the 
Learning 
Environment 

Immersion 
Quality 
 

Assess the quality of the VR experience, 
including how real or immersive the 
experience feels to participants. 

Student and teacher surveys or 
expert evaluation. 

 Usability Evaluate how easy it is for students and 
teachers to navigate and interact with the 
VR environment. 

Usability testing, surveys, and user 
error logs. 

 Accessibility Confirm if all students can access and use 
the VR technology, regardless of their 
physical or cognitive abilities or access to 
resources such as reliable internet access. 

Accessibility testing and user 
feedback. 

 Relevance 
 

Determine if the VR environment and the 
tasks presented within it are relevant and 
appropriate to the learning goals. 

Curriculum mapping, student 
surveys, and teacher evaluations. 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   69 
 

Application  
VR applications in agricultural education and training are currently less prevalent compared to 
industries such as medicine, engineering, and industrial careers (Kaminska et al., 2019; Kim et 
al., 2018). However, the potential uses for VR in agricultural education are diverse and hold 
promise for enhancing learning experiences across formal and nonformal settings. 

Skill-building in Agricultural Systems 
The bulk of existing research in VR applications for formal agricultural education has focused on 
skill-building in power, structural, and technical systems. Although simulation-based 
instructional methods are well-established in agricultural mechanics education, VR technology 
has renewed interest in how simulations can lead to more efficient and impactful outcomes for 
students (Wells & Miller, 2020b). Virtual and augmented reality welding applications in 
agricultural mechanics courses have emerged as a form of interactive 3D-modeled 
environments used for technical training, most often used in conjunction with traditional 
technical teaching methodologies like demonstrations and guided practice with real equipment 
(Byrd et al., 2015; Wells & Miller, 2020a; Wells & Miller, 2022). Similarly, 3D-modeled 
simulations for safe tractor operation exemplifies the transformative potential of VR in skill 
development. These simulations create a secure and simulated environment where students 
can enhance their technical proficiency in machinery operation. This approach, as highlighted 
by Pulley et al. (2023), not only ensures the safety of students but also offers a controlled space 
for them to master the intricacies of tractor operation before engaging with real equipment. In 
some cases, students would not be able to access any interactions with agricultural equipment 
without the use of these VR simulations, which allows them an avenue for the concrete 
experience component of experiential learning (Kolb, 2015; Pulley et al., 2023). 

Cognitive Outcomes and Engagement 
The use of VR has proven to be a dynamic and transformative tool. While 360º video exhibits 
varied efficacy for recorded lectures, its impact on student attentiveness and engagement 
across diverse educational content areas is noteworthy (Ranieri et al., 2022). The immersive 
quality of 360º experiences significantly contributes to fostering a more interactive and 
engaging learning environment. Beyond the limitations of traditional lectures, VR offers a 
multifaceted approach to learning enhancement. Modeling and immersive exploration within 
educational settings are well-documented, offering students a more vivid and memorable 
learning experience (Ranieri et al., 2022). These applications provide students with a more 
vibrant and enduring learning experience, transcending the boundaries of conventional 
teaching methods. 

The cognitive advantages of VR in agricultural education extend to its capability to transport 
students to physically inaccessible environments virtually. This distinctive feature of VR is a 
pivotal asset, particularly in relation to experiential learning theory, allowing students to delve 
into 3D spaces intricately connected to the content being taught (Kolb, 1984; 2015). Examples 
of experiential activities include virtual field trips (domestic or international) to production or 
natural resource environments. These can be 360-videos of environments sometimes with 
audio narration or 360-image tours where users can travel image-to-image through an 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   70 
 

environment that could include additional interactive elements such as pop-up information in 
text, audio, or video form. This content can be created by the instructor or found online 
through various VR content hosting platforms such as YouTube VR or websites such as 
FarmVR.com. In comparison to conventional visual aids like pictures or videos, this virtual 
exploration fosters a more profound and impactful learning experience for students (Lege & 
Bonner, 2020). The integration of VR into agricultural education not only addresses 
engagement challenges but also propels cognitive outcomes to new heights. The immersive 
nature of VR experiences, coupled with the ability to explore complex environments, 
fundamentally reshapes the educational landscape, creating opportunities for deeper 
understanding and more lasting retention of agricultural concepts through reflection on VR 
experiences, abstract conceptualization of related ideas and concepts, and learning transfer 
(Coleman, 2022; Kolb, 1984). 

Nonformal Training for Agricultural Producers 
In nonformal settings, VR training for agricultural producers addresses complex phenomena 
such as airflow, humidity control, and temperature distribution within agricultural facilities. The 
invisibility of these environmental factors and the associated risks of manipulation in real 
environments make VR applications a valuable tool for experiential learning related to 
environmental controls (Kim et al., 2018). Similarly, using VR to train operators of unmanned 
aerial vehicles (UAVs) in crop production reduces the physical and financial risks associated with 
agricultural UAV crashes through training in a controlled, low-stakes environment prior to real-
world practice (Nguyen et al., 2019). Both cases for nonformal VR training allow producers to 
engage in learning experiences with a strong similarity to the real application and reflect on 
how their virtual experience will transfer to their production operations, thereby aligning with 
the recommendations of Coleman (2022) and Kolb (2015). 

Despite the potential benefits of VR applications in agricultural education, educators have 
expressed concerns about familiarity with the equipment and a lack VR-specific pedagogy when 
considering implementation (Lege & Bonner, 2020; Pulley et al., 2023). These challenges align 
with the experiential learning recommendations of Baker and Robinson (2016) and Coleman 
(2022) and are focused on the need for well-developed pedagogical tools for instructors that 
intentionally draw on experiential learning frameworks. Addressing these concerns is crucial for 
the widespread adoption and effective integration of VR into agricultural education.  

VR Methods 
As noted above, VR content can be found online or through VR headset app-stores such as the 
Meta Quest store. This provides access to ready-made content either through video, images, or 
3D modelled environments. In addition to sourcing pre-made content, educators could also 
engage students, faculty, or staff in content creation. We identified three methods of VR 
classroom content-creation, 360-degree video, 360-degree still-image (virtual tours or field 
trips), and 3D-modeled environments. Instruction guidance and required resources are 
provided in Table 2.  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   71 
 

Table 2 
 
VR Content-creation Method, Instructions, and Resources 

VR Method Instructions (steps) Required 
resources/equipment 

360-video 1. Capture footage using specialized cameras (Examples are 
Insta360, Ricoh Theta, or GoPro Max)  
2. Process and stitch videos together using specialized 
software (Examples are Adobe Premiere Pro, Final Cut, or 
iMovie). 
3. Upload videos into a virtual reality platform, such as 
Google VR, YouTube VR, Unity, or specialized educational 
platforms like zSpace and Labster. 
4. Add interactivity like hotspots, audio narration, text, and 
additional resources. 
5. Allow learners to explore the videos using a VR headset 
(Meta Quest, HTC Vive etc.), a computer, or a mobile device. 

Specialized cameras (e.g., 
Insta360, Ricoh Theta, 
GoPro Max) 
VR software/platform (e.g., 
Google VR, YouTube VR 
Unity, zSpace, Labster) 
VR headsets 

360 Still-Images 1. Capture images using a specialized camera or smartphone 
app. 
2. Stitch images together using specialized software or 
online services. 
3. Add interactivity and hotspots to the panoramic image. 
4. Integrate 360-degree still images, interactive elements, 
and hotspots with a virtual reality platform, such as Google 
VR or specialized virtual reality platforms. 
5. Test and refine the experience for the target audience. 

Specialized cameras or 
smartphone apps 
Stitching software or online 
services 
Virtual reality platform (e.g., 
Google VR, Klapty, Kuula) 

360 3D-Modeled 
Environments 

1. Develop a 3D model of the environment using specialized 
software or scanning technology (LIDAR or 
photogrammetry). 
2. Use virtual reality platforms, such as Google VR, Unity, or 
specialized educational platforms like zSpace and Labster, to 
develop interactive and engaging virtual reality experiences. 
3. Allow learners to explore and interact with the virtual 
environment using a VR headset and hand controllers or a 
computer with a mouse and keyboard. 

3D modeling software or 
scanning technology 
Virtual reality platform (e.g., 
Google VR, Unity, zSpace, 
Labster, Meta Horizon 
Workrooms) 

 
 
Reflection and Measurement Factors 
Assessment Model   
VR instruction is a relatively new mode of delivering simulated, experiential learning, and it is 
imperative that assessment methods be flexible as new research emerges. Therefore, we 
propose an assessment approach intended to be comprehensive and adaptable to meet such 
needs. The proposed assessment model will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impact 
of VR classroom instruction. The results of this assessment will be used to refine the instruction 
and improve the effectiveness of VR instruction in promoting agricultural literacy among 
learners. There are several approaches educators can pursue for evaluating learning outcomes 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   72 
 

as a result for VR instruction. In this section, we will detail the various avenues. Some educators 
may find one avenue appropriate over the other, whereas others may find a blended approach 
more applicable to assessing their educational goals. 

Measurement 
Educators can evaluate the impact of their VR programming on targeted objectives specific to 
their content (e.g., delivering VR education on dairy and assessing students’ dairy science 
literacy) or on broader agricultural literacy measures such as the National Agricultural Literacy 
Objectives (NALO) (Spielmaker & Leising, 2013). In both cases, we recommend a pre-post, post-
post design to establish learners’ baseline knowledge, as well as knowledge gained and 
retained following their exposure to the VR educational program. Educators looking to use a 
formal, written assessment aligning with targeted NALOs might consider using standardized 
written assessments designed for specific grade levels of learners, such as the Judd-Murray 
Agricultural Literacy Instrument (Judd-Murray, 2019). These assessments were designed to 
differentiate proficiency stages (i.e., exposure, factual literacy, and applicable proficiency) 
across the five national literacy themes.   

Reflection 
In addition to traditional written assessments, experiential learning requires instructor support 
and facilitation in the form of providing opportunities for reflection, engagement, and 
connection of experiences to learning outcomes to ensure transfer of learning beyond the 
classroom (Coleman, 2022). Kolb’s (1984; 2015) experiential learning model positions 
application in the experiential learning scenario as the action of exploring knowledge in familiar 
or new settings. In Kolb’s model an initial “concrete experience” is followed by a period of 
reflection. During the reflection, participants assess their experience either individually or with 
others. In turn Kolb suggests that this can create opportunities to re-engage either with that 
experience or similar experiences in a new way. This is especially important in 360 VR where 
the user has the opportunity to choose their areas of attention. Unlike traditional media where 
the producer chooses the camera angle or subject of focus, in a VR environment the user acts 
as the operator, choosing what to focus on. For example, if students are shown a lab space in 
VR some may choose to focus on equipment while others may observe the scientists in the 
room. As such, experiences could be different for each individual. Thus, reflection offers the 
opportunity to identify these differences and thus re-engage with the content (or real-life 
scenario) later with a different point of emphasis. This is what Kolb describes as creating a new 
concrete experience that supplements or replaces the first. When applied to the learning 
process, we may conclude a learner’s experience, such as learning in VR environments, may not 
have been an educational one if they cannot transfer concepts learned in one setting to other 
experiences and settings (Coleman, 2022; Dewey, 1938; Haskell, 2001; Kolb, 2015). For 
example, when using a skill building tool, it is necessary for the instructor to ensure that the 
simulated experience provides an outcome where these skills could be transferred to the real-
world activity or in an experiential learning scenario where this VR experience contributes 
understanding to the world beyond the headset. To improve student transfer and align to best 
practices in experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; 2015), we recommend instructors implement 
strategies for student reflection and transfer. Such strategies may include facilitating reflective 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   73 
 

peer dialogue (McLeod et al., 2015), digital story telling (Kim et al., 2021), and student 
journaling. Furthermore, the content and depth of student reflections can serve as a valuable 
formative assessment to gauge the impact of VR applications (Han, 2019).  

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
In conclusion, the integration of VR in agricultural education holds significant promise in 
enhancing agricultural education in the classroom. The comprehensive approach delineated in 
this paper—encompassing facilitation, application, reflection and measurement—paves the 
way for a more systematic, efficient, and effective utilization of VR technology within the 
agricultural classroom environment. By understanding the multifaceted nature of these factors, 
educators can optimize the VR teaching and learning environment for the benefit of both 
instructors and learners. Furthermore, by following the practical applications and assessments 
provided by the VRFARM model, valuable insights will be gained on the potentials and 
challenges of VR in this evolving pedagogical landscape. The different modes of instruction 
detailed, their subsequent implementation, and the ensuing evaluation process ensure that this 
model will foster not only knowledge acquisition but also the capacity for knowledge transfer 
across varying contexts. The VRFARM model potentially provides a framework that could help 
guide the way agricultural literacy is taught, suggesting steps towards a more innovative, 
interactive, and digitally immersive educational future. 

Implications and Recommendations for Practice 
Professional development for educators plays a critical role in enhancing their competencies, 
shaping their teaching practices, and bolstering their confidence within specific educational 
contexts (Colclasure et al., 2022; DiBenedetto & Whitwell, 2019; Walsh & Irving, 2021). Central 
to these contexts is the emerging field of VR technology integration within the agricultural 
curriculum, as well as the improvement of K-12 students' agricultural literacy (Frick et al., 1992). 

Educational change and innovation hinge on educators' readiness and capacity to adopt new 
technologies and pedagogical methods. As such, professional development opportunities 
should focus on preparing teachers for the successful adoption of VR technologies in their 
classrooms, as asserted by Wells and Miller (2020b). In a rapidly evolving educational 
landscape, continuous professional growth and adaptability are crucial, and such development 
programs can equip educators with the necessary tools and techniques. 

Furthermore, these programs can also bridge the gap between the current state of agricultural 
literacy education and its desired state by equipping educators with the necessary skills and 
knowledge to effectively deliver agricultural education. The end goal of these professional 
development opportunities should not be limited to mere knowledge acquisition but should 
focus on the practical application of this knowledge in real-world teaching situations. 

However, for such programs to be effective, they must be meticulously designed to encompass 
both the theoretical and practical aspects of agricultural education and VR technology 
application. This would entail sessions on the theoretical foundations of agricultural literacy, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   74 
 

practical demonstrations of VR technologies, and workshops on the integration of these 
technologies within the teaching and learning process. 

In conclusion, we underscore the significance of professional development as a catalyst for 
enhancing both agricultural literacy and the use of VR technologies. By embracing this dual-
focus approach, we can better equip our educators to meet the challenges and demands of the 
21st-century agricultural education landscape. 

Implications and Recommendations for Research 
The intersection of VR and agricultural education presents an abundance of opportunities for 
further empirical study. Our findings, built upon the foundation of the VRFARM model, serve as 
a launching pad for future research. This is an emerging field, and as such research into VR and 
agricultural education thus far has tended to reflect its emergent nature. However, the field 
would benefit from longitudinal studies that assess the enduring impacts of VR on pedagogical 
practices, instructional assessment, and evaluative research (Pelletier et al., 2023). VRFARM can 
be used as a framework for assessing the long-term effectiveness of VR in agricultural 
education. Furthermore, this is not a static model and so longitudinal research should also aim 
to inform potential areas of model refinement. 

Given that agricultural education is not limited to the United States and can be applied outside 
the boundaries of high-school curriculum, the application of VRFARM across diverse 
educational settings and geographical locations could also be a focus of investigation. This 
would shed light on the model's effectiveness in various contexts and provide rich data for 
comparative studies (Ipek & Ziatdinov, 2018). 

Finally, the potential of VR in promoting inclusive and differentiated instruction in the 
agricultural classroom warrants examination. VR’s potential to cater to diverse learning styles 
and promote accessibility could lead to more personalized and inclusive teaching methods 
(Rose & Meyer, 2002). 

We hope this paper inspires future research that can further our understanding of how VR 
technology can be harnessed most effectively in agricultural education, and we invite 
researchers to use our work as a steppingstone toward more innovative research in the field. 

Acknowledgements 
 
J. Greig – formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft; B. Colclasure - formal analysis, 
investigation, writing-original draft; S. Rampold - formal analysis, investigation, writing-original 
draft; T. Ruth - formal analysis, investigation, writing-review and editing; T. Granberry - formal 
analysis, investigation, writing-additions. 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   75 
 

References 
 
Baker, M. A., & Robinson, J. S. (2016). The effects of Kolb’s experiential learning model on 

successful intelligence in secondary agriculture students. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 57(3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03129  

Bayer, R., Travis, A., & Wang, C. (2020). Kids growing with grains: Connecting agriculture, 
nutrition, and environmental literacy. Journal of Youth Development, 15(6), 272–291. 
https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.964 

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Open University Press. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915395_Teaching_for_Quality_Learning
_at_University  

Byrd, A. P., Stone, R. T., Anderson, R. G., & Woltjer, K. (2015). The use of virtual welding 
simulators to evaluate experienced welders. Welding Journal, 94(12), 389-395. 
http://s3.amazonaws.com/WJ-www.aws.org/supplement/WJ_2015_12_s389.pdf     

Chang, C., Pratt, O., Bielecki, C., Balinas, M., McGucken, A., Rutherford, T., & Wingenbach, G. 
(2013). Agriculture students’ interests, preferences, barriers and perceived benefits of 
international educational experiences. NACTA Journal, 57(3), 97–103. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.57.3a.97  

Chen, T., Lee, K., Kabre, P. M., & Hsieh, C. (2020). Impacts of educational agritourism on 
students’ future career intentions: Evidence from agricultural exchange programs. 
Sustainability, 12(22), 9507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229507  

Colclasure, B. C., Durham Brooks, T., Helikar, T., King, S. J., & Webb, A. (2022). The effects of a 
modeling and computational thinking professional development program on STEM 
educators’ perceptions toward teaching science and engineering practices. Education 
Sciences, 12(8), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080570  

Coleman, B. M. (2022). Examining the effects of reflection mode and transfer level on students’ 
content knowledge, post-course retention, and transfer skills while learning 
experientially [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & 
Theses Global. https://original-ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UFE0058601/00001  

Cosby, A., Manning, J., Power, D., & Harreveld, B. (2022). New decade, same concerns: A 
systematic review of agricultural literacy of school students. Education Sciences, 12(4), 
235. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040235  

Dale, C., Robinson, J. S., & Edwards, M. C. (2017). As assessment of the agricultural literacy of 
incoming freshmen at a Land-grant university. NACTA Journal, 61(1), 7–13. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90004098   

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03129
https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.964
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915395_Teaching_for_Quality_Learning_at_University
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915395_Teaching_for_Quality_Learning_at_University
http://s3.amazonaws.com/WJ-www.aws.org/supplement/WJ_2015_12_s389.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.57.3a.97
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229507
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080570
https://original-ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UFE0058601/00001
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040235
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90004098


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   76 
 

DiBenedetto, C. A., & Whitwell, T. (2019). Associate deans and academic leaders’ perceptions 
for promoting teaching excellence in United States colleges of agriculture. NACTA 
Journal, 63(1), 13-19. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/associate-deans-
academic-leaders-perceptions/docview/2381632610/se-2  

Erickson, B., Fausti, S., Clay, D., & Clay, S. (2018). Knowledge, skills, and abilities in the precision 
agriculture workforce: An industry survey. Natural Sciences Education, 47(1), 1–11. 
https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2018.04.0010  

Eyler, J. (2009). The power of experiential education. Liberal Education, 95(4), 24–31. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871318  

Frick, M. J. (1990). A definition and the concepts of agricultural literacy: A national study 
[Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. Iowa State University Digital Repository. 
https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-9133  

Frick, M. J., Birkenholz, R., & Machtmes, K. (1995). Rural and urban adult knowledge and 
perceptions of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(2), 44–53. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1995.02044   

Frick, M. J., Kahler, A. A., & Miller, W. W. (1992). Agricultural literacy: Providing a framework for 
agricultural curriculum reform. NACTA Journal, 36(1), 34-37. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43766689    

Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a 
pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning 
outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1–32. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2   

Han, I. (2019). Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed-methods study on elementary 
students’ presence and perceived learning. British Journal of Education Technology, 
51(2), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12842  

Harrington, M. C. R., Bledsoe, Z., Jones, C., Miller, J., & Pring, T. (2021). Designing a virtual 
arboretum as an immersive, multimodal, interactive, data visualization virtual field trip. 
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040018  

Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press. 
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/B978-012330595-4/50003-2  

Ipek, I., & Ziatdinov, R. (2018). New approaches and emerging trends in the philosophy of 
educational technology for learning and teaching environments. European Journal of 
Contemporary Education, 6(3), 381-389. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154739.pdf  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/associate-deans-academic-leaders-perceptions/docview/2381632610/se-2
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/associate-deans-academic-leaders-perceptions/docview/2381632610/se-2
https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2018.04.0010
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871318
https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-9133
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1995.02044
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43766689
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12842
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040018
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/B978-012330595-4/50003-2
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154739.pdf


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   77 
 

Isaías, P., Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Sampson, D. G. (Eds.). (2015). E-Learning systems, 
environments and approaches: Theory and implementation. Springer International 
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05825-2  

Jarrell, B. (2019). Experiential learning experiences and leadership development of students on a 
study abroad trip to Australia [Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee]. Tennessee 
Research and Creative Exchange. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/5671/  

Judd-Murray, M. R. (2019). Development and validation of an agricultural literacy instrument 
using the national agricultural literacy outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, Utah State 
University]. Utah State University Libraries. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7562  

Kaminska, D., Sapinski, T., Wiak, S., Tikk, T., Haamer, R., Avots, E., Helmi, A., Ozcinar, C., & 
Anbarjafari, G. (2019). Virtual reality and its applications in education: Survey. 
Information, 10(10), 318. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info10100318 

Key, N. (2019). Farm size and productivity growth in the United States corn belt. Food Policy, 84, 
186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.017 

Kim, D., Coenraad, M., & Park, H. R. (2021). Digital storytelling as a tool for reflection in virtual 
reality projects. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 3(1), 101-121. 
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.9  

Kim, J., Lee, I., Yoon, K., Ha, T., Kim, R., Yeo, U., & Lee, S. (2018). A study on the trends of virtual 
reality application technology for agricultural education. Journal of Bio-Environment 
Control, 27(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2018.27.2.147  

Khukalenko, I. S., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., An, Y., & Iushina, V. D. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of 
using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large-scale survey. Education and 
Information Technologies, 27(8), 11591–11613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-
11061-0  

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development 
(1st ed.). Prentice-Hall. 

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development 
(2nd ed.). Pearson Education. 

Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. (2007). The benefits of teaching and learning about 
agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
48(3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03025  

Kovar, K. A., & Ball, A. L. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy: A synthesis of the 
literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 167–178. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01167  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05825-2
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/5671/
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7562
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info10100318
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.017
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.9
https://doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2018.27.2.147
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11061-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11061-0
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03025
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01167


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   78 
 

Lee, S., Luan, H., Lee, M., Chang, H., Liang, J., Lee, Y., Lin, T., Wu, A., Chiu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2021). 
Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: A systematic review of the 
literature. Science Education, 105(5), 880–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21663  

Lege, R., & Bonner, E. (2020). Virtual reality in education: the promise, progress and challenge. 
JALT CALL Journal, 16(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v16n3.388  

Little, A. (2019). The fate of food: What we’ll eat in a bigger, hotter, smarter world. Penguin 
Random House. 

Luckey, A. N., Murphrey, T. P., Cummins, R. L., & Edwards, M. B., (2013). Assessing youth 
perceptions and knowledge of agriculture: The impact of participating in an AgVenture 
program. Journal of Extension, 51(3), 30. 
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol51/iss3/30  

Luo, H., Li, G., Feng, Q., Yang, Y., & Zuo, M. (2021). Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: 
A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. Journal of Computer Assisted 
Learning, 37(3), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538  

Meischen, D. L., & Trexler, C. J. (2003). Rural elementary students’ understanding of science and 
agricultural education benchmarks related to meat and livestock. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 44(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01043  

McLeod, G. A., Barr, J., & Welch, A. (2015). Best practice for teaching and learning strategies to 
facilitate student reflection in pre-registration health professional education: An 
integrative review: Creative Education, 6(4), 440. 
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.64044 

Murrah-Hanson, L., Lee, B., & Bloch, P. (2022). Connecting diverse communities through a 4-H 
urban-rural experience. Journal of Extension, 60(4), 8. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.60.04.08  

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. 
The National Academies Press. 
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/766/understanding-agriculture-new-
directions-for-education  

Nguyen, V. T., Jung, K., & Dang, T. (2019, December 9–11). DroneVR: A web virtual reality 
simulator for drone operator. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Artificial 
Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR). IEEE Xplore. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR46125.2019.00060  

Ochs, D., Wolf, C. A., Widmar, N. J., & Bir, C. (2019). Is there a cage-free lunch in U.S. egg 
production? Public views of laying-hen housing attributes. Journal of Agricultural and 
Resource Economics, 44(2), 345–361.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/26797561  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21663
https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v16n3.388
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol51/iss3/30
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01043
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.64044
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.60.04.08
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/766/understanding-agriculture-new-directions-for-education
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/766/understanding-agriculture-new-directions-for-education
https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR46125.2019.00060
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26797561


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   79 
 

Pelletier, K., Robert, J., Muscanell, N., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., & Grajek, S. 
(2023). 2023 EDUCAUSE horizon report, teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. 
https://library.educause.edu/-
/media/files/library/2023/4/2023hrteachinglearning.pdf?la=en&hash=195420BF5A2F09
991379CBE68858EF10D7088AF5  

Perticara, L., & Swenson, R. D. (2019). Farm to classroom: Encouraging teachers’ infusion of 
agriculture following a farm tour. NACTA Journal, 63(2), 331–340. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26769659   

Pinkerton, M., Frey, C., Thompson, S., & Hodges, A. (2021). Expanding the curricula for Florida’s 
youth: Outreach efforts in agricultural literacy. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 
21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmab016  

Pulley, J., Bowling, A., Jepsen, D., & Kitchel, T. (2023, May 15–18). School-based agricultural 
education teachers’ lived experience of integrating virtual reality into their classroom 
[Paper presentation]. American Association for Agricultural Education National Research 
Conference, Raleigh, NC, United States. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-
Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-
Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_int
o_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-
Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-
Classroom.pdf  

Ranieri, M., Luzzi, D., Cuomo, S., & Bruni, I. (2022). If and how do 360° videos fit into education 
settings? Results from a scoping review of empirical research. Journal of Computer 
Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12683  

Roberts, R., Rampold, S. D., Ramage, R., & Komunjeru, B. (2020). A typology of university 
agriculture students’ projected motivations to study abroad: An application of Q 
methodology. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 27(3), 59–
74. https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1105  

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for 
Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Sigmon, B. S. (2014). Effectiveness of a farm field trip [Master’s thesis, University of Kentucky]. 
UKnowledge. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cld_etds/11/  

Slocum, S. K., & Curtis, K. R. (2017). Globalizing agriculture to feed the world. In S. K. Slocum & 
K. R. Curtis (Eds.), Food and agricultural tourism (pp. 65-80). Routledge. https://doi-
org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781315679945  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2023/4/2023hrteachinglearning.pdf?la=en&hash=195420BF5A2F09991379CBE68858EF10D7088AF5
https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2023/4/2023hrteachinglearning.pdf?la=en&hash=195420BF5A2F09991379CBE68858EF10D7088AF5
https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2023/4/2023hrteachinglearning.pdf?la=en&hash=195420BF5A2F09991379CBE68858EF10D7088AF5
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26769659
https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmab016
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Pulley/publication/370978110_School_Based-Agricultural_Education_Teachers'_Lived_Experience_of_Integrating_Virtual_Reality_into_their_Classroom/links/646cfc108bf29018ccbaf650/School-Based-Agricultural-Education-Teachers-Lived-Experience-of-Integrating-Virtual-Reality-into-their-Classroom.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12683
https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1105
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cld_etds/11/
https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781315679945
https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781315679945


Greig et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353   80 
 

Spielmaker, D. M., & Leising, J. G. (2013). National agricultural literacy outcomes. Utah State 
University, School of Applied Sciences & Technology. 
https://cdn.agclassroom.org/nat/data/get/NALObooklet.pdf  

Spielmaker, D. M., Pastor, M., & Stewardson, D. M. (2014). A logic model for agricultural 
literacy programming. Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the American 
Association for Agricultural Education, Snowbird, UT. 
https://www.agliteracy.org/research/logic/ 

Walsh, M., & Irving, J. (2020). Promoting sustainable agriculture content in science classes 
through professional development for teachers. NACTA Journal, 65, 261-270.  

Wells, T., & Miller, G. (2020a). Teachers’ opinions about virtual reality technology in school-
based agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(1), 92–109. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01092  

Wells, T., & Miller, G. (2020b). The Effect of Virtual Reality Technology on Welding Skill 
Performance. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(1), 152-171. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01152    

Wells, T., & Miller, G. (2022). Students’ perspectives on using virtual reality technology in a 
university-level agricultural mechanics course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(2), 
17–36. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02017   

 
 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.353
https://cdn.agclassroom.org/nat/data/get/NALObooklet.pdf
https://www.agliteracy.org/research/logic/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01092
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.01152
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02017

