All Posts By

Jacob Englin

Collaboration that Matters: Unpacking 15 Years of Land-Grant University Research to Mitigate a Devastating Pest in the United States


Damilola Ajayi, University of Florida,

Kathleen D. Kelsey, University of Florida,

PDF Available


Collaboration among land-grant university faculty, staff, and stakeholders is crucial to addressing complex issues that defy solutions through individual efforts. The need for sustainable management practices that are environmentally friendly to mitigate activities of pests on growers’ farms, as well as enhance agricultural production, in the face of rapidly expanding global population, climate change, and increasing food demand is of utmost importance. Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) emerged in the U.S. as an invasive pest in 2008. It is a daunting pest that destroy berry and cherry crops globally. Marketers have a zero-tolerance policy for SWD in fruit and are declared a total loss at market. Over the past 15 years, a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary land-grant university team has created and disseminated a variety of mitigation strategies to growers. This study identified factors underpinning the successful outcomes of the collaborative team using single case study design. Eighteen researchers were involved in the project, 12 agreed to participate in the study. Data collected through interviews, participant observations, and documents were inductively and deductively coded to explore the variables responsible for the unusually long-term collaboration. Participants described their experiences as professional, productive, and expertise based. Factors that positively impacted the team’s high production record included their ability to collaborate, the nature of the problem (invasive pest protocols), team expertise, professional relationships, respect for others, openness, effective communication, positive personality, support for one another, division of labor, and choice/flexibility to join various research projects. The use of improved communication tools and data-sharing software were recommended to further improve transparency and productivity.


Land-grant university researchers, Extension specialists, and growers have been collaborating to mitigate agricultural and nutritional challenges in the U.S. for over 160 years with great success using the historical research and Extension model that evolved from the Morrill Act of 1862 (Seevers et al., 1997). The need for environmentally sound practices that promote sustainable, efficient, and enhanced agricultural production and nutritional best practices to meet the increasing demands for food and industrial raw materials globally has continued to benefit from this model and is thriving under the leadership of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), among other sources.

Researchers, Extension specialists, growers, government, and non-profit organizations collaborate to solve complex agricultural and socio-ecological challenges that defy individual efforts (Bodin, 2017). Active collaboration among diverse teams have been a foundational principle for addressing complex problems such as environmental management (Eaton et al., 2022), growers’ health and safety needs (Reed et al., 2021), energy conservation on farms, crop and animal production, and pest control (Macknick et al., 2022; Worley et al., 2021). The emergency response from land-grant university researchers to the destructive activities of Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (SWD), a devastating invasive pest of berry and cherry crops (Sial et al., 2020), bolstered the need for scientific collaboration across the U.S. and globally. Limited information exists on social factors responsible for long-term scientific collaborations for tackling invasive pests. Therefore, there is a need to explore the factors responsible for sustaining long-term collaborations that hold the potential to mitigate the SWD infestation in the U.S.

Theoretical Framework

Social constructivism defines learning as a deliberate social practice involving the negotiation of shared knowledge among actors, resulting in a shared understanding of reality. (Bruner, 1966; Dolittle & Camp, 1999; Gasper, 1999; Kant et al., 1934). According to Akpan et al. (2020), social constructivism draws on collaboration for effective learning. In this single case study, we applied Gray’s (1989) theory of collaboration to explore the factors responsible for the long-term collaboration between land-grant university researchers and stakeholders in proffering sustainable management practices for SWD in the U.S. Gray explained that collaboration as “a joint decision-making process among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain” (1989, p. 227). Ankrah and Omar (2015) and Bekkers and Bodas (2008) expanded this definition to include cooperation, interaction, and relationships between individuals in social settings or organizations that are targeted at enhancing knowledge sharing or information transfer.

Agriculture by nature faces intricate social, environmental, and agronomic challenges. This has prompted Extension programming and agricultural education to develop collaborative strategies focused on identifying specific issues affecting the environment, conveying such information to land-grant researchers, stimulating the formation of interdisciplinary teams of researchers to address them, and organizing educational programs to reach growers through Extension services (Blanco, 2020; Sulandjari et al., 2022; Coutts et al., 2017; Velten et al., 2021).

Collegiality among researchers has also been identified as a critical factor that enhances scientific research collaborations and productivity (Marlows & Nass-Fukai, 2000) via trustworthy connections as individuals are recognized as equals and for their distinctive contribution to the team (Thorgensen & Mars, 2021). Collegiality facilitates learning and professional development among collaborators (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Rensfeldt et al., 2018). Long-term interdisciplinary collaboration among agricultural researchers from various institutions and Extension professionals has been shown to foster the social construction of agricultural knowledge, solve complex problems, and advance research in dynamic environments beyond the reach of individual efforts. Collaboration extends to growers, facilitating necessary changes in agricultural practices (Díaz, 2021; Pham & Tanner, 2015).

Some of the benefits arising from long-term scientific research collaboration include connecting experts across geographically diverse research communities, who bring differing global perspectives to manage complex challenges, provide problem solving skills to growers and advance agricultural practices and development (Arnal, 2018; Sulandjari et al., 2022). Other desirable social benefits are enhanced understanding, co-innovation, co-authorship, interactive learning, public-private partnerships, public diffusion of results, commercialization of research products, and profit maximization. Individual benefits include self -reflection, increased academic funding and publications, research advancement, reduction in orientation barriers among universities, and trust building among collaborators (Arsenyan et al., 2015; Bekkers & Bodas-Freitas, 2008; Bekkers & Bodas-Freitas, 2011; Brown et al. 2021; Cantner et al., 2017; Cronin et al, 2003; Duta & Martinez-Rivera, 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Li, 2015; Skelcher et al., 2013; Storksdieck et al., 2016; Tartari et al., 2012; van der Wal et al., 2021; Wuchty et al., 2007).

Despite wide adoption of collaboration and its significance in various fields, challenges to collaboration include power sharing, consensus building, diverse stakeholder needs, higher trade-offs compared to joint gains (Margerum & Robinson, 2016), deep-seated cultural and regional bias and language (Hill et al., 2012; Schubert & Glanzel, 2006), conflicts (Margerum & Robinson, 2016), non-representativeness of stakeholder views (Purdy, 2012), and legal and regulatory policies among collaborating institutions (Jeong et al., 2011). Regardless of barriers, collaboration among individuals, organizations, and institutions continues to rise as the benefits far outweigh the limitations (Abramo et al., 2013). Dossou-Kpanou et al. (2020) and Paphawasit and Wudhikarn (2022) observed that an important factor that enhanced collaboration was formal and informal communication that engenders trust, familiarity, cooperation, and connectedness. It follows that for an innovation to be developed and adopted, there must be effective communication (Foray & Steinmueller, 2003; Rogers, 2003). Agricultural education and Extension play a crucial role in communicating innovations by incorporating research findings into the literature and developing curricula to reach a broad audience (Ikendi et al., 2023).


The purpose of the single case study was to explore the factors responsible for building an enduring collaborative team by describing participants’ experiences as members of a long-term scientific collaboration focused on mitigating SWD infestation in the U.S. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following research questions:

  1. What were participants’ roles within the collaborative team?
  2. What factors contributed to building collegiality?
  3. What factors contributed to the long-term sustainability of the team?
  4. What were the benefits of the collaboration over time?
  5. What challenges did the participants face in establishing a resilient team?
  6. How did participants experience communication within the team?


We employed a single case study design to answer the research purpose. This approach focuses on gaining an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon under real-life contextual conditions using multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2003). This design is suitable for program evaluation and groups within organizations or agencies (Creswell, 2007). The design was best suited for this study because our case represents a unique long-term collaboration among land-grant universities researchers and was bounded by people, place, and time. Eighteen researchers were involved in the collaboration, 12 agreed to participate in the study, ten of which were entomologists and two were economists. Nine identified as male and three as female. Six worked in the Northeast U.S., three worked in the Southwest, two worked in the Southeast and one worked in the Northwest. The average experience of the researchers was 10 years, and they had at least three junior researchers working in their laboratories. Participants were experts in the fields of economics and entomology and represented 10 states with SWD infestation. In presenting the data we used pseudonyms to ensure participant’s confidentiality (Creswell, 2013) (see Table 1).

Validity was enhanced using multiple sources of data, which also served to triangulate findings and provide rich descriptions (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2003). We collected data by (a) observing the team through monthly meetings over an eight-year period; (b) analyzing documents and research protocols produced; and (c) conducting in-depth interviews with the participants, which lasted between 55 to 75 minutes (McLeod-Morin et al., 2020). The interview data were recorded, transcribed, cleaned, and then sent to the participants for member checking to ensure validity and trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

After feedback was received from the participants, we used ATLAS.ti 22® software for Windows® to analyze the data within the context of the case (Lamm & Carter, 2019). Data were inductively and deductively coded to identify phrases that were consistently mentioned as emergent themes and in alignment with theory and emerging themes. Interview data were independently coded by investigators and codes were compared to achieve inter-rater reliability and thematic credibility (Saldaña & Omasta, 2020). These were later triangulated with observation and document data (Wright et al., 2021; Yin, 2003). Observation notes and artifacts were used to triangulate interview findings. Data saturation was achieved when there were no new revelations in the data. Credibility was established through multiple data sources (Yin, 2003) including peer debriefing to ensure our conclusions were consistent with participants’ lived experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Merriam, 1988).

To minimize biases (Creswell, 2013), reflexivity was achieved by reporting our background as a Ph.D. student and professor in the department of Agricultural Education and Communication. We engaged monthly with the SWD team and acted as participant observers in the capacity of external evaluators. Memos were kept all through the data collection and analysis process for bracketing purposes to ensure internal reliability and highlighting salient themes (Saldaña & Omasta, 2020). Our findings are part of a larger study conducted over eight years. Due to the qualitative nature of this study and the small population involved, findings may not be generalizable beyond this context. Furthermore, the population is limited to interdisciplinary agricultural researchers from land-grant universities in the U.S. We assumed that the participants gave honest answers to the questions and were actively involved in collaborative efforts for approximately 15 years. Abundant evidence confirms these assertations.


Q1. What Were Participants Roles within the Collaborative Team?

We found that the team consisted of researchers with diverse professional backgrounds, experiences, distinct roles, and responsibilities who intentionally contributed their assets and joined forces to achieve optimal outputs nationwide as displayed in Table 1. Seven participants acted in several research capacities within the collaborative team. They played different and sometimes multiple strategic roles within the team. For example, William and Jason helped to secure permits for field releases of a parasitic wasp from governmental agencies for all the collaborators, bred and raised mass beneficial parasitoids, trained laboratory assistants in other states on the rearing procedures, and distributed parasitoids to five collaborators (Caleb, Daniel, Charles, Anthony and Noah) for field release.

James, the leader of the national research team, explained that “the project was organized by objectives, with at least two researchers leading each objective.” He collaborated with Grace and they both “worked directly with berry and cherry grower/influencers to implement what we know to economic aspects, to behavioral and biological control, chemical control and resistance management aspects of this project.” Grace corroborated James’ explanation stating that she “actively built the research and Extension program in N.E., specifically working blackberry and some blueberry growers and also leading objective one, which was coordinating grower engagement throughout the country.”

According to, William his “role on this project was to investigate natural enemies of SWD and then participate and co-lead the foreign exploration for new natural enemies. This lab was primarily responsible for securing the USDA APHIS permit to get this important beneficial insect through the USDA APHIS and North American Plant Organization to get permits to release Ganaspis brasiliensis as planned releases for states as a form of classic bio control.”

There was clear evidence that the research team was composed of diverse professionals with significant expertise. They were very productive in addressing the complicated challenges imposed by SWD. Furthermore, the team allocated sufficient time to individuals to provide updates on their work, discuss the research protocols, share approval permits, and discuss challenges.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of the Population

NameGenderSpecializationRegionYears Collaboration
James, PIMaleEntomologySE12
EvaFemaleMolecular biologistSW10
WilliamMaleEntomology/ BiologistNE6

Note. Southeast (SE), Southwest (SW), Northeast (NE), Northwest (NW).

Q2. Were Team Members Collaborative, If So, What Factors Contributed to Building Collegiality?

This dataset resulted in three themes to explain factors underlying collegiality and productivity. There were (a) nature and distribution of the problem; (b) need for expertise; and (c) quest for knowledge.

Theme 1: Nature and Distribution of the Problem

We found that the research team was exceptionally collaborative and relied on each other’s expertise and social networks to build collegiality. When asked about the factors contributing to team building, James stated “We faced a problem that crosses state boundaries… which no one person or one team could address… we needed to engage as many states, co-principal investigators, and laboratories as possible, to investigate multiple aspects of this project and to develop a program that is appropriate, not only for one region but multiple regions because this is an across the board problem for berry and cherry crops and the pest (SWD) needs different strategies specific to each crop and environment.” This corroborates the response given by Anthony, who stated that “due to the distribution of the pest across the U.S., there was need for concerted efforts which facilitated collegiality.”

Theme 2: Need for Expertise

Each collaborator identified various roles to assume within the greater whole to address the grand challenge. For example, Noah identified the need for testing different technologies in different states under different conditions, Jason and William reported that their focus was on gaining access to biological agents from other collaborators in Europe, South Korea, and Southern China as well as obtaining permits from government authorities for parasitoid rearing and distribution to U.S. laboratories, and its eventual release in the field. Emmanuel and Olivia reported that “the need for economic insight on the implementation of the research technologies in the eastern and western U.S. necessitated their contributions to building the collaboration.” This was also supported by James who stated that “Emmanuel and Olivia were leading economic analysis, and everybody is participating with them to evaluate economic aspects of the different IP strategies that we are developing.” From Eva’s perspective, “the need for genomics analysis to identify insecticide resistance in SWD across the nation” facilitated collegiality among members.

Theme 3: Quest for Knowledge

Leveraging fundamental knowledge from the first academic laboratory where the research began upon the detection of the pest in the U.S. and the need to learn more about what’s going on around the country were cited as major reasons for collegiality in the team. According to Caleb, “our lab was the first academic lab to work with SWD, because it was found here in California originally when it was first found in United States in 2008. And so, we worked with that before we even knew what species SWD was and so the initial work was just trying to control it any way [possible].” This statement was reinforced by Charles, who reported that “working with scientists that started the work plus personal interest in knowing current research trends and needs” facilitated collegiality. Further, Daniel explained that the “need to expand the research beyond high to wild blueberry, which is different from other types of berries produced in other states” was a contributory factor to the team’s collegiality.

Q3. What Factors Contributed to the Long-Term Sustainability of the Team?

Six themes emerged to describe factors associated with the sustained relationships of the team

Theme 1: Collaboration with Good People

Anthony, who worked with the team for 10 years, described the team as a “good, collaborative, and productive team. We support each other. It’s a great team of people to work with and that is why I have continued with this team for so many years.” Emmanuel explained that working with the group was “quite worth it and is excellent. I couldn’t work in a nicer group environment; they are they are wonderful. I have learned a lot from them. I wish I could have more contact with all of them.” William also reported that “we have some good people on board, … they have been very effective and efficient.” Similarly, Olivia stated that “the folks on the grant have been really helpful if, for example, Charles has helped me very intensely in seeking growers’ contacts and pest consultants and Caleb has directed me to the right people to start asking questions for pest consultants.”

Theme 2: Professionalism

Professionalism was demonstrated by the team of researchers. Caleb and Grace stated that integrity, good personality, respect for each other, willingness to learn and researcher expertise were instrumental to the success of the team. In Charles words “They are genuinely invested in solving problems, they share, and all that and I think we’re all for the most part, motivated by that.”Other factors identified by William, Daniel, and Eva included pre-existing student-advisor relationships, which evolved into collegial relationships and support as students moved into faculty roles.

Theme 3: Capacity Development and Networking

Career development was an important factor that contributed to the team’s long sustainability Daniel identified “prospects for career development as a researcher and the opportunity to work with good people as factors that have contributed to the team’s sustainability over the years.” Noah also explained that “one thing that the project does is that it helps you to be involved with a big network of researchers…. Charles and Daniel are coming to visit us …, because they are going to get Ganaspis and they are going to stop by on their way, and I am going to meet them…it is like networking for early career.”  Grace stated that the research and professional relationships that existed had “exposed young researchers to multiple and different research teams around the country. And that’s been really beneficial for them as they move on in their careers” Olivia reported that “the bolus of this project is that I was able to connect with different pesticide consultants in the state of Washington and they were able to collect data on what programs or strategies to control for different pests and diseases for blueberries and sweet cherries in the Pacific Northwest including obviously, Spotted Winged Drosophila.

Theme 4: Communication

Frequent communication was found to be a strong factor for the sustained collaboration in this study. All 12 of the participants reported that good communication among team members and well-structured regular meetings were instrumental to the sustained collaboration. From our observations, a monthly general meeting was held to discuss team progress while sub-teams meet independently to advance their research efforts. In addition, participants communicated through email.

Theme 5: Synergy and Cohesion

Emmanuel and Noah stated that he was motivated by the intelligence of team members, commitment to the work, good understanding of research activities, flow and openness of the team to new research ideas, transparent activities, team spirit, less competition, and freedom to select areas of research interests. This was corroborated with our observations as scientists demonstrated good understanding of their roles and asked for clarifications from other researchers working on a specialized aspect of the research. There was unity within the team with few incidences of tension, conflict or strife. We observed that the team was composed of mature minds who were interested in solving problems rather than pursuing individual interests.

Theme 6: Leadership

Eleven participants reported that strong leadership, excellent team coordination, and regularly scheduled meetings were influential factors contributing to long-term sustainability of the team. According to Charles “I think a lot of that comes from the leadership. The leader has been good at getting us on regular meetings to talk about all the pieces of the project. So, I think just his regular organization of those meetings has really helped. We also have sub-objectives, and objective meetings through the year and that’s been good for keeping in contact with people.”

Q4. What Were the Benefits of the Collaboration Over Time?

To explore the benefits of collaboration, participants were asked to describe the outcomes accruable to the collaboration. Advancing their scientific understanding of the biology and ecology of the pest and its mitigation were the primary benefits of collaboration. This was described as gaining a novel understanding of location specific control strategies for SWD, capacity building in leadership, access to statewide datasets, employment and research opportunities, and expansion of the body of literature through multiple research publications.

Specifically, James reported that, “I now know that SWD needs different strategies specific to each crop and region and we have been able to develop reduced risk insecticides with non-target effects as well as insecticides for multiple modes of action.” Charles stated that he “gained significant knowledge from the discoveries made by the team and that has placed him in a better position to act in an Extension capacity.” While Grace explained that the collaboration provided junior researchers platforms to serve in leadership roles within a national research team, Eva stated that the collaboration provided students the research opportunity to build their technical bio-informatics skills and practically develop genomics sequencing libraries.

Furthermore, Daniel reported that the long-term collaboration resulted in multiple joint publications in different research areas and has also given laboratory staff and graduate students opportunities to lead research, gain experience and promote their careers in academia and industry. According to Anthony, the sustainable collaboration “allowed us to complete, finish, and continue some of the work that we started in the last project and hadn’t really completely finished and achieved our objectives.” Emmanuel stated that the collaborative efforts have enabled his graduate students to secure employment opportunities both locally and internationally.

Other attributes highlighted by the participants include increased knowledge through the practical use of a technology, which was presumed to fail, development of non-chemical-based control solutions needed by clients to manage their crop losses, development of interpersonal relationships, access to statewide integrated pest management data, new research collaborations among participants on other projects, identification and hiring of good researchers and technicians into permanent positions in their laboratories, established partnership with agrochemical firms, expansion of social network on a global scale, and attracting funding opportunities from private organizations.

Q5. What Challenges did the Participants Face in Establishing a Resilient Team?

We identified challenges that were linked to institutional and coordination complexities that are typical of diverse and multi-stakeholder collaborations. However, we found that the COVID-19 pandemic was the major constraint that imposed both laboratory and field restrictions on the collaboration as it halted travel, hiring of staff, acquisition of equipment, and other research materials. This was not surprising as the pandemic impacted all sectors globally.

While not a barrier to success, James and Anthony reported that “having big teams across many states, the number of co-PIs, multiple regions, and a number of institutions involved in the collaboration made coordination and management a bit challenging.”According to Grace, the structure of leadership was a challenge as some leaders were more effective than others. “People who naturally work well together, work together. Those who don’t naturally work well together do their own thing and they generate a lot of their data, and they are productive, but they are not productive in a coordinated approach.” Furthermore, a shift in the roles of participants as they relocated due tocareer advancement was also identified as a challenge as it caused a temporary shortage of expertise and quick implementation of collaborative decisions was impeded. Grace also explained that assumption of roles that required special social science expertise by entomologists was “a bit out of the wheelhouse” for some of the participants which increased their responsibilities.

While Jason and Daniel reported that the bureaucracy involved in securing approvals from regulatory agencies as impediments to the collaboration processes, Caleb and Emmanuel explained that due to the complicated nature of the research, available space for field work, environmental conditions, different types of crops and their production systems, some participants adapted different treatments, which limited standardization of result and availability of economic data across states.

Q6. How Did Participants Experience Communication Within the Team?

All 12 participants described the communication patterns existing among the collaborative team as “good” and “effective” by adopting different communication channels including monthly virtual meetings over Zoom®, emails, phone calls, as well as in-person visits to disseminate information and coordinate activities.

Specifically, Olivia stated that frequent communication regarding research updates reinforced the team’s ability to work closely together. This perspective was corroborated by 11 participants who stated that the regular monthly meetings structured by the team leadership to talk about all the pieces of the project contributed to the effectiveness of communications among members. While Eva explained that, “though the team is spread across the U.S., I don’t think there are necessarily any barriers or problems in terms of communication.” Jason reported that, “unlike other past research collaborations where I was a member, which felt almost secretive, and not knowing what other researchers in the team were doing, the communication here is fantastic, well-coordinated, very open and it feels nice to be a team member.” This view was supported by Caleb who stated, “the communication in this project has been really good, and it is not always like that with a lot of other projects. I am not afraid of saying what I am doing, what I am finding, and I never got the impression that someone is going to take my idea and run with it.”

Although Emmanuel explained that due to the difference in team members’ professional background, “it was initially challenging for me to communicate what my profession could bring as an economist to the project as most of the researchers thought that economists were accountants.” Nevertheless, his communication with the team members improved when they became more receptive to the analytical tools he developed to provide more economic information about their entomology work. In contrast, Grace described the communication as “kind of fragmented as some folks really pay close attention, communicate, and have a pretty strong grasp of everything that’s being done, and then there are some team members again, who are focused on their specific area and may not be super engaged with others.”

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendation

In conclusion, participants reported a high degree of esprit décor and low competition that resulted in a sustained long-term successful and highly productive collaboration over 15 years. Our findings have elucidated several key factors that enhanced the long-term collaboration and can be applied to other teams seeking to extend partnerships for enhanced problem solving and productivity. Our participants engaged in (a) leveraging fundamental knowledge (of SWD) from founding researchers to junior faculty, thereby expanding social capital to create a demand for professional expertise within the group; (b) sharing personal interest in knowing current research needs and trends; (c) and extending research findings across crops and regions.

The team created an atmosphere of support for each other including career development and networking for junior researchers. Members were open to sharing research ideas without fear of intellectual theft and were transparent with research activities. Other factors that contributed to success included good communication among members, integrity, collegial personalities, willingness to learn, high intelligence, commitment to hard work, and good leadership. Our findings demonstrate that successful teams are productive, and this group has successfully mitigated the destructive activities of SWD in the U.S. Consistent with the literature, we found similar benefits of collaboration including (a) creating new location and crop specific control strategies for SWD; (b) development of new non-target chemical control technology; (c) leadership capacity building and professional development for students and junior researchers; (d) sharing of information on research and Extension positions; (e) access to statewide datasets; (f) knowledge sharing, and (g) expansion of the body of literature through multiple research publications (Abramo et al., 2013; Baker et al., 2020; Gladman, 2015; Koskenranta et al., 2020; Paphawasit & Wudhikarn, 2022 ).

Nevertheless, a few challenges constrained realizing the full potential of the team including the COVID-19 pandemic, limited funding, bureaucracy in securing governmental approvals and certifications for the parasitoid project, complexity of member coordination, and relocation of members over the life of the project.

This study provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary and multi-institutional teams serve as a vehicle for research advancement in the agricultural sector. The team used a variety of approaches to create solutions to address a complex agricultural problem that could not have been solved in isolation. Aligning with Bryson and Crosby (2015), Felin and Zenger (2014), Fernandes and O’Sullivan (2021), and Garcia et al. (2020), multi-stakeholder collaborations are often stimulated by a common problem and the decision to collaborate is influenced by competitive relevance, characterized by a diversity of knowledge among team members.

The findings from this study are relevant to principles of agricultural education, communication, and leadership in several meaningful ways. The practice of leveraging fundamental knowledge from founding researchers to junior members exemplifies effective knowledge transfer, a core principle in agricultural education (Roberts et al., 2023; Wright, 2021). Agricultural education and Extension programs can incorporate these practices to foster a supportive learning environment, where emerging professionals are encouraged to develop their careers through mentorship and networking opportunities (Hur et al., 2023). The team’s approach to sharing personal interests in current research needs and trends, as well as extending research findings across crops and regions, highlights the importance of collaborative learning, which is critical for agricultural Extension (Croom et al., 2022; Franz et al., 2010, Narine et al., 2019). The team’s commitment to open communication and transparency in research activities is a cornerstone of effective agricultural communication. By fostering an environment where ideas are freely shared without fear of intellectual theft, agricultural educators can encourage a culture of trust and innovation among students and researchers (Ashfield et al., 2020).

It is recommended that agricultural professionals engage in collaborative research to showcase their expertise, attract visibility to their research, build their social capital and contribute significantly to the body of literature while solving complex problems. With the increasing call for collaboration from funding agencies, practitioners should focus on the use of improved communication tools and data-sharing software such as MS Teams, Slack, or Share point for collaboration purposes. Giving members the liberty to choose from research components of interest, prioritizing integrity and transparency regarding research activities, and demonstration of support for one another are critical factors for successful, productive, and sustainable long-term collaborative teams. Future research could explore how growers’ knowledge and experience of SWD have changed over time and the effect of these innovations on SWD on their farms. The study was limited by the scope, participant non-respondents, and the small sample size, which may impede transferability of the findings to other cases.


This project was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (project number 2020-51181-32140), and facilitated by the University of Georgia, the University of Florida, and 12 other universities. Ajayi, D. and Kelsey, K. co-conceptualized the study, co-developed the methodology, co- collected, and analyzed the data, and co-wrote the manuscript.


Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). The collaboration behaviors of scientists in Italy: A field level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 442-454.

Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: Implications on teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 8(8), 49-56.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Arnal, Á. J. (2018) Implementation of PEF treatment at real-scale tomatoes processing considering LCA methodology as an innovation strategy in the agri-food sector. Sustainability,10(4),1-16.

Arsenyan, J., Büyüközkan, G., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2015). Modeling collaboration formation with a game theory approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2073-2085.

Ashfield, A., Mullan, C., & Jack, C. (2020). Encouraging farmer participation in agricultural education and training: A Northern Ireland perspective. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 9, 96-106.

Baker, B. P., Green, T. A., & Loker, A. J. (2020). Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biological Control, 140, 1-19.

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analyzing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837-1853.

Bekkers, R. N. A., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2011). The performance of university-industry collaborations: empirical evidence from the Netherlands. A paper presented at the DRUID 2011 on Innovation, Strategy, and Structure, Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions. 1-36.

Blanco, C. D. P. (2020) Water availability risk in agriculture: An application to guadalquivir and segura river basins. Estudios de Economia Aplicada, 29(1), 333-357.

Bodin, O. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352).1-8.

Brown, P., Von Daniels, C., Bocken, N. M. P., & Balkenende, A. R. (2021). A process model for collaboration in circular oriented innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 1-18.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 75(5), 647-663.

Cantner, U., Hinzmann, S., & Wolf, T. (2017). The coevolution of innovative ties, proximity, and competencies: Toward a dynamic approach to innovation cooperation. Knowledge and Networks, 11, 337–372.

Coutts, J., Long, P., & Murray-Prior, R. (2017, June 19). Strengthening practice change, education and Extension in reef catchments, Extension approaches and methods. COUTTS J & R.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Sage.

Creswell J. W. (2013). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. (4th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. (5th ed.). Sage.

Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003) A cast of thousands: Co-authorship and subauthorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of American Sociology Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.

Croom, D. B., Yopp, A. M., Edgar, D., Roberts, R., Jagger, C., Clemons, C., & Wagner, J. (2022). Technical professional development needs of Agricultural Education teachers in the southeastern United States by career pathway. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 73(73),132.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Sage.

Díaz, M. (2021). Environmental objectives of Spanish agriculture: Scientific guidelines for their effective implementation under the common agricultural policy 2023-2030. Ardeola,68(2), 445-460.

Doolittle, P. E. & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46.

Doussou-Kpanou, B. D., Kelsey, K., & Bower, K. (2020). An evaluation of social networks within federally funded research projects. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(3), 42-54.

Duţă, N., & Martínez-Rivera, O. (2015). Between theory and practice: the importance of ICT in higher education as a tool for collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1466-1473.

Eaton, W. M., Brasier, K. J., Whitley, H., Bausch, J. C., Hinrichs, C. C., Quimby, B., Burbach, M.E., Wutich, A., Delozier, J., Whitmer, W., Kennedy, S., Weigle, J., & Williams, C. (2022). Farmer perspectives on collaboration: Evidence from agricultural landscapes in Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Journal of Rural Studies, 94, 1-12.

Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014).Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 4(5), 914-925.

Fernandes, G. & O’Sullivan, D. (2021). Benefits management in university-industry collaboration programs. International Journal of Project Management, 39(1), 71-84.

Foray, D., & Steinmueller, E. (2003). On the economics of R&D and technological collaborations: Insights and results from the project Colline. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(1), 77-91.

Franz, N., Piercy, F., Donaldson, J., Richard, R., & Westbrook, J. (2010). How farmers learn: Implications for agricultural educators. Journal of Rural Social Sciences,25(1),37-59.

Garcia, R., Araújo, V., Mascarini, S., Santos, E. G., & Costa, A. R. (2020). How long-term university-industry collaboration shapes the academic productivity of research teams. Innovation, 22(1), 56-70.

Gasper, P. (1999). Social constructivism. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business model innovation: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 198, 401-416.

Gladman, A. (2015). Team teaching is not just for teachers! Student perspectives on the collaborative classroom. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 130–148.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems.Jossey-Bass.

Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012). A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 23-40.

Hur, G., Roberts, T. G., Diaz, J., Diehl, D., & Bunch, J. C. (2023). Exploring teaching-focused personal networks of agriculture university faculty members: A mixed-methods egocentric network approach. Journal of Agricultural Education,64(1), 28-45.

Ikendi, S., Retallick, M. S., Nonnecke, G. R., & Kugonza, D. R. (2023). Influence of school garden learning approach on academic development of global service-learners. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 159–179.

Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967-983.

Kant, I., Meiklejohn, J. M. D., Abbott, T. K., & Meredith, J. C. (1934). Critique of pure reason. JM Dent.

Kelly, J., & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27.

Koskenranta, M., Kuivila, H., Männistö, M., Kääriäinen, M., & Mikkonen, K. (2022). Collegiality among social-and health care educators in higher education or vocational institutions: A mixed-method systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 114,1-13.

Lamm, K. W., & Carter, H. S. (2019). Leadership development program evaluation: A social network analysis approach. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 69(1), 4-19.

Li, K. M. (2015). Learning styles and perceptions of student teachers of computer-supported collaborative learning strategy using wikis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 32-50.

Macknick, J., Hartmann, H., Barron-Gafford, G., Beatty, B., Burton, R., Seok-Choi, C., Davis, M., Davis, R., Figueroa, J., Garrett, A., Hain, L., Herbert, S., Janski, J., Kinzer, A., Knapp, A., Lehan, M., Losey, J., Marley, J., MacDonald, J., & Walston, L. (2022). The 5 Cs of Agrivoltaic success factors in the United States: Lessons from the InSPIRE research study, United States. A technical report, 1-80.

Margerum, R. D., & Robinson, C. J. (Eds.). (2016). The challenges of collaboration in environmental governance: barriers and responses. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Marlows, M. P., & Nass-Fukai, J. (2000). Collegiality, collaboration, and kuleana: Three crucial components for sustaining effective school-university partnerships. Education, 121(1), 188-194.

Mcleod-Morin, A., Rumble, J. N., & Telg, R. W. (2021). Challenges and motivations of science communication: An administrative perspective at land-grant universities. Journal of Applied Communications, 105(3), 1-18.

McLeod-Morin, A., Telg, R., & Rumble, J. (2020). Describing interdisciplinary agricultural research center directors’ perceptions of science communication through goals and beliefs. Journal of Applied Communications, 104(1),1-18.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.

Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2009). Effective communication, collaboration, and coordination in extreme programming: Human‐centric perspective in a small organization. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 19(5), 438-456.

Narine, L. K., Harder, A., & Zelaya, P. (2019). A qualitative analysis of the challenges and threats facing Cooperative Extension at the county level. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 69(1), 20-32.

Paphawasit, B., & Wudhikarn, R. (2022). Investigating patterns of research collaboration and citations in science and technology: A case of Chiang Mai University. Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 71.

Pham, H. T., & Tanner, K. (2015). Collaboration between academics and library staff: A structurationist perspective. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(1), 2-18.

Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409–417.

Reed, D. B., McCallum, D., & Claunch, D. T. (2021). Changing health practices through research to practice collaboration: The farm dinner theater experience. Health Promotion Practice, 22(1), 122-130.

Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Teacher’s ‘liking’ their work? Exploring the realities of teacher Facebook teams. British Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 230-250.

Roberts, T. G., Cardey, S., & den Brock, P. (2023). Developing a framework for using local knowledge systems to enhance capacity building in agricultural development. Advancements in Agricultural Development,4(2), 1-19.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2020). Qualitative research: Analyzing life (2nd ed.). Sage.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative Extension. Delmar Publishers.

Sial, A., Burrack, H., Loeb, G., Isaacs, R., Walton, V., Zalom, F., Daane, K. Chiu, J., Rodriguez-Saona, C., Beers, E., Northfield, T., Fanning, P., Hoelmer, K., Wang, X., Hoheisel, G., Gallardo, K., Gomez, M., & Kelsey.K. (2020). Moving from crisis response to long-term integrated management of SWD: A keystone pest of fruit crops in the United States. Proposal submitted to USDA-NIFA for funding.

Schubert, A., & Glanzel, W. (2006). Cross-national preferences in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 69(2), 409–428.

Skelcher, C., Sullivan, H., & Jeffares, S. (2013). Hybrid governance in European cities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Storksdieck, M., Shirk, J. L., Cappadonna, J. L., Domroese, M., Göbel, C., Haklay, M., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Roetman,P., Sbrocchi, C., & Vohland, K. (2016). Associations for citizen science: regional knowledge, global collaboration. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 1-10.

Sulandjari, K., Putra, A., Sulaminingsih, S., Adi, C. P., Yusroni, N., & Andiyan, A. (2022). Agricultural extension in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: Issues and challenges in the field. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 137-143.

Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university-industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147.

Thorgersen, K. A., & Mars, A. (2021). A pandemic as the mother of invention? Collegial online collaboration to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Music Education Research, 23(2), 225-240.

van der Wal, J. E. M., Thorogood, R., & Horrocks, N. P. C. (2021). Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers. Proceedings Royal Society, 288, 1-10.

Velten, S., Jager, N.W. & Newig, J. (2021) Success of collaboration for sustainable agriculture: A case study meta-analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability,23, 14619–14641.

Ward, C., Holmes, G., & Stringer, L. (2018). Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation in protected‐area governance. Conservation Biology, 32(2), 437-446.

Worley, B., Fuhrman,N., & Peake, J. (2021).A quantitative approach to identifying turfgrass key players. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(1), 83-95.

Wright, K. M., Rolling Meadows, I. L., Hauser, A., & Maxwell, L. D. (2021). Designing a technique for program expansion of secondary agricultural education. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 71(1), 43-60.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1049. 10.1126/science.1136099

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

The Challenges of Being an Urban Student of Color in Agricultural Education, Through the Eyes of Their Teachers

Callan Hand, Tift County Schools, Georgia

Ashley M. Yopp, Florida Department of Education

D. Barry Croom, University of Georgia,

James C. Anderson II, University of Georgia

Aaron Golson, University of Georgia

PDF Available


This study explored how agricultural education can increase the retention of non-traditional, urban agriculture students of color by supporting students’ academic and career goals while identifying the motivational factors related to student retention in agriculture. This explored teachers’ perceptions of their students’ motivation to stay in agriculture. The data were collected through interviews. The data were analyzed by qualitative methodology. Teachers expressed concern about students’ futures in agriculture and their hope to push students toward a future in agriculture. This was based on several key factors that either encouraged or thwarted their engagement in agriculture.


Teachers support students of color in Career and Technical Education (CTE) by eliminating barriers, promoting inclusivity, and providing guidance and resources (Warren & Alston, 2007). They advocate for equal opportunities, address biases, and create inclusive classroom environments that encourage collaboration and respect. This is particularly important for students of color in agricultural education, as the job market in this field is strong. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects a high demand for graduates in agriculture and natural resources (Goecker et al., 2015), with 22 million jobs related to agriculture and food sectors in 2018 (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2023). However, students of color pursue agricultural careers at lower rates than their Caucasian counterparts (Silas, 2016).

Despite progress in Black student participation in schools (Levine & Levine, 2014), retaining them in agricultural professions remains challenging (Vincent et al., 2012). Many minority youths perceive agriculture as low-paying, lacking prestige, and demanding excessive work for inadequate wages (Dumas, 2014; Larke & Barr, 1987; Talbert et al., 1999). Historical exclusionary policies and a lack of representation in the agricultural industry contribute to this perception, limiting access to role models and mentors. These experiences have led to a distrust of the field and low interest in pursuing agricultural careers.

Negative stereotypes about farming and agriculture also discourage Black students, who may see it as physically demanding, low-paying, and offering limited growth opportunities, mainly if they

come from urban backgrounds with little exposure to agriculture.

Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

Our research was guided by social cognitive career theory (SCCT) developed by Lent and Brown (2002). SCCT provides a comprehensive lens for examining career development and motivation, emphasizing self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interests, goals, and social influences in shaping career choices. We explored teachers’ views on students’ self-efficacy in agriculture and the factors contributing to or hindering its development. We also examined students’ expectations about benefits and opportunities in agriculture careers. We also investigated students’ interests in agriculture, career-related objectives, and teachers’ influence on their career decisions, including cultural and societal factors. Furthermore, we assessed the unique barriers students of color face in pursuing agricultural careers and their impact on motivation. SCCT guided our analysis of teachers’ perceptions, identifying opportunities for intervention and support to enhance students’ motivation and success in agriculture.

Research Objectives

The research objective was to describe teachers’ perceptions of students’ motivation to enroll in agriculture courses and pursue agricultural careers upon graduation.

Agricultural Education in Urban Schools

For most of the twentieth century, agricultural education has focused its attention on teaching traditional production agriculture (Croom, 2008; Talbert et al., 2022) to students who were usually rural, white males who grew up on a farm (Dyer & Breja, 2003). However, in the last twenty years, agricultural education and career and technical education, in general, have embraced a more diverse student population (Xing et al., 2019). Non-traditional, secondary agricultural education programs are typically urban and diverse in student enrollment and curriculum (Lawrence et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2013; Yopp et al., 2018). As the student population in the United States continues to diversify, it has become increasingly crucial for agricultural educators to tap into students’ varying backgrounds and cultures to make real-life connections between what they learn in the classroom and a future in agriculture (Esters & Bowen, 2005). This support is accomplished by utilizing student interests, background, and culture in teaching. Barton and Tan (2009) investigated student diversity by studying low-income urban students and their cultural backgrounds. They found that the cultural knowledge and resources that urban youth bring to a classroom are essential elements in student engagement in the classroom. Students are willing to use their funds of knowledge openly in the classroom because the teacher invited them to do so in the classroom lessons and activities (Kenny & Bledsoe, 2005; Westbrook & Alston, 2007).


This study employed a phenomenological approach involving interviews with two agriculture teachers at a model urban agricultural education program.

Demographic Data and Descriptions of Participants

The researchers met with the school’s lead administrator to identify suitable teachers for the study. Teacher One was a white female biotechnology teacher, coded as Teacher One. Teacher Two was an African-American female horticulture teacher, coded as Teacher Two.

Data Collection

We used a semi-structured interview with teachers. Pre-determined questions guided the first discussion; however, we used probing questions to encourage the participants to elicit deeper thinking about their responses. These questions were designed to elicit thoughts and opinions about the students’ lived experiences in the classroom from a teacher’s perspective to learn more about students’ support systems within the school setting. We made observational notes throughout the study, using techniques recommended by Leatherman and Niemeyer (2005).

Data Analysis

We utilized template analysis, a method of thematically analyzing qualitative data (King, 2023). Template analysis was chosen as the method of data analysis for this study because the researchers sought to understand participants’ lived experiences, thoughts, and behaviors with common and shared meanings through semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire (Braun & Clarke, 2012). This method often begins with a priori codes to help identify themes potentially relevant to the analysis (King, 2023). Once a priori themes were defined, we read through the data, marking segments that appeared to tell us something of relevance to the research question. New themes were defined to include the relevant material and organized into an initial template. We transcribed the teacher interviews and became familiar with the entire data set against relevant segments of previous data found on the research topic. We coded each response and divided the codes into themes. After the themes were developed, we included quotes from study participants that best supported the themes. We used informal member checking, a standard method to maintain validity and establish trustworthiness in qualitative research (Candela, 2019; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This was achieved by following up with the two teachers in the study. We sent emails to both teachers with quotes made by each one to ensure that what they said in the interview was accurate. The researchers also employed reflexivity related to the researcher’s perceptions and opinions on the research topic— the internal and external values that impact non-traditional, urban agriculture students’ intent to stay in agriculture.


Description of School Site

The Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences is a specialized public high school located on the southwest side of a major midwestern city. It was established in 1985 to provide urban students with agricultural education opportunities. It serves around 700 students in grades 9-12, offering a rigorous college preparatory curriculum emphasizing science, math, and technology. The school provides hands-on learning experiences in agriculture and environmental science, including access to a campus farm with a greenhouse, livestock barns, and crop fields. Students can engage in extracurricular activities such as FFA, 4-H, and environmental clubs, and [The School] has received recognition for its innovative educational program.

Unique to the Midwest, this school offers urban students interested in science and math the chance to expand their agricultural knowledge through various pathways, including Agricultural Finance, Agricultural Mechanics, Animal Science, Food Science and Technology, Horticulture, and Biotechnology in Agriculture. The student population comprises a diverse mix, with approximately 48% African American, 31% White, 19% Hispanic, and 0.1% Asian, totaling 804 students during the data collection year. The school’s mission is to prepare and engage students in urban agriculture careers (Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, 2021).

Teacher Perceptions of Student Interest in Agricultural Education

Participants in the study identified several themes affecting student engagement in agriculture, including (1) inclusion and representation, (2) overcoming challenges, (3) urban-rural divide, (4) fostering connections, (5) recognizing student achievements and skills, (6) providing a supportive learning environment, and (7) creating relevant, relatable curriculum.

During interviews, teachers mentioned two agricultural youth organizations: The National FFA Organization (FFA) and Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences (MANRRS). FFA, founded in 1928, is the largest U.S. student-led organization, boasting over 700,000 members from all states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (National FFA Organization, 2022). MANRRS, established in 1986, promotes diversity and inclusion in agriculture and related fields, advocating for underrepresented minority groups (MANRRS, 2023).

A Seat at the Table

When discussing whether or not urban students had a disadvantage in agriculture, Teacher One said that her students indeed have a disadvantage. Industry professionals and fellow educators have told her that urban agriculture students have nothing to offer to the field. As Teacher One expressed:

It’s very disheartening when you hear some of the things that have been said or spoken to [students] or questions that were asked, like within the same organization, in the same state, everyone studying agriculture. And a lot of it is just the lack of knowledge or ignorance of youth. But I feel that the students that I teach have a double whammy. So, they have cultural differences when they are put into different groups, and then they have the urban stereotype.

To Teacher One, the most significant barrier between urban and rural students was the lack of camaraderie between the two groups. Teacher Two discussed how her students constantly have to fight the city stereotype of being from a large Midwestern city when they travel to other places for ag-related events. On top of this, students have to fight the cultural differences between students at these events. Because of these two things, she said her students have the added barrier of being both an urban agriculture student and an agriculture student of color. One teacher discussed how agricultural youth organizations seek to improve diversity at events and programs with cultural diversity and inclusion training. However, there is a long way to go. When discussing FFA, Teacher Two discussed how she believes FFA has been ineffective at making their organization relatable to students of color. She explained that, in her opinion, FFA needs to take more action and shift how it reaches urban students so that students can see that they are wanted, seen, and heard and ultimately become more invested in agriculture. As Teacher Two described it,

MANRRS is a little bit smaller on the scale aspect, but they provide the same things, but it feels more like home with them versus, like I said, being a stranger in a familiar place… you don’t want to be in a room where you feel uncomfortable, you feel unwanted, or you can’t relate. And I think FFA has done a poor job at making it relatable to people of color…They need to stop talking and [take] more action, shifting how they’re reaching the urban dynamic, and maybe we’ll have more people invested in it if they show that they’re wanted.

Teachers of students of color feel that their students are “outsiders looking in” because they feel they cannot contribute anything to the field of agriculture. Urban agriculture students are not treated respectfully in agricultural organizations, even though students of color want recognition and a seat at the table.

Genuine Inclusiveness

Regarding inclusiveness and the importance of ensuring students feel safe in agriculture, Teacher Two felt that teachers are not making students feel comfortable in agriculture. Because if students of color do not feel safe, they will not see how agriculture relates to their lives. Teacher One stated:

And so it’s generally when we go to different state-wide events when we open it up to where they’re interacting with kids outside of the city limits. It’s gotten to a point where things are looking at getting changed to have like cultural diversity training and inclusion training and looking at how we can change the organization both at a national level and at a state level, because we talk about diversity and how important that is, and this is for all kids involved in agriculture. But is it accepting of all? How comfortable do the students feel?

One teacher emphasized the importance of educating the next generation about agriculture’s role in feeding the world and nurturing future agriculture leaders. Both teachers strive to make their curriculum relatable and highlight the interconnectedness of everything with agriculture. However, students often fail to see these connections and lack exposure to genuine inclusion efforts, leading to discomfort in agricultural environments and reduced interest in the field. Teacher Two succinctly summarized this issue:

We’re in the era of truth. And the point is, no, we’re not doing our due diligence when it comes to making our kids feel comfortable and safe in ag. And if they don’t feel safe, they don’t see how it’s relatable. They don’t see the benefit other than ‘Oh I get to eat and I have some clothes on my back, maybe a house.’ The students ask, ‘Why would I get invested in these programs? Why would I stick with these organizations? Why would I support these organizations? They’ve done nothing for me.

Ag is a Hard Sell

When discussing prior negative experiences with students at FFA events, Teacher Two discussed how she had noticed more and more of her students going to MANRRS over FFA. She explained that agriculture is a “hard sell” culturally for her African-American students because her students correlate agriculture to slavery. As Teacher Two reported:

But it’s a hard sell, and especially culturally, black people believe that you know, you’re taking me back to the cotton fields kind of thing when they’re farming… like slave labor. I hear that so much. It’s very distressing to hear.

Because of this, she expressed that her students are not interested in pursuing agriculture. Teacher Two added that from her perspective, students are not interested in agriculture and would rather be doctors, lawyers, or pursue prestigious professions. She explained that no one is telling students to pursue careers in soil science and how this bothers her because students think it does not pay well.

No one’s telling kids to be in soil science…Why?? There are so many jobs in soil…And they pay a lot of money and the kids don’t even know…They say no, that’s not fun, I don’t want to do that. I want to be a doctor. So…when we get them there, we can sway a good group of kids to stay in it (Teacher One ).

She further explained that if students are recruited to this field, they can sway a good group of kids to remain in the field long-term. However, before this can happen, students need to feel comfortable and safe and see positive change within their agriculture organizations. When students feel safe, they will be more likely to become interested in pursuing future agriculture opportunities.

Formative Experiences

Teacher One stressed the need to cultivate students’ early appreciation for agriculture outside the classroom. Her own experiences showed how early exposure enriches understanding and sustains interest. She cited an example of a student aspiring to a production agriculture career, underscoring the importance of early exposure in nurturing students’ agricultural interests.

We’re in the era of truth. And the point is, no, we’re not doing our due diligence when it comes to making our kids feel comfortable and safe in ag. And if they don’t feel safe, they don’t see how it’s relatable. They don’t see the benefit other than ‘oh I get to eat and I have some clothes on my back, maybe a house.’ The students ask, ‘why would I get invested in these programs? Why would I stick with these organizations? Why would I support these organizations? They’ve done nothing for me. (Teacher One)

Outside the City Limits

Both Teacher One and Teacher Two talked about how important it is to expose their students to the outside world and give them opportunities to experience agriculture outside of the city where they live. Teacher One discussed how many of her students fear being in an environment without street lights or the comforts they grew up in the city. Therefore, she has found that many students do not have many interactions with the environment outside of the city limits, so they are struggling to make the connections between what they learn in the classroom and the greater aspect of agriculture.

To be in an environment without streetlights or without the standard city parts that they grew up with…the comfort…the students don’t have as much interaction with that. So…with the school, that’s one of the things that we try to give them…those types of experiences…so that they can see what else is out there (Teacher One).

Overall, the teachers found that urban students lack exposure to agriculture outside the classroom. They are not connecting with agriculture on a larger scale because it is not relatable to them in this stage of life. These students are not concerned with the more significant problems they will eventually face once they are out of the classroom. Therefore, students need more meaningful and unique experiences that expose them to the outside world beyond their urban dynamic. In doing so, students will more likely see the value of agriculture and its impact on their lives.

Making the Connection

In discussing the urban students’ barriers in agriculture, Teacher One explained that students could not see the production process and make the farm-to-table connection.

…there’s a disconnect between the food and the production side and understanding how those products get to the market. I also think that [students] are at a slight disadvantage as well, because if they don’t follow through with what is actually happening, once the products leave the farm or whatever step they are in, they’re there in retail and they’re sold then [so students don’t see the connection] (Teacher One).

On this same topic, Teacher Two explained how she grew up in the urban dynamic. Because of this, she works hard to make her agriculture curriculum relatable to her students’ lives whenever possible. Furthermore, she discussed how she shows her students that everything they touch deals with agriculture, and that helps students connect the food on their plates and their own lives. When students can connect agriculture with their own lives, they are more likely to be interested in agriculture and what it offers.

So, since I come from the urban dynamic, I think I try to make it as relatable as possible, and especially when we’re developing this urban ag curriculum for our students. I try to show them that everything that you do and everything that you touch and everything that is around you is dealing with agriculture. And they don’t get it because it’s just like, ‘well, how do I relate this back’? (Teacher Two).

Conclusions and Discussion

The findings of this study reveal the complexities and challenges urban students face in engaging with agricultural education, particularly within the unique context of [The School]. This specialized public high school aims to bridge the urban-rural divide by offering a curriculum focused on science, math, and technology through the lens of agriculture. Despite the school’s innovative approach and the diverse student population, several significant barriers hinder students’ full engagement and interest in agriculture.

Inclusiveness and Representation

One of the predominant themes identified was the need for greater inclusiveness and representation in agricultural education and related organizations. Teachers reported that students often feel like “outsiders looking in,” particularly in organizations like FFA, which have not effectively addressed these students’ cultural and urban backgrounds. This lack of representation contributes to alienation and disinterest in pursuing agricultural careers. Organizations must prioritize genuine inclusiveness to address this, ensuring all students feel seen, heard, and valued.

Overcoming Cultural and Urban-Rural Challenges

The study highlights urban students’ cultural and urban-rural challenges in agricultural settings. Teachers emphasized that their students often combat stereotypes and biases, both from within the industry and from their peers in rural areas. This dual disadvantage can discourage students from engaging deeply with agricultural education. Programs like MANRRS have shown promise in creating a more welcoming environment, but broader efforts are needed to change perceptions and increase cultural competence within the field.

Fostering Connections and Relevance

Another critical finding is that teachers believe in making agricultural education relatable to urban students. Teachers stressed connecting classroom learning with students’ experiences and the broader agricultural context. This includes helping students see the farm-to-table process and understand the relevance of agriculture in their daily lives. Educators can foster a more profound interest and appreciation for the field by contextualizing agriculture within an urban framework.

Supportive Learning Environments

Creating supportive and safe learning environments is crucial for encouraging student engagement. Teachers reported that students need to feel comfortable and secure to see agriculture as a viable and appealing career path. This involves physical safety and emotional and cultural safety, where students’ backgrounds and experiences are respected and valued. Efforts to improve diversity training and inclusion practices at both state and national levels are steps in the right direction but require sustained commitment and action.

The Role of Early Exposure and Extracurricular Activities

Early exposure to agriculture and involvement in extracurricular activities like FFA and MANRRS play significant roles in shaping students’ perceptions and interests. Teachers noted that students who engage with agriculture outside the classroom develop a stronger connection to the field through hands-on experiences and exposure to rural environments. This early engagement is vital for nurturing long-term interest and commitment to agricultural careers.

Addressing Negative Perceptions and Enhancing Recruitment

African American students who associate farming with slavery and labor-intensive work are less likely to see agriculture in a positive light. Educators must work to dispel these myths and highlight the diverse and lucrative career opportunities within agriculture, such as soil science, biotechnology, and agricultural finance. Effective communication about the benefits and possibilities of agriculture is essential to attract and retain students.


The study underscores the need for a multifaceted approach to improving urban students’ engagement with agricultural education. Key strategies include enhancing inclusiveness and representation, overcoming cultural and urban-rural challenges, making curriculum relevant, creating supportive environments, providing early exposure, and addressing negative perceptions. By implementing these strategies, [The School] and similar institutions can better prepare and inspire urban students to pursue fulfilling careers in agriculture, contributing to a more diverse and dynamic agricultural industry.

Future research should explore the long-term impacts of these interventions and identify additional methods to support urban students in agricultural education. Moreover, continued collaboration between educational institutions, agricultural organizations, and communities is essential to create a more inclusive and engaging agricultural education system for all students.


Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Candela, A. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 619–628.

Croom, B. (2008). Development of the integrated three-component model of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 110–120.

Dumas, J. A. G. (2014). Factors that influence Black and Latino high school students to pursue careers in agriculture. The Pennsylvania State University.

Esters, L. T., & Bowen, B. E. (2005). Factors influencing career choices of urban agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 26–35.

Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Fernandez, J. M., Ali, R., & Theller, R. (2015). Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, and the environment, United States, 2015-2020. Purdue University.

Kenny, M. E., & Bledsoe, M. (2005). Contributions of the relational context to career adaptability among urban adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 257–272.

King, N. (2023). What is template analysis? University of Huddersfield.

Larke, A., & Barr, T. P. (1987). Promoting minority involvement in agriculture. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 60.

Lawrence, S., Rayfield, J., Moore, L. L., & Outley, C. (2013). An analysis of FFA chapter demographics as compared to schools and communities. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 207–219.

Leatherman, J. M., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(1), 23–36.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. Career choice and development. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career Choice and Development (pp. 255–311). John Wiley & Sons.

Levine, M., & Levine, A. G. (2014). Coming from behind: A historical perspective on Black education and attainment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 447–454.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

MANRRS. (2023). About us. MANNRS.

National FFA Organization. (2022). 2022-23 official FFA manual. National FFA Organization.

Robinson, J. S., Kelsey, K. D., & Terry, R. (2013). What images show that words do not: Analysis of pre-service teachers’ depictions of effective agricultural education teachers in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 126–139.

Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences. (2021). About the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences. About the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences.

Silas, M. A. (2016). Improving the pipeline for students of color at 1862 colleges of agriculture: A qualitative study that examines administrators’ perceptions of diversity, barriers, and strategies for success [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Talbert, B. A., Croom, B., LaRose, S., Vaughn, R., & Lee, J. S. (2022). Foundations of agricultural education (4th edition). Purdue University Press.

Talbert, B. A., Larke, Jr., Alvin, & Jones, W. A. (1999). Using a student organization to increase participation and success of minorities in agricultural disciplines. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 90–104.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2023). Ag and food sectors and the economy. USDA Economic Research Service.

Vincent, S., Henry, A., & Anderson, J. (2012). College major choice for students of color: Toward a model of recruitment for the agricultural education profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 187–200.

Warren, C. K., & Alston, A. J. (2007). An analysis of diversity inclusion in North Carolina secondary agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(2), 66–78.

Westbrook, J. R., & Alston, A. J. (2007). Recruitment and retention strategies utilized by 1890 land grant institutions in relation to African American students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 123–134.

Xing, X., Garza, T., & Huerta, M. (2019). Factors influencing high school students’ career and technical education enrollment patterns. Career and Technical Education Research, 44(3), 53–70.

Yopp, A., McKim, B., & Homeyer, M. (2018). Flipped programs: Traditional agricultural education in non-traditional programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 16–31.

Concerns of New Agriculture Teachers Participating in an Induction Program

Jillian C. Ford, Auburn University,

Misty D. Lambert, North Carolina State University,

Wendy J. Warner, North Carolina State University,

PDF Available


The purpose of this study was to identify the needs and concerns of new agricultural teachers participating in the DELTA induction program in North Carolina. This descriptive survey study was administered through Qualtrics in March 2023 and received responses from 22 DELTA participants who were all in their first two years teaching school-based agricultural education. The questionnaire included three components: (1) identifying needs in four construct areas related to FFA/SAE, curriculum and instruction, program management and planning, as well as professional development, (2) an open-ended question about teacher concerns, and (3) demographic questions. Participants indicated a level of need for all four constructs. Items related to program management and planning were recognized as the highest need, and those related to professional development were the lowest. Teacher concerns were concentrated in the task category. Recommendations for practice and future research are provided.

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

The ongoing demand for agriculture teachers is a prominent concern across the profession. This is not a recent phenomenon, as Hillison (1987) noted the rapid growth of agricultural education in secondary schools during the early 20th Century, which initiated the teacher shortage. Currently, the need for qualified agriculture teachers remains (Smith et al., 2022), raising questions about the best approaches to recruitment and retention. While recruitment efforts have been made on the national level to promote careers in school-based agricultural education (National Association of Agricultural Educators, 2023), and research has been done on what attracts students to the teaching profession (Andreatta, 2023; Korte et al., 2020; Lawver & Torres, 2012), this study focused on what teacher educators can do to help best support and retain beginning agriculture teachers through the delivery of an induction program in North Carolina.

To develop and facilitate meaningful professional development programming, agricultural education faculty members have employed several approaches, both quantitative and qualitative, to assess the needs of early career agriculture teachers. Quantitative approaches have commonly utilized needs assessments to identify the needs of beginning teachers (Birkenholz & Harbstreit, 1987; Garton & Chung, 1996; Washburn et al., 2001). Qualitative inquiries have included an ethnographic approach to explore problems and issues encountered by beginning agriculture teachers (Mundt, 1991) and a case study approach to document the experiences of three beginning agriculture teachers throughout a school year (Talbert et al., 1994).

As an increasing number of alternatively licensed teachers began entering the profession, Roberts and Dyer (2004) recognized the importance of identifying teachers’ perceived needs based on their route to certification, either through a traditional teacher preparation program or through alternative licensure. Their research concluded both groups of teachers were seeking professional development in preparing grant proposals to secure added funding. Other needs included reducing work-related stress and better managing time. Stair et al. (2019) found that both traditionally and alternatively certified agriculture teachers needed support using instructional technologies and developing online teaching resources. Additional needs for alternatively certified agriculture teachers included student motivation and managing instructional facilities. In the area of leadership development (FFA) and Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE), alternatively certified teachers indicated a desire for Career Development Event (CDE) and Leadership Development Event (LDE) training. 

Hillison (1977) and Stair et al. (2012) used a slightly different perspective as they examined the levels of concern expressed by first-year agriculture teachers. Their research was guided by the work of Fuller (1969), Fuller and Case (1972), and Parsons and Fuller (1974). Fuller (1969) initially proposed three phases of concern: a pre-teaching phase, an early teaching phase, and a late teaching phase. This conceptualization moves across a continuum of concerns from being non-teaching specific during pre-service coursework to focusing on self during the early teaching phase and concerns about students during the late teaching phase. Later, Fuller and Case (1972) presented an expanded version of teacher concerns that included seven categories: concerns about self (non-teaching concerns), concerns about self as a teacher (where do I stand?; how adequate am I?; how do pupils feel about me? what are pupils like?), and concerns about pupils (are pupils learning what I am teaching?; are pupils learning what they need?; how can I improve myself as a teacher?). A revised three-stage model was later proposed including only concerns about self, concerns about task, and concerns about impact upon students (Conway & Clark, 2003; Parsons & Fuller, 1974).

In 1989, research conducted by Camp and Heath-Camp guided the development of the teacher proximity continuum, which helped inform the content of teacher induction programs and provided direction for additional research efforts (Joerger & Bremer, 2001). The framework was comprised of eight categories of teacher concerns and challenges, including internal, pedagogy, curriculum, program, students, peers, system, and community. Later work by Joerger and Bremer (2001) built upon the teacher proximity continuum to provide specific topics to be reinforced throughout beginning teacher programs along with a list of activities that could support the career satisfaction of early career teachers. Joerger and Bremer (2001) reinforced the critical role of various stakeholders when stating, “they can exert considerable influence in the formulation and implementation of policies, practices, and programs that contribute to optimal teaching experiences for novice educators.”( p. 15). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) examined several educational systems worldwide to identify the established policies supporting high-quality teaching. Two such policies reinforced the importance of induction, mentoring, and professional learning. In a discussion of continuing professional development, Greiman (2010) cautioned that some induction approaches attempt to incorporate all the knowledge acquired over the lifespan of teaching, which can be overwhelming to beginning teachers. Instead, recommendations include identifying and addressing induction participants’ specific needs and pressing challenges.

Most recently, Disberger et al. (2022) proposed several suggestions for the structure and content of induction programs for beginning agriculture teachers. A three-year program was recommended and included the following topics as suggested content:

Year 1 – obtaining supplies and equipment; student management; balancing and prioritizing FFA, SAE, and classroom; agriculture content and/or delivery sources; work/life balance – new lifestyle and community

Year 2 – SAE; parent communication; isolation; evaluating additional responsibilities

Year 3 – student motivation; new ideas; communicating with the broader community; work/life balance – life transitions

To support beginning agriculture teachers in North Carolina, a 40-hour induction program is in place. The Department of Public Instruction requires agriculture teachers on a restricted license to complete the program within their first three years of employment. Those pursuing a residency-based license or provisionally certified beginning teachers may also participate based on personal interest or the recommendation of their local school. Six components are included: a fall and spring conference, a workshop at the summer Career and Technical Education conference, attendance at fall and spring teacher in-service meetings, and an experience at the State FFA Convention. The fall and spring conferences comprise most of the participation hours and consist of sessions facilitated by a team of mentor teachers, teacher educators, and state staff. Sessions are informed by previous research on concerns and professional development needs of novice teachers and include topics such as instructional planning and delivery, student engagement, supporting students with diverse needs, classroom and facility management, SAE, FFA chapter operations, and program funding.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic made a significant disruption and has had lingering effects on educational delivery. Research by McKim and Sorensen (2020) reported that agriculture teachers experienced a decline in work hours and work interference with family, indicating the reallotment of time and effort away from their work roles into their personal and family responsibilities. There was also a dramatic decrease in job satisfaction (Eck, 2021; McKim & Sorensen, 2020). Easterly et al. (2021) discussed the exhaustion experienced by teachers as they struggled to manage facilities and adjust their instructional delivery methods.

While there has been a wealth of research in agricultural education on the needs and concerns of beginning agriculture teachers and recommendations on the delivery of teacher induction programs, there was a need to conduct research specific to North Carolina. The induction program was started in 2009 and while regular evaluation has occurred, there has not been an intentional effort to identify the specific concerns and needs of participants. Additionally, with the changes in the educational landscape due to the ongoing pandemic and an increase of new teachers across the state, the findings will be valuable in informing the development of future programming. Seeing that teachers participating in the Developing Educational Leaders and Teachers of Agriculture (DELTA) program may have anywhere from one to three years of experience and come from a variety of certification pathways, it was determined that examining a broad scope of inservice needs and also providing an opportunity to capture immediate concerns would be the most appropriate.

Purpose and Research Objectives

The purpose of this study was to describe the concerns of teachers participating in the DELTA program. The following research objectives guided the study:

1. Identify DELTA teachers’ level of need for content related to SAE/FFA, program management and planning, curriculum and instruction, and teacher professional development.

2. Identify and classify categories of DELTA teachers’ self-reported concerns.


The design for this study was descriptive. The accessible population was all teachers who attended the 2022 December (N = 31) and 2023 March (N = 28) DELTA teacher in-service training. Frames were obtained through the registration platform used by the DELTA program. Duplicate participants were eliminated, creating a final target population of N = 36. Because of the small size, a census was sought. The questionnaire was shared via Qualtrics in mid-March 2023. In alignment with IRB approval, two follow-up email attempts were made to contact non-respondents. The accepting sample was n = 22, creating a final response rate of 61%.


The scale data were collected using a modified version of the researcher-created instrument first developed by Roberts and Dyer (2004). The instrument sought to gather inservice needs in areas related to FFA/SAE, curriculum and instruction, program management and planning, and professional development. These items were rated on a Likert-type scale anchored as no need (1), a little need (2), a moderate need (3), a strong need (4) and a very strong need (5). For our study, we did not use the section with items related to technical agriculture as this is not content typically addressed through the DELTA program. Roberts and Dyer (2004) reported reliability for the included constructs as FFA and SAE (.88), supervision instruction and curriculum (.95), program management and planning (.95), and teacher professional development (.91). Since we removed a few items from their constructs, we ran post-hoc reliability. Reliabilities for our study are reported as follows: FFA and SAE (8 items) = .84, Curriculum and Instruction (20 items) = .97, Program Management and Planning (14 items) = .96, and Teacher Professional Development (4 items) = .95.

For the second section of our instrument, we used the open-ended response section from Stair et al. (2012). The item was “When you think about teaching, what are you concerned about? (Do not say what you think others are concerned about, but only what concerns you now.) Please be frank.” The third section gathered the demographic characteristics of the participants.

Data Analysis

The scaled items were calculated as construct grand means and individual item frequencies and percentages. We collapsed responses of very strong need and strong need into a category we titled high need. This is consistent with how Roberts and Dyer (2004) reported their data.

For the open-ended responses in section two, many respondents gave us multiple items in bullet or paragraph form. We broke the participant responses into individual items to allow for coding. We used the pre-existing codes of nonteaching, self, task, and impact (Conway & Clark, 2003; Parsons & Fuller, 1974). We coded first as individuals and then met as a research team to ensure alignment and resolve any items where there was a disagreement in coding. An example of an item coded into nonteaching included “lack of true support; people say they will help with this or that, but when it comes to it- it isn’t always true.” An example of an item coded into self was “teaching partner relationships.” An example of an item that was coded as a task concern was “classroom management.” Lastly, an example of an item coded into impact was “Are my students understanding and absorbing the information?”

There were also responses where we would have benefitted from the opportunity to follow up with participants to explore the statement. For example, one of their concerns was “PBMs.” Our state has recently implemented a performance-based measurement (PBM) assessment at the end of some agriculture courses. It is unclear from their very short response if they are concerned with understanding, organizing, teaching, being evaluated on the data, impact on students, or something else related to PBMs. Without more information, it is impossible to narrow down which teaching related concern category this brief response would fit, and was thus coded into multiple categories.

Participant Demographics

To fully interpret and apply the data, it is important to understand the characteristics of the DELTA participants. The participants were 77.3% female (n = 17), 18.2% male (n = 4), and 4.6% a third gender (n = 1). The majority of participants (81.8%) taught high school only (n = 18), and the remaining 18.2% taught middle school only (n = 4). Nine (40.9%) participants worked in one-teacher programs, ten (45.5%) worked in two-teacher programs, two (9.9%) worked in three-teacher programs, and one participant (4.6%) worked in a five-teacher program. Half (n = 11) of the participants had been enrolled in a SBAE program as a student.

All participants were in their first two years of teaching agricultural education, with 81.8% in their first year (n = 18) and 18.2% in their second year (n = 4). There was a larger range of overall teaching experience with 14 first-year teachers (63.7%), two second-year teachers (9.1%), one fourth-year teacher (4.6%), one 10-year teacher (4.6%), three 11-year teachers (13.6%) and one 13 year teacher (4.6%).

The participants ranged from 22 to 41 years old, with a median age of 27.5 and a mean age of 29. The majority of participants (86.6%) had completed a bachelor’s degree (n = 19), while the remaining participants (13.6%) had completed a master’s degree (n = 3). Of the respondents, 50.0% were working under a residency license (n = 11), 22.7% were working under a restricted license (n = 5), 13.6% were working under a professional license (n = 3), 9.1% were working under another license type (n = 2), and 4.6% did not know what kind of license they were using (n = 1).


The first objective of this study was to identify the level of needs for DELTA teachers. We addressed this objective through statements related to four constructs.


There were eight items in the FFA and SAE construct, and each was identified by participants as an area in which they needed content support. Over half of the participants identified three items as having a high need (see Table 1). These items included developing SAE opportunities (68.2%), supervising SAE programs (68.2%), and preparing the program of activities and national chapter award applications (59.1%). The overall grand mean for the FFA and SAE construct was 3.23 (SD = 0.82)

Table 1

Participants with a strong need for DELTA content related to FFA and SAE (n = 22)

Developing supervised agricultural experience opportunities1568.2
Supervising SAE programs1568.2
Preparing program of activities and national chapter award applications1359.1
Preparing for career development events1045.5
Preparing FFA degree applications940.9
Organizing and maintaining an alumni association731.8
Preparing proficiency award applications627.3
Supervising show animal SAE projects627.3

Curriculum and Instruction

The construct related to curriculum and instruction included twenty items, all of which participants indicated were needed (see Table 2). The grand mean was M = 3.21 (SD = 1.04). Half of the items were identified by at least half of the participants as having a high need by the participants. The areas with the highest need included modifying lessons for special needs and ESOL students (72.7%), managing student behavior (59.1%), and teaching in laboratory settings (59.1%). The area with the lowest need included developing a magnet program or academy (19.1%). The grand mean for the curriculum and instruction construct was 3.21 (SD = 1.04).

Table 2

Participants with a strong need for DELTA content related to Curriculum and Instruction

(n = 22)

Modifying lessons for special needs and ESOL students221672.7
Managing student behavior221359.1
Teaching in laboratory settings221359.1
Motivating students (teaching techniques and ideas)221254.6
Developing critical thinking skills in your students221254.6
Integrating state performance tests and PBMs221254.6
Teaching problem-solving and decision-making skills221150.0
Modifying curriculum and courses to attract high-quality students221150.0
Developing a core curriculum for agricultural education221150.0
Changing the curriculum to meet changes in technology221150.0
Teaching leadership concepts221045.5
Integrating science into agricultural instruction221045.5
Designing programs for non-traditional and urban students22940.9
Integrating math into agricultural instruction22940.9
Testing and assessing student performance22940.9
Integrating literacy into agricultural instruction21940.9
Using computer technology and computer applications22836.4
Understanding learning styles21731.3
Planning an effective use of block scheduling21628.6
Developing a magnet program or academy21419.1

Program Management and Planning

The grand mean for the program management and planning construct was the highest of the four areas, at M = 3.34, SD = 0.98. The construct consisted of 14 items, nine of which were recognized as having a high need by participants (see Table 3). Participants’ top areas of concern included fundraising (59.1%) and writing grant proposals for external funding (54.6%).

Table 3

Participants with a strong need for DELTA content related to Program Management and Planning (n = 22)

Writing grant proposals for external funding1254.6
Conducting needs assessments and surveys to assist in planning agriculture programs1254.6
Planning and maintaining a school land lab1254.6
Developing business and community relations1254.6
Completing reports for local and state administrators1150.0
Building the image of agriculture programs and courses1150.0
Recruiting and retaining quality students1150.0
Establishing a public relations program1150.0
Utilizing a local advisory committee1045.5
Building collaborative relationships1045.5
Managing learning labs940.9
Establishing a working relationship with local media836.4
Evaluating the local agriculture program731.8

Professional Development

The grand mean for the professional development construct was M = 3.01, SD = 1.29, the lowest of the four constructs. This construct consisted of four items, all of which were identified as having a high need by less than half of the participants (see Table 4). The areas recognized with the highest need included time management tips and techniques (45.6%) and professional growth and development (45.6%).

Table 4

Participants with a strong need for DELTA content related to Professional Development

(n = 22)

Time management tips and techniques1045.5
Professional growth and development1045.5
Managing and reducing work-related stress940.9
Becoming a member of the total school community627.3

For the second objective, participants provided 44 individual concerns when asked, “When you think about teaching, what are you concerned about?” We coded the open-ended statements into the four categories of concerns. Due to the vague nature of some statements, we chose to have some statements recognized in multiple categories of concerns, increasing the total number of concerns to forty-nine (see Table 5). Task concerns (51.0%) and self-concerns (28.6%) were where participants’ highest levels of concern were concentrated.

Table 5

Levels of concerns

Category of ConcernNumber of Concerns%

Task concerns were the most prevalent among the participants and revolved around items that required teacher time or decisions. Examples of these task concerns included, “I also love to be outside, but finding labs and activities for students to do outside can be SUPER time-consuming and expensive in some cases,” “control of students during lab situations,” and “the pressures administration puts on a beginning agriculture teacher that have nothing to do with the job they were hired to do.” Examples of self-concerns were aligned with personal experience or preparation and included items such as “Safety. I have been assaulted twice this year,” “I am concerned about the longevity of this career. Between teaching classes, FFA, maintaining lab area (greenhouses, barns, livestock, etc.), engaging with and serving the community, as well as any additional responsibilities given to teachers locally at their school, it is difficult to imagine surviving year one, much less 10, 20, or 30 years,” and “I’m concerned about the way my students treat me and the lack of respect I receive. I don’t think anyone has taught them how to act or treat others. I don’t know how to train someone at this age (high school) to be respectful.” and “Time management. I feel pressured from other chapters to push myself. I know that jealousy is the thief of joy, and I am new and starting out.” Multiple vague responses from participants fell into both the task and impact categories. Examples of these items included “reaching the students that are unmotivated to learn,” and “I teach at an urban low-income school. Many of my students have transportation and/or financial issues that make it very difficult to participate in FFA or SAE activities. I am concerned about giving these students quality, hands-on learning experiences in the classroom.”

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

In line with Greiman’s (2010) recommendations, this study’s conclusions will be valuable in providing a targeted approach to teacher induction. The highest overall area of need was related to program management and planning including items related to fundraising, grant writing, managing laboratory facilities, and connecting and managing community partnerships. The lowest overall area of need was teacher professional development, which may be related to the fact that these teachers received this instrument because of their attendance at a professional development offering.

SAE was the highest need area among the FFA and SAE items. DiBenedetto et al. (2018) found that this need appeared in multiple teacher needs assessments from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Disberger et al. (2022) also reported teachers sought support in implementing SAE. There is an opportunity here as the national re-launch of SAE for All is driving SAE-related professional development, not only at conferences like DELTA, but also at the state’s fall in-service teacher meetings and the statewide summer conference sessions. Across the state, teachers are being encouraged to integrate foundational SAEs into their courses and provided with practical resources.

ESOL and special needs modifications were the highest identified area in curriculum and instruction. DiBenedetto et al. (2018) determined this was an emerging need that began to appear in the 2000s. While Stair et al. (2010) indicated that teachers were confident in accommodating students with specific needs, they disagreed that they received helpful preparation through in-service opportunities. This finding was supported by follow-up research conducted by Stair et al. (2016). As such, trying to keep current on strategies and approaches for supporting students with special needs and delivering relevant professional development is critically important. Incorporating in-service offerings delivered by certified ESE and/or ESOL teachers might also be beneficial.

Motivating students showed up on both the open-ended responses and were rated highly on the Likert-type scale. This aligns with Roberts and Dyer (2004) who found student motivation to be the third highest need item on the curriculum and instructional items. Our current DELTA curriculum does address motivating students but tends to talk about strategies for hands-on learning and applied and/or lab-based activities which teachers indicated can be limited by budgets. Fundraising and grant writing were both rated highly on the Likert-type scale but when combined with the understanding offered by the open-ended data, the need appeared to be less about wanting ideas for fundraising or grant sources and more about the need for funding to provide opportunities for hands-on learning and to engage in opportunities. This aligns with a needs assessment of Oregon teachers conducted by Sorensen et al. (2014), in which grant writing was the highest overall need for induction phase teachers.

Managing student behavior showed up on both the open-ended feedback and the Likert-type scale, which aligns with the quantitative findings of Stair et al. (2012). The open-ended responses ranged from “classroom management” and “behavior issues” to the more specific “I’m concerned about the way my students treat me and the lack of respect I receive. I don’t think anyone has taught them how to act or treat others. I don’t know how to train someone at this age (high school) to be respectful.” We do spend time in the DELTA curriculum (fall DELTA conference and summer new teacher workshop) on managing student behavior. Still, it is a critical component for teachers to feel in charge of their own learning environment. Continued emphasis on this should include not only traditional classroom management content, but ideas for managing students outdoors and in other agricultural labs like greenhouses, shops, and animal handling facilities. We also need to continue to offer student engagement strategies and reinforce that engaged students are less likely to demonstrate behavior that needs to be managed by the teacher.

There were six participants with previous teaching experience outside of agricultural education, which may help explain why ag education-specific items rose to the top of the list. If teachers have 10 or 11 years of teaching experience in history or English or middle school science, they are likely to be confident in teaching and delivery as well as their fit in the school system, but the items that would be new include SAE, FFA and other program planning related items. Perhaps a further study could be conducted to understand this unique group more fully within the state who are moving to agricultural education with prior experience in teaching other disciplines.

Roberts and Dyer (2004) found one of the high needs for their participants was in the area of “using computer technology and computer applications,” but this finding did not hold true for our respondents. This could be due to the ubiquity of technology in teaching now compared to 2004 or the changing demographics of the teachers in the study and their native status to technology. It could also be that this study occurred after the 2022 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic when many participants may have been forced to learn educational technology.

Table 6

Comparison of construct grand means in current study to Roberts and Dyer (2004)

ConstructDELTA participants (2023) grand meansRoberts & Dyer (2004) grand means for Alternative licensure
FFA & SAEM = 3.23, SD = 0.82M = 3.057, SD = 0.92
Instruction and CurriculumM = 3.21, SD = 1.04M = 2.98, SD = 0.87
Program Management & PlanningM = 3.34, SD = 0.98M = 3.10, SD = 1.02
Teacher Professional DevelopmentM = 3.01, SD = 1.29M = 3.21, SD = 1.31

Open-ended concerns responses were heavily task-focused. This aligns with the Fuller’s (1969) phases of teacher concerns. Fuller indicated that preservice teachers tend to focus on non-teaching or self-concerns while those in late careers tend to focus on impact. These DELTA teachers are almost all early in their teaching careers and they all are early in their agriculture teaching careers.

A number of open-ended responses addressed administration pressure or administrative help indicating a concern related to the outside influence on their job. The DELTA curriculum does integrate a few items on communicating with administration but has very little control over the local school environment.

A number of participants had questions about longevity related to the workload, the salary, the profession of teaching, as well as the past performance of their current school’s program in regard to teacher retention. These concerns are valid. The DELTA curriculum is presented in part by a team of teacher educators and state staff who are well aware of the challenges that these teachers are facing. Still, the presentation team also includes 5-6 current classroom teachers who have navigated the long-term realities of the classroom agriculture teacher. We currently do not expressly tackle these concerns within the curriculum but should consider how to bring them forward.

One interesting self-concern that surfaced in the open-ended responses was related to teacher safety. One teacher indicated they had been assaulted twice during the school year so far (data were collected in March). While this is outside of the programming content within the DELTA program, administration, policymakers, and teacher educators need to be aware of the environment in which teachers are expected to carry out their jobs.

Recommendations for Future Research

Longitudinal research has concluded that the focus of beginning teachers’ needs changes over the course of the year. For example, Disberger et al. (2022) reported that during the first half of the academic year, teachers indicated concern with planning for the National FFA Convention as compared to the emphasis on FFA fundraising activities during the second half of the year. A similar phenomenon occurred regarding student management, technical content knowledge, and instructional methods. Conway and Clark (2003) also noted a more dynamic interpretation of the concerns model in which teacher concerns may move outward but can return to a more inward focus. While this inquiry provides key findings, it is specific to needs and concerns at one point in time. It is recommended that this research be replicated at the three teacher workshops to see if there is any change over year.


Andreatta, R. R. (2023). How agricultural educators are drawn to their career path: An examination of agricultural educators in three states [Unpublished thesis]. North Carolina State University.

Birkenholz, R. J., & Harbstreit, S. R. (1987). Analysis of the inservice needs of beginning vocational agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 28(1), 41–49.

Camp, W. G., & Heath-Camp, B. (1989). Induction detractors of beginning vocational teachers with and without teacher education. ERIC.

​​Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A reexamination of Fuller’s concerns–based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465–482.–051X(03)00046–5

Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L., McIntyre, A., Sato., M., & Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the work. Jossey-Bass.

DiBenedetto, C. A., Willis, V. C., & Barrick, R. K. (2018). Needs assessments for school-based agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 52–71.

Disberger, B., Washburn, S. G., Hock, G., & Ulmer, J. (2022). Induction programs for beginning agriculture teachers: Research-based recommendations on program structure and content. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(1), 132–148.

Easterly, R. G., Humphrey, K., & Roberts, G. (2021). Exploring how COVID-19 impacted selected school-based agricultural education teachers in the United States. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(1), 1–13.

Eck, C. (2021). Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on school-based agricultural education teachers in South Carolina. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(2), 25–35.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.

Fuller, F. F., & Case, C. (1972). A manual for scoring the teacher concerns statement (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Texas University Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Retrieved from

Garton, B. L., & Chung, N. (1996). The inservice needs of beginning teachers of agriculture as perceived by beginning teachers, teacher educators, and state supervisors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(3), 52–58.

Greiman, B. C. (2010). What can be done to support early career teachers? The Agricultural Education Magazine, 82(6), 4–5, 10.

Hillison, J. (1987). Agricultural teacher education preceding the Smith-Hughes Act. Journal of Agricultural Education, 28(2), 8–17.

Hillison, J. (1977). The concerns of agricultural education pre-service students and first year teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 18(3), 33–39.

Joerger, R. M., & Bremer, C. D. (2001). Teacher induction programs: A strategy for improving the professional experience of beginning career and technical education teachers. (ED458436). ERIC.

Korte, D. S., Mott, R., Keating, K. H., & Simonsen, J. C. (2020). Choosing a life of impact: A grounded theory approach to describe the career choice of becoming a high school agriculture teacher. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 8(2), 237–259.

Lawver, R. G., & Torres, R. M. (2012). An analysis of post-secondary agricultural education students’ choice to teach. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(2), 28–42.

McKim, A. J., & Sorensen, T. J. (2020). Agricultural educators and the pandemic: An evaluation of work and life variables. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 214–228.

Mundt, J. (1991). The induction year – A naturalistic study of beginning secondary teachers of agriculture in Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(1), 18–23.

National Association of Agricultural Educators. (2023). National teach AG campaign.

Parsons, J. S., & Fuller, F. F. (1974, April). Concerns of teachers: Recent research on two assessment instruments. [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association 59th Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.

Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Inservice needs of traditionally and alternatively certified agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(4), 57–70.

Smith, A. R., Foster, D. D., & Lawver, R. G. (2022). National agricultural education supply and demand study, 2021 executive summary. 2021Summary.pdf

Sorensen, T. J., Lambert, M. D., & McKim, A. J. (2014). Examining Oregon agriculture teachers’ professional development needs by career phase. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 140–154.

Stair, K. S., Blackburn, J. J., Bunch, J. C., Blanchard, L., Cater, M., & Fox, J. (2016). Perceptions and educational strategies of Louisiana agricultural education teachers when working with students with special needs. Journal of Youth Development, 11(1), 49–61.

Stair, K., Figland, W., Blackburn, J., & Smith, E. (2019). Describing the differences in the professional development needs of traditionally and alternatively certified agriculture teachers in Louisiana. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(3), 262–276.

Stair, K. S., Moore, G. E., Wilson, B., Croom, B., & Jayaratne, K. S. U. (2010). Identifying confidence levels and instructional strategies of high school agricultural education teachers when working with students with special needs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(2), 90–101.

Stair, K. S., Warner, W. J., & Moore, G. E. (2012). Identifying concerns of preservice and inservice teachers in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(2), 153–164.

Talbert, B. A., Camp, W. G., & Heath-Camp, B. (1994). A year in the lives of three beginning agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(2), 31–36.

Washburn, S. G., King, B. O., Garton, B. L., & Harbstreit, S. R. (2001). A comparison of the professional development needs of Kansas and Missouri teachers of agriculture. In Proceedings of the 28th National Agricultural Education Research Conference, 28(1), 396–408.

Meaningful Skills for the Agricultural Workforce: Assessing the Confidence Levels of Agricultural Educators to Integrate STEM into their Curriculum

William Norris, New Mexico State University,

Lacey Roberts-Hill, New Mexico State University,

PDF Available


Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has become an integral piece of agricultural education. Unfortunately, employers claim that students existing secondary and post-secondary education do not possess the necessary STEM-based skills to be successful in the workforce. Additionally, research shows inconsistent results regarding the STEM achievement of agricultural education students. These inconsistent student achievement results are coupled with gender-based disparities regarding STEM. Many female agricultural educators claim to be unconfident in their abilities to integrate some STEM concepts into the agricultural education curriculum. These issues concern the agricultural education profession, considering STEM’s importance in today’s educational environment. This study assessed the confidence of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM-based AFNR standards into their curriculum. A total of 399 agricultural educators were contacted in three states- Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The response rate was 17.04% and resulted in 68 responses. The results found that female agricultural educators ranked their confidence in integrating STEM statistically lower than male agricultural educators within the Environmental Services (p = .01), Food Products and Processing (p = .02), Natural Resources (p = .03), Plant Systems (p = .05), and Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathways (p < .001). Additionally, male agricultural educators ranked the Plant Systems, Animal Science, and Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathways as the areas they felt the most confident integrating STEM and ranked the Biotechnology, Agribusiness, and Environmental Services pathways the lowest. The female agricultural educators ranked the Animal Science, Plant Systems, and the Natural Resources pathways as the areas they had the most confidence in integrating STEM, and they ranked the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems, Environmental Services, and Biotechnology pathways the lowest. The researchers recommend targeted professional development for educators and additional research on agricultural educators’ STEM integration confidence levels.


For more than 100 years, the agricultural industry has become more technologically advanced and has relied heavily on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to propel the industry forward (Swafford, 2018). As the world population grows, the agricultural industry must increase the use of technology to produce more food with fewer resources (Frióna et al., 2019). Since agricultural education’s inception, one of its main goals has been to provide a prepared workforce for the agricultural industry (Fristoe, 2017; Martinez, 2007). According to Scherer et al. (2019), “[p]rogress and prosperity within the United States, as well as its global competitiveness, cannot remain strong if young people are not STEM-literate and well prepared to enter the workforce of STEM professionals” (p. 29). To achieve this longstanding goal of a prepared and competent workforce, agricultural education must prioritize integrating STEM skills into the curriculum to remain relevant for the 21st century (Chumbley et al., 2015; Kelly & Knowles, 2016; Smith et al., 2015; Stubbs & Meyers, 2016; Swafford, 2018; Wang & Knoblock, 2020).

While the need for STEM skills in industry is well documented in the published literature (Chumbley et al., 2015; Kelly & Knowles, 2016; Swafford, 2018; Wang & Knoblock, 2020), industry reports that students exiting secondary and post-secondary education are deficient in STEM skills (McGunagle & Zizka, 2020). According to McGunagle and Zizka (2020), “employability skills… are often under-estimated and under-trained in educational institutions, and, more specifically, in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education” (p. 2). This gap between employees’ STEM skills and employers’ expectations is concerning for the agricultural education profession.

While the importance of STEM integration is apparent, agricultural education has not been adequately successful in integrating STEM (Clark et al., 2013; McKim et al., 2018; Plank, 2001). There have also been mixed results in the STEM achievement of students enrolled in agricultural education (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Clark et al., 2013; McKim et al., 2018; Nolin & Parr, 2013; Plank, 2001; Theriot & Kotrlik, 2009). Some researchers found that student achievement in science is significantly higher in students enrolled in agricultural education (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Theriot & Kotrlik, 2009), while other studies show there is no statistical difference or achievement in science is lower in students enrolled in agricultural education (Clark et al., 2013; McKim et al., 2018). In addition, some studies have concluded that achievement in mathematics is higher in students enrolled in agricultural education (Nolin & Parr, 2013), but some researchers suggest that differences in math achievement are not statistically significant or lower in agricultural education students (Plank, 2001). These conclusions are troubling for agricultural educators, considering the importance placed on STEM in today’s educational environment.

In addition to inconsistencies in the STEM achievement of agricultural education students, female agricultural educators are less confident in integrating certain STEM concepts into the agriculture, food, and natural resources (AFNR) curriculum (Smith et al., 2015). Furthermore, women are less likely to major in STEM at the post-secondary level (Beede et al., 2011; Bloodhart et al., 2020; Koch et al., 2022) and are less likely to enter STEM professions (Beede et al., 2011). These gender-based disparities could cause female agricultural educators to integrate less STEM into their agricultural education courses, reducing their students’ exposure to STEM in the context of AFNR.

The inconsistencies in STEM achievement of agricultural education students (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Clark et al., 2013; McKim et al., 2018; Nolin & Parr, 2013; Plank, 2001; Theriot & Kotrlik, 2009) combined with gender-based aversions towards STEM (Beede et al., 2011; Bloodhart et al., 2020; Koch et al., 2022) will require school-based agricultural education (SBAE) to identify successful methods of integration that allow for the differentiation of instruction and are effective for a diverse audience. Scherer et al. (2019) stated, “[o]nce again, the education community has embraced a slogan without really taking the time to clarify what the term might mean when applied beyond a general label” (p. 28). To increase the clarity behind STEM integration into agricultural education, it is vital to understand the differences in confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate specific STEM-based AFNR standards into curriculum.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida to integrate STEM into their curriculum. The following research objectives were assessed:

  1. Evaluate statistical differences in the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM standards into the pathways of AFNR curriculum.
  • Determine the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate specific STEM-based standards into the pathways of AFNR curriculum.

Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by Becker’s (1993) human capital theory (HCT). The HCT is based on the acquisition of skills, knowledge, experiences, and education (Becker, 1964; Smith, 2010; Smylie, 1996). In education, human capital is most often increased through professional development, experience, and specialized training (Becker, 1993). As individuals increase their skills and abilities, their effectiveness within their profession should subsequently increase (Becker, 1964). An effective educator has been noted as the largest predictor of student achievement (Eck et al., 2019, 2020, 2021). In the context of this study, agricultural educators’ confidence in integrating STEM concepts into the AFNR curriculum is directly related to their human capital inputs within STEM. As agricultural educators are provided with relevant professional development, experience, and training within STEM integration, their abilities should increase; therefore, their confidence and effectiveness should also increase. While STEM integration into the AFNR curriculum has been prioritized for decades, the mixed results of agricultural education students’ achievement in STEM raises concerns about the human capital inputs offered to educators in this area. The interaction between agricultural educators and the HCT is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Framework for Human Capital’s Effect on Agricultural Educator’s Ability to Integrate STEM

Note. Developed From Becker (1993).



This study utilized a descriptive correlational research design to assess the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida to integrate STEM into their curriculum. The demographics of the participants are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographics of Participating Agricultural Educators in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

Note. n = 68

Of the most notable demographic information collected, 56.2% of participating agricultural educators were male, and 43.8% were female. Approximately 87.5% were white, and 10.9% were African American. Additionally, 59.4% of participants had a master’s degree or higher, and 81.3% were traditionally certified. Furthermore, 53.1% of participants taught in a one-teacher program.


The instrument used in the study was delivered by Qualtrics to male and female agricultural educators, and it evaluated educators’ level of confidence to integrate specific STEM-based AFNR standards into agricultural education curriculum. The instrument was modified from Norris (2021). The statements regarding STEM were developed from the agriculture, food, and natural resources (AFNR) standards crosswalk produced by the National Council for Agricultural Education (2015). These AFNR standards were cross-walked with the Common Core Mathematics standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and the STEM sections of the Green/Sustainability Knowledge and Skill Statements to identify the STEM-based AFNR standards. The standards included in the instrument are listed in Table 3 by pathway. The statements were abbreviated from their original form for reporting purposes, but an effort was made to maintain the original intent. The confidence levels of agricultural educators were assessed using a Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = Not Confident at All, 2 = Somewhat Confident, 3 = Moderately Confident, 4 = Very Confident, and 5 = Extremely Confident.

The researchers chose not to conduct a pilot study because the reliability and validity of the instrument were assessed by Norris (2021) in a previous pilot study. To further assess the instrument for this specific population, the researchers formed a panel of two faculty at New Mexico State University to assess the instrument for content, construct, and face validity. In addition, instrument reliability was assessed post hoc utilizing a Cronbach’s alpha reliability test on each pathway. The reliability coefficients for each pathway in the instrument ranged from .90 to .99. According to Ary et al. (2010), a reliability coefficient greater than .9 is considered an acceptable level of reliability. These results suggest there are no issues with the reliability or validity of the instrument.

Data Collection

A list of agricultural educators and their email addresses was collected using resources from online agricultural educator directories. This produced a list of 99 viable emails in Alabama, 185 viable emails in Georgia, and 115 viable emails in Florida (N = 399). These states were purposively selected due to their close geographical proximity to each other and their similarities in SBAE programming. According to Ramsey and Schafer (2012), a total of 30 responses are needed for quality descriptive research. In this study, a response rate of 17.04% (n = 68) was achieved.

To evaluate non-response bias, the researchers employed independent samples t-tests to compare the differences between early responders and late responders (Lindner, et al., 2001). Following the approach suggested by Dillman et al. (2014) to elicit responses, participants were sent an introductory email, followed by three reminder emails. Those who responded after the initial introductory email (n = 28) were classified as early respondents, while those who responded after the three reminder emails (n = 40) were categorized as late respondents. No statistical differences were found, suggesting there are no non-response bias issues.

Data Analysis

To appropriately apply parametric statistics for the analysis of Likert scale data, it is necessary to group five or more items together to create constructs (Johnson & Creech, 1983; Norman, 2010; Sullivan & Artino, 2013; Zumbo & Zimmerman, 1993). This grouping is essential as Likert scale data is considered ordinal in nature. In this study, the STEM-based AFNR standards were combined to form constructs between each pathway. To evaluate research objective one, independent samples t-tests were utilized to assess statistical differences between the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM into the AFNR curriculum. In research objective two, central tendencies were utilized to further delineate the data and evaluate each individual STEM-based standard by the male and female agricultural educators’ confidence level to integrate each specific standard.


Due to the limited response rate (17.04%), the researchers caution against generalizing these results beyond the participating agricultural educators. Moreover, despite the instrument’s robustness, it is improbable that it comprehensively assessed every STEM-based AFNR concept integrated into agricultural education.


Research Objective One

Research objective one was assessed using independent samples t-tests on each AFNR pathway. The results of the independent samples t-test found statistically significant differences in the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM-based AFNR standards into the Environmental Services Pathway t(66) = 2.57, p = .01, Food Products and Processing Pathway t(66) = 2.38, p = .02, Natural Resources Pathway t(66) = 2.23, p = .03, Plant Systems Pathway t(66) = 1.95, p =.05, and the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems Pathway t(66) = 7.13, p < .001. The Agribusiness Pathway t(66) = 1.89, p = .06, Animal Science Pathway t(66) = .24, p = .82, and the Biotechnology Pathway t(66) = .33, p = .74 all had statistically insignificant effects. According to Cohen (1988), Cohen’s d is interpreted as a small effect = .20, medium effect = 0.50, and a large effect = .80. The analysis suggested that the Environmental Services Pathway (Cohen’s d = .63), Food Products and Processing Pathway (Cohen’s d = .58), Natural Resources Pathway (Cohen’s d = .56), and the Plant Systems Pathway (Cohen’s d = .48) all had moderate effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). In addition, the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems Pathway (Cohen’s d = 1.74) had a large effect size (Cohen, 1988). The complete results of the t-tests are reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Results for the t-test Assessing STEM Integration Confidence of Male and Female Educators

Note. Α = .05. Cohen’s d is interpreted as a small effect = .20, medium effect = 0.50, and a large effect = .80. The Likert scale ranges from 1 = Not Confident at All, 2 = Somewhat Confident, 3 = Moderately Confident, 4 = Very Confident, and 5 = Extremely Confident.

Research Objective Two

Research objective two aimed to further delineate the data by evaluating differences in male and female agricultural educators’ confidence to implement each individual STEM-based AFNR standard. The results from research objective two are reported in Table 3.

    Table 3

    Descriptive Statistics Describing the Individual STEM-based AFNR Standards by Sex

  Note. 1 = Not Confident at All, 2 = Somewhat Confident, 3 = Moderately Confident, 4 = Very Confident, and 5 = Extremely Confident

Within the Agribusiness Pathway, both male and female agricultural educators rated “Develop, assess and manage cash budgets to achieve AFNR business goals” (Male, M = 3.42, SD = 1.13; Female, M = 3.03, SD = .96) as the standard they were the most confident in implementing. Male and female agricultural educators both ranked “Demonstrate management techniques that ensure animal welfare” (Male, M = 3.89, SD = 1.18; Female, M = 3.87, SD = .97) the highest within the Animal Science Pathway. Within the Biotechnology Pathway, male and female participating agricultural educators both selected “Demonstrate management techniques that ensure animal welfare” (Male, M = 3.13, SD = 1.23; Female, M = 3.20, SD = 1.19) as the standard they were most confident in implementing. Within the Environmental Science Pathway, male agricultural educators ranked “Demonstrate management techniques that ensure animal welfare” (M = 3.45, SD = 1.01) as the standard they had the most confidence in implementing, but female agricultural educators ranked “Apply ecology principles to environmental service systems” as the highest standard (M = 3.24, SD = 1.15). The male and female agricultural educators both ranked “Implement selection, evaluation and inspection techniques to ensure safe and quality food products” (Male, M = 3.46, SD = 1.20; Female, M = 3.07, SD = 1.26) as the Food Products and Processing Pathway standard they had the most confidence in implementing. Within the Natural Resources Pathway, the male agricultural educators ranked “Classify different types of natural resources in order to enable protection, conservation, enhancement, and management in a particular geographical region” (M = 3.61, SD = 1.08) as the standard they felt the most confident in implementing, while female agricultural educators selected “Assess the impact of human activities on the availability of natural resources” (M = 3.13, SD = 1.14) as the standard they felt the most confidence in implementing. Male and female agricultural educators both selected “Apply knowledge of plant anatomy and the functions of plant structures to activities associated with plant systems” as the STEM-based standard in the Plant Systems Pathway they were the most confident in implementing. Within the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems Pathway, the male agricultural educators selected “Apply electrical wiring principles in AFNR structures” (M = 3.76, SD = 1.13) as the STEM-based standard they felt the most confident in integrating, while the female agricultural educators selected “Apply physical science and engineering principles to assess and select energy sources for AFNR power, structural and technical systems” (M = 2.10, SD = .96) as the standard they were the most confident in implementing.

Discussions, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Throughout agricultural education’s history, ensuring a prepared and competent workforce has been a major objective (Fristoe, 2017; Martinez, 2007). It is noted throughout the published literature that STEM skills are a critical component of a workplace (Scherer et al., 2019; Swafford, 2018). While STEM skills are vital to success, the industry currently claims that students exiting secondary education are not adequately prepared in the areas of STEM (McGunagle & Zizka, 2020). In addition, many studies suggest that women are choosing not to major in STEM (Beede et al., 2011; Bloodhart et al., 2020; Koch et al., 2022) and are not entering STEM-based career fields (Beede et al., 2011).

The first research objective assessed statistical differences between the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM into the AFNR curriculum. Overall, statistical differences were found in five of the eight pathways including the Environmental Services, Food Products and Processing, Natural Resources, Plant Systems, and the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathways. This result was consistent with Smith et al. (2015), who found that female agricultural educators have less confidence in integrating engineering into agricultural education. This is particularly concerning for the agricultural education profession since the number of female agricultural educators has increased exponentially over the last 50+ years (Enns & Martin, 2015).

The second research objective further delineated the data by evaluating each STEM-based AFNR standard for differences in the confidence levels of male and female agricultural educators to integrate STEM. Overall, male participants selected the Plant Science, Animal Science, and Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathways as the areas they were the most confident in integrating STEM. Inversely, the areas that male agricultural educators had the least amount of confidence in integrating STEM were the Biotechnology, Agribusiness, and Environmental Services pathways. Female agricultural educators reported being the most confident in integrating STEM into the Animal Science, Plant Systems, and Natural Resources pathways. Furthermore, female agricultural educators ranked the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems, Environmental Science, and Biotechnology pathways as the areas they felt least confident in implementing STEM. Overall, male and female agricultural educators ranked two of the same pathways as the highest and two of the same pathways the lowest. The most significant difference in this objective was the large variations in confidence within the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathway. This result is consistent with Yopp et al. (2020) who found statistically significant differences in the professional development needs of female and male agricultural educators within the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems pathway.

Based on the results of this study, the researchers recommend providing agricultural educators with targeted professional development on STEM integration. For example, professional development for female agricultural educators within the Power, Structural, and Technical pathway may be beneficial to increase their confidence in integrating STEM into the AFNR curriculum. This targeted and pertinent professional development will help increase the human capital input for agricultural educators (Becker, 1993).

Recommendations for future research include evaluating teacher preparation programs’ STEM integration training and assessing the current professional development options for agricultural educators. Additionally, Fernandez et al. (2020) found that there will be a continued demand for employees in AFNR jobs, but there is a lack of students trained specifically in STEM and AFNR fields at the postsecondary level. Furthermore, the pool of available college graduates trained in STEM and AFNR lacks diverse representation (Fernandez et al., 2020). To counter these findings, the researchers recommend assessing the confidence levels of agricultural educators who teach STEM in traditionally underserved populations. To improve the pipeline of future AFNR employees, it is important to measure these agricultural educators’ abilities and confidence levels to integrate STEM into agricultural education curriculum. By improving the exposure to and training of STEM and AFNR careers in secondary education, interest and involvement from underserved populations could increase at the postsecondary level for a diverse AFNR workforce (Burt & Johnson, 2018; Maltese et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2010; Williams et al., 2016).


Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, 4(11), 1-11.

Bloodhart, B., Balgopal, M. M., Casper, A. M., McMeeking, L. B., & Fischer, E. V. (2020). Outperforming yet undervalued: Undergraduate women in STEM. Plos One15(6), 1-13.

Burt, B. A., & Johnson, J. T. (2018). Origins of early STEM interest for Black male graduate students in engineering: A community cultural wealth perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 118(6), 257-270.

Chiasson, T. C., & Burnett, M. F. (2001). The influence of enrollment in agriscience courses on the science achievement of high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 61-71.

Chumbley, S. B., Haynes, J. C., & Stofer, K. A. (2015). A measure of students’ motivation to learn science through agricultural STEM emphasis. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 107-122.

Clark, S., Parr, B., Peake, J., & Flanders, F. (2013). Correlation of secondary agricultural education students’ science achievement to FFA and supervised agricultural axperience participation. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 63(1), 72-85.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.

Eck, C., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K., Terry, R., & Ramsey, J. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective school-based agricultural education teachers: A national census study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 292–309.

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry, J. R., & Ramsey, J. W. (2020). The validation of the effective teaching instrument for school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 229–248.

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J. W., & Cole, K. L. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 1-18.

Enns, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2015). Gendering agricultural education: A study of historical pictures of women in the agricultural education magazine. Journal of Agricultural Education56(3), 69–89.

Fernandez, J.M., Goecker, A.D., Smith, E., Moran, E.R., & Wilson, C.A. (2020). Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources for the environment: United States, 2020-2025. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Frióna, D., Szenderák, J., & Harangi-Rákos, M. (2019). The challenge of feeding the world. Sustainability11(20), 1-18.

Fristoe, A. (2017). Smith-Hughes Act transforms agricultural education. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 92(2), 37-53. Agricultural+Education/2688544/377016/article.html#

Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: A simulation study of categorization error. American Sociological Review, 48(3), 398–407.

Kelly, T., & Knowles, G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1-11. https://doi.org10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Koch, A. J., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., Dahlke, J. A., & Beatty, A. S. (2022). Why women STEM majors are less likely than men to persist in completing a STEM degree: More than the individual. Personality and Individual Differences190, 116-121.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53.

Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98(6), 937–962.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685.

Martinez, R. (2007). An evolving set of values-based principles for career and technical education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 23(1), 72-84.

McGunagle, D., & Zizka, L. (2020). Employability skills for 21st-century STEM students: the employers’ perspective. Higher education, Skills and Work-based Learning10(3), 591-606. HESWBL-10-2019-0148

McKim, A. J., Velez, J. J., & Sorensen, T.J. (2018). A national analysis of school-based agricultural education involvement, graduation, STEM achievement, and income. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(1), 70-85.

National Council for Agricultural Education. (2015). Agriculture, food, and natural resource crosswalks.

Nolin, J. B., & Parr, B. (2013). Utilization of a high stakes high school graduation exam to assess the impact of agricultural education: A measure of curriculum integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 41-53.

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.

Norris, J. W. (2021). Perceptions of career and technical education administrators on STEM and employability skills integration into school based agricultural education. [Doctoral Dissertation, Mississippi State University].

Plank, S. (2001). Career and technical education in the balance: An analysis of high school persistence, academic achievement, and postsecondary destinations. National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

Ramsey, F., & Schafer, D. (2012). The statistical sleuth: A course in methods of data analysis. Cengage Learning.

Scherer, H. H., McKim, A. J., Wang, H.-H., DiBenedetto, C. A., & Robinson, K. (2019). Making sense of the buzz: A systematic review of “STEM” in agriculture, food, and natural resources education literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 28-53.

Smith, E. (2010). Sector–specific human capital and the distribution of earnings. Journal of Human Capital, 4(1), 35–61.

Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM integration: Describing teacher perceptions and instructional method use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182-201.

Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11.

Stubbs, E. A., & Myers, B. E. (2016). Part of what we do: Teacher perceptions of STEM integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 87-100.

Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542.

Swafford, M. (2018). STEM education at the nexus of the 3-circle model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(1), 297-315.

Theriot, P. J., & Kotrlik, J. W. (2009). Effect of enrollment in agriscience on students’ performance in science on the high school graduation test. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 72-85.

Wang, H., & Knobloch, N. (2020). Preservice educators’ beliefs and practices of teaching STEM through agriculture, food, and natural resources. Journal of Agricultural Education61(2), 57-76.

Williams, K., Burt, B. A., & Hilton, A. (2016). Math achievement: A role strain and adaptation approach. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 368–383.

Yopp, A. M., Edgar, D., & Croom, D. B. (2020). Technical in-service needs of agriculture teachers in Georgia by career pathway. Journal of Agricultural Education61(2), 1–19.

Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Canadian Psychology, 34(1), 390–400.

Perceptions of Career and Technical Education Supervisors Toward Core Subject Area Integration in an Agricultural Education Program

Andrew C. Thoron, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College,

Eric D. Rubenstein, University of Georgia,

Taylor D. Bird, University of Georgia,

PDF Available


The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of Florida CTE supervisors concerning core subject area integration in the agricultural education program. The target population for this study was all CTE supervisors in Florida. This study employed a descriptive survey research design. Results indicated that CTE supervisors had positive perceptions of teachers’ ability to integrate core subject areas in an agricultural education program. Furthermore, CTE supervisors indicated that only some agricultural education programs incorporate science, mathematics, and reading into the curriculum. Respondents also indicated a need for preservice teachers to have more instruction in core subject area integration. Based on these findings, teachers should continue to integrate core subject areas into the agricultural education program; given opportunities for professional development in effective integration of core subject area concepts. Additionally, teacher preparation programs in Florida should evaluate coursework and observational experiences to effectively prepare preservice agriculture teachers.

Introduction/Literature Review

In 1998, the Carl D. Perkins Act stated that the act was to “promot[e] the development of services and activities that integrate academic, vocational, and technical instruction…” (Section 2 (b)(2)). Since then, there has been an increasing interest from policymakers and school administration to use an integrated curriculum approach in Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses at the secondary level (Johnson et al., 2003). Williams (2017) outlined that curriculum should be connected to real-life applications of knowledge and skills, to help students link their education to the future. As a result of this projection in connecting real-life applications, CTE programs are expected to enhance student learning of academic goals in reading, writing, and mathematics (Stone, 2017).

The push for academic integration in agricultural education programs has been attributed to external pressure from the administration, as noted by many agricultural educators (Washburn & Myers, 2010). Due to this push for academic integration, many researchers have investigated the perceptions of agriculture teachers concerning core academic integration in agricultural education (Balschweid & Thompson, 2002; Haynes et al., 2014;  Layfield et al., 2001; McKim et al., 2016; Myers & Thompson, 2009; Myers & Washburn, 2008; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999; Washburn & Myers, 2010). Nolin and Parr (2013) investigated the impact of the agricultural education curriculum on high school graduation exam scores, revealing predictive outcomes in both the language and math sections of the final exam. 

Beyond the evaluation of agriculture teachers’ perceptions, researchers have also investigated the attitudes of school staff and administrators, including guidance counselors, principals, and superintendents towards agriculture education programs (Dyer & Osborne, 1999; Kalme & Dyer, 2000; Pavelock et al., 2003). Other researchers have investigated the attitudes of school staff and administrators toward science integration in the agriculture program (Brister & Swortzel, 2009; Thompson, 2001). Few studies have evaluated the perceptions of district or county-wide CTE supervisors concerning academic integration.

In Florida, CTE teachers have the opportunity to teach a content-area reading intervention course that provides remedial reading instruction within a CTE subject area (ACTE, 2009). In Florida, CTE supervisors’ duties may vary between school districts; however, the basic supervisor expectations are similar. CTE supervisors are responsible for overseeing the CTE teachers and programs within the district and managing district Carl Perkins Grant funds, facilitating professional development, and writing programs of study for all CTE programs in the district (Florida State Supervisor, electronic mail communication, August 24, 2012). Given the pivotal role of the CTE supervisor in managing the agricultural education program, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of CTE supervisors regarding core subject area integration in agricultural education courses.

Theoretical Framework

Attribution theory was the theoretical frame used in this study. The basic premise of attribution theory is that “people interpret behavior in terms of its causes and that these interpretations play an important role in determining reactions to the behavior” (Kelley & Michela, 1980, p. 458). The development of attribution theories was guided by the work of Thibaut and Riecken (1955).

Figure 1

Model of Attribution Theory

This theoretical framework suggests the existence of antecedent factors that an individual interprets as influencing the behavior of the target person. These factors encompass information about the consequences of the target person’s actions, beliefs regarding how others might behave in the same situation, and the potential impact of the target person’s actions on the perceiver’s welfare, reflecting a motivational aspect. These three factors serve as the basis for inferring the cause behind the target person’s behavior.

In the specific context of this study, CTE supervisors were asked about their perceptions of agriculture teachers’ integration of academic subjects, drawing on these three antecedent factors: information, beliefs, and motivation. The attributions made by CTE supervisors based on these factors were anticipated to influence the future behaviors of agricultural teachers. This recognition of the potential impact of attributions on the dynamics between CTE supervisors and agriculture teachers underscored the necessity of conducting this study.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the perceptions of CTE supervisors concerning academic integration in the agriculture education program. The specific objectives of this study were:

  1. Describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward the integration of science, mathematics, and reading into the agricultural education curriculum.
  • Describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward agriculture teachers’ preparation to integrate science, mathematics, and reading into the agricultural education curriculum.
  • Describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward barriers to integrating science, mathematics, and reading into the agricultural education curriculum.
  • Describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward the current level of academic integration (science, mathematics, and reading) in the agricultural education curriculum.

Methods and Procedures

This study used a descriptive survey research design. The instrument was based on an instrument used by other researchers in this field of study (Myers et al., 2009). The researchers modified the items slightly to meet the objectives of the study. CTE supervisor responses were measured using ordinal scales. A panel of experts consisting of faculty and graduate students from the University of Florida reviewed the survey instrument for face and content validity. Myers et al. (2009) indicated a post hoc reliability of .80. Since the instrument was adapted, a post hoc reliability analysis was conducted and yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .99.

The population for the study consisted of all CTE Supervisors in the state of Florida (N = 75). The population frame was established from the list of CTE supervisors available on the Florida Department of Education website. Descriptive research limits this study’s generalizability to those investigated. The survey followed the tailored design method for online surveys (Dillman et al., 2009). To address non-response errors, a total of four respondent contacts were made (Dillman et al., 2009). These included a pre-study electronic mail contact, instrument mailings via electronic mail, and reminders via electronic mail. The accessible population was N = 65. A total of 31 supervisors responded, for a 47.7% response rate.


Demographic information from the respondents was collected. The majority (51.6%) of respondents indicated their age was between 51 and 60 years of age, they had been in their current position for an average of 10 years with a range of 1 to 22 years, the majority (67.7%) of CTE supervisors held a master’s degree, and 32.3% of respondents have previously taught agriculture. The first objective of the study was to describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward the integration of science, mathematics, and reading in the agriculture education curriculum. CTE supervisors agreed (87.1%) students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are integral to instruction. Additionally, 87.1% agreed that students are more motivated to learn science when it is integral to the agriculture curriculum. Furthermore, respondents agreed (93.6%) that teaching science concepts in an agriculture class increases the ability to teach problem-solving. However, the majority (71%) of CTE supervisors indicated that integrating science takes more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum (see Table 1).

Table 1

CTE Supervisors Perception Toward Integration of Science in Agricultural Education Curriculum

Integrating science concepts into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.
Science concepts are easier for students to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program.0093.56.5
Students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction.09.787.13.2
Students are motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum09.787.13.2
Students are more aware of the connection between specific scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education.
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program.
Students are better prepared in science after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates science.6.412.977.43.2
Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.3.222.671.03.2
Less effort is required to integrate science in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.51.722.622.63.2
It is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.64.66.522.66.5

Note. n­ = 31. Original scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree (N), 4 = Agree (A), 5 = Strongly Agree (SA), X = Not Applicable (NA) Responses were collapsed into Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, and Not Applicable

Perceptions toward the integration of mathematics indicated that CTE supervisors agreed (67.8%) that students learn more about agriculture when mathematics concepts are an integral part of the curriculum. However, only 48.4% of respondents agreed that students are motivated to learn mathematics when it is integrated into the agriculture curriculum. The majority (80.6%) of CTE supervisors indicated that mathematics concepts are easier for students to understand when they are integrated into the agriculture curriculum. Just over three-fourths (77.5%) of the respondents agreed that students are more aware of the connections between mathematics and agriculture when mathematics concepts are integrated into the agriculture curriculum (see Table 2).

Table 2

CTE Supervisors’ Perception Toward Integration of Mathematics in Agricultural Education Curriculum

Mathematics concepts are easier for students to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education program.
Integrating mathematics concepts into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.03.280.60
Students are more aware of the connection between specific mathematics principles and agriculture when mathematics concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education.06.577.53.2
Students learn more about agriculture when mathematics concepts are an integral part of their instruction.019.467.80
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education program.6.416.167.80
Students are better prepared in mathematics after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates mathematics.
Integrating mathematics into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.6.512.967.70
Students are motivated to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum.6.532.348.40
It is more appropriate to integrate mathematics in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.38.832.329.00
Less effort is required to integrate mathematics in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.45.219.422.60

Note. n­ = 31. Original scale: 1 = SD, 2 = D, 3 = N, 4 = A, 5 = SA, X = NA Responses were collapsed into Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, and Not Applicable

Two-thirds (67.8%) of respondents agreed that students are more motivated to learn reading when it is integrated into the agriculture curriculum. Also, 70.9% of supervisors agreed that students are better readers after they complete an agriculture course that integrates reading. Again, two-thirds (67.8%) of respondents agreed that integrating reading requires more effort than teaching the traditional agriculture curriculum (see Table 3).

Table 3

CTE Supervisors Perception Toward Integration of Reading in Agricultural Education Curriculum

Students learn more about agriculture when reading strategies are an integral part of their instruction.09.777.40
Integrating reading strategies into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.012.974.20
Students are better readers after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates reading.012.970.93.2
Students are motivated to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum.
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education program.
Integrating reading into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.9.79.767.80
Reading strategies are easier for students to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education program.019.467.70
Less effort is required to integrate reading in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.41.919.425.90
It is more appropriate to integrate reading in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.4219.425.80

Note. n­ = 31. Original scale: 1 = SD, 2 = D, 3 = N, 4 = A, 5 = SA, X = NA Responses were collapsed into Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, and Not Applicable

The second objective of the study was to describe the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward agriculture teachers’ preparation to integrate science, reading, and mathematics. Almost two-thirds (64.6%) of respondents agreed that agriculture teachers are prepared to integrate biological science concepts, but only 35.5% and 25.8% of supervisors agreed that agriculture teachers were prepared to integrate mathematics and reading, respectively. At least half of the respondents agreed that agriculture teacher education programs should require more coursework in science, mathematics, and reading strategies (see Table 4).

Table 4

CTE Supervisors Perception of Teacher Preparation to Integrate Core Subject Areas (Science, Mathematics, Reading)

ATEPs should provide instruction for undergraduates on how to integrate core subject areas in agriculture classes.03.283.90
ATEPs should require that students conduct their early field observations with an agriculture teacher who integrates core subject areas.3.2080.73.2
When placing student teachers, ATEPs should expect cooperating teachers to model core subject area integration.3.26.577.40
ATEPs should require students to take more courses that incorporate reading strategies.6.59.771.00
I believe agriculture teachers are prepared to teach integrated biological science concepts.9.712.964.60
ATEPs should require students to take more science courses.9.716.161.30
ATEPs should require students to take more mathematics courses.12.922.651.60
I believe agriculture teachers are prepared to teach integrated physical science concepts.16.122.648.40
I believe agriculture teachers are prepared to teach integrated mathematics concepts.22.629.035.50
I believe agriculture teachers are prepared to teach reading strategies.35.525.825.80

Note. n­ = 31. Original scale: 1 = SD, 2 = D, 3 = N, 4 = A, 5 = SA, X = NA Responses were collapsed into Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, and Not Applicable

The third objective of this study was to describe CTE supervisors’ perceptions toward barriers to integrating core subject areas in the agriculture curriculum. Nearly two-thirds (or more) respondents cited lack of experience in core subject area integration as a barrier to implementation. Nearly three-quarters (74.2%) of supervisors agreed that teachers may feel they have insufficient time and support to plan for integration. Over two-thirds (71%) of the respondents agreed that teachers insufficient background knowledge in core subject areas is a barrier to integration.

The final objective of this study was to evaluate CTE supervisors’ perceptions of the current level of core subject area integration in agriculture. Over three-fourths (80.6%) of respondents indicated that programs within the district integrate science, but 74.2% indicated they were not satisfied with the level of integration in the agriculture education programs within the district with similar results seen regarding perceptions with mathematics and reading integration. Furthermore, CTE supervisors were asked about the district’s plan to alter core subject area integration. Over half of supervisors indicated a plan to increase integration in all areas (science, mathematics, and reading) of the agriculture curricula.

Conclusions and Discussion

Since not all participants responded, and this study is specific to Florida, caution must be exercised when generalizing the results of this study beyond the population. Attribution theory was used to frame this study. In the case of this study, attribution theory postulates that the perceptions of CTE supervisors toward an agriculture teacher’s integration of core subject areas is based on the CTE supervisors’ perceptions of the three antecedent factors. CTE supervisors determine causes for the teacher’s behavior based on the developed perceptions.

This study’s findings indicate that CTE supervisors have positive perceptions of the agriculture teacher’s ability to integrate core subject areas and the importance of integration. Based on attribution theory, it can be concluded that agriculture teachers will continue to integrate core subject areas in the agriculture education program and teachers will continue to integrate core subject areas at a high level, due to the positive perceptions held by CTE supervisors. Further investigations into student learning and measurable quasi-experimental studies to showcase beyond perceptions is warranted. Overall, perceptions toward the integration of science, mathematics, and reading were similar. Seventy-five percent of CTE supervisors agreed that the integration of science, mathematics, and reading increases the opportunity for problem solving to be taught. Agriculture provides an integrated contextual application for the use of applied science, math, and the use of reading strategies. Overall, these results are like those results found by Thompson (2001) concerning high school principals’ perceptions toward science integration. Further showcasing that CTE and school administration believe in the value-added potential that school-based agriculture offers students for cross-curricular learning.  

CTE supervisor’s perceptions of science integration were more positive than perceptions of mathematics integration. Eighty-seven percent of supervisors perceived that students were more motivated to learn science when it was integrated into the agriculture curriculum, whereas only forty-eight percent of supervisors felt that students were more motivated to learn mathematics when it was integrated into the agriculture curriculum. Anecdotally, agriculture teachers are more comfortable with science integration and the connection is stronger among agriculture applications in comparison to mathematics. CTE supervisors felt most confident in an agriculture teacher’s ability to integrate biological science concepts, just as Brister and Swortzel (2009) found when surveying school counselors and administrators.

CTE supervisors do perceive that preservice teachers need to receive specific instruction on core subject area integration and have early field experiences with cooperating teachers that model core subject area integration. Additionally, CTE supervisors indicated that agriculture teachers needed to diminish emphasis on production agriculture. CTE supervisors believe the biggest barriers to integration of core subject areas in agriculture education is the inexperience of the agriculture teacher with core subject area integration, and the lack of time and support for integration. As agriculture teachers care of laboratory spaces and in some instances farms and livestock, consideration of additional non-instructional staff should be considered so that agriculture teachers could focus more of their instructional and preparation time for integration and application-based laboratories. Other notable barriers indicated were the lack of funding and materials necessary for academic integration.


Based on the findings, conclusions, and discussion the recommendations for teachers and schools in practice begin with continuing the integration of core subject areas into the agricultural education program. There should be more professional development provided for agriculture teachers in core subject areas to account for the additional time and effort required for integration. A stronger focus on math integration is needed. The focus on teacher professional development should be less on how to integrate, but more on where science and math are happening naturally within the context of agriculture. Then use those applications to highlight the science and math that exists in the curriculum. This will better enable agriculture teachers to teach agriculture as the integrated science and stay true to the context of teaching in and about agriculture.

It is also recommended that schools provide an additional planning period common with a core subject teacher so that teachers have more time to integrate core subjects across their instruction. Recommendations for teacher preparation programs, following this research, include more science, mathematics, and reading strategy courses (or selection of better courses to enable preservice teachers to integrate core subject areas). Specific instruction in integration from teacher educators and engaging with agriculture education programs that integrate core subjects. Showcasing programs where this exist will develop a trend of agriculture being the place for application and student knowledge gain in the core academics.


Association for Career and Technical Education. (2009, November). CTE’s role in adolescent literacy (Issue Brief). Author.

Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural education: Attitudes of Indiana agricultural science and business teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(2), 1-10.

Brister, M. H., & Swortzel, K. A. (Eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 36th Annual American Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference.

Brown, J. (2019). Integrating vocational education and training for secondary school students. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, 105 U.S.C. § 2301 (1998).

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, 109 U.S.C. § 2301 (2006)

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1999). The influence of science application in agriculture courses on attitudes of Illinois guidance counselors at model student-teaching centers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4), 57-66.

Haynes, J. C., Gill, B. E., Chumbley, S., & Slater, T. F. (2014). A cross-case comparison of the academic integration human capital pre-service agricultural educators retain prior to their teaching internship. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 191-206.

Johnson, A. B., Charner, I., & White, R. (2003). Curriculum integration in context: An exploration of how structures and circumstances affect design and implementation. University of Minnesota, National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

Kalme, N., & Dyer, J. E. (2000). Perceptions of Iowa secondary school principals toward agriculture education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 116-124.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.

Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference.,%20National2001.pdf

McKim, A. J., Sorensen T. J., & Velez, J. J. (2016). Exploring the role of agriculture teachers in core academic integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 1-15.

Myers, B. E., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Integrating academics into agriculture programs: A delphi study to determine perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy participants. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2).

Myers, B. E., Thoron, A. C., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy toward integrating science into school-based agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 120-133.

Myers, B. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2008). Integrating science in the agriculture curriculum: Agriculture teacher perceptions of the opportunities, barriers, and impact on student enrollment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 27-37.

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. National Academy Press.

Nolin, J. B., & Parr, B. (2013). Utilization of a high stakes high school graduation exam to assess the impact of agricultural education: A measure of curriculum integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 41-53.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st Century Skills, Education and Competitiveness: A Resources and Policy Guide.

Pavelock, D., Ullrich, D., Hanagriff, R., & Baer, A. (2003). Texas superintendents and the agriscience program: A comparison of selected demographics, perceptions and perceived knowledge levels. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, Troutdale, OR, 22. Retrieved from,Ulrich,Hanagriff,Baer.pdf

Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective Practices in STEM Integration: Describing Teaching Perceptions and Instructional Method Use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182-201.

Stone III, J. R. (2017). Introduction to pathways to a productive adulthood: The role of CTE in the American high schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(2), 155-165.

Taylor, P., & Mulhall, A. (1997). Contextualizing teaching and learning in rural primary schools: Using agricultural experiences (Department for International Development Education Paper Serial No. 20).

Thibaut, J. W., & Riecken, H. W. (1955). Some determinants and consequences of the perception of social causality. Journal of Personality, 24(2), 113-133.

Thompson, G. W. (2001). Perceptions of Oregon secondary principals regarding integrating science intro agricultural science and technology programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 50-60.

Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of Oregon agricultural science and teachnology teachers toward integrating science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 21-29.

Washburn, S. G., & Myers, B. E. (2010). Agriculture teacher perceptions of preparation to integrate science and their current use of inquiry based learning. Journal of Agricultural Eduation, 51(1), 88-98.

Williams, M. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st Century. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 9(1), 91-102.

Perceived Challenges Facing Arkansas Agricultural Education Over the Next Decade

Christopher M. Estepp, University of Arkansas,

Bryan D. Rank, Arkansas Tech University,

Alyssa Johnson, Arkansas Department of Agriculture,

Trent Wells, Murray State University,

PDF Available


Public school teachers face many challenges, which can lead to stress, burnout, and potential attrition from the profession. Scholars have proffered that due to the unique nature of the profession, school-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers might struggle with more challenges than their non-agricultural counterparts. Previous research has revealed many of the challenges faced by SBAE teachers; however, many of these challenges have focused on professional development or other teacher-centric issues. To ensure the viability and the future of SBAE, we must determine not only the current challenges facing teachers but those on the horizon for the overall profession as well. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to examine the perceived challenges facing Arkansas Agricultural Education over the next decade. Using Chapman’s model of teacher retention, we posited that the challenges faced by SBAE teachers could align with one of five factors in the model leading to teacher attrition. Focus groups were used to solicit data from current SBAE teachers in Arkansas regarding the challenges they perceive facing Arkansas over the next decade. Results showed that SBAE teachers currently face a wide range of perceived personal and professional challenges, and further, the Arkansas SBAE profession will face varying challenges in the coming years. Recommendations include agricultural teacher educators and Arkansas Department of Education staff working together to find practical solutions to mitigate some of the challenges facing Arkansas SBAE. Additionally, further research should be conducted to determine how these perceived challenges relate to teacher attrition.  

Public education in the United States has faced countless challenges including a nationwide shortage of teachers, which has been a persistent, critical issue (Guffey & Young, 2020). School-based agricultural education (SBAE) has not been invulnerable to this shortage and has experienced a lack of qualified educators for many years (Boone & Boone, 2009; Camp, 2000; Eck & Edwards, 2019; Smith et al., 2022). Smith et al.’s (2022) most recent SBAE teacher supply and demand study revealed that between the 2020-2021 and the 2021-2022 academic years, 29 states reported losing SBAE programs or positions; specifically, 60 teaching positions were lost and 30 programs closed. Accordingly, Eck and colleagues (Eck & Edwards, 2019; Eck et al., 2021) voiced concern that the greatest threat facing SBAE will be the lack of quality teachers.

Conversations around this issue have centered on the recruitment, retention, and effectiveness of SBAE teachers. As a result of teacher shortages, many school administrators have been forced to close programs or look to alternatively-certified teachers as a means to help fill positions (Bowling & Ball, 2018). According to Smith et al. (2022), nearly one-third of new SBAE teachers hired for the 2021-2022 academic year (a) possessed an alternative teaching certification, (b) were non-licensed, or (c) their licensure status was unknown. Although alternatively-certified SBAE teachers have been found to possess high levels of skill in technical content, Bowling and Ball (2018) suggested that these teachers struggle with pedagogical effectiveness. The sustainability of SBAE programs is affected by teacher recruitment (Gates et al., 2020; Guffey & Young; 2020), retention (Lemons et al., 2015), and effectiveness (Eck et al., 2019, 2021; Roberts & Dyer, 2004), which are all influenced by the myriad challenges faced by SBAE teachers (Eck et al., 2019).

Many of the challenges faced by SBAE teachers are similar to those faced by teachers in other disciplines. However, due to the unique nature of the three-circle model of Agricultural Education (Croom, 2008), SBAE teachers tend to experience greater challenges resulting from the added responsibilities of FFA advisement and Supervised Agricultural Experiences (SAE; Eck et al., 2021). Boone and Boone (2009) conducted a modified Delphi study to determine challenges faced by beginning and veteran SBAE teachers in West Virginia. They concluded that financial compensation, paperwork, time management, and work/life balance were all issues. Work/life balance and time commitments have been perennial challenges faced by SBAE teachers. Torres et al. (2008) argued that SBAE teachers’ time commitments exceed that of core subject teachers leading to work/life balance struggles, high levels of stress, and burnout. These challenges among SBAE teachers have been well-noted (Smith & Smalley, 2018; Touchstone, 2014) and examined as contributors to teacher shortages (Graham et al., 2016; Smith & Smalley, 2018).

Beyond the aforementioned challenges, others have been prevalent as well. McKim and Sorensen (2020) noted that the recent COVID-19 global pandemic resulted in teachers “completely changing their work role while simultaneously adapting to completely restructured life roles” (p. 222), resulting in a considerable decline in job satisfaction. Recent literature described additional challenges related lack of effective boundary-setting (Haddad et al., 2023), juggling multiple professional and personal responsibilities (Traini et al., 2021), and dealing with limited self-efficacy when teaching (or preparing to teach) technical agriculture subject matter (Granberry et al., 2022; Whitehair et al., 2020).

Considering the previous literature, SBAE teachers clearly face a variety of challenges. Much of this literature has focused on the issues facing SBAE teachers at the classroom and personal level; however, little research has examined SBAE teachers’ perceptions of the challenges facing the larger SBAE profession. Thus, this presents an opportunity to examine the topic within the borders of Arkansas. No recent studies focusing on the challenges facing SBAE teachers and the broader SBAE system in Arkansas have been conducted. Doing so will help better inform the state’s SBAE stakeholders about the nature of the challenges facing Arkansas SBAE while concomitantly allowing researchers and state FFA staff to proactively tackle both the current and forthcoming challenges ahead.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The theoretical lens for this qualitative study was social constructivism, which is the belief that through social interactions, consensus can be formed among a group about what constitutes knowledge (Ormrod, 2008). Hirtle (1996) posited that within the social context, individuals can reflect with others and create meaning-making in a democratic manner. In the context of this study, Arkansas SBAE teachers were asked to determine the perceived challenges they see facing SBAE in the state over the next ten years. This activity was conducted in a focus group setting allowing teachers to collectively reach consensus regarding the question.

Chapman’s (1983) model of teacher retention (Figure 1) was utilized as the conceptual framework, guiding the categorization of emergent themes. Chapman proposed several factors influence a teacher’s decision whether to stay or leave the profession. These factors were identified as: (a) personal characteristics of the teachers, (b) the nature of teacher training and early teaching experiences, (c) the degree to which the teacher is socially and professionally integrated into the teaching profession, (d) the satisfaction teachers derive from their careers, and (e) the external environmental influences impinging on the teacher’s career (Chapman, 1983).

In alignment with Chapman’s (1983) model, the factors pertaining to the challenges that teachers see facing the SBAE profession in Arkansas, should relate to external influences impinging upon the teacher’s career; however, these challenges can be multifaceted and touch multiple areas of teachers’ personal and professional lives. Internal and external challenges faced by teachers can have a direct impact on teacher attrition (Chapman, 1983) and examining the challenges teachers see facing the profession in the context of Chapman’s model can help build an understanding of why they might leave the classroom. According to Chapman (1983), discerning the characteristics of teacher attrition can influence policies set forth by administrators and how teacher preparation programs prepare their students. Ultimately, this study focused on SBAE teachers’ perceived challenges in hopes to better understand SBAE teacher attrition.

Figure 1

A Model of the Influences on Teacher Retention (Chapman, 1983)


SBAE teacher recruitment, retention, and effectiveness are important factors in the sustainability of SBAE. Many studies have revealed the challenges faced by SBAE teachers, which can affect teacher recruitment, retention, and effectiveness; however, much of the research is dated and has focused on professional development needs and other teacher-centric issues. To ensure the viability and the future of SBAE, we must determine not only the current challenges facing teachers but those on the horizon for the overall profession as well. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceived challenges facing Arkansas Agricultural Education over the next decade. The research question guiding this study was: What issues do Arkansas SBAE teachers perceive as being prominent in Agricultural Education in Arkansas over the next ten years?


The available population for this study was all in-service SBAE teachers in the State of Arkansas. E-mail invitations were sent via the Arkansas SBAE teacher email listserv to recruit focus group participants, and each teacher who responded was asked to select the focus group timeslot best aligning with their schedule; no incentives were offered to teachers. Ten SBAE teachers who had all taught for at least one academic year, represented different regions of the state and varying program, school, and community sizes and orientations. One limitation of the study was that only one SBAE teacher from the Eastern District participated; characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. Three focus groups were conducted during the Spring 2022 semester to engage participants in an open-ended discussion about challenges they perceived affecting the SBAE profession. Additionally, participants were provided the opportunity to propose possible solutions to their concerns.

Table 1

Characteristics of Focus Group Participants

ParticipantGenderYears TeachingSize of SBAE programDistrict
Participant 1Female11Single-teacherNorthwest
Participant 2Male4Multi-teacherNorthwest
Participant 3Female15Single-teacherNorthwest
Participant 4Male23Multi-teacherNorthwest
Participant 5Male13Single-teacherSouthern
Participant 6Female10Single-teacherSouthern
Participant 7Female6Single-teacherSouthern
Participant 8Female3Multi-teacherSouthern
Participant 9Male1Multi-teacherSouthern
Participant 10Female6Single-teacherEastern

The theoretical lens of social constructivism allowed for the use of a focus group approach to collect data (Flick, 2006) enabling participants to socially construct their knowledge regarding the challenges facing Arkansas SBAE over the next decade. Focus groups were conducted using Zoom™ video-conferencing software and the software’s internal transcription feature was used to create a verbatim transcript. A semi-structured interview format was used for each focus group, during which the initial question, “What do you see as the biggest challenges facing Arkansas Agricultural Education over the next 10 years?” was asked. Follow-up probing questions were utilized to encourage conversation and increase the richness of the data (Merriam, 2009; Seidman, 2006). As the conversation evolved, a second question pertaining to how state staff, agricultural teacher educators, and SBAE teachers could collectively help mitigate these challenges was posed. Upon the conclusion of all focus groups, the transcripts were checked and compiled and sent to participants for member checking to ensure the participants’ statements were accurately represented.

Data were independently organized and categorized thematically using two distinct methods of data analysis. First, data were inductively analyzed and coded using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Straus, 1967) whereby data were grouped into codes and emergent themes and labels were assigned to each. Subsequently, the deductive a priori template of codes method recommended by Crabtree and Miller (1999) was used to compare the emergent themes to Chapman’s (1983) model of teacher retention. Themes congruent with Chapman’s (1983) model were aligned under the applicable model component, while newly emergent themes were presented as potential new components. Once themes were assigned by each individual researcher, the group met to determine the consensus for the final themes.

Each researcher has been involved in agricultural education in various capacities; three of the researchers are agricultural teacher educators with over 25 years of combined experience between secondary and postsecondary agricultural education and one researcher was, at the time of our study, a graduate student involved in agricultural teacher education at the University of Arkansas. To minimize threats to trustworthiness, personal biases were bracketed through conversations, and self-identification of biases was made prior to independent coding. Member checking was used throughout to ensure the participants’ original intent was communicated through the data and subsequent themes.


Initial use of inductive coding (Glaser & Straus, 1967) revealed eleven emergent themes from the transcripts of the three focus groups. These themes were: (1) Changing Demographics; (2) Community and Administrative Support; (3) Content Knowledge; (4) Interpersonal Relationships; (5) Pandemic Recovery; (6) Professional Development/Resources; (7) Nature of SBAE Programs; (8) Recruiting New Teachers; (9) Retaining Teachers; (10) Stress; and (11) Teacher Recognition/Appreciation. These emergent themes were then categorized deductively (Crabtree & Miller, 1999) within the components of Chapman’s (1983) model. The themes fit within Personal Characteristics, Educational Preparation, External Influences, Integration into Teaching and Career Satisfaction components. Additionally, the theme of Recruiting New Teachers emerged from the focus groups and was included as a stand-alone theme.

Personal Characteristics

Changing Demographics

The changing demographics theme included a discussion of the shift from a male-dominated profession to an increasingly female profession. In particular, participants indicated that early- and mid-career teachers are increasingly female and a smaller number of males are choosing to enter preservice teacher education programs. Nonetheless, participants indicated that good teachers are needed and that gender identity was not an indicator of one’s ability to teach. Considering the changing demographic, one participant said, “We are starting to be more female dominated… I feel like we’ve worked really, really, really hard to recruit women into our profession, so we can be more diverse, so we had women representing us I feel like we hardly have any males pursuing the degree,” whereas another participant stated, “I think good teachers are good teachers, whether they’re female or male.” Another participant added, “I don’t think it matters if it’s male or female, like that’s a very good point that a good teacher is good teacher, so I don’t know.” However, there was a concern expressed by Participant 8, who commented, “I worry that we’re not recruiting males as much as we should be now.”

Educational Preparation

Content Knowledge

The content knowledge of preservice and early-career teachers was a concern among the focus group participants. They cited young teachers’ lack of experience and preservice teacher programs’ lack of coursework in certain agricultural content areas. Specifically, knowledge in the agricultural mechanics pathway was described as an area lacking in agricultural teacher education programs. Participant 3 stated, “Ag[ricultural] mechanics has been a huge thing that has changed in the last 10 years. Interns coming out of college lack just the basic knowledge of things in the shop.” A female participant related the gender issue to content knowledge; “So when we think about that typically males are more ag[rigultural] mechanics-heavy, and now all I teach is [agricultural] mechanics, and so I’m worried.”

Professional Development/Resources

Professional development/resources was a theme that included continuing education, as well as sharing of curriculum resources. The participants indicated a need for continuing education from the Arkansas Department of Education, as well as the agricultural teacher education programs in the state. A representative statement from one participant was, “But the things like [TEACHER’S] ladies-only ag[ricultural] mech[anics] workshop, I love that. Or, what I would have loved was Dr. Wells’s Briggs and Stratton workshop, but I got COVID… Giving us more opportunities to break off into those areas where we’re not as strong as far as Team AgEd on the state level, making more of those opportunities known, and, as far as administrative level just supporting us and more PD funds.”

Nature of SBAE Programs

The nature of SBAE programs was a theme which described the multitude of activities occurring within local SBAE programs. This theme included an expression of the need for preservice and early-career teachers to be prepared for the non-academic responsibilities of a SBAE teacher. Fundraising, in particular, was mentioned as one area needing to be addressed in more detail in agricultural teacher education programs. One participant stated, “So fundraising and working with it, that’s gotta be more than just bringing in somebody and saying, you know, ‘sell my product’.” Additionally, participants suggested ways to help preservice teachers learn these types of activities. When working with prospective SBAE teachers, one participant said, “And then I started thinking about it in a different light and showing them the behind the scenes of it; taking those kids along with me on the Lowe’s runs when I have to buy way too much stuff; taking a student who wants to be an ag[riculture] teacher to the fair even though she’s not showing animals. Just grabbing onto those students and giving them as many opportunities as possible even if they’re not necessarily involved in what’s going on.”

External Influences

Community and Administrative Support

Community and administrative support was described as an essential part of a successful program. Building relationships with stakeholders in the community was described as a way to overcome barriers with school structure and administration. However, teachers discussed challenges overcoming administrators’ traditional perceptions of SBAE and FFA, which make it difficult to implement more progressive components in some of their programs. One participant said, “I don’t know how to solve that problem, but selling our programs and getting our programs supported administratively at the local level can have as much of an impact as anything, in my opinion.” While Participant 5 added, “. . .[T]ake [SCHOOL]. . .They’ve had issues in the past with bad administration, or I shouldn’t say bad, but you know, not as supportive, and they’ve pulled the Alumni card, the supporter card, and got the community involved. Even though, they’re really a small group that supports their program.” Participants indicated that they have seen a large turnover in administrators in the past few years. They described cultivating support from administrators as an ongoing challenge. However, they said that supportive administrators also can make the job of teaching more enjoyable and rewarding. Participant 3 mentioned, “The changeover in administrators in Arkansas has been a big shift. . . I feel like in all these years, 15 years of teaching, I’ve seen the switchover of administrators from barely coming into your classroom and barely worrying about what your students are doing. And, the whole teaching bell-to-bell at some schools has not really been a thing, and then I come to a school like I’ve been at the last, you know, six to 10 years and that is a big deal.”


Stress was cited as a consistent challenge among the participants. When discussing stress, participants mentioned the frequency with which change happens in school districts and the lack of training when changes occur. While pandemic-related change was discussed with this challenge, participants mentioned already being stressed by changes at the district, state, and national levels. As Participant 1 explained, “Okay, don’t change things; it’s changing too much already, you know. Don’t! If anything, you know, give us a chance to learn how to deal with what we’re already dealing with. . . Okay, let me get adjusted to where I’m at and what I’m doing, and let me think for a while. You know, if anything, we just need more knowledge on how to get through what we’re going through right now.”

Integration into Teaching

Interpersonal Relationships

Interpersonal relationships were discussed as a challenge in the focus groups. Participants indicated that interpersonal relationships are important in the Agricultural Education profession; however, the pandemic limited teachers’ ability to meet in-person and foster these relationships. Participants included suggestions for formal and informal opportunities allowing teachers to meet and share ideas. Formal mentoring of early career teachers was discussed, as well as, mentoring that grows organically through informal interactions between experienced and inexperienced teachers. An additional suggestion was that experienced SBAE teachers conduct panel discussions where young teachers could get to know them. Essentially, the focus group participants indicated a desire to simply reconnect with one another and build professional relationships. One participant said, “It builds that camaraderie as well, and bringing in the young ones, and letting them build those relationships.” Another participant added, “That hanging-out conversation at lunch and then from 5:00 P.M. until we all finally go to bed. Those for me, are the most beneficial times, because then we can talk, we discuss what’s going on in class, we share ideas. I think it’s one of the most beneficial times we have, because for a lot of schools, like you know me I’m a one teacher, I have nobody… Because I’m a face-to-face conversation kind of person. I can post things in that Facebook group and ask for help. But it’s not the same as when you sit down in a room with somebody or at a picnic table at 10:00 at night at in-service and just talk about what works and what doesn’t work.”

Teacher Recognition/Appreciation

The second theme regarding Integration into Teaching was lack of teacher recognition/appreciation. While it was mentioned that many teachers do a good job promoting their students’ activities, the need exists to promote teachers in order to showcase the profession and recognize the contributions of effective teachers, who might otherwise go unnoticed. Social media was mentioned as one tool that could be used to highlight the exceptional activities teachers are doing in their local programs. One participant linked this lack of recognition to lack of community support and teachers’ self-esteem; “So, I think one of the biggest struggles and biggest challenges is getting our programs to be supported in our own communities, in our own school, because that builds our esteem, as our, as a profession, that makes us want to be at work or not, makes us want to do better with our kids, and be able to do better with our kids.” Another participant suggested using FFA as a mechanism to help recognize teachers. “When we think about National FFA, we think about the state FFA organization, and social media sites, and that sort of stuff, that’s focused and geared towards kids. I think students just need to see a different perspective.” The participants agreed that a broader perspective of the profession should be showcased. 

Career Satisfaction

Retaining Teachers

Retaining teachers was a theme that described challenges faced by teachers in all phases of their careers. While specific challenges were identified that could lead to teacher attrition, love of teaching and helping students was cited as the reason the participants remained in the profession. Interestingly, it was mentioned that teachers who do not love students and teaching should leave the profession. As one participant opined, “I think retention is a big deal. You see teachers getting out anywhere from the beginning, to, you know, not even finishing the full retirement. It’s crossed, I think a lot of our minds, that I could be doing something else at any point time when we have a bad day; that we could do this and make a lot more money and not have to deal with near the headache.”

Recruiting New Teachers

Recruiting new teachers was a major concern among the participants. They pointed to teacher shortages in Arkansas and suggested the need to better utilize programs such as the National Teach Ag Campaign and Career Development Events as mechanisms to recruit students into agricultural teacher preparation programs. The participants recommended that teacher preparation programs use every opportunity to host prospective students on campus and highlight their Agricultural Education programs. They mentioned that welding schools have done a great job recruiting and have poached many students who may have been potential SBAE teachers. Beyond university recruiting, the participants also spoke about modeling the job of teaching. They mentioned taking students with them to purchase supplies and other routine tasks to give students a fuller picture of the job. Participant 2 said, “Number one, welding schools are killing our kids, not, and I don’t mean that literally, but they’re stealing away all of the good ones. And, why and how; and I’ve wondered that… But, I think those individuals [welding school recruiters] come into our classrooms and they are so passionate and so driven to say you need to be in this because we need you, we need you in this profession.” Participant 4 added, “I feel like every one of our major colleges in our state: [UNIVERSITIES], even [UNIVERSITY] now is doing CDEs on campus, but I don’t know if any of them are taking the time to turn it into a legitimate recruitment opportunity that it could and should be.” The Recruiting New Teachers theme did not fit neatly into Chapman’s (1983) components, so after consideration a new category linking Personal Characteristics with Initial Commitment to Teaching was created.

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived challenges facing Arkansas Agricultural Education over the next decade. Findings indicated that participants foresee a wide range of perceived personal and professional challenges, and further, the Arkansas SBAE profession will likely face varying challenges in the coming years. These findings were not unexpected, as other scholars (i.e., McKim & Sorensen, 2020; Smith & Smalley, 2018; Touchstone, 2014) have also reported that SBAE teachers face a multitude of challenges. However, the alignment of perceived challenges with all five factors of Chapman’s (1983) model was interesting. Accordingly, agricultural teacher educators and Arkansas Department of Education staff should be equipped to address many of the challenges, particularly those pertaining to the nature of teacher training, early-career teaching experiences, and some external challenges (Chapman, 1983). Providing opportunities to better support teachers and recognize their efforts is crucial to the sustainability of SBAE both as a career path and as a profession.

Regarding specific technical agricultural subject matter knowledge, agricultural mechanics was frequently identified as a point of difficulty for many of the participants. Successfully teaching agricultural mechanics requires a range of expertise in numerous content areas and can often be a challenge for many SBAE teachers (Wells et al., 2021), so this finding was not completely unexpected. This finding was especially interesting, though, as agricultural mechanics coursework is required within all four active agricultural teacher education programs in Arkansas. However, the quality and scope of agricultural mechanics coursework likely varies between each university’s program based on faculty expertise, course offerings, and resource availability.

Participants also indicated a desire for: (1) improved preparation to teach agricultural mechanics via preservice level coursework and (2) additional in-service level professional development in agricultural mechanics. Confidence to teach their curricula, particularly technical agriculture subject matter, has been a top factor influencing SBAE teachers’ decisions to remain in the profession (Solomonson et al., 2021). While SBAE teachers need a range of knowledge and skills in various technical agriculture areas, such as animal science (Wells et al., 2023) and plant science (Solomonson et al., 2022), preparing SBAE teachers to teach agricultural mechanics has been a high priority (Granberry et al., 2023). Consequently, SBAE stakeholders in Arkansas should give attention to improving SBAE teachers’ confidence and competence to teach agricultural mechanics. Doing so may help to combat, at the minimum, some underlying issues facing Agricultural Education in Arkansas.

Our findings suggest perhaps Chapman’s (1983) model might be revisited. The SBAE teachers who participated in this study indicated the recruitment of new SBAE teachers is directly impacted by personal characteristics (e.g., family dynamics, familial support of career path decisions, etc.) and certain external influences. Specific external influences noted by participants related to the employment climate, including the current reputation of the teaching profession, and alternative employment opportunities, such as skilled trades-focused careers for prospective SBAE teachers. Personal characteristics were also identified as consequential to prospective SBAE teachers’ initial commitment to teaching. Further, the recruitment of prospective SBAE teachers was noted as directly influencing the individuals’ initial commitment to teaching and their personal characteristics. Consequently, we revised a portion of Chapman’s (1983) original model to account for this new and impactful information (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Revised Portion of the Model of the Influences on Teacher Retention

In light of these conclusions, we recommend: (1) conducting additional research in Arkansas to identify pragmatic ways to address the identified challenges, (2) engaging with Arkansas SBAE stakeholders at all levels to confront the challenges within our control, and, (3) examining the relationship of these perceived challenges to SBAE teacher attrition. Additional research may yield greater insight into the complexities and nuances of confronting the identified challenges. In particular, replication of this study at regular intervals may be useful in determining how the identified challenges evolve over time. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer an international public health emergency (World Health Organization, 2023), some of the challenges identified (i.e., pandemic recovery and stress) may evolve or even become nonexistent in future replications. An additional recommendation was that other agricultural teacher educators outside Arkansas consider replicating this study. Doing so may help identify current and forthcoming challenges related to SBAE teachers and the SBAE profession in their respective states.

While Arkansas SBAE stakeholders may not be able to meaningfully address all the challenges identified in this study, there are certain practical steps that can be taken by these individuals to help mitigate some challenges identified by participants (e.g., reducing the frequency of changes to FFA-related activities, improving the quantity of agricultural mechanics-related PD offered to Arkansas teachers, etc.). Consequently, working closely with Arkansas SBAE teachers may help to stimulate discussion and impactful action. These findings will be shared with Arkansas Department of Education staff and the other agricultural teacher educators in Arkansas who were not directly involved with this study to help bring about awareness of the identified challenges and allow them to begin strategizing solutions.

While we acknowledge the findings of this study cannot be generalized beyond the teachers who participated, Johnson and Shoulders (2017) posited that, “Studies yielding valid results of interest to the profession from a specific groups [sic] of respondents, regardless of their generalizability, can add to the body of knowledge and assist researchers as they design and conduct research” (p. 310-311). Accordingly, these data hold practical implications for Arkansas SBAE stakeholders, particularly in the context of helping anticipate and tackle the present and future challenges faced by the SBAE profession. Considering long-term trends in public education and in SBAE, teacher attrition is a factor too important to ignore (Chapman, 1983; Eck & Edwards, 2019; Solomonson et al., 2021); the long-term sustainability of Arkansas SBAE depends upon the actions taken today.


Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2009). An assessment of problems faced by high school agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 21-32.

Bowling, A. M., & Ball, A. L. (2018). Alternative certification: A solution or an alternative problem? Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 109-122.

Camp, W. G. (2000). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of agricultural education in 1996-1998. Association for Career and Technical Education.

Chapman, D. W. (1983). A model of the influences on teacher retention. Journal of Teacher           Education, 34, 43-49.

Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp 163-177). Sage.

Croom, D. B. (2008). The development of the integrated three-component model of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 110-120.

Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based agricultural education (SBAE): A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223-239.

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J. W., & Cole, K. L. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 1-18.

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry Jr., R. T., & Ramsey, J. W. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective school-based agricultural education teachers: A national census study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 292-309.

Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Gates, H. R., Borges, B. D., & Shoulders, C. W. (2020). Tagged to teach ag day: Evaluating the influence of a recruitment event on students’ perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2). 222-237.

Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Graham, D.  L., Arnold, S., & Jayaratne, K. S. U. (2016). Research priority 6: Vibrant, resilient communities. In T. Roberts, A. Harder, & M. Brashears (Eds.), American Association for Agricultural Education National Research Agenda (pp. 49 – 56). 2020.pdf

Granberry, T., Blackburn, J. J., & Roberts, R. (2023). The state of agricultural mechanics in the preparation of school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 144-158.

Granberry, T., Roberts, R., & Blackburn, J. J. (2022). “A challenge that I’m willing to take on:” The self-efficacy of female undergraduate students in agricultural mechanics. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(3), 44-58.

Guffey, K. B., & Young, J. S. (2020). Recruitment and retention of agriculture teachers in the southeast: An empirical analysis of the STAR program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 203-213.

Haddad, B., Traini, H., & McKim, A. (2023). We’ve crossed a line: A philosophical examination of systemic implications surrounding SBAE teachers’ attempts at boundary setting. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(1), 82-95.

Hirtle, J. S. P. (1996). Social constructivism. English Journal, 85(1), 91.

Johnson, D. M., & Shoulders, C. W. (2017). Power of statistical tests used to address nonresponse error in the Journal of Agricultural Education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 300-312.

Lemons, L. L., Brashears, M. T., Burris, S., Meyers, C., & Price, M. A. (2015). Factors contributing to attrition as reported by leavers of secondary agriculture programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 17-30.

McKim, A. J., & Sorensen, T. J. (2020). Agricultural educators and the pandemic: An evaluation of work and life variables. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 214-228.

Merriam, S. B. (2009) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Josey-Bass.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning (5th ed.). Pearson.

Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Characteristics of effective agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(4), 82-95.

Seidman, I. (2006) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education. Teachers College Press.

Smith, A. R., Foster, D. D., & Lawver, R. G. (2022). National agricultural education supply and demand study, 2021 executive summary. American Association for Agricultural Education.

Smith, A. R., & Smalley, S. W. (2018). Job stress, burnout, and professional development needs of mid-career agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 305-320.

Solomonson, J. K., Still, S. M., & Maxwell, L. D. (2021). Factors influencing the decision of Illinois school-based agricultural education teachers to remain in the profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 121-137.

Solomonson, J. K., Wells, T., Hainline, M. S., Rank, B. D., Wilson, M., Rinker, S. P., & Chumbley, S. B. (2022). Technical agriculture skills teachers need to teach courses in the plant systems pathway. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(3), 100-116.

Touchstone, A. J. L. (2014). Challenges facing beginning agricultural education teachers in Idaho as perceived by beginning teachers, veteran teachers, and building administrators: A Delphi study. Proceedings of the Western Region American Association for Agricultural Education Conference.

Torres, R. M., Ulmer, J. D., & Aschenbrener, M. S. (2008). Workload distribution among agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 75-87.

Traini, H. Q., Haddad, B., Stewart, J., & Velez, J. J. (2021). Adjusting, appeasing, and rearranging: How agriculture teachers reconcile the demands of the profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(2), 167-184.

Wells, T., Hainline, M. S., Rank, B. D., Sanders, K. W., & Chumbley, S. B. (2021). A regional study of the agricultural mechanics knowledge and skills needed by school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(2), 148-166.

Wells, T., Solomonson, J. K., Hainline, M. S., Rank, B. D., Wilson, M., Rinker, S. P., & Chumbley, S. B. (2023). Technical agriculture skills teachers need to teach courses in the animal systems pathway. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(3), 158-175.

Whitehair, R. L., Schramm, K. R. S., Wells, T., & Hainline, M. S. (2020). Preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of agricultural mechanics. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 60-74.

World Health Organization. (2023, May 5). Statement on the fifteenth meeting of the IHR (2005) Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic.{adgroupsurvey}&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv8PGParticipant 6b_wIVjTjUAR2YWAR2EAAYASABEgKag_D_BwE

Exploring Agricultural Literacy: Instructional Practices for Advancing Student Writing in Agricultural Education

Chris Clemons, Auburn University,

Jason D. McKibben, Auburn University,

Clare E. Hancock, Auburn University,

James R. Lindner, Auburn University,

PDF Available


This qualitative study investigated instructional practices SBAE teachers use in their lessons to develop knowledge and understanding of content and disciplinary words, terms, and phrases. The overarching question guiding this research study addressed what pedagogical practices SBAE teachers incorporate within their lessons for developing disciplinary literacy. The theoretical basis for this study was structured using Bandura’s model of triadic reciprocal causation (1997). Three research questions guided this study: 1) What methods of instruction did secondary SBAE teachers use to develop agricultural literacy in SBAE students? 2) What assessments did secondary SBAE teachers use to measure if students are developing literacy skills in agricultural education? 3) How did secondary SBAE teachers incorporate agricultural literacy into agricultural students’ development? The participants consisted of practicing secondary school agriscience teachers in Alabama. The data yielded four primary themes organized into four sections. The findings of this study indicated that SBAE teachers used explicit explanations to bring new concepts and vocabulary to students, motivated their learning through group work, and led them in project-based activities to apply new ideas in real-life situations. SBAE teachers were helping students gain agricultural knowledge, which is foundational to agricultural literacy. Teachers expressed frustration with administrative oversight on literacy instruction and developing speaking, listening, and writing skills. Teachers reported that vocabulary was a mandated component of the agriscience curriculum. However, their instruction needs to include writing exercises to improve student literacy in agricultural education. Recommendations for further study indicate that teachers build on their present writing activities, add extended individual writing to the learning process, and consolidate new vocabulary knowledge by applying new terms and concepts by writing to synthesize ideas and concepts. It is also recommended that SBAE teachers work collaboratively with their administration to develop a deeper understanding of the best practices and proven methods for improving literacy skills in agriculture.


Articulating the knowledge and understanding of agriculture requires the teaching and furtherance of reading, writing, and communicating using specialized words and terms. This tenet has been the cornerstone of agricultural education since the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 and the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. Hasselquist et al. (2019) stated: “Disciplinary literacy includes the way the content is organized, how it communicates key information, technical vocabulary, and how texts are used.” (p. 141). Understanding pedagogical practices for developing disciplinary knowledge and improving reading, writing, and communication in agriculture is vital for student learning. Instructional literacy practices in school-based agricultural education (SBAE) classrooms enable students to master the distinction between being disciplinary literate and possessing knowledge and understanding in agriscience education. Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) characterized disciplinary literacy as speaking, listening, and writing using specialized words and terms. Therefore, all SBAE teachers are responsible for instructing, developing, and promoting literacy (Park & Osborne, 2007), often through agricultural contexts. According to Lemley, 2019, the expectation exists in SBAE to support agricultural education students to meet the shifting expectations of the 21st-century workforce. This study addressed teachers’ understanding of integrating writing into instructional activities to affect student literacy.

The Smith-Hughes Act (C.F.R., 1960) addressed the improvement of agricultural practices without explicitly mentioning literacy: “The preparation of those preparing to enter upon the work of the farm or of the farm home” (p. 107). The insinuation of this passage suggests that improving agricultural practices would require those individuals engaged in the profession to possess literacy to advance knowledge. This passage is narrowly descriptive of today’s expectations associated with agricultural education. However, the foresight for improving instructional literacy methods in the 21st century remains just as profound. The historical foundations of knowledge and understanding in agricultural education are replete with the importance and value of literacy. Roberts and Ball (2009) supported a society of agriculturally literate citizens and the dualistic role of SBAE, the development of a skilled workforce, and literate contributors to society. Blythe et al. (2015) reported that today’s society requires scientifically literate citizens, and developing an agreed-upon definition of agriculturally literate students was supported by Hess and Trexler (2011). Clemons et al. (2018) highlighted that limited studies since the early 1990s have attempted to close the distance between being literate in agriculture and agricultural literacy.

The value of a content literate populace or students endeavoring to become disciplinarily literate was described in Wallace’s Farmer Weekly Journal (1908) as cited by Cremin (1967), “It is hard for many a middle-aged farmer to get a clear idea of what is meant by protein, carbohydrate, nitrogen-free extract, etc.” (p. 45). The proceeding statement implies the importance of words, terms, and phrases for citizens to become disciplinarily literate. To address the gap between being literate and possessing literacy, a distinction between the terms should be addressed: “Agricultural literacy differs from agricultural education in that its focus is on educating students about the field of agriscience rather than preparing students for work within the field of agriscience” (Vallera & Bodzin, 2016, pp. 102–103). The gap between knowledge and understanding of agriculture and agricultural literacy accentuates the importance of literacy education in SBAE classrooms. Developing student literacy prevents them from falling behind in SBAE classrooms and their future employment (Hasselquist et al., 2019). 

The development of agricultural literacy has been fostered over 125 years through curriculum development and has shaped the role of SBAE. In Wallace’s Farmer Weekly Journal (1908), the connection between well-trained agriculturalists possessing knowledge and understanding and developing literacy begins with SBAE students. Agriculture education teachers experience a variety of student learning deficiencies in reading, writing, and communicating agricultural words and terms. Hasselquist et al. (2019) reported the challenges SBAE teachers experience when introducing instructional literacy strategies in classroom lessons. The challenges stem from SBAE teachers’ belief that literacy instruction is supplemental to the content area, teacher attitudes towards literacy instruction are fostered from personal experiences and literacy skills should be taught outside their classroom (Hasselquist et al., 2019). Hasselquist et al. (2019) supported Clemons et al. (2018) findings that agricultural professionals have specific feelings and thoughts about the profession. Park and Osborne (2007) found that only 14 percent of SBAE teachers promoted reading strategies for SBAE students in SBAE classrooms. Tummons et al. (2020) reported that literacy skills and techniques are vital for SBAE teachers, although acquiring instructional skills is not always taught in teacher education programs. When accounting for student learning difficulties in literacy, SBAE teachers do not see themselves as English teachers (Park et al., (2010). Essential reading, writing, and communication skills are necessary to acquire knowledge and may allow an understanding of agriculture concepts. This skill gap can be difficult for some students to overcome.

Shoulders and Myers (2013) reported that teaching agricultural literacy often relies on using multiple pedagogical styles to provide students with a foundation for learning. Traditional learning environments rely heavily on teacher-centered dissemination (Alston & English, 2007). Various learning models structure the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge and understanding in the 21st-century agriscience classroom. Kolb’s (2012) experiential learning theory, project-based learning (Smith & Rayfield, 2016), and social development theory (Vygotsky, 1978) are widely used to frame teaching literacy in SBAE classrooms. McKim et al. (2017) referred to the value of instructional methods, knowledge, and problem-solving as pedagogy, or a “Common [set] of competencies that include motivating students to learn, managing behavior, teaching students with special needs, and using technology as a teaching tool.” (p. 3). Instructional methods provide for contextual hands-on learning in agricultural education. However, reading, writing, and communication development using skills acquired through knowledge and understanding is often not emphasized during instruction. Understanding the methods SBAE teachers use to improve student literacy may further the research conducted by Tummons et al. (2020) regarding how practitioners and researchers consider new teaching and learning strategies for pre-service and practicing SBAE teachers.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical basis for this study was structured using Bandura’s model of triadic reciprocal causation (1997). Bandura (1997) theorized that the interconnectivity between the person (P), environment (E), and behavior (B) affects the desired change and postulated reciprocity between the person (P), the environment (E), and behavior (B). Vygotsky (1978) believed that for learning to occur, the “Student will be interacting with people in their environment and cooperating with their peers” (p. 90).

Bandura (1997) reported personal (P) factors as “the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). This assumption provided the basis for examining teacher-initiated literacy instruction in secondary school agriscience education. Bandura (1997) described the environment (E) as a pathway for influencing self-efficacy by using models to impact student learning (Bandura, 1997; Roberts et al., 2008). When students learn within the classroom environment, self-efficacy can be validated through comparative methods of individual performance when measured against their peers. Self-efficacy of the individual (teacher) “refers to the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce the given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Roberts et al. (2008) reported that self-efficacy is specialized, where a person can possess high efficacy in one area and diminished efficacy in others. Fuhrman and Rubenstein (2017) wrote that a teacher’s ethos of education occurs through “interactions between the individual, behavior, and the environment.” (p. 225). Shunck (2004) citing Rosenthal and Zimmerman (1978), reported that skills to foster declarative, procedural, and conditional literacy instruction for students are dependent on performance and observation, reinforcing the person (P) and the environment (E) to affect behavior (B). Balancing the need for positive self-efficacy and improving student outcomes is challenging (McKibben et al., 2022). For example, high self-efficacy in content instruction may result in low self-efficacy when SBAE teachers apply literacy instruction in the agriscience classroom.

Purpose and Research Questions

This study aimed to investigate the pedagogical practices secondary SBAE teachers incorporated within their lessons for developing knowledge, understanding, and improvement of agriculturally literate students. Three research questions guided this investigation: (1) What methods of instruction did secondary SBAE teachers use to develop agricultural literacy in SBAE students? (2) What assessments did secondary SBAE teachers use to measure if students are developing literacy skills in agricultural education? (3) How did secondary SBAE teachers incorporate agricultural literacy into agricultural students’ development?


We developed a one-day professional development session addressing agricultural literacy to aid teachers’ understanding of the differences between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate. The ten participants indicated their interest in the professional development workshop during the Alabama Association of Agricultural Educators conference. SBAE teachers attended the professional development because they were interested in literacy education and developing literate students in SBAE coursework. After the professional development session, the same ten secondary SBAE teachers agreed to participate in the study, and interviews were scheduled after the professional development session. Telephone interviews were conducted within three weeks of the professional development meeting, with each interview lasting 40 minutes. Interviews were recorded and later transcribed.

The participants comprised four women (40.0%) and six men (60.0%). Following qualitative design measures for anonymity (Kaiser, 2009), teachers self-selected pseudonyms to protect their identities and responses: Aloe Vera, Big Country, Hank, Jane, Ken Powers, Lee, Mini Mouse, Otis, Pike Place, and Winnie. The small sample size of this study is supported by existing research (Young &Casey, 2018; Hennick et al., 2016), where small sample sizes in qualitative research can represent the full experiences of the participants. Delbecq et al. (1975) also supported the use of ten to fifteen subjects in qualitative research when the backgrounds of the participants are homogenous. Three structured interview questions were posed to each participant with follow-up questions based on responses used to collect data: a) What methods of instruction do you most commonly use to develop knowledge and understanding of SBAE students? b) What types of assessments do you use to measure if students possess literacy or are literate in the discipline? and c) Where do you believe knowledge, understanding, and being disciplinary literate should be introduced in lesson design and delivery? The structured response questions were prepared before the interviews based on previous literacy research and the stated theoretical framework (Merriam, 2009). Audio file interviews from each participant were captured digitally.

Data were transcribed, coded, organized by findings, and arranged using theme development. Open coding, a component of qualitative data analysis, uses the constant comparative method to discover consistent themes within the data. Open coding allows researchers to identify the participants’ thoughts, ideas, and concepts to drive the thematic development process instead of predetermined thematic concepts (Merriam, 2009). Independent analysis of participant comments was evaluated and organized using each of the three research questions and follow-up questions to the participants by the researchers. Trustworthiness of the collected data was ensured as this study’s participants possessed differentiated educational backgrounds, years of experience in education, age, and professional accomplishments. The analysis identified four primary thematic categories for organizing participant responses. Transcendental analysis provided the means for determining the essence of secondary SBAE teacher literacy instruction to develop students’ ability to be literate in agriscience (Brown et al., 2015). These processes identified data for creating themes, interpretations, and a detailed description of the instructional process. After independent coding, we used peer discussions to improve credibility (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and establish sub-themes to better organize responses to the research questions.


Data analysis identified four primary thematic categories: 1) classroom environment (teacher controlled), the instructional methods used for the daily instruction of goals and objectives. This was the environment in which teachers set the expectations and instructional delivery models for teaching and learning; 2) the learning environment (student-controlled) reflected the skills, aptitudes, and potential gaps in knowledge and skills students demonstrate during instruction. This environment can reflect prior education, familial expectations, limitations, or the geographical location of the school and community; 3) foundational competencies (skills/materials) refer to the instructional materials that reinforce instructional lessons, including textbooks, technical manuals, news articles, and periodicals; and 4) limitations (administration) describes the policies for student learning determined outside of the teachers’ classroom or sphere of influence. These policies may include mandated assessments, administrator-determined vocabulary, or time devoted to specific instruction techniques. Subsequent analysis identified sub-themes within each thematic category.

Classroom Environment (Teacher Controlled)

The teachers reported variations in class schedules: 40.0% indicated a traditional 60/40 class period day, 50.0% taught within a four-by-four block schedule, and 10.0% experienced an eight-block class schedule. The analysis of the collected data yielded three sub-themes: instructional choice, pedagogy (methods and practices of teaching), and learning assessment.

Instructional Choice

The different methods and practices for teaching words, terms, and phrases were centered on traditional instruction (direct instruction, vocabulary identification) practices in the classroom. Participants explained that their instructional methods would depend on the content of the course. Hank explained his process for determining appropriate teaching methods for literacy instruction, “The methods of instruction would depend on the class. . . animal science class would be a lot more terminology than basic agriscience or introduction to agriscience.” Hank emphasized terminology through practical hands-on applications: “I do a lot of reading for content using engine manuals or other technical-based texts. Then, we [class] discuss terms like an air gap, oil type, and preventative maintenance. I think that’s where our focus is when reading for information.” Hank’s instruction reflected instructional choices steeped in content and disciplinary word association, reinforcement, and application.

Big Country expressed similar traditional instruction methods when determining delivery for improving knowledge and understanding. Big Country emphasized formal instruction, “I use a lot of PowerPoint materials, and students take notes from the screen.” Other participants indicated that their instructional methods were similar to their own educational experiences in high school when learning words, terms, and phrases. Hank conveyed his experiences as a veteran teacher in the secondary agriscience classroom. He stated: “In my first year of teaching, I was giving notes, lectures, PowerPoint presentations, diagrams, etc., and realized this is not what kids want . . . they want to rip their hair out.” Lee supported Hank’s first-year experiences instructing students using words, terms, and phrases and how he approached teaching content to his classes. Lee said: “I’d go around the room, and one student would read a section, and I would offer feedback and then have classroom discussion on the material being read. That’s how I taught all the students in each class.” Otis remembered being a high school sophomore and enrolling in SBAE classes. His memory provided a historical context regarding literacy instruction, which translated to his instructional style during his first two years of teaching agriscience education. Otis reflected:

I remember copying notes in high school I didn’t understand because I was more concerned with the process of taking notes from the board than what I was supposed to be learning. I was concentrating on transcribing the information instead of learning the information.

Hank reinforced high school experiences in literacy education and discussed his memories of engaging teachers and the methods they used to teach reading and writing skills. He indicated, “I had some great teachers as a high school student. My English teacher was very engaging during reading and discussion as a class. I try to mimic his methods when I teach my students.”

Pedagogy: Methods and Practices of Teaching

Each participant explained the various methods and strategies for delivering instruction, and a common theme emerged among the teachers. Delivery methods for instructional purposes included guided notes, contextual learning, scaffolding instruction, and prior educational experiences. For example, using guided notes in the classroom allowed students to direct their attention to the lesson instead of the note-taking process. Lee noted: “One thing I do is have my notes printed off, and then I provide them [notes] to the students.” Lee supported using guided notes when asked to elaborate on his experiences. He said, “I’m not your science or history teacher putting notes on the board for you [students] to copy.” Ken Powers addressed varied teaching methods through scaffolding content knowledge to establish a learning baseline for his students. He stated: “We do a lot of literacy-type strategies, including chunking text and breaking complex words and concepts down for student understanding.”

Ken Powers further explained that knowing his students’ ability levels is vital for acquiring words, terms, and phrases while learning the appropriate strategies. Ken explained how ability levels influence his instructional approach, If it’s something we need to cover, we’re going to break it down into small groups, paying attention to diverse reading levels, chunking the text, and discussing as a group.” Ken spoke of his role as the SBAE teacher when instructing students: “I will lead the students through a discussion where I ask, what does the text mean to you? We typically do this with five to six sentences, not 10 to 12 paragraphs.”

Other participants used different instructional methods when discussing words, terms, and phrases in the classroom. This analysis contrasts classroom instruction models while emphasizing pedagogical practices. Mini Mouse indicated that his delivery is more direct [instruction] in the beginning when introducing new words, terms, and phrases. He clarified how using digital video, demonstrations, and discussion provided context for vocabulary terms or the concepts being studied: “I use a lot of presentations and give examples and visuals. I talk a lot at the beginning of the class to lead the discussion.” Mini Mouse further detailed how he incorporated student involvement in the lesson: “I’ll ask for a volunteer or randomly call on students in the class. I check for understanding and use probing questions before the lesson to see where they [students] are learning.” Otis reinforced Mini Mouse’s instructional methods when discussing words, terms, and phrase instruction: “I feel like sometimes we go backward [in education]; we throw big words out first, and they [students] become overwhelmed.” Otis’ frustration was more evident when discussing vocabulary instruction in the classroom: “We [teachers] have traditionally started with vocabulary first and then explain the term out of context.” Aloe Vera explained her approach as hands-on by providing a contextual foundation. She indicated: “We must [be] very hands-on in my program. We will go to the greenhouse and practice the concept or term I introduced in class”. Aloe Vera described the hands-on approach that encapsulated her teaching:

I would take different plants and line them up in the greenhouse so we could discuss, demonstrate, and practice cuttings, division, stem cuttings, and leaf cuttings. I would show them various ways to apply the term, and they [students] would demonstrate for me to assess their understanding.

Just as important as the material presented during the lesson, Aloe Vera also spoke about the value of post-instruction formative assessment:

After applying words, terms, and phrases in the lab, we [teacher and students] would return to the classroom and review vocabulary words and associate them with pictures, and students will take notes. I found this approach works best for my students to learn.

This type of multi-faceted lesson design, which includes introduction, application, assessment, and repetition, indicates a well-designed approach to learning words, terms, and phrases (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). 


Participants discussed using formative and summative assessments in their classrooms during the interviews. Responses varied considerably between participants, including project-based assessment, traditional testing procedures, technology applications, and administratively defined testing. Participants generally fell between traditionally assessing student performance and using non-traditional assessment methods. When evaluating students’ knowledge, words, and concepts, Lee responded: “Since students don’t have to write the notes I give them, they can bring them to class for the test, but I won’t let them photocopy.” Although he referred to summative examination, the interview questions may have limited his response. Lee had little regard for rote memorization examinations and believed that allowing students to use their notes on the exam provided more significant potential for student success.

Mini Mouse also shared this sentiment when asked to explain the purpose of assessments during and after a lesson or unit plan. Mini Mouse stated: “I don’t give a lot of tests.” The researcher probed for further explanation of how students in Mini Mouses’ classes were assessed. His response was distanced from traditional assessment to more student-driven activities where he could observe concepts and the acquisition of words, terms, and phrases. Mini Mouse explained: “I ask many questions before the lesson, and then we go out [to the mechanics lab] and apply the concepts and skills.” Pike Place explained a similar situation to Mini Mouse: “I coach them [students] to ensure the process is followed, and I assess their performance during their demonstration.”

Other participants indicated a more traditional approach to their assessment. Hank explained that his literacy exams typically include 30 to 40 questions with multiple choice, true and false, fill in the blank, and matching terms with definitions. Otis explained that his use of Scantron®, paper exams, and Kahoot, a game-based learning platform, are the typical assessment types used in his classroom.” Winnie described assessment in a less traditional sense. She said: “I usually have a matching quiz with multiple uses of the word being examined. Having this type of assessment allows students to move beyond simple recognition.”

While interviewing Winnie and probing deeper into assessment methods, she began to be more open about using technology for the formative assessment of agricultural literacy. Winnie, a young teacher (< five years’ experience), and Otis (> ten years’ experience) were the only teachers to mention using applications such as Kahoot or Quizlet platforms for assessment. Her description of the applications provided context for how she uses them in the classroom: “Typically, I ask the students to take the words from the lesson and develop phone-based quizzes that can then be shared with other students in the class.” The researcher probed for further understanding regarding the type of assessment used from these applications: “I guess I use them as more formative assessment, like a bell ringer for understanding if my students have grasped the material.” Winnie explained her rationale for using application-based programs:

In grades 7 through 9, we use technology. Kids don’t like making the quizzes but do enjoy playing the game. When the students are developing their online quizzes, they must type the terms and definitions before they can play the game.

Learning Environment (Student Controlled)

Teachers discussed the importance of the formalized student-centered learning environment and the characteristics innate to each student. Many teachers discussed the environmental conditions of learning and geography’s impact on presumptions, misconceptions, and breaking away from family-based lexicons to be literate. Participants also described education challenges when teaching words, terms, and phrases to students with learning disabilities and the role gender has in education. Otis described geographical location as limiting when learning words, terms, and phrases. Otis explained: “My kids believe that GMO’s [genetically modified organisms] will kill you, so we make a stand and deliver on the difference between sustainable, organic versus traditional farming, populations, and discuss the amount of food a traditional vs. organic producer can provide to the public.” When describing the methods used to provide instruction, Otis explained: “Most of the time, it is self-directed learning and then research for their information.”

Winnie and Jane shared their perceptions of gender and special education populations in their classrooms. Winnie described the challenges of being female when teaching young men. Winnie said: “Being a woman, boys will talk differently around me. I have to figure out how to connect with them and find the connection between how they talk and think.” Winnie further explained how family influences student learning in a rural town by saying: “A lot of time when you teach in the country, people are set in their ways. For example, I drive a Ford, the only truck I’ll ever drive.” The researchers followed Winnie’s response and redirected the question to address how she reaches these students: “They [students] want to come at it their way, and you have to figure out how to accept and encourage their views and redirect them to the correct terminology.”

Like Winnie, Jane had experienced issues with word appropriateness and questioned her ability to provide meaningful instruction to special education students. Specifically, she discussed her difficulty differentiating her teaching when focusing on agricultural literacy. Jane admitted: “I do struggle with simple things . . . I get a lot of 504 [special education modification plans] and IEP [Individualized Education Plan] students with much lower rates of literacy and possessing literacy skills.” This varied ability-level transition has been difficult for Jane: “I’m old school. I use the vocabulary in the chapters [textbook] a lot.”

Foundational Competencies (Skills/Materials)

During the interviews, teachers were asked to describe their students’ foundational literacy skills and cognitive levels when asked to learn new concepts or terms. Sub-themes emerged within Foundational Competencies and were divided into three subcategories: 1) reading or writing to learn, 2) developing knowledge and understanding, and 3) educational materials (digital and text-based instruction).

Reading or Writing to Learn

Teachers indicated similar ideas and methods when asked about their perceptions of how foundational knowledge of student literacy is established. All participants agreed that educational growth can only occur by establishing a solid literacy foundation. Ken Powers said: “I will use the Lexile levels of the material we are going to learn.” Ken Powers referenced several web-based Lexile generators (, for determining the reading level of written text for his students: We’re [agriculture educators] looking at what they [students] know: concepts, demonstration of contextual vocabulary, and their current knowledge of the term or concept being discussed.” Otis addressed the importance of establishing a context for learning before introducing more complex vocabulary during his lesson. He stated: “What we need to do is ask students if they understand how this [concept] works. If they say yes, then build on that foundation before we take notes on the concept.” Otis’s explanation of establishing foundational learning was also present in his use of technology:

I also use Instagram as an example in class and discuss a company that has a flash sale on Instagram that all my students are familiar with and then determine if they [students] understand concepts such as the law of demand. This helps me give them a common starting point since all my students use Instagram.

Hank agreed with his peers, citing the need for solid foundations in literacy before introducing more advanced content. He said: “If they’re [students] not content literate in words and concepts at the beginning of the lesson, then it’s going to be hard to hammer those skills home during the lesson.” Aloe Vera also believed the key to establishing a solid foundation for learning was determining where students are in their learning. Aloe Vera incorporates discussion and writing to assess student knowledge and then adjusts her instruction accordingly. She said: “I would ask someone to describe what they wrote. Right or wrong, the answer doesn’t matter in the beginning. We’re [teacher and students] just thinking out loud.”

Developing Knowledge and Understanding

All participants echoed the importance of teaching words, terms, and phrases. Teachers described the challenges of determining foundational knowledge before introducing new concepts and vocabulary. These challenges led to discussions with each participant about the role of learning words, terms, and phrases in agriculture and the instructional methods each participant used to improve student understanding and learning. Mini Mouse described how words and terms are introduced in a forestry lesson. He said: “I might introduce the term forestry first, then describe the term dendrology. I’ll put up a list of terms and run [a copy] the definitions for students before I start the actual teaching.”

Hank described teaching disciplinary literacy, using contextual vocabulary in his classroom, and utilizing a comparative discussion between general and disciplinary literacy. He explained:

I like to use everyday vocabulary [general literacy] as a point of reference when I teach terms and concepts. I give a point of reference, especially when teaching tool identification. Most people have a hammer or a screwdriver at home, so these items are well-known to students. Students don’t have palm sanders, skill saws, stationary equipment, or specialized tools.

Hank described his application of words, terms, and phrases in the classroom: “I describe each of the disciplinary vocabulary words and demonstrate to students how to use the tool and that often the tool’s name is similar to its function.”

Educational Materials (Digital and Text-Based Instruction)

Richards et al. (1992) defined readability as: “How easily written materials can be read and understood.” (p. 306). Each participant mentioned the use of digital and text-based learning materials. The role and use of materials varied considerably between participants during instruction. Teachers reported limited use of textbooks because of low availability and outdated information. Most indicated that textbooks were used as a supplement or reference for students, while others cited the use of textbooks for use during their absence from the classroom when a substitute teacher was present. Lee described using textbooks in the classroom: “Textbooks don’t leave the classroom, but they are used as a resource. I only ask students to use them when a sub [substitute teacher] covers my classes.” Winnie explained the difficulty related to the readability of CTE texts and her students’ abilities to comprehend textbook-based material for comprehension. She supported Lee’s analysis: “CTE texts are written at an extremely high reading level, and I just don’t understand why.”

Some teachers indicated that although textbooks are seldom used, text-based material from the Internet, research journals, trade magazines, and other sources were much more prevalent in their classrooms. Digital text delivered by tablet, computer, or mobile phone was more prominent during instruction. Teachers also described that non-textbook-based materials were more accessible to locate and were sometimes more up-to-date regarding agriculture professions when compared to textbooks. Big Country utilizes text-based materials from the Internet and reputable online publishers, “I will give the students journal articles from trade magazines like Ag Daily, Coop Magazine, Progressive Farmer, etc.

Otis and others discussed the types of materials used for text-based reading and the methods used to provide materials to students. Otis stated:

We use the Internet and CEV [Internet-based curriculum platform] because I can edit the curriculum to fit the needs of my students. I like to give them a handout or something on their Chromebook. This way, they [students] can work with me and keep on task while I teach.

Lee agreed with his peers regarding the digital delivery of text and supported his rationale for allowing personal technology devices in the classroom: “I try to utilize their [student’s] technology because we’re not going to win, so I might as well let students use them [technology] for appropriate purposes.”

Limitations (Administration)

Throughout the interviews, teachers described perceived limitations regarding learning words and phrases in the agriscience classroom. A uniform response highlighted the impact of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource standards (AFNR), Alabama content standards, and administrative limitations for classroom instruction. The discussion of standards inclusion in daily instruction was mentioned as an administrative requirement to what teachers believed was quality SBAE instruction. Pike Place explained how she incorporates CCSS, AFNR, and Alabama content standards in her instruction: “When I give vocabulary tests, I take the standards we have to meet (AFNR, CCSS, and Alabama) and make them understandable for the age level I work with.”

Participant statements focused on administrative oversight of literacy instruction, administrative-directed literacy assessments, and short-lived interest in standards-based instruction. Mini Mouse described in detail his experience with administrative oversight between literacy and agriscience education: “A couple of years ago, when we were getting slammed with literacy [mandates] to introduce more reading, they [administration] wanted us to come up with some activities that helped with reading and writing standards.” Mini Mouse further explained that over time, administrative interest in literacy waned, and other mandates became their focus:

They [administration] backed off, which is why I feel we get on whims a lot and then get tossed from one thing to another. It’s not that the administration wants us to stop incorporating standards, but they move on to something different. I think they assume that we keep doing what we are doing.

Jane told a similar story regarding administrative oversight in her classroom regarding literacy instruction: “The curriculum specialists are pushing so hard for us to move to project-based learning and give kids a choice of assignments that we [teachers] don’t have the freedom to teach traditional literacy instruction.”

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

The findings of this study revealed that SBAE teachers were engaged in various literacy activities. However, student writing was only seldom mentioned. Participants used explicit explanations to introduce students to new agricultural concepts and vocabulary, motivated their learning through group work, and led them in project-based activities to apply new ideas in real-life situations.

When the teachers were asked to explain the methods for literacy instruction, our teachers used varying materials for student instruction, e.g., by having students review articles in periodicals, using internet-based learning platforms (CEV), comparing arguments, or creating quizzes using web-based applications. However, more evidence of sustained individual writing needed to be shared to apply new concepts to support using words, terms, and phrases for developing student literacy. This finding supports Roberts et al. (2008) that high self-efficacy in group work, limited answers, or developing web-based quizzes may be evident yet is manifested in low self-efficacy if students were to be tasked with individual writing prompts. For example, teachers should have reported using a gradual release of responsibility where students were helped to locate meanings, relate words to other words, extricate words from their initial context, and generate new contexts with emerging expertise. Participants relied primarily on contextual vocabulary teaching methods where students explained new vocabulary terms orally, allowing teachers to scaffold students’ usage of words, terms, and phrases during classroom instruction and project-based activities.

Understanding the assessments used to measure speaking, listening, and writing using specialized words and terms (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012) in SBAE provided insight into how teachers determine student growth. Teachers listened closely to students’ conversational responses and used formative assessment to redirect their understanding of concepts and vocabulary. Instead, teachers reported that changing students’ lexicon to define content-driven vocabulary was too difficult. Instead, teachers would list the vocabulary words in a handout. These findings suggest that teachers in this study do not fully implement Bandura’s (1997) model of interaction between the person, environment, and behavior. Instead, instruction of words, terms, and phrases was predominantly spoken and not emphasized through independent student writing. The implications of this de-emphasis indicate that students may not acquire vital skills in agricultural literacy because SBAE teachers do not possess foundational literacy instruction and training skills.

Consequently, students need to develop speaking, listening, and writing skills using specialized words and terms in agriculture, as supported by Shanahan and Shanahan (2012). This means they must acquire speaking, reading, and writing tools to learn about agriculture with their teachers and then be able to write independently by receiving foundational literacy skills. Park et al. (2010) reinforced the importance of student literacy and emphasized the nature of agricultural education as a content application. The work of Rosenthal and Zimmerman (1978) supports this finding as high self-efficacy in one area (content instruction) is juxtaposed against low self-efficacy (literacy instruction efficacy) of the teacher. Ultimately, the data supported the idea that knowing and teaching content must likely be reinforced through student writing for improved literacy.

Administrative oversight of the instructional processes is a concept that has been introduced previously in education. Participants expressed frustration with administrative oversight related explicitly to literacy instruction and the development of students to possess speaking, listening, and writing skills in agriscience. Teachers reported that vocabulary was a mandated component of the agriscience curriculum. However, their instruction needs to be improved to determine the best practices for improving students’ ability to become literate and develop the necessary skills for success. The implications of this mandated oversight of literacy instruction are the removal of the agriscience teacher as the content area expert and their expertise in creating multiple pedological styles to improve the literacy of students in agriscience (Shoulders & Myers, 2013).

Participants should build on their present writing activities to add extended individual writing to the learning process and hands-on application of new concepts (Park et al., 2010) to reinforce literacy instruction. For example, students could use content-literacy guides to focus their textbook reading on essential ideas and writing activities in SBAE classrooms. They could follow up their project-based activities by writing formal lab reports from their observational notes. They could consolidate their new vocabulary knowledge by applying new terms and new concepts by writing for synthesis, and they could publish their ideas on Internet websites to share them with other students and professionals beyond the classroom. Such writings could serve as summative evaluations of students’ understanding of concepts introduced in class and appropriate usage of new vocabulary in the discipline.

The findings indicated a perceived need for an administrative understanding of pedagogical practices for literacy instruction in the SBAE classroom. Participants spoke of frustration, mandates, and limited instructional models for developing students’ understanding of literacy. It can be concluded that administrators need to understand better the intricacies and specialized skills required for the instruction of secondary agriscience education. It is recommended that SBAE teachers and administrators discuss how writing in the agricultural education curriculum could develop a deeper understanding of the best practices and proven methods for instructing students to develop literacy skills in agriculture. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, SBAE teachers should highlight the interconnection of student experiences in labs, greenhouses, and other agricultural experiences. These conversations and collaborative efforts could reduce the frustration and perceived oversight participants felt as limiting their expertise.

We recommend that teachers continue to develop their instruction methods for incorporating speaking, listening, and writing in the secondary agriscience education curriculum. The outcome of such development could further SBAE students’ literacy beyond just the acquisition of agricultural knowledge. Instead, students will be better prepared as future advocates and consumers of agricultural services and have opportunities to extend factual discussions to more audiences. We expect this new emphasis on speaking, listening, and writing using specialized words and terms in agriculture to provide students with the literacy tools agricultural professionals use to read and write to learn agriscience.


Act of July 2, 1862 (Morrill Act), Public Law 37-108, which established land grant colleges, 07/02/1862; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996; Record Group 11; General Records of the United States Government; National Archives

Alston, J. A., & English, C. W. (2007). Technology-enhanced agricultural education learning environments: An assessment of student perceptions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 1–10.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Clemons, C. A., Lindner, J. R., Murray, B., Cook, M. P., Sams, B., & Williams, G. (2018). Spanning the gap: The confluence of agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate.  Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 238–252. doi:

Blythe, J. M., DiBenedetto, C. A., & Myers, B. E. (2015). Inquiry-based instruction: Perceptions of national agriscience teacher ambassadors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 110–121.

Brown, N. R., Roberts, R., Whiddon, A. S., Goossen, C. E., & Kacal, A. (2015). The essence of the lived experiences of urban agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 58–72.

Cremin, L. A. (1967). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education 1879-1957. Vantage Press.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program

planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Foresman.

Fuhrman, N. E., & Rubenstein, E. D. (2017). Teaching with animals: The role of animal ambassadors in improving presenter communication skills. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 223-235.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association.

Hasselquist, L., Naughton, M., & Kitchel, T. (2019). Preservice Teachers’ Experiences in a Required Reading in the Content Area Course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 140–152.

Hennink, M.M., Kaiser, B.N., & Marconi, V.C. (2016). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608.

Hess, A. J., & Trexler, C. J. (2011). A qualitative study of agricultural literacy in urban youth: What do elementary students understand about the agri-food system? Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4) 1-12.

Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641.

Lemley, S. M., & Hart, S. M. (2019). Using inquiry to develop agricultural education preservice teachers’ disciplinary literacy pedagogy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 149-163.

McKibben, J. D., Giliberti, M., Clemons, C. A., Holler, K., & Linder, J. R. (2022). My ag teacher never made me go to the shop! Pre-service teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in mechanics skills change through experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(3), 283–296.

McKim, A. J., Sorensen, T., Velez, J. J., & Henderson, T. M. (2017). Analyzing the relationship between four teacher competence areas and commitment to teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(4), 1–14.

Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A. (2012). Experiential Learning Theory. In N. M. Seel (ed), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Josey-Bass.

Park, T. D., & Osborne, E. (2007). A model for the study of reading in agriscience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(1), 20–30.

Park, T. D., Van Der Mandele, E. S., & Welch, D. (2010). Creating a culture that fosters disciplinary literacy in agricultural sciences. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3). 100-113.

Richards. J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language and teaching and applied linguistics. Longman.

Roberts, G. R., & Ball, A. L. (2009). Secondary agricultural science as content and context for teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 81–91.  

Roberts, G. R., Harlin, J. F., & Briers, G. E. (2008). Peer modeling and teaching efficacy: The influence of two student teachers at the same time. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 13-26.

Rosenthal, T. L. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. Academic Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.

Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An education perspective. Pearson.

Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2013). Teachers’ use of experiential learning stages in agricultural laboratories. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 100-115.

Smith-Hughes National Vocational Education Act of 1917, 45 C.F.R. § 104.56 (1960).

Smith, K. L., & Rayfield, J. (2016). An early historical examination of the educational intent of supervised agricultural experiences (SAEs) and project-based learning in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(2), 146–160.

Tummons, J., Hasselquist, L., & Smalley, S. (2020). Exploring content, pedagogy, and literacy strategies among preservice teachers in CASE institutes. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 289-306.

Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). Knowledge, skills, or attitudes/beliefs: The contexts of agricultural literacy in upper-elementary science curricula. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 101-117.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.  Harvard University Press.

Young, D. S., & Casey, E. A. (2018). An examination of the sufficiency of small qualitative samples. Social Work & Criminal Justice Publications. 500.

Using Body Mapping to Assess Doctoral Students’ Preparedness to Serve as Science Communicators

Fally Masambuka-Kanchewa, Iowa State University,

Millicent A. Oyugi, Texas A and M University,

Alexa J. Lamm, University of Georgia,

PDF Available


Land Grant Universities (LGUs) are pivotal in equipping the future agricultural workforce with the skills to effectively communicate agricultural and environmental science. This study utilized body mapping to assess graduate students’ readiness to become science communicators following a science communication theories course. Initially, doctoral students viewed communication merely as a tool, showing a need for more awareness about its significance in science. Deliberate efforts were exerted throughout the course to foster a classroom environment that empowered students as science communicators. By the end of the course, students had not only grasped the difference between ‘communication’ and ‘communications’ but also expressed a keen interest in tackling science communication-related issues. The evolution of communication technologies significantly influences public access to scientific information and the acceptance of science and related policies. Challenges such as these, augmented by urgent concerns like climate change and the Coronavirus pandemic, underscore the need for agricultural and environmental science graduates adept at communicating science upon entering the workforce. However, achieving this level of preparedness requires not only the provision of relevant courses but also innovative assessment methods that foster metacognitive and soft skills, thereby facilitating social, academic, and political empowerment.


Communication is a complex process that involves the exchange of meanings, information, and messages among individuals, whereas communications refer to the array of tools and technologies to facilitate this exchange (Alder et al., 2016). In most cases there is increased focus on communications as opposed to communication. Such perceptions stem from the deficit model of communication which emphasizes the need for increased dissemination about scientific issues to shift public opinion towards a scientific consensus (Hart & Nisbet, 2012, p. 701). The deficit model primarily sees science communication as a tool for educating the public about scientific topics, often overlooking the essential element of encouraging dialogue (Trench & Miller, 2012). The rapid evolution of communication technologies and the rise of social media platforms have led to a significant increase in the spread of information (Masambuka et al., 2018).

Although science communication aims to educate and inform, it should equally promote open and meaningful interactions between scientists, experts, and the public. The emergence of agricultural communication as a distinct branch of communication is evidence of the need to share practical agricultural and domestic innovations with rural communities (Tucker et al., 2003). Over time, agricultural communication has seen considerable changes (Cannon et al., 2016). The focus has shifted from traditional print and broadcast news to science journalism and now includes communications related to advocacy and public relations, moving beyond mere technology transfer (Bonnen, 1986; Irani & Doerfert, 2013). In the United States, despite these changes, programs in this field are still widely known as agricultural communications programs (Akers & Akers, 2000; Cannon et al., 2016; Doerfert & Miller, 2006; Kurtzo et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2015; Telg & Irani, 2011; Tucker et al., 2003). These programs mainly focus on equipping students with technical communication skills, such as writing and graphic design, at the undergraduate level (Cannon et al., 2016).

The emerging challenges of the 21st Century, including the Coronavirus pandemic and the expanding array of information sources, underscore the necessity for educational courses to approach communication as a scientific discipline, not merely as a tool for public education. To adapt to these swiftly changing conditions, it is imperative that postsecondary and agricultural communication programs sufficiently prepare graduates for the evolving job market (Doerfert & Miller, 2006). This perspective is supported by the notion that higher education, particularly at land-grant universities (LGUs), should not only facilitate students’ ability to connect academic knowledge with the practical world but also foster critical thinking about the influence of existing societal structures (Roth & Desaultels, 2002; Schultz, 2008). Active learning and project-based activities are recommended as effective strategies to develop essential 21st-century skills (Gavazi, 2020). However, it is crucial to distinguish that increasing student engagement in the educational process does not automatically equate to empowerment, a concept that often needs to be understood (Dimick, 2012).

The body mapping technique is a valuable method for enhancing educational experiences. It explores individuals’ perceptions of control and power within specific contexts (Martinez, 2017), making participants more conscious of their embodied experiences and uncovering otherwise inaccessible insights (de-Jager, 2016). As a qualitative research tool, body mapping facilitates the collection of personal stories, offering insights into individuals’ identities (Coetzee et al., 2017) and providing scientists with a novel, visually and sensory-rich research methodology (Ball & Gilligan, 2010). Thus, body mapping is an effective way for students to evaluate their learning, expanding assessment perspectives beyond the teacher’s perspective to include the students’ viewpoints.

Traditional course content selection and assessment methods have been criticized for their top-down approach, as they tend to overlook student perspectives in the educational process. Huba and Freed (2000) highlight that instructors typically maintain complete control over educational content, limiting student input opportunities. Recent scholarly debates advocate for outcome-driven learning, emphasizing the enhancement of metacognitive and soft skills, such as communication, now sought after by employers for well-rounded graduates (Mitsea et al., 2021). These skills are vital for engaging in various domains, including personal, academic, and professional arenas (Mitsea et al., 2021).

While research activities at LGUs are crucial for addressing societal issues, concerns arise that de-emphasizing teaching and community engagement may affect the quality of education and reduce graduates’ employability (Gavazi, 2020). A notable concern is the need for more preparation of graduates for science communication careers, despite LGUs’ focus on training in this area. Incorporating student-led assessments, such as body mapping, has been scientifically validated to bridge this gap. This approach respects teacher authority while empowering students to evaluate their learning experiences (Biesta et al., 2015). As Fielding (1996) described, empowerment involves transferring some authority from those in power to those with less. Granting students, the agency to evaluate their learning can significantly enhance their knowledge and self-efficacy in communicating scientific or agricultural innovations in response to market demands (see Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is a powerful motivator for action, fostering a sense of conviction and confidence in individuals’ abilities to complete assigned tasks.

In summary, body mapping in science communication teaching enriches the learning assessment spectrum, enhancing the quality of education by incorporating student perspectives. Research indicates that active learning strategies can significantly improve critical thinking, self-efficacy, and preparedness for science communication careers, equipping graduates to navigate complex challenges (Clem, 2013).

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to use a body mapping strategy to assess graduate students’ perceived level of preparedness to serve as science communicators after taking an agricultural communications theories class.

The study used two research objectives to address the purpose:

  1. To describe participants’ visualization of their knowledge and experiences of science communication before and after taking an agricultural communications theory class.
  2. To describe participants’ science communication knowledge and experience before and after taking the class.


The study utilized a qualitative research approach to collect data through mapping data. “Body mapping draws from the tenet that ‘mind influences the body based on how socio-cultural context influences the mind,’ and acknowledges that by identifying how and where perception is experienced in the body, one can collect information beyond what traditional face-to-face interviewing offers” (Martinez, 2017, p. 2). This methodology effectively captures participants’ perspectives (Coetzee et al., 2017). In this study, participants used body mapping to articulate their understanding and interpretation of a communications theory class (Duby et al., 2016).

The research focused on first-year doctoral students enrolled in an agricultural communication theory class at the University of Georgia’s Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication. The study used purposive sampling to recruit participants, seven students (three males and four females) were involved in the study. All participants were doctoral candidates in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, with two students majoring in agricultural communication, two in agricultural leadership, and three in agricultural education. However, three students also served as agricultural extension educators during the time that they enrolled in the course.

Course Content and Administration

The course was delivered synchronously in Fall of 2020, both in-person and online via Zoom. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students opted to take the class online or in person. Three students attended in-person, while the rest did so online. To curb the spread of the virus, the university further mandated all classes to go online after the Thanksgiving holiday. As a result, the remainder of the course occurred online.

The course material covered communication theory, agricultural communication history, crisis, and risk communication, the importance of agricultural and science communication, and current issues in agriculture and science communication concerning communication theories. The class design was to be a discussion-based setting. During the first few days of class, the instructor requested students to participate in the discussions about the readings using shared reflection papers. Students were to critically analyze each class’s readings and present summaries to the rest of the class to help guide the discussions. However, during the first three weeks of class, students expressed their concerns via an anonymous questionnaire distributed as part of the feedback collection process. The student expressed difficulty understanding the material because most of them had never taken a communication theory course before, and they requested additional lectures. The instructor incorporated lectures into each class in response to students’ needs. In addition to lectures, students utilized case studies and mind maps to increase their engagement.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred during the last week of class. The instructor first requested participants to draw two body maps in response to prompts. Participants started by drawing a body map that represented their knowledge level about science communication, awareness of science communication issues and challenges, and their role as communicators before taking the class. On the second body map, they drew body maps based on the previous prompts with an additional prompt on preparedness to serve as a science communicator after taking the class. Participants also indicated notes on the body maps based on the prompts. Since the class was online, the students could use any technology of their choice to draw the body maps and submit them to the instructor. Since the topic for this study was not sensitive, body mapping activity ensured participants could express themselves freely without following a standard template. Participants were entirely in control of drawing their images based on their understanding.

Data Analysis

A content analysis of the body maps and their associated descriptions was conducted. In addition, content analysis of participants’ reflections and researchers’ observation notes made it possible to clearly describe the participants’ stories (Gastaldo et al., 2018) and triangulate the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Due to the absence of a standardized data coding and analysis tool for body maps, the researcher used a modified evaluation tool based on the indicators of a standard scientist (see Chambers, 1983). Codes were developed based on body map structure (size, shape, and colors). In addition, codes for all the descriptions of the body maps were developed, which included types of description and issues addressed in line with the prompts, namely: awareness of challenges and issues in science communication, role as a communicator, knowledge, and skills in science communication and knowledge of communication theories. Each researcher coded the data independently based on the codebook.

Once coding was completed, images corresponding to each code were grouped and themes were developed by comparing each code with the descriptions that were provided by the participants’ reflection papers. The content analysis of the notes and reflection papers assisted in further triangulation and ensured the trustworthiness of the results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mikhaeil & Baskerville, 2019).

Subjectivity Statement

A postdoctoral research associate whose research primarily focuses on the use of communication as a science for amplifying voices of marginalized and vulnerable groups served as the lead course instructor. She provided academic oversight and infused the curriculum with innovative pedagogical strategies. These strategies included the introduction of mind and body mapping exercises alongside creating tailored prompts to facilitate these activities. Her approach was underpinned by a conscientious effort to mitigate the influence of her research bias, especially regarding identifying potential gaps in science communication and their implications for data analysis and the literature review. To this end, she undertook a thorough literature review to ensure that the development and application of coding schemes were aligned with established research paradigms.

The team also included a professor specializing in science communication. She shared the instructional responsibilities, bringing to the course a firm belief in the scientific nature of communication and the necessity of grounding scientific inquiry in solid theoretical foundations. Her contributions were instrumental in shaping the course content, and she was the architect behind a pivotal learning activity that generated the images and texts serving as the primary data for the study. Conscious of her bias towards emphasizing the need for improved communication within agricultural and environmental science, she opted out of the initial stages of data coding to safeguard the research’s objectivity.

A third key figure was another postdoctoral research associate, who brought a wealth of experience in agricultural education and communication. Her expertise is valuable in articulating and disseminating impactful messages tailored to meet clientele’s needs. This bias towards client-centric messaging was intertwined with her dedication to fostering innovative teaching and learning methodologies within agricultural communication curricula. Her overarching goal was to arm prospective agricultural communicators with a blend of theoretical understanding and 21st-century skills essential for navigating the multifaceted challenges of modern agriculture. She recused herself from the coding process to preclude and, thus, any biases that could skew the study’s findings.

These diverse perspectives and methodological rigor enhanced the research process, ensuring a credible approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the science communication course in improving the career readiness of the study participants as future agricultural communicators.

Results and Discussion

Participants’ Visualization of their Knowledge and Experiences Regarding Science Communication Before and After the Class

When the students drew body maps presenting their science communication experiences and knowledge in science communication, one theme emerged: Body maps not restricted to human bodies. Six participants represented their knowledge and experiences using the actual human body, while one participant drew an animal to represent his/her knowledge and experiences (See Figure 1).

Figure 1 depicts bodymaps presentation before and after taking the class. A subtheme, namely: variation in body map presentation, emerged when analyzing the images of the participants’ presentation of the body maps regardless of whether human or animal. Changes were observed in the colors, size, and features provided between and among participants to reflect the changes before and after taking the class. Different parts of the human were also presented, with four of the students presenting an entire human body form (Figures 1. 2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6) while one person presented the head (Figure 1.7 a and b) and another presented the face only (1.5 a and b). In addition, variations in the use of colors were also observed. For example, while the color green represented a positive change in knowledge (Figure 1.4) the same color was used to represent awareness of science communication (Figure 1.3 a and b).

Figure 1

Body Maps Presentation Before and After Taking the Class

Participants’ Opinions Regarding their Knowledge and Experiences Regarding Science Communication Before and After the Class

Almost all participants had limited knowledge and experience in agricultural communication. Two themes emerged: the nature of agricultural communication and knowledge of agricultural communication and theories.

Nature of Agricultural Communication

The participants understood communication as delivering agricultural information using different communication channels. As an illustration, one of the participants stated, “My previous thinking was that Agcom was about writing articles about important events.” The nature of agricultural communication was evidenced in the body maps of two other participants (see Figure 1.7a and 1.7b). The content analysis of the reflection papers also indicated frequent use of the word communications as opposed to communication among all participants.

Knowledge of Agricultural Communication and Associated Theories

Participants indicated they had limited knowledge of agricultural communication and associated theories, as evidenced by the following quotes. “I had no formal knowledge of communication theories.” This was echoed by another quote, “My knowledge as a science communicator was very lacking…with no formal knowledge or background. I was unaware of any possible theories.” Another participant also raised similar sentiments as evidenced by the following quote: “Mediocre level of knowledge- struggled with specifics of communication.” To emphasize the point, the participant explained how the knowledge level was represented in the body map (see Figure 1.4a and b). In addition, another participant also provided a key that explained the colors on the body map, with yellow representing knowledge of communication theories (see Figures 1.4a and 1.4b).

Apart from these sentiments, the participants provided feedback to the instructor to change the administration focus of the class from student discussion of the content to more lectures. The lectures were proposed to ensure the students were taught about agricultural communication and associated communication theories due to limited knowledge.

Awareness of communication challenges and issues

Almost all the participants indicated having limited knowledge of the challenges and issues in agricultural communication, as evidenced by one participant who said, “I was not aware of challenges/issues in science communication.” Another participant stated that “I was not super aware of the many issues and challenges that are present.” Such sentiments were also vivid in the body map by one of the participants who presented a key where the green color implied awareness of challenges and issues in science communication (see Figure 1.3a and b).

The participants also provided opinions regarding their knowledge and experience in science communication, and the students reported an increase in knowledge of agricultural or science communication. Two themes emerged, namely: type of change and impact of change.

Type of Change

Three sub-themes emerged regarding the type of changes reported by participants: knowledge and skills about science communication and communication, perceptions about science communication, and role as a science communicator.

Knowledge and skills in science communication and communication

Most of the students’ body maps depicted a general increase in knowledge and skills in communication theories and their applications. (see Figures 1.4a and 1.4b; 1.2a and 1.2b as well as 1.1a and 1.1b). However, one participant reported the changes in knowledge and skills in general. They used different colors to represent each change and provided a key for each color where orange = knowledge of communication theories; Pink = assumptions about science; Purple = knowledge and skills in science communication; Blue = role as a science communicator, and green awareness of challenges (Figures 1.3a and 1.3b).

Perceptions about communication

Participants generally indicated developing an understanding of communication as illustrated in the following quote “communication is a HUGE world. It’s okay to feel overwhelmed, but I am able to understand and apply the theories.” Another participant affirmed prior sentiments saying that, “… communication is an ever-changing and challenging field due to changes in technologies and the world faces more issues.” Content analysis of the reflection papers and observation notes also indicated that all the students appreciated the complexity of communication during the class. This was evidenced by a statement made by one of the participants during class which implied that communication is often considered an easy task, however, it is more complicated than it appears. In addition, another participant’s reflection indicated a change of perspective regarding the role of science communication from a one-way communication model to a two-way communication model (figure 1.7a and 1.7b).

Preparedness to serve as a science communicator.

Participants’ statements indicated they felt empowered and more confident to serve as science communicators after taking the class. One participant said, “I feel more prepared to perform as a science communicator although there are still some things I may be lacking.” Another stated, “I feel more prepared to continue my program after taking this course and to work as a science communicator. I feel confident in my ability to address science communication.” Another participant added, “After class, I am confident in carrying conversations about communication methods and purposes. I am also familiar with theories, channels, organizational strategies, and much more.”

Conclusion/ Implications/ Recommendations

The qualitative nature of this study limits generalization to a broader audience but vails an opportunity for replication with a broader sample of students or across diverse contexts. The data revealed a discernible trend: Students exhibited an enhanced readiness to take on roles as science communicators post-course completion. Intriguingly, the results unveiled a transformative shift in perception—a transition from viewing communication merely as a tool to a broader understanding of it as communications. This transformation of outlook resonates with the narrative woven by the proliferation of agricultural communication programs across the United States (Akers & Akers, 2000; Cannon et al., 2016; Doerfert & Miller, 2006; Kurtzo et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2015; Telg & Irani, 2011; Tucker et al., 2003), suggesting a reevaluation of the subject matter itself. This raises the question: Is it opportune to reshape the teaching and evaluation of agricultural communication, pivoting it from a mere tool to an assimilation of scientific principles?

A resonant implication surfaces—educators are encouraged to embrace participatory methodologies, as the study’s findings underscored. Concepts like concept mapping have previously revealed students’ grasp of core ideas and their interconnections (Akinsanya & Williams, 2004). In parallel, body mapping stands out as a dynamic tool for assessing learning and as a catalyst for learning itself. The study underscores the necessity to shift from a predominant focus on technical communication within agricultural communication programs, particularly at the graduate level (Bray et al., 2012), urging for a broader scope of scientific awareness.

The spotlight extends to the gap in research concerning the effectiveness of graduate-level agricultural communication courses, a void highlighted by this study amidst the predominantly undergraduate program evaluations (Cannon et al., 2014; Clem, 2013; Corder & Irlbeck, 2018; Morgan, 2010). In a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by ICT advancements and the emergence of phenomena like the Coronavirus pandemic, the necessity for comprehensive science communication training transcends mere technical prowess. Nevertheless, the authors recognize that content inclusion alone falls short; the core lies in fostering empowering classroom environments that encompass social, political, and academic dimensions. Empowerment, as a focal point, necessitates instructors to go beyond mere participation assessments, steering students toward multifaceted opportunities for self-directed learning (Dimick, 2012).

Evident in the results is the profound empowerment students experienced—socially, politically, and academically. For instance, instructors introduced early autonomy, granting students the choice of in-person or online attendance, thereby inducing a sense of political empowerment (Dimick, 2012; Oyler & Becker, 1997; Schultz, 2008). This empowerment further materialized through the students’ willingness to confront science communication challenges—a testament to Breiting’s (2009) findings on political empowerment manifesting through a desire to address societal issues. Simultaneously, hints of social empowerment surfaced through students’ input into content delivery (Dimick, 2012). Academically, some students proactively addressed potential hindrances to implementing science communication interventions, revealing their empowerment (Roth & Desaultels, 2002; Schultz, 2008). Students’ readiness was not a mere byproduct of course content; instead, it emanated from the power and control they experienced throughout the learning journey.

The findings offer insights into how instructors can cultivate a classroom atmosphere that empowers students, fostering their confidence in applying their knowledge and skills to real-world challenges. Moreover, the research introduces an innovative dimension by pioneering the utilization of body mapping as a tool for capturing sensory experiences. These outcomes align with earlier research (Ball & Gilligan, 2010; Jager et al., 2016), underscoring the significance of visual data collection tools in capturing intricate perceptions that are otherwise elusive. For instance, participants demonstrated shifts in their understanding and abilities by manipulating the forms, colors, and dimensions within their body maps. Remarkably, these body maps unveiled emotions and insights that conventional research methods could not uncover, offering a fresh layer of depth to our understanding. Diversities in the types, styles, and hues employed in these body maps also furnished invaluable insights into how perceptions of different individuals are shaped.

In contrast to studies where participants adhered to pre-designed body map templates (Duby et al., 2016; Naidoo et al., 2020), the present study encouraged participants to sketch body maps based on their comprehension, granting them the autonomy to express their perspectives candidly. While body maps are frequently employed in health inquiries, a lack of standardized evaluation criteria exists, thus highlighting the need for further research to establish consistent methodologies for image analysis. This calls for cross-sectional studies that utilize body mapping to gauge students’ preparedness as science communicators at the commencement and culmination of their graduate journeys. The inherent potential of body mapping in empowering participants to voice their perceptions positions it as a promising technique for probing into students’ grasp of knowledge and the broader public’s perception of science communication. This genre of research aids in identifying gaps, ensuring that communication institutions equip graduates to disseminate scientific knowledge to the masses effectively. Interestingly, the findings also revealed disparities in individuals’ visual representations of their body maps. This prompts a suggestion for future researchers to incorporate interview questions that prompt participants to elaborate on the rationale behind their chosen images, forms, sizes, and hues.  


Alder, A. Rodman, G., & Du Pre, A. (2016). Understanding human communication (13th ed.). Oxford University Press

Akers, C. W. & Akers, C. (2000). High school agricultural communications competencies: A national Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University].  ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Akinsanya, C., & Williams, M. (2004). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 41–46.

Ball, S, & Gilligan, C., (2010). Visualizing migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), 1-33.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co.

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640.

Bonnen, J. T. (1986). A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(5),1065–1080.

Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012) Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41.

Breiting, S. (2009). Issues for environmental education and ESD research development: Looking ahead from WEEC 2007 in Durban. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 199–207.

Cannon, K. J., Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. B. (2016). Agricultural communications: A national portrait of undergraduate courses. Journal of Applied Communications100(1), 2, 1-13.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.

Clem, C. A. (2013). Exploring the competencies, skills, and abilities needed by agricultural communications students: a Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation).

Coetzee, B., Roomaney, R., Willis, N., & Kagee, A. (2017). Body mapping in research. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1 – 19). Springer.

Corder, J. & Irlbeck, E. (2018). Agricultural communications skills, abilities and knowledge desired by employers compared to current curriculum: A literary review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 177–193.

Jager, A. D., Tewson, A., Ludlow, B., & Boydell, K. (2016). Embodied ways of storying the self: A systematic review of body-mapping. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research, 17(2), 1–32.

Dimick, A. S. (2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012.

Doerfert, D. L., & Miller, R. P. (2006). What are agriculture industry professionals trying to tell us? Implications for university-level agricultural communications curricula. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(3), 17–31.

Duby, Z., M. Hartmann, I. Mahaka, O. Munaiwa, J. Nabukeera, N. Vilakazi, F. Mthembu, C. J. Colvin, B. Mensch, & A. van der Straten. (2016). Lost in translation: Language, terminology, and understanding of penile–anal intercourse in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The Journal of Sex Research 53(9), 1096–1106.

Fielding, M. (1996). Empowerment: Emancipation or enervation? Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 399 – 417.

Gastaldo, D., Rivas-Quarneti, N., & Magalhães, L. (2018). Body-map storytelling as a health research methodology: Blurred lines creating clear pictures. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-26.

Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723.

Irani, T., & Doerfert, D. L. (2013). Preparing for the next 150 years of agricultural communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(2), 6–14.

Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 33–45.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Martinez, M. (2017). The mind body self: How longevity is culturally learned and the causes of health are inherited. Hay House, Inc

Masambuka, F., Rodriguez, M., & Buck, E. (2018). Drivers and shakers of agricultural communication: Implications for sustainable development in developing and developed countries. [Paper presentation]. The Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education Annual Conference, Yucatan, Mexico.

Morgan, A. C. (2010). Competencies needed by agricultural communication undergraduates: An industry perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 94(1-2),19–32.

Mikhaeil, C. A., & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). Using semiotics to analyze representational complexity in social media. Information and Organization, 29(4), 1-36.

Mitsea, E., Drigas, A., & Mantas, P. (2021). Soft skills & metacognition as inclusion amplifiers in the 21st Century. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), 17(04), 121–132.

Miller, J., Large, M., Rucker, J., Shoulders, K., & Buck, E. (2015). Characteristics of U.S. agricultural communications undergraduate programs. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4), 76–90.

Naidoo, S., Duby, Z., Hartmann, M., Musara, P., Etima, J., Woeber, K., … & Montgomery, E. T. (2021). Application of a body map tool to enhance discussion of sexual behavior in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Field Methods33(2), 143–158.

Oyler, C. & Becker, J. (1997). Teaching beyond the progressive-traditional dichotomy: Sharing authority and sharing vulnerability. Curriculum inquiry, 27(4), 453–467.

Roth, W. M., & Desaultels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. Peter Lang.

Schultz, B. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. Teachers College Press

Telg, R., & Irani, T. A. (2011). Agricultural communications in Action: A hands-on approach. Cengage Learning.

Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731.

Tucker, M., Whaley, S. R., & Cano, J. M. (2003). Agricultural education and agricultural communications: Striking a proper balance in the academy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 22–30.

Priorities of School Superintendents for Hiring and Supervising School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers in Oklahoma

Christopher J. Eck, Oklahoma State University,

Nathan A. Smith, Oklahoma State University,

PDF Available


The hiring and supervision of teachers is a critical role within K-12 schools. Within school-based agricultural education (SBAE), administrators play a key role in the decision-making process, as they often have a stake in the approval of travel and funding essential for complete program success. Therefore, it is essential to consider the priorities of administrators when hiring and supervising SBAE teachers, because trained or not, these administrators are making impactful decisions ultimately affecting student achievement. This study was undergirded by the reciprocal effects model and aimed to determine the priorities of school superintendents related to hiring and supervising SBAE teachers in Oklahoma. This non-experimental, descriptive exploratory research study resulted in a 52.4% response rate. Superintendents are not concerned with the gender of SBAE teacher candidates but deem it important for potential candidates to hold a current Oklahoma agricultural education teaching credential. Regarding the evaluation and assessment of SBAE teachers, it was concluded superintendents still place the greatest value on classroom instruction when evaluating SBAE teachers, but also identify their performance outside the classroom as important to the evaluation process. Interestingly, superintendents did not see value in an SBAE teachers’ ability to connect STEM concepts or core content areas within agricultural education curriculum. Areas of engagement at the local and state level were viewed more favorably than those on the national scale. It is recommended for SBAE teacher preparation faculty to continue developing positive relationships with school superintendents. Further exploration into superintendents’ attitudes toward SBAE teacher candidates who hold additional credentials or industry certifications should be conducted.


Effective teachers are the most critical predictor of student success, regardless of the discipline area (Eck et al., 2020; Stronge et al., 2011). Therefore, the hiring and supervision of teachers is a critical role within K-12 schools. Hiring a teacher is a multi-step, time-consuming process that includes screening materials to identify potential candidates, checking references, interviewing candidates, and making the hiring decision (Peterson, 2002). Similarly, teacher supervision is multi-faceted, including evaluating teachers, allocating resources, and developing essential skills (Sergiovanni & Starrat, 2002). Regardless of which of these pivotal tasks you deem more important in the broader scope of teacher success and retention, both tasks fall on the shoulders of administrators.

Within school-based agricultural education (SBAE), administrators play a key role in the decision-making process, as they often have a stake in the approval of travel and funding essential for complete program success (Talbert et al., 2007). Therefore, the relationship between an administrator and the teacher is a fundamental need and often begins during the hiring process, as the recommendation for employment of a teacher is a critical component (Sulaver, 2008). Within school administration, principals are often in the paramount position when it comes to these decisions (Hallinger, 1992). Uniquely in Oklahoma, the hiring of SBAE teachers and head coaches (i.e., football, baseball, basketball, etc.) often falls within the scope of a school superintendent’s duties (Personal Communication, 2022).

Regionally, the demand for SBAE teachers continues to increase, as nearly a 5% increase in SBAE programs has occurred over the last four years, adding an additional 262 SBAE teachers to the region (Foster et al., 2021). Similar trends have been seen in Oklahoma, while the number of certified teachers at Oklahoma State University has remained consistent (Foster et al., 2021). As new programs are added, teachers leave the profession, retire, or move schools, superintendents in Oklahoma are regularly having to hire SBAE teachers. Additionally, administrators have been identified as a pivotal component in the retention of career and technical education (CTE) teachers (Self, 2001).

Specifically, it is essential for administrators to recognize and support new teachers, even more so in CTE disciplines (Self, 2001) such as SBAE. Perhaps part of the issue leading to the increased attrition we see within SBAE can be linked back to the priorities of administrators as they hire, supervise, and support SBAE teachers. Zirkle and Jeffery (2017) identified a potential concern with the streamlined credentialling systems for administrators (i.e., assistant principals, principals, superintendents, and CTE directors), as many of them do not have direct experience with CTE programs. This becomes a growing concern considering the differing needs related to content delivery, program funding, industry credentials, travel, and other decision making for CTE programs as compared to traditional school content areas (Zirkle & Jeffery, 2017).

Considering the uniqueness of a comprehensive SBAE program (i.e., classroom/laboratory instruction, FFA advisement, and supervised agricultural experiences [SAE]), it is essential to consider the priorities of administrators when hiring and supervising SBAE teachers, because trained or not, these administrators are making impactful decisions ultimately affecting student achievement (Clark & Cole, 2015).

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

This study was undergirded by Pitner’s (1988) reciprocal effects model. The model suggests that an administrator has an indirect effect on student achievement through intervening variables (Pitner, 1988). The administrator can serve as a dependent variable through the impact the students, teachers, and school culture have on them as an individual. On the other side, the administrator can be the independent variable, influencing the students, teachers, and school culture (Leithwood et al., 1990). Teacher commitment, instructional practices, and school culture can further compound these intervening variables, furthering the impact on student achievement (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Specifically, within SBAE, Doss and Rayfield (2021) depicted a model (see Figure 1) connecting Pitner’s (1988) framework with the work of Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) specifically related to the indirect and direct impacts principals’ perceptions of a complete SBAE program have on student achievement.  

Figure 1

Direct and Indirect Secondary School Principal Perception Effects on Student Achievement

Note. From “The Importance of FFA and SAE Activities: A Comparison of Texas Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions,” by W. Doss and J. Rayfield, 202, Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(4), 125–138.

Within the context of this study and the nature of the hiring and supervision process of SBAE teachers in Oklahoma, school superintendents also have direct and indirect effects on student achievement. These effects begin with the priorities associated with hiring an SBAE teacher and then continue to develop through the implemented evaluation processes. Additionally, the key variables (i.e., teacher commitment, instructional practices, school culture, and other intervening variables; see Figure 1) are positioned to be impacted by the superintendent’s priorities for the SBAE program. For example, if a school has a culture of livestock exhibition and judging, and this culture aligns with the superintendent’s priorities, then perhaps a teacher that is committed to livestock is hired and their instructional practice aligns with such, ultimately impacting student achievement within and beyond livestock.

Purpose and Research Objectives

This study aimed to determine the priorities of school superintendents related to hiring and supervising SBAE teachers in Oklahoma. Three research objectives guided this study:

  1. Explain the priorities of school superintendents hiring SBAE teachers in Oklahoma,
  2. Determine the evaluation methods used by school superintendents for supervising SBAE teachers in Oklahoma, and
  3. Rank the priorities of school superintendents related to SBAE programs.  

Methods and Procedures

This non-experimental descriptive, exploratory research study aimed to reach school superintendents across Oklahoma who had one or more SBAE teachers in their district (N = 367). To reach the target population, an existing email frame was utilized, of which 14 emails bounced back undeliverable, adjusting the accessible population to 353. An initial email requesting participation was sent followed by four reminder emails following the recommendations of Dillman et al. (2014) to maximize response rate. In all, 185 complete survey questionnaire responses were returned, resulting in a 52.4% response rate.

The survey questionnaire implemented in this study was researcher developed and included four overarching sections. The first section aimed to determine the hiring priorities of superintendents in Oklahoma by asking them to rank a list of 13-items developed through a review of literature. The second section requested participants to rate four items on a five-point scale of agreement (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) related to the evaluation strategies used for SBAE teachers as compared to core subject teachers. The third section had participants indicate their level of consideration given to classroom instruction, SAE supervision, FFA responsibilities, community/stakeholder involvement, and STEM integration/core content alignment. The final section prompted superintendents to rank 14-items related to complete SBAE program perceptions on a five-point scale of agreement (i.e., 1 = unimportant and 5 = important). In addition to the four overarching survey questionnaire sections, superintendents were asked six questions related to their personal and professional characteristics (i.e., age, gender, years as superintendent, school district size, number of SBAE teachers in district, and number of SBAE teachers hired as superintendent). Table 1 outlines the personal and professional characteristics of the participating superintendents.

Table 1

Oklahoma Superintendents Personal and Professional Characteristics (n = 185)

Characteristic f%
Age36 to 4063.2
 41 to 4594.9
 46 to 502513.5
 51 to 553921.1
 56 to 603116.8
 61 to 65147.6
 66 to 7031.6
 71 or older31.6
 Prefer to not respond5529.7
 Prefer to not respond5529.7
Years Serving asFirst Year42.2
     Superintendent2 to 54725.4
 6 to 105027.0
 11 to 153217.3
 16 to 2094.9
 21 to 2552.7
 26 to 3084.3
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
School District SizeC84.3
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
Number of SBAE110355.7
     Teachers in District24021.6
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
Number of SBAE Teachers   
     Hired as Superintendent03418.4
 5 or more126.5
 Prefer to not respond3016.2

Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS Version 28. Specifically, the first research objective was analyzed using median and mode to establish a rank order of hiring priorities of superintendents with SBAE programs. The second research objective evaluated means and standard deviations of SBAE teaching evaluation practices. Additionally, mean score and percent agreement were analyzed for the sliding scale (i.e., 0 to 100) related to considerations given to the complete SBAE program (i.e., classroom/laboratory instruction, FFA, and SAE) during evaluations. Analysis for the final research objective established mean and standard deviation scores for 14-items associated with superintendent priorities within an SBAE program on a five-point scale of agreement (i.e., 1 = unimportant and 5 = important).

Although this study resulted in a 52.4% response rate, non-response error was still of concern, as the research team aimed to generalize to the population of superintendents in Oklahoma with SBAE programs (Fraenkel et al., 2019). Therefore, the research team compared early to late responses based off the recommendation of Lindner et al. (2001). Respondents were classified by responsive waves, specifically 140 participants were deemed early respondents, while the remaining 45 were late respondents (i.e., responded after the final reminder). The personal and professional characteristics of early and late respondents were compared, resulting in no differences. Additionally, the percentage of respondents were compared to Oklahoma data related to school district size (i.e., C to 6A) and number of SBAE programs per district. The resulting comparisons were found comparative, further demonstrating the participants in this study as a representative sample of superintendents with SBAE programs in Oklahoma.


Research Objective 1: Explain the Priorities of School Superintendents Hiring SBAE Teachers in Oklahoma

To explain Oklahoma superintendent priorities when hiring SBAE teachers, participants were asked to rank 13 items from the greatest priority (1) to the least (13). The top priority was teachers holding a Oklahoma agricultural education teaching credential, while gender (i.e., male or female) was not considered a priority, as is male and is female both received the same median, resulting in a tie, with a rank of 12 and 13 (see Table 2). Rounding out the top five were graduated from an agricultural education teacher preparation program, professionalism, has previous teaching experience, and has agricultural industry experience.

Table 2

Ranked Priorities of Oklahoma Superintendents when Hiring School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers (n = 185)

Hiring PriorityRankMedianMode
Holds an Oklahoma Agricultural Education Teaching Credential11.01
Graduated from an Agricultural Education teacher preparation program22.02
Has previous teaching experience44.03
Has agricultural industry experience55.04
Has livestock experience66.05
Ability to integrate STEM/core content alignment78.09
Has additional credentials (i.e., Certified to teach CASE curriculum or similar)89.09
Holds an advanced degree (i.e., Masters or Doctoral degree)99.010
Is from Oklahoma109.011
Undergraduate GPA1110.010
Is male1212.012
Is female1312.013

Note. Median, and mode were used to develop the rank order.

Research Objective 2: Determine the Evaluation Methods Used by School Superintendents for Supervising SBAE Teachers in Oklahoma

The second research objective had two related questions to determine the strategies and considerations used when supervising SBAE teachers. The first question elicited superintendents’ evaluation strategies for SBAE teachers as compared to core subject educators on a five-point scale of agreement. Over 90% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the need to evaluate SBAE teachers outside the classroom, even though classroom instruction was considered important (M = 3.91) for evaluating all teachers. Participating superintendents seemed to have differing views on consistent evaluation across teachers, as I evaluate all teachers the same resulted in a mean of 3.38, with 26% disagree or strongly disagree and 50% agreeing or strongly agreeing, while the remaining 24% neither agreed nor disagreed. Table 3 provides means and standard deviations for each of the four-items related to evaluation strategies of SBAE teachers.

Table 3

Oklahoma Superintendents Evaluation Strategies for School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers (n = 185)

Item DescriptionMSD
Observation outside classroom helps in agricultural education
     teacher evaluation
Classroom instruction is key in evaluating all teachers3.91.90
Agricultural education teachers require different evaluation
I evaluate all teachers the same3.381.06

Note. Five-point scale of agreement, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Additionally, Oklahoma superintendents were asked how much consideration is given to classroom instruction, SAE supervision, FFA responsibilities, community/stakeholder involvement, and STEM integration/core content alignment when evaluating SBAE teachers using a sliding scale from 0 to 100 for each item. The greatest consideration was reported to be given to classroom instruction, with a mean of 67.0 out of 100, with 63% of respondents indicating 70 or higher. FFA responsibilities resulted in a mean of 64.0, while SAE supervision received a 62.3. A mean of 59.6 was determined for community/stakeholder engagement and STEM integration/core content alignment was deemed to be least impactful when evaluating SBAE teachers with a mean of 42.0.

Research Objective 3: Rank the Priorities of School Superintendents Related to SBAE Programs

To address the final research objective, superintendents were asked to rank 14-items on a five-point scale of agreement (i.e., 1 = unimportant and 5 = important). Seven of the 14 items (see Table 4) were deemed to be of some importance (i.e., somewhat important or important) where engagement was deemed most important by participating superintendents, as community engagement (M = 4.78) and local FFA meetings (M = 4.68) received the highest perceived value. The remaining seven items resulted in mean scores between 3.71 and 3.96, indicating neither an important nor unimportant perception. Additionally, state FFA convention (M = 4.60) was deemed more important than national FFA convention (M = 3.72).

Table 4

Oklahoma Superintendents Perceived Importance of School-Based Agricultural Education Programs (n = 185)

Item DescriptionMSD
Community Engagement4.78.43
Local FFA Meeting4.68.53
State FFA Convention4.60.72
Having an FFA Banquet4.52.76
Promoting FFA Events/Success on social media4.47.68
Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) Participation4.22.71
Career Development Event (CDE) Participation4.06.76
Leadership Development Event (LDE) Participation3.96.81
Industry Certifications3.90.83
Agriscience Fair Participation3.86.82
Competing in National Chapter Award Competitions3.78.85
STEM Integration3.75.85
National FFA Convention3.72.93
Competing for State FFA Officer Positions3.71.94

Note. Five-point scale of agreement, 1 = unimportant, 2 = somewhat unimportant, 3 = no opinion, 4 = somewhat important, and 5 = important.

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

Through synthesis of the findings from research objective one, it was concluded that superintendents are not concerned with the gender of SBAE teacher candidates but deem it important for potential candidates to hold a current Oklahoma agricultural education teaching credential. With the ever-shifting landscape of teacher certification requirements in Oklahoma, it is encouraging to see school superintendents still place value in the traditional teacher certification pathway. Couple this with their preference to hire graduates from a traditional agricultural education teacher preparation program, important implications can be formulated by SBAE teacher preparation faculty in Oklahoma as the demand for certified SBAE teachers continues to rise (Foster et al., 2021). How can SBAE teacher preparation programs in Oklahoma better recruit and retain both high school and undergraduate students to the agricultural education major and see them through to graduation, certification, and job placement? More importantly, how can SBAE teacher preparation faculty better advocate and educate Oklahoma lawmakers about the importance of the traditional certification route and work towards eliminating barriers to certification while maintaining the rigor and integrity of the process? This becomes increasingly important in Oklahoma, as the number of SBAE teachers grew to a record high for the start of the 2023 to 2024 school year, yet 43% of new hires did not hold a state teaching credential (i.e., emergency certified or on track to alternative certification) at the start of the school year (Personal Communication, August 23, 2023). Additionally, the willingness of Oklahoma superintendents to hire teachers from out-of-state is also promising given the steady increase in agricultural education undergraduates at Oklahoma State University from out of state.

Additional conclusions drawn from the first research objective were that superintendents value individuals who exhibit professionalism and have prior teaching and/or agricultural industry experience. It is important to note that superintendents value experience yet do not view additional credentials nor advanced degrees as a priority. Could this be because additional credentials and/or advanced degrees elevate potential SBAE graduates on the pay scale? Since superintendents also act as the chief financial officer for their school district, does the additional monetary commitment serve as a deterrent when evaluating potential candidates? This could have implications for SBAE teacher preparation programs exploring the potential of adding additional certification credentials (e.g., CASE certifications, industry credentials, or National Board Certification) to their program. Much of the value placed by be the superintendents aligns within the teacher commitment component of the conceptual model (Doss & Rayfield, 2021; Pitner, 1988), yet the lack of emphasis on advanced degrees or certifications could stifle the teacher’s commitment and limit growth in instructional practice.

Regarding the evaluation and assessment of SBAE teachers, superintendents still place the greatest value on classroom instruction when evaluating SBAE teachers, but also identify their performance outside the classroom as important to the evaluation process. Considering that effective teachers are the most critical predictor of student success (Eck et al., 2020; Stronge et al., 2011), superintendents valuing classroom instruction is pivotal as these administrators have the opportunity to set the standard or expectation within the SBAE program, ultimately affecting student achievement (Clark & Cole, 2015). Agricultural education teachers are also evaluated differently than other schoolteachers making the development of positive professional relationships with administration even more important (Sulaver, 2008). Beyond classroom instruction, FFA advisement and responsibilities fell second on the list of priorities when evaluating SBAE teacher performance. Could this be linked to a desire for student engagement and success, or viewed as the primary way to showcase student and program success to the community and local stakeholders? Or could it be that superintendents view success in the FFA as a direct reflection of the SBAE teachers’ ability to effectively teach in the classroom setting?

Interestingly, superintendents did not see value in an SBAE teachers’ ability to connect STEM concepts or core content areas within agricultural education curriculum. Does this imply school superintendents do not perceive SBAE as a way to illuminate and strengthen STEM concepts and core curriculum areas through real-world application? Perhaps this relates to the nature of SBAE in Oklahoma which has had a predominant focus on livestock exhibition and evaluation, perhaps explaining why “has livestock experience” ranked sixth in priority. Administrators play an essential role in the support of new teachers, even more so in CTE disciplines (Self, 2001) such as SBAE. Perhaps this connects back to a lack of understanding of SBAE, as many of them do not have direct experience with CTE programs (Zirkle & Jeffery, 2017). Does the elective mentality of Oklahoma SBAE programs impact the perceived value of STEM integration and core content connections, as Oklahoma is behind the curve when it comes to offering core credit or industry credentialling as a part of CTE courses. This further aligns with the school culture component of the conceptual model presented by Doss and Rayfield (2021; see Figure 1), undergirded by Pitner’s (1988) reciprocal effects model and Leithwood & Montgomery (1982).

When looking at priority areas superintendents place on SBAE programs, the areas pertaining to community and/or student engagement were viewed as somewhat important/important by participating superintendents. Moreover, areas of engagement at the local and state level were viewed more favorably than those on the national scale. These findings align with the findings from research objective two where local FFA advisement and student engagement yielded higher perception scores. But, interestingly, community engagement (M = 4.78) held the highest perceived importance by superintendents yet yielded a mean of 59.6 when considered as a part of SBAE teacher evaluation. If community engagement ranks at the top of the priorities list for SBAE programs, then why does it not carry more weight in the evaluation process? Consistent with previous conclusions, industry certifications (M = 3.90) and STEM integration (M = 3.75) fell into the lower half of perceived importance on the priority list. This strengthens the concern of school superintendents not wishing to provide extra funding for additional credentialling nor do they perceive SBAE to support and enhance core content areas within the curriculum. Perhaps part of the issue leading to the increased attrition within SBAE (Eck & Edwards, 2019) can be linked back to the priorities of administrators as they hire, supervise, and support SBAE teachers. Future research should aim to compare the perceptions of administrators, SBAE teachers, and community members/stakeholders on the complete SBAE program.

Considering the priorities and methods related to hiring, supervising, and supporting SBAE teachers within this study, the connection between superintendents and SBAE teachers is evident, and the potential impact an administrator’s decision has on student achievement through the decision-making process is apparent (Pitner, 1988). The priorities a superintendent perceives and places on an SBAE program directly connect back to the school culture and student perceptions of the SBAE program (Leithwood et al., 1990). The model presented by Doss and Rayfield (2021; see Figure 1) appropriately frames the findings and conclusions of this study. Thus, this framework should be considered when evaluating SBAE programs through the lens of administrators.  

It is recommended for SBAE teacher preparation faculty to continue developing positive relationships with school superintendents. Pre-service SBAE teachers should be instructed on advocating for their program and establishing a program that meets community and stakeholder needs. Further exploration into superintendents’ attitudes toward SBAE teacher candidates who hold additional credentials or industry certifications should be conducted, as CTE research has demonstrated the value of teacher credentialing and industry certification for students (Glennie et al., 2020). This research is limited to superintendents in Oklahoma with SBAE programs, which is valuable for the training and support of SBAE teachers in the state and could be transferable to other states who see similar connections between administrators and SBAE programs. Consequently, this study should be replicated to determine if these hiring priorities, evaluation methods, and SABE program priorities are state specific or something that should be generalized on a larger scale. Also, future research should include identifying specific elements of community engagement school superintendents look for when evaluating SBAE teachers.


Clark, R. W., & Cole, B. (2015). A look at leadership: An examination of career and technical administrator preparation in the United States. Career and Technical Education Research, 40(1), 63–80.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Doss, W., & Rayfield, J. (2021). The importance of FFA and SAE activities: A comparison of Texas principals’ and teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(4), 125–138.

Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based, agricultural education (SBAE): A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223–239.

Foster, D., Lawver, R., Smith, A., & Poeschl, E. (2021). Ag Ed supply and demand [Technical report]. American Association for Agricultural Education.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Glennie, E. J., Ottem, R., & Lauff, E. (2020). The influence of earning an industry certification in high school on going to college: The Florida CAPE Act. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 35(1), 17-35.

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional transformation leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–49.

Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1990). The nature, causes, and consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 5–31.

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309–339.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53.

Peterson, K. D. (2002). Effective teacher hiring: A guide to getting the best. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 99-122). Longman.

Self, M. J. (2001). On retention of secondary trade and industrial education teachers: Voices from the field. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(4), 41–61.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (7th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Stronge, J.H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355.

Sulaver, R. K. S. (2008). Hiring practices of building administrators [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Aurora University.

Zirkle, C. J., & Jeffery, J. O. (2017). Career and technical education administration: Requirements, certification/licensure, and preparation. Career and Technical Education Research, 42(1), 21–33.

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of their Ability to Use The AET as a Data Management System

Tyler J. Price, Oklahoma State University,

Emily O. Manuel, Oklahoma State University,

Emily A. Sewell, Oklahoma State University,

J. Shane Robinson, Oklahoma State University,

PDF Available


An increased emphasis has been placed on teaching financial literacy at the secondary school level. As such, SBAE teachers have a unique opportunity to teach students about maintaining records and managing data through the Agricultural Experience Tracker (AET). AET has been used nationwide by SBAE teachers to teach students how to manage finances and maintain proper records. The purpose of the study was to describe the self-perceived and actual efficacy of preservice SBAE teachers toward operating and managing student projects through AET. Forty-two preservice SBAE teachers from Oklahoma State University were instructed in the use of AET. The study measured the students’ perceived self-efficacy to use AET at three points during the 16-week semester. Results showed that students’ self-perceived and actual abilities to use AET increased across all areas throughout the semester. However, although their actual ability to use Financial Applications in AET increased across all three observations, their mean scores were still below a 60%, indicating a failing grade. The state office of career and technical education in Oklahoma should be alerted to the actual competency and self-efficacy levels of the new teachers in the state so that appropriate professional development may be provided once these students enter the teaching ranks.


Debate exists on whether financial literacy should be taught as a stand-alone course or by integrating it into other curricular areas (Totenhagen et al., 2015). Financial literacy is a critical aspect of being a productive member of society in a culture that requires fiscal responsibility to be self-sufficient (Shim et al., 2009). Therefore, it is imperative that adolescents learn about financial matters to prepare them for the transition to adulthood (Shim et al., 2009). The increased interest in teaching financial literacy in U.S. schools has been on the uprise since the 1990s (Walstad et al., 2010). What is understood about financial literacy is that educators should provide opportunities for students to invest their own money, make decisions, and apply concepts related to managing it appropriately, and at minimum should include course topics such as budgeting, saving, and investing, as well as understanding credit and how it is generated (Totenhagen et al., 2015). Parents, schools, and entrepreneurs should create partnerships that are dedicated to teaching youth sound financial practices (Shim et al., 2009). Walstad et al. (2010) identified that a properly implemented program designed to increase financial literacy can significantly impact the knowledge of high school students regarding their finances. The use of simulation-based learning methods has also shown to be a powerful educational intervention that creates environments conducive to student learning (Warren et al., 2016). Levant et al. (2016) posited that business simulations have the potential to benefit all students regardless of gender identities, cultural backgrounds, and previous experiences. Such simulations have shown promise in school-based agricultural education (SBAE) programs. Brown and Knobloch (2022) identified that the use of simulation by SBAE teachers to teach business management skills was better at increasing students’ financial literacy compared to playing a game about business management.

SBAE provides opportunities for students to manage data and maintain records on their agricultural enterprises and projects. In fact, The National Council for Agricultural Education (2011) found the topic so important they included personal financial planning and management as a mandate for each Foundational Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) for students. The goal of the National Council for Agricultural Education (2011) was to have 100% SAE engagement among students. A project known as SAE for All was developed to serve as a resource for SBAE teachers to use in their classrooms due to the need to help students acquire financial planning and management skills through their SAEs (The National Council for Agricultural Education, 2011). In addition to adding financial planning as a mandate for SAE projects, the National Council for Agricultural Education’s (2015) revision of the National Agriculture Food and Natural Resources (AFNR) Content Standards included adding the management of personal finances to the Career Ready Practices content standards. Even so, teaching financial literacy to students has been, and continues to be, a difficult proposition for SBAE teachers (Foster, 1986; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Miller & Scheid, 1984; Sorensen et al., 2014; Toombs et al., 2020).

One issue related to teaching financial literacy in SBAE has been the lack of emphasis placed on teaching it, as it remains a high inservice need of all teachers (Sorensen et al., 2014). Part of being an effective teacher is having the appropriate content and pedagogical knowledge necessary to effect student learning (Goodnough & Hung, 2008). Fortunately, teacher preparation programs can positively impact SBAE teachers’ ability to teach specific content (Rice & Kitchel, 2015). Teacher preparation programs are fundamental to teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Rice & Kitchel, 2015). For this study, understanding preservice SBAE teachers’ experience using AET can help us identify their perceived self-efficacy using the software, which is imperative to enhancing the interests of students in entrepreneurship and business management and increasing their financial literacy (Brown & Knobloch, 2022).


The AET program was released in 2007 as a data management system designed to assist SBAE instructors teach aspects of record keeping to students regarding their SAEs (The Agricultural Experience Tracker, 2017). Although numerous states have adopted AET as their primary data management system for FFA members, research continues to point to the fact that teachers are ill equipped for using it appropriately and need professional development (Ferand et al., 2020; Sorensen et al., 2014; Toombs et al., 2022). According to Aviles (2015), SBAE teachers found AET to be too complex and time consuming. Sorensen et al. (2014) found AET was one of the highest in-service needs of both early-career (i.e., those with less than six years of experience) and experienced agricultural education teachers (i.e., those with six or more years of experience) in Oregon. What is more, research has indicated that preservice teachers have a low amount of overall self-efficacy related to managing the financial data aspect (i.e., record books) of their students’ SAEs (Toombs et al., 2022), signifying a need for further inquiry in this field. As an interactive software for record keeping, Totenhagen et al. (2015) and Brown and Knobloch (2022) posited that the use of interactive learning experiences and curriculum integration are the best methods for delivering financial literacy content to students. Activities in AET such as the Personal Finance Lab, Practice AET Curriculum, and Agribusiness Management Resources provide SBAE teachers with the tools needed to teach financial literacy (AET, 2023b). Additionally, AET provides SBAE teachers with specific tools to assist in managing their chapter’s activities and students’ projects (AET, 2023a).

AET has been used nationwide by SBAE teachers and students to assist in the acquisition of record keeping skills in time and finance (Hanagriff, 2022). In 2021, more than 8,000 SBAE and FFA programs and 1.1 million SBAE students used AET to assist in tracking Supervised Agricultural Experiences (SAEs), recording FFA activities, and creating and managing FFA award applications (Hanagriff, 2022). AET aligns with the three-circle model of agricultural education and was supported through the use of Perkins and state-curricular funding (The AET, 2023a). As a result, AET has been adopted by 91% of all SBAE and FFA Programs across the U.S. (Hanagriff, 2022). As such, it was recommended that teacher preparation programs prepare teachers to use resources, such as AET, to meet the goals of their students. The suggestion is imperative, as all teachers should be trained on how to access curricular resources and how to evaluate them for use with their students (Mercier, 2015). Despite the widespread adoption of AET by SBAE teachers across the country, little research existed regarding preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for using it. Additionally, research assessing teacher preparation programs’ ability to effectively prepare preservice teachers to instruct students in AET has been largely left out of the cannon of agricultural education research. With the heavy expectation to integrate AET into SBAE programs, what impact can a semester-long course have on students’ self-perceived and actual abilities to use it?

Theoretical Framework

Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory guided the study. Self-efficacy is the belief a person has in his or her ability to perform a specific task or tasks (Bandura, 1977). It is advanced through the repetition of completing the task with the assistance of a mentor. Self-efficacy can increase with a person’s successes and decrease with their failures to complete the task (Wilson et al., 2020) and is largely dependent on an individual’s continual effort, devotion, and behavior toward completing the task (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Four sources impact a person’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). These sources include mastery experiences, psychological arousal, vicarious experiences, and verbal persuasion. Mastery experiences provide the greatest opportunity for increased self-efficacy when individuals succeed at, or accomplish, a task. Vicarious experiences aid in improving self-efficacy when individuals are involved in the experience of observing others (i.e., models) successfully complete a task. Verbal persuasion is produced through encouragement and occurs when individuals are told they “. . . have what it takes to succeed” (Bandura, 1994, p. 3). Physiological arousal is related to how individuals react to the situations they encounter (Bandura, 1994). With the need to increase financial literacy among students across the U.S. school system, and the role SBAE teachers can play in creating such authentic learning opportunities and experiences, it was important to assess students who aspire to be SBAE teachers on their self-perceived and actual abilities to use AET.

Background of the Study, Purpose, and Objectives

Preservice students enroll in AGED 3203: Advising Agricultural Student Organizations and Supervising Experiential Learning during their junior year where they learn about various aspects of FFA and SAE. The course included laboratories where students engage with all aspects of the program, such as advising a local FFA Chapter, supervising student projects, and managing data through AET, as students log entries, produce reports, and complete award applications from fictitious data sets. These experiences were designed to prepare students for their future expectations as SBAE teachers once they enter the academy. As such, AGED 3203 sought to improve student knowledge and experiences related to financial literacy and data management using AET. The course description was as follows:

This course is designed to determine the resources and trends of local communities with respect to agricultural production and agribusiness. Emphasis will be placed on agricultural education program policies, FFA chapter advisement, planning and managing the instructional program, and the identification and completion of records and reports required of a teacher of agricultural education in Oklahoma. (Robinson, 2022, p. 1)

The larger aim of the course was to prepare preservice teachers for implementing effective FFA and SAE programs at the secondary school level. Such preparation includes teaching students to use AET to track their data in hopes of becoming financially literate. To do so, preservice teachers must feel efficacious at using AET. Yet, research has indicated that some people tend to overestimate their efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). It may be possible others underestimate their efficacy. To support such a claim, Robinson and Edwards (2012) assessed the teaching self-efficacy of first-year traditionally and alternatively certified SBAE teachers. They found that traditionally certified teachers consistently outperformed their alternatively certified teaching counterparts when assessed by a third-party observer. Although their actual performance indicators were significantly higher statistically, their self-perceived ratings were lower when compared to their alternatively certified peers. We attributed this difference to the fact that alternatively certified teachers had not been prepared in pedagogy and as such did not know what they did not know about teaching (Robinson & Edwards, 2012). Therefore, this study sought to explore the self-perceived and actual efficacy of preservice SBAE teachers toward operating and managing student projects through AET. The study was guided by the following research objectives:

  1. Describe the personal characteristics of students enrolled in the course,
  2. Describe the perceived self-efficacy of preservice SBAE teachers to use AET for managing student projects; and
  3. Describe the abilities of preservice SBAE teachers to use and advise students in AET.


The study was approved by the Oklahoma State University (OSU) Institutional Review Board (IRB) on January 26, 2022. This manuscript was based on data presented at the meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (Blinded Authors, 2023). All students (N = 42) enrolled in the junior-levelAGED 3203 at OSU during Spring 2022 were invited to participate in the study. Participation in the study was voluntary and students’ final grade was not affected by their consent to participate or not. Links to the questionnaire were made accessible to the students through the Canvas learning management system for one class day for students to complete. The use of classroom announcements and text reminders were used to recruit participants.

Three points of data were collected. The first data collection point (n = 41) occurred Week 1, the second (n = 41) occurred Week 8, and the third (n = 32) occurred Week 16 (the beginning, middle, and end of the semester). Students completed a questionnaire using Qualtrics regarding their perceived self-efficacy for using AET along with three AET Quizizz assessments.

The questionnaire included personal characteristic questions and 22 statements regarding their perceived self-efficacy to perform various competencies in AET. Each competency statement was rated on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1= Strongly Disagreeto 5 =Strongly Agree. Statements were derived from AET Quizizz assessments. Twenty-two complementary statements were developed to determine the perceived self-efficacy of the participants when using AET. For example, one question on the Quizizz asked, “As an FFA officer, where do you record your officer meetings and chapter meetings?” The complementary perceived self-efficacy statement was “Log FFA Activities.” Another Quizizz example was, “After logging into your AET, (blank) should be completed 100% before beginning any other entries.” The complementary perceived self-efficacy statement was, “Create a student AET profile.”

After completing the questionnaire to measure their perceived self-efficacy, the participants then completed three AET Quizizz assessments to measure their actual self-efficacy. The three AET Quizizz assessments addressed student knowledge of AET icons, financial applications, and record book terms. The questionnaire and three assessments were all taken at each data collection point – Weeks 1, 8, and 16.

Face and content validity were assessed by a panel of five experts. In total, our panel possessed 17 years of secondary agricultural education teaching experience, and 23 years of postsecondary agricultural education teaching experience. Further, four of the five members have used AET as secondary agricultural education teachers, and all five currently teach preservice teachers to use AET. A pilot study was not conducted; therefore, we admit that reliability was a limitation of the study. However, the items we used in the Quizziz were taken verbatim from the AET. As such, we chose to treat the reliability as being criterion-referenced (CRT). Because the test followed the eight methods of reliability for a CRT, according to Wiersma and Jurs (1990), we deemed the study reliable.

Descriptive statistics, including central modes of tendency (means and standard deviations) and variability (frequencies and percentages), were used to analyze the data. Personal characteristics included student type (traditional four-year or transfer), FFA degree(s) obtained, FFA office(s) held, and years of FFA experience. Student perception data were analyzed by recording the mean and standard deviation for the group at each of the three data collection points. The change in mean scores between observations one and three were calculated to determine the change in perceptions from the beginning to end of the semester.


Objective one sought to describe the personal characteristics of the students enrolled in AGED 3203. The personal characteristics of the students are presented in Table 1. One-half (f = 21) were traditional, four-year students with the other one-half (f = 20) being transfer students. Thirty-six (85.71%) of the students had received their Greenhand FFA Degree, and 16 (38.10%) had received their American FFA Degree. Thirty-two (76.19%) had served as a Chapter FFA Officer, two (4.76%) had served as a District FFA Officer, and three (7.14%) had served as a State FFA Officer. Seven (16.67%) had been a State Proficiency Finalist while 19 (45.24%) had been an FFA member for five years, and 15 (35.71%) had been a FFA member for four years (see Table 1).

Table 1

Personal and Professional Characteristics of Participants (N = 42)

Objective two sought to describe the perceived self-efficacy of preservice SBAE teachers to use AET for managing student projects. Mean scores were compared across observations. To determine overall change of students’ self-perceived efficacy in AET, mean difference (MD) scores were computed by subtracting the mean score in Data Collection 1 from the mean score in Data Collection 3 (see Table 2). In all, student perceptions ranged from the real limits of disagree to agree on all statements in Data Collection 1 and increased from neither agree or disagree to strongly agree in Data Collection 3.

Table 2

Perceived Self-Efficacy of Students (N = 42)

The highest mean score for students in Data Collection 1 was Log FFA Activities (M = 3.71, SD = 0.89), followed by Enter Journal Entries (M = 3.68, SD = 0.92), and Enter Financial Entries (M = 3.66, SD = 0.90). Advise students in Completing National Chapter Award Applications (M = 2.33, SD = 1.03) was the statement that had the lowest mean score for Data Collection 1 (see Table 2).

Regarding Data Collection 2, Enter Journal Entries (M = 4.36, SD = 0.61) had the largest mean score, followed by Enter Financial Entries (M = 4.29, SD = 0.76), and Create a Student AET Profile (M = 4.26, SD = 0.62). Advise Students in Completing National Chapter Award Applications (M = 3.19, SD = 1.18) was the statement that had the lowest mean score of Data Collection 2 (see Table 2).

Regarding Data Collection 3, Enter Journal Entries (M = 4.53, SD = 0.56) had the largest mean score, followed by Log FFA Activities (M = 4.34, SD = 0.59), and Enter Financial Entries (M = 4.25, SD = 0.83). Advise students in Completing National Chapter Award Applications (M = 3.59, SD = 1.31) was the statement that had the lowest mean score of Data Collection 3 (see Table 2).

Students experienced the greatest amount of perceived growth in the areas of National Chapter Award Applications (MD = 1.26), Use the Market Manager (MD = 1.23), and Advise Students’ Research SAEs (MD = 1.21). The least amount of perceived growth occurred in the ability to use AET to Log Community Service Activities (MD = 0.58), Enter Financial Entries (MD = 0.59), and Create a Student AET Profile (MD = 0.60). All statements experienced a positive increase in student self-efficacy mean scores from Data Collection 1 to Data Collection 2. The majority of the statements also experienced an increase from Data Collection 2 to Data Collection 3. However, Enter Financial Entries, Create a Student AET Profile, and Using the Breeding Herd Manager all experienced slight decreases in mean scores from Data Collection 2 to Data Collection 3, but these values were still greater than their mean scores detected in Data Collection 1 (see Table 2).

Objective three sought to determine students’ actual ability to identify features and use AET as a curricular resource for SAEs across the semester. The AET Quizizz were used to measure student knowledge of the data management program. Mean scores were compared across observations for each assessment as well as cumulatively (see Table 3).

Table 3

Actual Ability of Participants to Identify and Use Features within AET (N = 42)

At the time of Data Collection 1 students had a cumulative score of 57.40 (see Table 3). Regarding the quiz components, they collectively scored 62.20 on the Record Book Terms, 57.07 on AET Icons, and 55.80 on Financial Applications.

During Data Collection 2, students increased their cumulative score to a 65.93 (see Table 3). In the individual quiz areas, participants scored 74.86 on the Record Book Terms, 70.48 on the AET Icons, and 57.19 on the Financial Applications.

During Data Collection 3, students had a cumulative score of 65.02 (see Table 3). For the quiz components, they scored 69.49 on the Record Book Terms, 69.20 on the AET Icons, and 59.10 on the Financial Applications.

Students’ actual knowledge of AET Icons, Financial Applications, and Record Book Terms increased between Observations 1 and 2, with Record Book Terms and AET Icons both increasing by more than ten percent. However, during Data Collection 3, Record Book Terms and AET Icons exhibited a decrease in students’ actual ability to recall terms and identify icons. Although slight, actual ability to determine correct Financial Applications increased throughout all three observations. Cumulatively, students’ actual ability to use AET increased from Data Collection 1 to Data Collection 2, and then slightly decreased when evaluated in Data Collection 3. The greatest growth of AET Quiz Components from Week 1 to Week 16 was realized for AET Icons (MD = 12.13). In comparison, Financial Applications experienced the least amount of change (MD = 3.30) in students’ actual ability throughout the semester-long course experience.


Students failed to reach a level mastery of using AET Financial Applications across the 16-week instruction period.Although students’ actual ability to determine Financial Applications in AET increased across the three observations, their mean scores were still below a 60%, indicating a failing grade. Unfortunately, students were only able to increase their overall knowledge of AET by a total of eight and one-half points (a grade of D) from Week 1 to Week 16. Simply stated, participants were not proficient in the financial applications of AET, which is concerning considering the importance of teaching financial literacy in the current climate (Totenhagen et al., 2015). These results also showed that students were not able to master a core piece of the course’s purpose which was to identify and complete records and reports required of SBAE teachers using programs required in Oklahoma (Robinson, 2022). In addition to failing to meet the purpose of the course, these scores also show that many of the participants were unable to appropriately use AET as a chapter management tool (AET, 2023a). These poor scores were also concerning as fewer states look to add economics and personal finance courses to their graduation requirements (CEE, 2022). These findings also support those of Aviles (2015) who found that the areas of financial applications were areas where many struggled when utilizing the tools of AET.

Roughly one-half of the students began their undergraduate education at OSU. Three (7%) students were not FFA members in high school. In addition, 21% of the students did not receive their State FFA Degree, and only 17% had been a finalist for a State FFA Proficiency Award. Therefore, it is possible that a high number of students failed to have adequate experience with AET as high school students prior to this course. As such, it might be unfair to expect these students to obtain mastery (Bandura, 1994) in AET after one class. In addition, this lack of experience in the use of AET could have an impact on pedagogical content knowledge specifically (Rice & Kitchel, 2015).

Students’ self-perceived abilities to use AET increased across all areas throughout the semester, which supports Bandura’s (1977) assertion that self-efficacy is solidified through rich experiences of performing a particular task over time. Increases were detected across the semester in all 22 statements, indicating that the students improved their efficacy for using the software and advising student SAEs because of the course. The term Advising Students in Completing National Chapter Award Applications was rated lowest in self-perceived ability by students in all three observations. However, it was also the statement that experienced the greatest amount of overall mean difference change throughout the semester.

Students’ actual abilities also increased overall when compared across the three-point time series; however, the growth might not be sustained long term, as scores showed a decrease between observations two and three in comparison to those noted between observations one and two. It is possible that the results might be attributed to the timing of the presentation of content related to AET. Specifically, aspects of AET were emphasized heavily during the first one-half (eight weeks) of the semester, and then tapered off toward the end of the semester. The more elevated scores detected from Data Collection 1 to Data Collection 2 may be due to the recency effect of the emphasis of AET during that time frame.


The study was limited to the delivery of AET content and generalizability of its results. An assumption was made that the same content and activities featuring AET would be taught and implemented each week by the three teaching assistants charged with delivering content to their respective laboratories. Although weekly meetings were held throughout the semester to attempt to maintain fidelity and consistency of such, differences in teaching assistants’ personalities, teaching styles, and experiences using AET as former SBAE teachers themselves undoubtedly existed and could have impacted the study’s findings. participants’ prior experience in AET was not collected, and their experience may have impacted the findings. Therefore, we acknowledge the results of the study could be limited by these factors. Moreover, the study included a convenient sample of students enrolled in a required teacher preparation course offered at the junior level at one institution.

Given the results cannot be generalized to all preservice SBAE teachers across the country, it is recommended additional research on the self-efficacy and actual ability of preservice teachers to implement AET is conducted with a larger population of preservice teachers. We recommend other preservice institutions replicate this study to determine if the findings hold true across other university settings. We also recommend that correlational studies ensue to assess students’ abilities to effectively use AET based on their involvement in FFA activities at the secondary school level. Further research also should investigate whether the use of AET does in fact increase financial literacy. It is recommended that a financial literacy assessment be used to determine if the use of AET, SBAE’s version of a simulation-based method, improved financial literacy of the participants (Levant et al., 2016). These future studies should identify the effectiveness of the training resources provided by AET to instruct students in proper data management and record keeping strategies.

Regarding the course content, students need additional experience with the statement: Advising students in completing National Chapter Award Applications, as students consistently rated it as the lowest mean value in each of the three observations. Perhaps the reason for this poor rating was due to students not currently having the opportunity to work with actual data from FFA members. Students be paired with a mentor teacher and FFA members in SBAE programs so that they can experience a richer connection to AET and obtain real-world experience with advising students who are working on award applications as part of their SAE program. Providing dedicated time for students in this course to interact with FFA members while using AET would likely increase their readiness to learn and afford concrete experiences for preservice teachers to learn the content while using actual student data and working with a mentor teacher.

Further, it was important to determine the impact of this preparation on students as they enter the teaching profession. Are they better prepared for integrating AET into their classrooms and FFA programs having learned about and used it for multiple weeks as part of their preservice preparation? Or, is readiness to learn the criterion absent or minimized during this phase of their preparation? Regardless, AET should be a point of emphasis during the student teaching internship and again, as professional development, after students have accepted positions during their first year of teaching. Conducting a longitudinal trend study would provide comparisons between perceived and actual self-efficacy of teachers based on actual projects and experiences of their students and their readiness to learn such content. Finally, regarding teaching styles of graduate teaching assistants, a quasi-experimental study should be conducted in which different pedagogies are used to instruct students in the use of AET. A comparison of such across different laboratory settings could aid in identifying the most effective method of instruction for teaching students the importance of using AET and how to do so most effectively. Regarding states that do not use or require AET in the agricultural education program, it was recommended that a similar study be conducted to understand the perceived and actual self-efficacy of preservice SBAE teachers in using the software used within that state.


The most effective ways of teaching young people to become financially independent, literate, and to make good investment decisions is an important topic that should continue to be discussed and considered by SBAE teachers. The current study provides additional insight into the practice of preparing SBAE teachers. The timing of when to teach certain topics to students is an imperative task for all teacher preparation programs. Perhaps students simply were not ready to learn all aspects of AET during the spring semester of their junior year. Based on the findings of this study, it is imperative that we, as a teacher preparation program, implement aspects of AET into other preservice courses, where appropriate, to provide students additional opportunities and iterations necessary for mastery experiences (Bandura, 1994). It is possible the students in this study experienced the largest growth in mean difference of perceived ability to complete National Chapter Award applications because of a project where they plan out mock events. Therefore, growth is observed in the preservice courses where opportunities to learn through doing is possible. In addition, regarding the practice of teaching SBAE, the state office of career and technical education in Oklahoma should be alerted to the actual competency and self-efficacy levels of the new teachers in the state so that appropriate professional development may be provided once these students enter the teaching ranks. Finally, it is entirely possible that students overestimate their abilities to perform certain tasks (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005), especially when interfacing with that content over the course of a semester. Therefore, it is necessary that continued follow-up training and support exist to ensure that perceived self-efficacy eventually leads to actual competence.


Aviles, H. A. (2015). An examination of Oklahoma agricultural educators’ innovativeness and perception regarding the mandated adoption of the agricultural experience tracker. [Master’s thesis, University]. ProQuest.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4, 71–81.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Brown, A. H., & Knobloch, N. A. (2022). Effects of a simulation on eight grade students’ management knowledge and entrepreneurial intent in an exploratory agriculture course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(1), 88–101.

Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2022). CEE’s 2022 survey of the states.

Ferand, N. K., Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2020). The relationship of prior FFA membership on perceived ability to manage an FFA chapter. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 162–172. https://doi.10.5032/jae.2020.02162

Foster, R. M. (1986). Factors limiting vocational agriculture student participation in supervised occupational experience programs in Nebraska. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 27(4), 45–50.

Goodnough, K. C., & Hung, W. (2008) Engaging teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge:     Adopting a nine-step problem-based learning model. Interdisciplinary Journal of                               Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 61–90.

Hanagriff, R. (2022). 2021 agricultural education engagement executive summary report.   ×%2011.5%20in)%20(2).pdf

Layfield, K. D., & Dobbins, T. R. (2002). Inservice needs and perceived competencies of South Carolina agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4), 46–55.      

Levant, Y., Coulmont, M., & Raluca, S. (2016). Business simulation as an active learning activity for developing soft skills. Accounting Education, 25(4), 368–395.

Mercier, S. (July, 2015). Food and agricultural education in the United States. AGree Transforming Food & Ag Policy Report.

Miller, W. M., & Scheid, C. L. (1984). Problems of beginning teachers of vocational agriculture in Iowa. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 25(4), 2–7.

Robinson, J. S. (Spring 2022). AGED 3203: Advising agricultural student organizations and supervising experiential learning [Syllabus]. Department of Agricultural Education, Communications, and Leadership. Oklahoma State University.

Sorensen, T. J., Lambert, M. D., & McKim, A. J. (2014). Examining Oregon agriculture teachers’ professional development needs by career phase. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 140–154.

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2017). Agricultural education online recordkeeping system. Author.

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2023a). What is AET? Author.

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2023b). AET in the classroom. Author.

The National Council for Agricultural Education (2015). Career ready practices.

The National Council for Agricultural Education (2011). Supervised agricultural experience (SAE) philosophy and guiding principles.

Thorton, K., E., Easterly, R. G., III., & Simpson, K. A. (2020). Curricular resource use and the relationship with teacher self-efficacy among New Mexico school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 343–357.

Toombs, J. M., Eck, C. J., & Robinson, J. S. (2022). The impact of a project-based learning experience on the SAE self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(1), 29–46.

Totenhagen, C. J., Casper, D. M., Faber, K. M., Bosch, L. A., Wiggs, C. B., Borden, L. M. (2015). Youth financial literacy: A review of key considerations and promising delivery methods. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36, 167–191.

Walstad, W. B, Rebeck, K., & MacDonald, R. A. (2010). The effects of financial education on the financial knowledge of high school students. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 337–357.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self- efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213. 

Warren, J. N., Luctkar-Flude, M., Godfrey, C., & Lukewich, J. (2016). A systematic review of the effectiveness of simulation-based education on satisfaction and learning outcomes in nurse practitioner programs. Nurse Education Today, 46, 99–108.

Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1990). Educational measurement and testing (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Wilson, C., Woolfson, L. M., & Durkin, K. (2020). School environment and mastery experiences as predictors of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusive teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(2), 218–234. 2018.1455901 

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356. https://doi.10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007