INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3224
www.rsisinternational.org
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Secondary School
Agricultural Science Teachers on Organic Agriculture
Catherine N. Arga, Rica Mae B. Labasan
College of Arts and Sciences, Central Bicol State University of Agriculture
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800292
Received: 03 September 2025; Accepted: 09 September 2025; Published: 06 October 2025
ABSTRACT
This study explored the knowledge, attitudes, practices, challenges, countermeasures, and training needs of
secondary school Agricultural Science teachers in Calabanga, Philippines, with respect to organic agriculture.
Employing a descriptive survey design, data were gathered from 20 teacher-respondents using structured
questionnaires and analyzed through mean scores and descriptive interpretation. Findings revealed that teachers
possessed strong knowledge and positive attitudes toward organic agriculture, while their extent of practice was
only moderate. They frequently applied organic fertilizers and integrated lessons, but collaboration with farmers
and conduct of field demonstrations were limited. Challenges such as inadequate training, lack of instructional
materials, and insufficient school resources hindered full adoption. Teachers employed coping strategies like
peer collaboration and school gardening, but training needs remained high, particularly in advanced techniques,
certification standards, and resource development. The study implies that strengthened professional development
and enhanced support systems are essential for promoting sustainable agricultural education.
Keywords: Organic agriculture, Agricultural Science teachers, practices, challenges, training needs,
professional development
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture stands at a critical juncture as the world confronts the challenges of environmental sustainability,
food security, and the urgent call for ecological farming practices. Organic agriculture has emerged as a viable
alternative to conventional farming methods, offering solutions to pressing environmental and health concerns
associated with modern agricultural production. In recent years, global interest in organic farming has grown
considerably due to its potential to conserve biodiversity, reduce chemical inputs, and promote healthier food
systems [1]. In the Philippines, efforts to promote organic agriculture have been reinforced by the enactment of
the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068), which underscores the government’s commitment
to strengthen sustainable farming practices. Despite these initiatives, the adoption of organic farming in
academic institutions and secondary education remains limited, highlighting the need for a stronger integration
of organic agriculture into the educational system [2].
Agricultural education, particularly at the secondary school level, plays a crucial role in shaping future farming
practices and perspectives. Agricultural science teachers act as the primary conduits of knowledge, influencing
students’ understanding and attitudes towards sustainable farming methods. Their comprehension of organic
agriculture principles, personal attitudes toward ecological practices, and teaching strategies significantly shape
how future farmers, consumers, and agricultural professionals view and implement organic agriculture [3].
However, limited research has been conducted on agricultural science teachers’ knowledge base, attitudes, and
teaching practices regarding organic farming, despite several studies highlighting adoption and consumer
perceptions among farmers and markets [4]. This gap in literature is concerning given that secondary school
education represents a formative period when students develop agricultural knowledge and long-term
perspectives about farming systems.
The integration of organic agriculture into the curriculum presents unique challenges and opportunities. Teachers
must not only possess a comprehensive knowledge of organic principles but also demonstrate positive attitudes
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3225
www.rsisinternational.org
and effective teaching practices to successfully convey the importance of sustainability to students [5]. Anchored
on the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) framework, this study recognizes that teachers’ expertise and
dispositions influence how effectively they deliver organic agriculture education. Furthermore, the study is
aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12
(Responsible Consumption and Production), which emphasize sustainable food systems and ecological farming.
Thus, this research seeks to address the knowledge gap by examining the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of
secondary school agricultural science teachers regarding organic agriculture. By exploring these three
dimensions, the study aims to provide insights for curriculum enhancement, teacher training programs, and
policy development. Ultimately, the findings will contribute to strengthening agricultural education,
empowering teachers, and supporting the broader national and global goal of advancing sustainable farming
practices for future generations.
A. Objectives of the Study
The study aims to determine Best Practices and Initiatives for Organic Agriculture Promotion in Calabanga.
Specifically, the study seeks to: (1) determine teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward Organic
Agriculture Practices; (2) identify teachers’ level of priority interests in Organic Agriculture Practices; (3) find
out teachers’ extent of adoption of Organic Agricultural Practices; (4) identify teachers’ problems and challenges
in the adaptation of Organic Agricultural Practices; (5) identify teachers’ countermeasures to solve the problems
and challenges in the practice of Organic Agriculture; (6) develop training capacity for Agricultural Science
Teachers on Organic Agriculture Practices.
B. Review of Related Literature
Teachers play a vital role in promoting sustainability and organic agriculture in the classroom. Research
highlights the need for updated curricula, continuous training, and adequate instructional resources to strengthen
their capacity in teaching organic practices [6]. Teachers’ personal beliefs and values also influence their
instructional strategies, suggesting that their attitudes and perceptions are closely tied to how sustainability is
taught [7].
Teachers’ motivation, curriculum opportunities, and support systems also shape their interest in integrating
organic agriculture. While many are motivated to include environmental and agricultural concepts, rigid
curricula often limit meaningful application [8]. Demographic factors further influence willingness, with
younger teachers generally more receptive compared to their older counterparts [9]. Similarly, those who
prioritize climate-resilient agriculture are more likely to integrate sustainability concepts in their lessons [10].
Adoption of organic agriculture is often facilitated through experiential and practice-based approaches. School
gardens, for example, have proven effective in enhancing both teacher adoption and student engagement [11].
Teachers who are equipped with the right competencies and pedagogical tools are also more confident in
adopting these practices [12]. Furthermore, experiential learning models and community-based projects not only
strengthen knowledge retention but also deepen teachers’ connection with local organic initiatives [13].
Despite these efforts, many challenges hinder the full integration of organic agriculture in the classroom. A lack
of training programs and instructional materials remains a significant barrier [14]. Some teachers also perceive
agroecology as too technical, especially without proper training [15] other studies revealed gaps in readiness,
particularly in applying pedagogical tools for sustainability, while limited digital literacy restricts the use of
online resources for organic agriculture promotion [16].
To address these issues, teachers have employed strategies such as collaboration and reflective practices. Peer-
led training has been shown to improve instructional delivery and foster stronger collaboration among educators
in rural settings [17]. Similarly, learning action cells and reflective teaching practices enable teachers to refine
their approaches and promote organic concepts more effectively [18]. In-service training programs have also
proven valuable in boosting teacher confidence and competence in sustainability education [19].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3226
www.rsisinternational.org
Building long-term training capacity is essential for advancing organic agriculture in secondary education.
Continuous professional development programs are needed to ensure teachers remain updated with new skills
and knowledge [20]. Efforts must also focus on strengthening digital literacy, enabling teachers to maximize
online learning tools and resources [21]. Structured in-service programs, complemented by peer-led approaches,
provide a strong foundation for teacher preparedness [22]. Collectively, these studies show that empowering
teachers through training, resources, and institutional support is crucial for effectively integrating organic
agriculture into the curriculum.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a quantitative descriptive research design using a cross-sectional survey approach to assess
the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of secondary school Agricultural Science teachers regarding
Organic Agriculture. The research aimed to generate baseline data to inform curriculum development, teacher
training, and policy formulation in agricultural education. The survey method was chosen for its effectiveness
in collecting standardized data from a specific population at a single point in time without manipulation of
variables.
The respondents of the study consisted of 20 Agricultural Science teachers teaching at both Junior High School
(JHS) and Senior High School (SHS) levels. Participants were drawn from public and private secondary schools
using a stratified random sampling technique to ensure representation based on school type and teaching
experience. Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants, and ethical approval
was secured from the appropriate institutional review board. Participation was voluntary, and data confidentiality
and anonymity were strictly maintained.
The primary data collection instrument was a structured survey questionnaire composed of eight sections: (A)
Demographic Information, (B) Knowledge of Organic Agriculture Practices, (C) Attitudes and Perceptions, (D)
Priority Interests, (E) Adaptation of Practices, (F) Challenges Encountered, (G) Countermeasures Taken, and
(H) Training Needs. Responses were collected using various Likert-type and frequency scales. Specifically,
knowledge was rated on a 4-point scale from No knowledge (1) to Excellent knowledge (4); attitudes were
measured from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4); and extent of practice adoption was rated from
Never (1) to Always (4). In addition, a priority ranking scale was included to assess which organic agriculture
topics teachers emphasize most in their instruction.
To ensure validity, the questionnaire items were adapted from existing KAP studies and were subjected to expert
review by professionals in agricultural education and organic farming. A pilot test was conducted with a small
group of teachers outside the target sample to assess the clarity and relevance of the instrument. The internal
consistency of the survey sections was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded values of 0.81 for
knowledge, 0.87 for attitudes, and 0.84 for practices. These values indicate high reliability, ensuring that the
instruments were both valid and consistent for measuring the intended constructs.
Descriptive statistics including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were used for data
analysis. Categorization of scores followed defined ranges: knowledge (low to excellent), attitudes (negative to
positive), and practices (rare to frequent). Responses regarding challenges, countermeasures, and training needs
were analyzed using frequency counts. Open-ended responses in the final section were reviewed for emerging
themes to support the quantitative findings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the findings of the study on the knowledge, attitudes, practices, challenges, and training
needs of secondary school Agricultural Science teachers regarding Organic Agriculture. The results are
organized into tables and discussed accordingly, highlighting how teacher-related factors influence the extent of
adoption and integration of organic practices in the teaching-learning process. Presenting the data in this way
provides a structured overview that links teacher characteristics with their professional competencies and
instructional approaches.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3227
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents, which includes age, gender, highest educational
attainment, years of teaching experience, and formal training in organic agriculture. Understanding these
demographic characteristics is essential, as they provide a foundation for interpreting variations in teachers’
knowledge, attitudes, and practices. For instance, teaching experience and formal training may influence their
level of confidence and competence in implementing organic agriculture concepts, while educational attainment
may reflect preparedness to adopt advanced methods. By situating the findings within the demographic context,
the study offers a clearer lens through which to examine the strengths and areas for development in promoting
organic agriculture education.
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents (n=20)
Demographic Variable
Categories
Frequency (f)
Percentage (%)
Age
21–30 years old
6
30.0
31–40 years old
7
35.0
41–50 years old
5
25.0
51 years and above
2
10.0
Gender
Male
9
45.0
Female
11
55.0
Prefer not to say
0
0.0
Highest Educational
Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
10
50.0
Master’s Degree
8
40.0
Doctorate
1
5.0
Others
1
5.0
Years of Teaching
Experience
1–5 years
5
25.0
6–10 years
6
30.0
11–15 years
4
20.0
16 years and above
5
25.0
Formal Training in
Organic Agriculture
Yes
7
35.0
No
13
65.0
The demographic results show that most respondents are within the 31–40 age group (35%), indicating that the
majority of Agricultural Science teachers are in their early to mid-career stage. Teachers in this age bracket are
often characterized as being in a productive phase of their profession, balancing experience with openness to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3228
www.rsisinternational.org
new ideas (Flores, 2020). In terms of gender, a slight majority are female (55%), suggesting a relatively balanced
representation. This trend reflects the growing participation of women in agricultural education, consistent with
studies highlighting the increasing involvement of female teachers in science-related fields [23].
Regarding educational attainment, half of the teachers hold a Bachelor’s degree (50%), while a significant
number have completed Master’s degrees (40%). Only one respondent holds a Doctorate (5%), reflecting the
need to encourage further professional advancement in agricultural education. According to [24], higher
educational attainment enhances teachers’ professional competence and their ability to integrate innovative
teaching strategies. Teaching experience is distributed across all categories, with 6–10 years (30%) being the
most common range, followed closely by those with 1–5 years (25%) and 16 years or more (25%). This indicates
a mix of novice, mid-level, and highly experienced teachers in the sample, which is important since both new
and veteran teachers contribute diverse perspectives to the classroom [25].
A notable finding is that the majority of teachers (65%) reported having no formal training in organic agriculture,
highlighting a critical gap in professional development. Only 35% of respondents have undergone training,
which underscores the importance of capacity-building programs to equip teachers with the necessary skills and
knowledge to effectively teach organic agriculture in schools. This aligns with the findings of [26], who
emphasized that formal training significantly enhances teachers’ competence in delivering specialized
agricultural content. Without sufficient training, teachers may face challenges in adopting updated practices,
which can limit their effectiveness in promoting sustainable farming concepts to students.
The results imply that while teachers demonstrate a strong foundation in terms of age diversity, gender balance,
and educational attainment, the lack of formal training in organic agriculture is a pressing concern. This gap
suggests that capacity-building initiatives such as seminars, workshops, and in-service training should be
prioritized to ensure teachers are well-equipped with both theoretical and practical competencies. Furthermore,
encouraging higher studies in agricultural education could strengthen expertise and promote research-based
teaching practices. Ultimately, addressing these gaps will enhance the integration of organic agriculture into the
curriculum, fostering sustainability awareness among students.
Teachers’ Knowledge of Organic Agriculture Practices
Table 2 presents the level of teachers’ knowledge of various organic agriculture practices, including composting,
crop rotation, biological pest control, certification processes, and post-harvest handling. Assessing teachers’
knowledge is essential, as it directly influences how effectively they can transfer concepts and practices to
students in the classroom and school-based projects. A clear understanding of these practices enables teachers
to promote sustainable farming approaches, address misconceptions, and integrate organic agriculture into the
curriculum in a more meaningful way. This knowledge assessment provides insight into the areas where teachers
are proficient and where professional development interventions are most needed.
Table 2. Teachers’ Knowledge of Organic Agriculture Practices
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
Composting and use of organic fertilizers
3.45
Excellent Knowledge
Crop rotation and diversification
3.30
Very Good Knowledge
Biological pest control
3.15
Very Good Knowledge
Organic certification processes
2.60
Moderate Knowledge
Post-harvest handling in organic farming
2.85
Moderate Knowledge
Overall Mean
3.07
Moderate Knowledge
Legend (Knowledge Scale): 1.00 – 1.74 = No Knowledge, 1.75 – 2.49 = Basic Knowledge, 2.50 – 3.24 =
Moderate Knowledge, 3.25 – 3.49 = Very Good Knowledge, 3.50 – 4.00 = Excellent Knowledge
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3229
www.rsisinternational.org
The overall very good knowledge (M=3.07) suggests strong grounding in foundational practices—particularly
composting (M=3.45) and crop diversification (M=3.30). These results mirror the emphasis of school-based and
community initiatives that foreground low-cost, visible techniques such as composting and rotations (Martinez,
2020; Andres & Tan, 2019). Solid familiarity with biological pest control (M=3.15) aligns with local accounts
of practice-oriented pedagogies improving teacher competence (Ramirez, 2017; Olivares, 2017). By contrast,
organic certification (M=2.60) and post-harvest handling (M=2.85) emerge as weaker points. This gap is
consistent with studies noting teachers’ perceived technical complexity and limited exposure to certification
standards and compliance workflows [27]. Given the Philippines’ policy context under RA 10068 and
subsequent promotion efforts, certification literacy is crucial for linking classroom learning to real market
pathways [28]. Internationally, literature underscores certification and supply-chain literacy as pivotal to scaling
organic systems beyond field-level practices [29].
The findings suggest the need for targeted upskilling of teachers through short courses and micro-credential
programs focusing on certification standards and post-harvest processes to complement their strong foundation
in field practices [30]. Strengthening teacher capacity in these technical areas will ensure more comprehensive
delivery of organic agriculture education. Moreover, there is a need for policy–practice alignment by integrating
the requirements of Republic Act 10068 and incorporating local certification case studies into classroom
modules. This approach can help bridge the gap between curriculum content and real-world applications,
preparing students for actual market access and industry expectations [31].
Finally, the study highlights the importance of applied learning through partnerships with certified organic farms
and producer organizations. Teacher practicums on inspection preparation, documentation, and quality assurance
can provide valuable hands-on experiences, enhancing both competence and confidence in teaching organic
agriculture concepts. Experiential models, as shown in prior studies, are highly effective in improving teacher
knowledge and application [32].
Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Organic Agriculture Practices
Table 3 highlights the attitudes of teachers toward organic agriculture practices, reflecting their perceptions,
beliefs, and willingness to integrate these concepts into their teaching. Attitudes play a crucial role in shaping
how teachers approach and deliver agricultural content, as positive perceptions can encourage greater adoption
and advocacy of sustainable practices in the classroom. Understanding these attitudes helps determine the extent
to which teachers are motivated to promote organic farming and identify potential barriers, such as the perception
of labor intensity, that may influence their engagement.
Table 3. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Organic Agriculture Practices
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
Belief in organic farming as sustainable
3.60
Strongly Positive
Willingness to integrate organic concepts in class
3.45
Positive
Perceived relevance of organic farming to students
3.50
Strongly Positive
View of organic farming as labor-intensive
2.75
Neutral
Confidence in promoting organic agriculture
3.25
Positive
Overall Mean
3.31
Strongly Positive Attitude
Legend (Attitude Scale): 1.00 – 1.74 = Strongly Disagree, 1.75 – 2.49 = Disagree, 2.50 – 3.24 = Agree /
Positive, 3.25 – 4.00 = Strongly Agree / Strongly Positive
The positive overall attitude (M=3.31) is largely anchored by strong agreement that organic agriculture is both
sustainable (M=3.60) and relevant for students (M=3.50). This finding resonates with studies highlighting
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3230
www.rsisinternational.org
teachers’ values and beliefs as key drivers of sustainability pedagogy [33] and aligns with international calls to
embed sustainability and SDG-linked themes into secondary education [34]. The robust willingness to integrate
organic agriculture into teaching (M=3.45) and teachers’ confidence in doing so (M=3.25) also echo prior
findings that motivation, coupled with supportive contexts, catalyzes classroom adoption [35].
However, the neutral stance on labor-intensiveness (M=2.75) highlights a practical concern. Teachers’
perception that organic agriculture is more labor- and time-intensive may act as a barrier to implementation,
especially in contexts where schedules and resources are already constrained. This challenge has been noted in
local studies pointing to curricular rigidity, limited facilities, and teacher workload as barriers to integration [36].
International literature similarly stresses that without structural supports such as teaching materials, dedicated
time, and partnerships with local stakeholders, positive attitudes alone may not consistently translate into
practice [37].
These findings suggest the need to lower the “labor barrier” by providing ready-to-use lesson packs, assessment
rubrics, and garden management templates to ease teacher preparation [38]. Equally important are institutional
supports, such as allocating dedicated periods for garden activities, providing minimal toolkits, and embedding
organic agriculture themes into existing learning competencies to ensure curricular fit [39].
Teachers’ confidence must be translated into mastery through mentored implementation cycles, including lesson
study, learning action cells (LACs), and peer coaching, all of which have been shown to enhance delivery quality
and persistence [40]. Finally, maintaining relevance to careers and markets by linking lessons to local value
chains and certification pathways can sustain both teacher and student motivation, ensuring that organic
agriculture education remains practical and future-oriented [41].
Extent of Teachers’ Adoption of Organic Agriculture Practices
The extent of teachers’ adoption of organic agriculture practices provides valuable insight into how effectively
sustainable farming principles are being implemented in secondary schools. Adoption is reflected not only in
classroom instruction but also in practical applications such as school gardening, field demonstrations, and
collaborations with local farmers. Understanding these practices highlights the balance between theoretical
integration and hands-on activities that reinforce student learning.
Table 4 presents the level of adoption of various organic agriculture practices among teachers, indicating how
frequently these approaches are utilized in their teaching and school activities.
Table 4. Extent of Teachers’ Adoption of Organic Agriculture Practices
Practices
Mean
Interpretation
Use of organic fertilizers in school gardens
3.20
Often
Integration of organic concepts in lessons
3.05
Often
Conducting field demonstrations
2.85
Sometimes
Collaboration with local organic farmers
2.65
Sometimes
Organizing student projects on organic farming
3.00
Often
Overall Mean
2.95
Sometimes
Legend (Adoption Scale): 1.00 – 1.74 = Never, 1.75 – 2.49 = Seldom, 2.50 – 3.24 = Sometimes, 3.25 – 4.00 =
Often / Always
The results indicate a moderate extent of adoption (M=2.95), suggesting that while teachers are making efforts
to integrate organic agriculture, practices are not yet fully institutionalized. Teachers often reported the use of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3231
www.rsisinternational.org
organic fertilizers in school gardens (M=3.20) and the integration of organic concepts in lessons (M=3.05),
reflecting a willingness to incorporate sustainable practices within both curricular and extracurricular contexts.
These findings align with studies highlighting the role of school gardens and curriculum integration as practical
entry points for sustainability education [42].
However, adoption is less evident in terms of collaboration with local farmers (M=2.65) and conducting field
demonstrations (M=2.85). This gap underscores the challenge of building community linkages, a factor
consistently emphasized in literature as critical to authentic and experiential learning [43]. Without strong
external partnerships and accessible venues for demonstration, teachers may struggle to provide students with
real-world agricultural experiences. International perspectives similarly highlight that partnerships with local
producers and institutions are vital for bridging classroom instruction with practical, hands-on applications [44].
The findings suggest that while teachers are taking meaningful steps to adopt organic practices, there is room to
strengthen community engagement and experiential learning. Schools can lower barriers by creating formal
partnerships with local organic farmers and agricultural organizations, thereby enriching classroom instruction
with authentic demonstrations and projects. Moreover, institutional support such as providing school-based
mini-farms, allocating time for fieldwork, and including organic agriculture in performance standards may
further encourage consistent practice [45]. Empowering teachers through mentoring and training cycles can also
help sustain the integration of organic agriculture practices, moving from “sometimes” toward “always” in
adoption.
Challenges Encountered by Teachers in Promoting Organic Agriculture
Identifying the challenges faced by teachers in promoting organic agriculture is crucial in understanding the
barriers that hinder its full integration into secondary education. These challenges range from the lack of
instructional resources and limited training opportunities to constraints in school facilities and time brought
about by a rigid curriculum. Such difficulties not only affect teachers’ capacity to effectively deliver organic
agriculture concepts but also limit students’ opportunities for experiential learning.
Table 5 summarizes the major challenges encountered by teachers, highlighting the areas that require greater
support and intervention to strengthen the implementation of organic agriculture in schools.
Table 5. Challenges Encountered by Teachers in Promoting Organic Agriculture
Challenges
Mean
Interpretation
Lack of instructional materials
3.40
High Challenge
Limited training opportunities
3.55
High Challenge
Insufficient school resources (gardens, tools)
3.20
Moderate Challenge
Technical complexity of organic practices
3.05
Moderate Challenge
Limited time due to rigid curriculum
3.25
Moderate Challenge
Overall Mean
3.29
Moderate to High Challenge
Legend: 3.50–4.00 = Very High Challenge; 2.50–3.49 = Moderate to High Challenge; 1.50–2.49 = Low to
Moderate Challenge; 1.00–1.49 = Very Low Challenge
The findings reveal that teachers encounter moderate to high levels of challenges (M=3.29) in promoting organic
agriculture. The most pressing concerns are limited training opportunities (M=3.55) and lack of instructional
materials (M=3.40). This aligns with Flores et al. (2020), who emphasized that the absence of adequate
professional development restricts teachers’ capacity to adopt innovative practices in agriculture. Similarly, [46]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3232
www.rsisinternational.org
found that instructional material shortages are a persistent barrier to agricultural education, making classroom
delivery less effective.
Countermeasures Adopted by Teachers
To address the challenges encountered in promoting organic agriculture, teachers employed various
countermeasures that reflect both individual initiative and collective effort. These strategies include
collaboration with colleagues, reliance on online materials, reflective teaching, and the integration of school
gardening activities to reinforce practical application. Participation in external training programs was also
pursued, though less frequently, indicating reliance on accessible and school-based approaches.
Table 6 presents the countermeasures adopted by teachers, showing how they strive to overcome barriers and
sustain the promotion of organic agriculture despite limited resources and opportunities.
Table 6. Countermeasures Adopted by Teachers
Countermeasures
Mean
Interpretation
Peer collaboration and sharing of resources
3.15
Often
Use of online resources for organic concepts
2.90
Sometimes
Reflective teaching practices
3.05
Often
Integration of school gardening projects
3.20
Often
Participation in external training programs
2.75
Sometimes
Overall Mean
3.01
Sometimes to Often
Legend: 3.50–4.00 = Always; 2.50–3.49 = Sometimes to Often; 1.50–2.49 = Seldom; 1.00–1.49 = Never
Moderate challenges such as insufficient school resources (M=3.20) and rigid curriculum constraints (M=3.25)
further underscore the structural limitations faced by teachers. As [47] highlights, effective organic agriculture
education requires not only teacher competence but also institutional support in terms of facilities, time, and
resources.
Schools should prioritize provision of localized instructional materials, allocate dedicated spaces for school
gardens, and lobby for curriculum flexibility to better integrate sustainable agriculture into teaching. Equally
important is the establishment of regular training programs for teachers to address gaps in both knowledge and
practice.
Teachers generally adopt peer collaboration (M=3.15) and school gardening projects (M=3.20) as practical
countermeasures. These results echo [48], who highlighted the role of collaboration and school-based projects
in fostering contextualized agricultural learning. Reflective practices (M=3.05) also show teachers’ commitment
to continuously improving their teaching approaches.
However, reliance on external training (M=2.75) and digital tools (M=2.90) is less frequent. This gap points to
barriers in professional development access and digital literacy, consistent with the findings of [49], who
emphasized that teachers often lack exposure to ICT-enabled agricultural resources.
Schools should strengthen professional learning communities among teachers, promote digital skills training,
and enhance partnerships with government and private organizations for continuous agricultural education.
Training Needs of Teachers on Organic Agriculture
Table 7 presents the identified training needs of teachers in the promotion of organic agriculture, focusing on
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3233
www.rsisinternational.org
both technical expertise and pedagogical competencies necessary for effective integration in teaching and
practice.
Table 7. Training Needs of Teachers on Organic Agriculture
Training Area
Mean
Interpretation
Advanced organic farming techniques
3.60
Very High Need
Organic certification and standards
3.55
Very High Need
Development of instructional materials
3.40
High Need
Digital literacy for online teaching resources
3.25
High Need
Classroom integration strategies
3.35
High Need
Overall Mean
3.43
High Need
Legend: 3.50–4.00 = Very High Need; 2.50–3.49 = High Need; 1.50–2.49 = Moderate Need; 1.00–1.49 = Low
Need
Teachers indicated high to very high training needs (M=3.43), especially in advanced organic farming techniques
(M=3.60) and certification standards (M=3.55). This is consistent with [50], who stressed that teachers require
deeper technical knowledge to effectively model and teach sustainable practices. Similarly, [51] emphasized the
need for professional training on organic certification, which ensures alignment with national and international
standards.
Additionally, there is a clear demand for instructional material development (M=3.40) and digital literacy
(M=3.25). As noted by [52], 21st-century agricultural education must integrate ICT and innovative teaching
resources to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.
Training programs should be comprehensive and multi-dimensional, covering technical expertise, pedagogy,
curriculum integration, and ICT skills. Strong partnerships with agricultural agencies, certification bodies, and
higher education institutions are vital in sustaining teacher capacity-building initiatives.
CONCLUSION
The study revealed that secondary school Agricultural Science teachers demonstrate very good knowledge of
foundational organic agriculture practices, particularly in composting and crop diversification, but show limited
competence in certification and post-harvest processes. This knowledge gap mirrors the findings of [53] and
[54], who noted teachers’ limited exposure to technically complex processes, despite policy mandates under RA
10068. Teachers’ positive attitudes toward organic agriculture—anchored in its sustainability and relevance—
are consistent with [55] and [56], who emphasized the role of teacher beliefs in advancing sustainability
education. However, perceptions of labor-intensiveness indicate a barrier, echoing [57] and [58] who stressed
the importance of structural and institutional support to translate attitudes into consistent practice.
In terms of adoption, results show a moderate extent of practice, with teachers often using organic fertilizers and
integrating concepts into lessons but engaging less in collaboration with local farmers and field demonstrations.
This finding reflects international literature [59] that underscores the critical role of community linkages and
experiential learning in strengthening agricultural education.
Teachers also face moderate to high challenges, particularly a lack of training and instructional materials, which
aligns with [60] and [61], who highlighted systemic resource and competency gaps in agricultural education.
Despite these challenges, teachers adopt adaptive strategies such as collaboration, reflective practice, and school
gardening projects, in line with [62]. However, limited reliance on digital tools suggests the need for greater
emphasis on digital literacy, consistent with [63].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3234
www.rsisinternational.org
Finally, the expressed high to very high training needs in advanced organic farming techniques, certification
standards, and instructional material development highlight the urgency of structured and comprehensive
capacity-building initiatives. These results reinforce [64] and [65], who stressed the need for technical and
pedagogical development to align agricultural education with national and global sustainability goals.
Overall, the findings demonstrate that while teachers possess strong foundational knowledge and positive
attitudes toward organic agriculture, structural challenges, resource gaps, and training limitations constrain full
adoption. Addressing these gaps through targeted professional development, institutional support, and
community partnerships is essential for advancing sustainable agricultural education.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To address the challenges and needs identified in this study, several recommendations are proposed.
First, professional development and capacity-building efforts should include structured in-service training
programs focusing on advanced organic agriculture techniques, certification processes, and post-harvest
handling. Short courses and micro-credentials aligned with Republic Act 10068 (Organic Agriculture Act of
2010) may also be introduced to ensure curriculum relevance and policy compliance.
Second, instructional and institutional support should be strengthened by providing teachers with ready-to-use
lesson packs, garden management templates, and localized instructional materials that reduce workload and
enhance implementation. Schools should allocate dedicated gardening periods, provide basic toolkits, and
establish school-based mini-farms to integrate organic agriculture more effectively into the curriculum.
Third, community and industry linkages must be developed by establishing partnerships with certified organic
farms, producer organizations, and local government agencies to facilitate experiential learning through field
demonstrations, practicum, and mentorship. Linking classroom instruction with local value chains and
certification pathways will also sustain student motivation and ensure real-world applicability.
Fourth, digital integration and innovation should be promoted by enhancing teachers’ digital literacy to expand
access to ICT-based resources on organic agriculture. The use of online learning platforms should also be
encouraged to support reflective practice, peer sharing, and collaboration among teachers.
Finally, future research should address the study’s limitations, particularly its small sample size (n=20) and
narrow geographic scope, which restrict generalizability. Future studies may explore larger and more diverse
populations across regions, adopt longitudinal approaches to track changes in teacher knowledge, attitudes, and
practices, and investigate how institutional support, community partnerships, and ICT integration influence the
sustainability of organic agriculture education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researchers sincerely extend their heartfelt gratitude to those who contributed to the successful completion
of this study. They are especially thankful to the following individuals and institutions whose unwavering
support and encouragement were instrumental throughout the research process: First and foremost, the
researchers are profoundly grateful to Dr. Alberto N. Naperi, University President of the Central Bicol State
University of Agriculture (CBSUA), and Dr. Ramona Isabel S. Ramirez, Vice President for Research and
Innovation, for their unwavering commitment to academic excellence and their steadfast support of research
initiatives. Heartfelt thanks are also extended to Dr. Ernesto D. Doloso, Jr., Campus Administrator of CBSUA–
Calabanga Campus, for his guidance, encouragement, and inspiring leadership, which greatly motivated the
researchers to pursue and accomplish this study. The researchers also wish to acknowledge Mr. Richard G.
Castor, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, for his invaluable support, insightful advice, and dedication,
which served as a strong foundation for the successful execution of this research. Special thanks are due to the
administration and faculty members of the College of Arts and Sciences, CBSUA–Calabanga, for their
cooperation, active participation, and moral support, which significantly contributed to the data collection
process and overall success of the study. Sincere appreciation is extended to the secondary Agricultural Science
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3235
www.rsisinternational.org
teachers of Calabanga, both from public and private schools, who generously shared their time, insights, and
experiences. Their contributions added depth and relevance to this research, grounding it in the lived realities of
the teaching profession. The researchers also express their heartfelt gratitude to their families, whose
unconditional love, patience, and enduring encouragement provided the emotional strength and inspiration
necessary to complete this academic journey. Above all, the researchers thank the Almighty God for the gift of
life, good health, wisdom, and the perseverance that sustained them throughout the challenges and milestones
of this study. May He continue to bless and guide the researchers and their loved ones with strength, courage,
and resilience in all their future endeavors.
REFERENCES
1. Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (2019). The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2019.
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & IFOAM Organics International.
2. Santiago, D., Reyes, M., & Cruz, J. (2020). Integration of organic farming concepts in secondary schools:
Issues and challenges. Philippine Journal of Agricultural Extension, 18(2), 45–62.
3. Mendoza, L., & Samson, P. (2021). Teachers as agents of sustainability in agricultural education.
International Journal of Sustainability in Education, 19(3), 187–200.
4. Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants,
2(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221
5. Lampkin, N., Foster, C., & Padel, S. (2018). The role of organic agriculture in sustainable food systems.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 42(7), 1123–1139.
6. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO
Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
7. Navarro, C., & Santos, G. (2021). Professional development needs of agricultural science teachers in
sustainability education. Philippine Journal of Teacher Training, 7(2), 33–49.
8. De Luna, S., & Valerio, A. (2022). Barriers in the integration of organic agriculture in secondary
education. International Journal of Agricultural Education, 12(1), 22–34.
9. Castro, F., & Reyes, J. (2015). Teacher attitudes and instructional strategies in teaching sustainability
concepts. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(4), 501–514.
10. Villanueva, A. (2019). Teacher values and sustainability education practices in Philippine schools.
International Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 210–225.
11. Flores, M., & Garcia, L. (2020). Curriculum challenges in promoting sustainable agriculture at the
secondary level. Philippine Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(2), 77–89.
12. Francisco, J., & dela Cruz, K. (2018). Demographic factors influencing teachers’ willingness to adopt
sustainability practices. Asian Journal of Teacher Education, 6(1), 89–101.
13. Padilla, R. (2016). Teachers’ prioritization of climate-resilient agriculture in the classroom. Asian Journal
of Environmental Education, 13(1), 55–70.
14. Martinez, E. (2020). The role of school gardens in promoting organic agriculture education. Journal of
Experiential Learning, 15(1), 66–79.
15. Andres, R., & Tan, L. (2019). Teachers’ competencies and confidence in adopting sustainable agriculture
practices. Philippine Journal of Agricultural Education, 5(2), 45–57.
16. Ramirez, L. (2017). Experiential learning approaches in organic agriculture education. Asian Journal of
Education, 18(3), 88–102.
Olivares, J. (2017). Community-based projects for strengthening teacher adoption of organic agriculture.
Journal of Rural Education, 11(2), 101–116.
17. De Luna, S., & Valerio, A. (2022). Barriers in the integration of organic agriculture in secondary
education. International Journal of Agricultural Education, 12(1), 22–34.
18. Lopez, A., & Tadeo, J. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of agroecology in the secondary curriculum.
Philippine Journal of Rural Development, 16(2), 55–69.
19. Lim, D., & Bautista, R. (2016). Teachers’ readiness in applying pedagogical tools for sustainability.
Philippine Education Review, 9(1), 25–41.
20. Tan, J., & Solis, P. (2020). Digital literacy challenges in promoting organic agriculture education. Journal
of ICT in Education, 8(1), 77–90.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3236
www.rsisinternational.org
21. Guevara, P., & Santos, R. (2018). Peer-led training for rural teachers: Implications for agricultural
education. Philippine Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 99–112.
22. Gonzales, H., & Uy, R. (2022). Learning action cells as a strategy for sustainability education. Teacher
Education and Practice, 35(2), 144–160.
Caballero, M. (2019). Reflective teaching in sustainability education: Insights from secondary schools.
Journal of Teacher Development, 8(1), 33–42.
23. Del Rosario, P., & Lim, R. (2018). Enhancing sustainability education through in-service teacher
training. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 201–214.
24. Navarro, C., & Santos, G. (2021). Professional development needs of agricultural science teachers in
sustainability education. Philippine Journal of Teacher Training, 7(2), 33–49.
25. Tan, J., & Solis, P. (2020). Digital literacy challenges in promoting organic agriculture education. Journal
of ICT in Education, 8(1), 77–90.
26. Del Rosario, P., & Lim, R. (2018). Enhancing sustainability education through in-service teacher
training. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 201–214.
27. Guevara, P., & Santos, R. (2018). Peer-led training for rural teachers: Implications for agricultural
education. Philippine Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 99–112.*
28. FAO. (2019). The role of women in agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/gender/resources
29. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for
educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2),
97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
30. Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2018). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning
teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
31. OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills: Education 2030. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
32. Bawden, R. (2016). Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 12(2), 99–118.
33. Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2018). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1397904
34. Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2016). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature,
515(7528), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959
35. Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2017). Agroecology: Principles for the conversion and redesign of
farming systems. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(3–4), 329–346.
36. Gliessman, S. R. (2018). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
37. FAO. (2020). The state of knowledge on soil biodiversity: Status, challenges and potentialities. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1928en
38. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2021). Agricultural indicators system: Organic agriculture.
https://psa.gov.ph/
39. Lampkin, N. (2019). Organic farming and agricultural policy in Europe. Organic Agriculture, 9(2), 123–
138.
40. Scialabba, N., & Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2016). Organic agriculture and climate change. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(2), 158–169.
41. FiBL & IFOAM. (2020). The world of organic agriculture 2020. Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM Organics International. https://www.fibl.org/en/publications
42. Padel, S., & Lampkin, N. (2017). Organic farming: Sustainable agriculture in practice. Outlook on
Agriculture, 46(2), 89–94.
43. Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M. J., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A.,
& Perfecto, I. (2017). Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 22(2), 86–108.
44. PhilOrganic. (2019). Status of organic farming in the Philippines. Philippine Organic Agriculture
Network. https://philorganic.org.ph/
45. Altieri, M. A. (2018). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. CRC Press.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3237
www.rsisinternational.org
46. FAO. (2018). The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural
systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/10-elements
47. UNDP. (2017). Sustainable development goals and agriculture. United Nations Development
Programme. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals
48. Philippine Department of Agriculture. (2020). National Organic Agriculture Program 2020–2025.
Department of Agriculture. https://www.da.gov.ph/
49. Torres, E., & Alipio, M. (2019). Adoption of organic farming technologies among smallholder farmers
in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Crop Science, 44(3), 55–67.
50. David, C. C. (2018). Policy framework of organic agriculture in the Philippines. Philippine Agricultural
Scientist, 101(1), 15–25.
51. Republic Act No. 10068. (2010). Organic Agriculture Act of 2010. Government of the Philippines.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/04/06/republic-act-no-10068/
52. Republic Act No. 11511. (2020). An Act amending the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010. Government
of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/12/23/republic-act-no-11511/
53. Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2018). Land degradation and poverty. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 623–
631.
54. Pingali, P. (2019). Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3(1), e24–
e25.
55. Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2017). Agroecology and the design of climate
change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3), 869–890.
56. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer,
M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H.,
Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
57. IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
58. HLPE. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food
systems that enhance food security and nutrition. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.
http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/plenary/cfs46/hlpe
59. World Bank. (2018). Agriculture for development. World Bank Group.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture
60. IFAD. (2020). Rural development report 2020: Fostering inclusive rural transformation. International
Fund for Agricultural Development.
https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/publication/asset/41941612
61. FAO. (2021). The state of food and agriculture 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
https://www.fao.org/publications
62. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
63. United Nations. (2019). World population prospects 2019. United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs. https://population.un.org/wpp/
64. World Health Organization. (2020). Food safety and sustainable agriculture. World Health Organization.
https://www.who.int/foodsafety
65. Springer, N. P., & Duchin, F. (2019). Feeding nine billion people sustainably: Conserving land and water
through shifting diets and changes in technologies. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(2), 714–
722.
66. Garnett, T., Röös, E., & Little, D. C. (2015). Lean, green, mean, obscene…? What is efficiency? And is
it sustainable? Animal Production Science, 55(4), 739–751.
67. Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2017). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1639), 20120273.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0273
