Category

Teacher Education & School-based Ag. Education

Concerns of New Agriculture Teachers Participating in an Induction Program

Jillian C. Ford, Auburn University, jcf0088@auburn.edu

Misty D. Lambert, North Carolina State University, mdlamber@ncsu.edu

Wendy J. Warner, North Carolina State University, wjwarner@ncsu.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Methods

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%.

Instrumentation

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).

Findings

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.

FFA and SAE

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)

Itemf%
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)

Itemnf%
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)

Itemf%
Fundraising1359.1
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)

Itemf%
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%
Task2551.0
Self1428.6
Impact714.3
Nonteaching36.1

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.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1987.01041

Camp, W. G., & Heath-Camp, B. (1989). Induction detractors of beginning vocational teachers with and without teacher education. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED328747.pdf

​​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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742–051X(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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.01132

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. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.79

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. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.117

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006002207

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 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED079361.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.03052

Greiman, B. C. (2010). What can be done to support early career teachers? The Agricultural Education Magazine, 82(6), 4–5, 10. https://www.naae.org/profdevelopment/magazine/archive_issues/Volume82/2010_05-06.pdf

Hillison, J. (1987). Agricultural teacher education preceding the Smith-Hughes Act. Journal of Agricultural Education, 28(2), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1987.02008

Hillison, J. (1977). The concerns of agricultural education pre-service students and first year teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 18(3), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1977.03033

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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458436.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.54718/MUPN5082

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.02028

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04214

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1991.01018

National Association of Agricultural Educators. (2023). National teach AG campaign. https://www.naae.org/teachag/index.cfm

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04082

Smith, A. R., Foster, D. D., & Lawver, R. G. (2022). National agricultural education supply and demand study, 2021 executive summary. http://aaaeonline.org/Resources/Documents/NSD 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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05140

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. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2016.433

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.03262

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.02090

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. https://www.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.02153

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.02031

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, wnorris1@nmsu.edu

Lacey Roberts-Hill, New Mexico State University, lnrob@nmsu.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Introduction

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).

Methods

Participants

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.

Instrumentation

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.

Limitations

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.

Results

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).

References

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964782

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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234685

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12294

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.01061

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04107

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. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ae39290af6cdea6aa35ce0d215e2c257652eb2ed

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292

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. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04229

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.03069

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. https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/ 

Frióna, D., Szenderák, J., & Harangi-Rákos, M. (2019). The challenge of feeding the world. Sustainability11(20), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205816

Fristoe, A. (2017). Smith-Hughes Act transforms agricultural education. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 92(2), 37-53. http://digital.graphcompubs.com/article/Smith-Hughes+Act+Transforms+ 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095231

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111532

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385

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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ901311.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01070

National Council for Agricultural Education. (2015). Agriculture, food, and natural resource crosswalks. https://ffa.app.box.com/s/n6jfkamfof0spttqjvhddzolyevpo3qn/file/294149331493

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

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]. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/5129/

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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461721.pdf

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02028

Smith, E. (2010). Sector–specific human capital and the distribution of earnings. Journal of Human Capital, 4(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/655467

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009009

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.0308

Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18

Swafford, M. (2018). STEM education at the nexus of the 3-circle model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(1), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01297

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.04072

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02057

Williams, K., Burt, B. A., & Hilton, A. (2016). Math achievement: A role strain and adaptation approach. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2016-0005

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02001

Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Canadian Psychology, 34(1), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078865

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

Andrew C. Thoron, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Andrew.thoron@abac.edu

Eric D. Rubenstein, University of Georgia, erubenstein@uga.edu

Taylor D. Bird, University of Georgia, tdbird@uga.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Results

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

Statement%D%N%A%NA
Integrating science concepts into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.03.293.63.2
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.3.23.283.99.7
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program.016.180.73.2
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

Statement%D%N%A%NA
Mathematics concepts are easier for students to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education program.03.280.63.2
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.016.167.83.2
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

Statement%D%N%A%NA
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.3.216.167.80
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education program.016.167.83.2
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)

Statement%D%N%A%NA
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.

Recommendations

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.

References

Association for Career and Technical Education. (2009, November). CTE’s role in adolescent literacy (Issue Brief). Author. https://www.acteconvention.com/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_Online_Media/files/Literacy_Issue_Brief.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.02001.

Brister, M. H., & Swortzel, K. A. (Eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 36th Annual American Association for Agricultural Education Research Conference. https://www.aaaeonline.org/Natl-2009-Louisville-Kentucky

Brown, J. (2019). Integrating vocational education and training for secondary school students. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/nswcurriculumreview/2

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.04057

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05191.

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.  https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.04116.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325.

Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference. https://www.aaaeonline.org/Resources/Documents/National/ResearchProceedings,%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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04001.

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). https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02075.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.04120.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.0202

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st Century Skills, Education and Competitiveness: A Resources and Policy Guide. http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf

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 http://www.agedweb.org/WRAEC/2003/papers/Pavelock,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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1302207.

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). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED461443.pdf

Thibaut, J. W., & Riecken, H. W. (1955). Some determinants and consequences of the perception of social causality. Journal of Personality, 24(2), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1955.tb01178.x.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.01050.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.03021.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.01088.

Williams, M. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st Century. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 9(1), 91-102. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158258.pdf.

Perceived Challenges Facing Arkansas Agricultural Education Over the Next Decade

Christopher M. Estepp, University of Arkansas, estepp@uark.edu

Bryan D. Rank, Arkansas Tech University, brank@atu.edu

Alyssa Johnson, Arkansas Department of Agriculture, alyssa.johnson@agriculture.arkansas.gov

Trent Wells, Murray State University, kwells23@murraystate.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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)

Purpose

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?

Methods

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.

Findings

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

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.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01021

Bowling, A. M., & Ball, A. L. (2018). Alternative certification: A solution or an alternative problem? Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02109

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. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458358.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.01110

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03292

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02222

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). http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/AAAE_National_Research_Agenda_2016- 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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.160

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03044

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04203

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i1.31

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01300

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04017

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04214

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04082

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. https://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/2021%20NSD%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02305

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03121

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03100

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. http://aaaeonline.org/Resources/Documents/Western%20Region/WRAAAE%20Proceedings.pdf#page=30

Torres, R. M., Ulmer, J. D., & Aschenbrener, M. S. (2008). Workload distribution among agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.02075

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.02167

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.02148

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i3.117

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03060

World Health Organization. (2023, May 5). Statement on the fifteenth meeting of the IHR (2005) Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic?adgroupsurvey={adgroupsurvey}&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv8PGParticipant 6b_wIVjTjUAR2YWAR2EAAYASABEgKag_D_BwE

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

Chris Clemons, Auburn University, cac0132@auburn.edu

Jason D. McKibben, Auburn University, jdm0184@auburn.edu

Clare E. Hancock, Auburn University, cet0071@auburn.edu

James R. Lindner, Auburn University, jrl0039@auburn.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Introduction

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?

Methods

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.

Findings

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). 

Assessment

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 (Lexile.com, Renaissance.com) 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.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/Jae.2007.04001

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: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04238

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02110

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01058

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01223

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02140

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

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. https://doi.org/10.5032.jae.2011.04001

Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04149

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03283

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.04001

Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A. (2012). Experiential Learning Theory. In N. M. Seel (ed), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_227

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01020

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03100

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01081  

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.02013

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae2013.03100

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. https://doi.org/doi:10.5032/jae.2016.02146

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02289

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04101

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.
https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/socialwork_pub/500

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

Christopher J. Eck, Oklahoma State University, chris.eck@okstate.edu

Nathan A. Smith, Oklahoma State University, nathan.smith@okstate.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Introduction

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04125

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
    
GenderMale8747.0
 Female4323.2
 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
 B2815.1
 1A2714.6
 2A4423.9
 3A137.0
 4A2010.8
 5A84.3
 6A73.8
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    
Number of SBAE110355.7
     Teachers in District24021.6
 3126.5
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    
Number of SBAE Teachers   
     Hired as Superintendent03418.4
 14725.4
 22815.1
 3179.2
 4179.2
 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.

Findings

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
Professionalism33.03
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
4.28.68
Classroom instruction is key in evaluating all teachers3.91.90
Agricultural education teachers require different evaluation
     techniques
3.58.97
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.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter40.1.63

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04125

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223

Foster, D., Lawver, R., Smith, A., & Poeschl, E. (2021). Ag Ed supply and demand [Technical report]. American Association for Agricultural Education. https://www.naae.org/whoweare/supplyanddemand.cfm

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. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v35i1.a2

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional transformation leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210014306

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239010001014

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170421

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

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. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464213

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241

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. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter42.1.21

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

Tyler J. Price, Oklahoma State University, tyler.price10@okstate.edu

Emily O. Manuel, Oklahoma State University, emily.manuel@okstate.edu

Emily A. Sewell, Oklahoma State University, easewel@okstate.edu

J. Shane Robinson, Oklahoma State University, shane.robinson@okstate.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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.

Introduction

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).

AET

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.

Methods

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.

 Results/Findings

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations

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.

Discussion

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.

References

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. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examination-oklahoma-agricultural-educators/docview/1965469087/se-2

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02088

Council for Economic Education (CEE). (2022). CEE’s 2022 survey of the states. https://www.councilforeconed.org/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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1986.04045

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. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1082

Hanagriff, R. (2022). 2021 agricultural education engagement executive summary report.             https://theaet.com/docs/2021%20COMBINED%20Agricultural%20education%20Values%20(8.25%20×%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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.04046      

Levant, Y., Coulmont, M., & Raluca, S. (2016). Business simulation as an active learning activity for developing soft skills. Accounting Education, 25(4), 368–395. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016.1191272

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1984.04002

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05140

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2017). Agricultural education online recordkeeping system. Author. https://www.theaet.com

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2023a). What is AET? Author. https://theaet.com/WhatIsAET

The Agricultural Experience Tracker. (2023b). AET in the classroom. Author. https://theaet.com/ClassroomResources

The National Council for Agricultural Education (2015). Career ready practices. https://ffa.app.box.com/s/n6jfkamfof0spttqjvhddzolyevpo3qn/file/294154473359

The National Council for Agricultural Education (2011). Supervised agricultural experience (SAE) philosophy and guiding principles. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/sae/

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04343

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.01029

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9397-0

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01172.x

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002 

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.023

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. https://doi.org/10.1080.13603116. 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

Perceived Readiness of First Year Agriculture Teachers to Teach Low Socioeconomic Students

Rachelle Staehr, York High School, rachelle.staehr@yorkdukes.org

Nathan Conner, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, nconner2@unl.edu

Bryan Reiling, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, breiling2@unl.edu

Taylor Ruth, University of Tennessee, truth3@utk.edu

Jacob Goldfuss, Summerland Public School, jacobgoldfuss@summerlandbobcats.org

PDF Available

Abstract

Approximately10.5% of children in Nebraska live in poverty. Poverty in a child’s life impacts both physical and cognitive development. This qualitative case study explored agricultural education teachers perceived confidence when teaching students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Eight high school agriculture teachers were interviewed, and the following themes emerged from the data: (a) teacher emotions, (b) observations, and (c) accommodations. The teachers felt prepared to teach students that are impacted by poverty. It is recommended that teacher preparation programs select courses that specifically address working with students that are living in poverty. Additionally, exposure to students from low SES backgrounds early in their teacher preparation program will help them to learn how to build positive relationships with students and how to accommodate this population.

Introduction

Children were the highest likely group of individuals to be living in poverty (Dornan, 2017). Talk Poverty (2020) identified that 10.5% of children in Nebraska public schools live in poverty. This correlates directly with Dornan’s (2017) identification of children being the highest likely group to live in poverty, as Talk Poverty (2021) ranked children at a higher rate of poverty than any other surveyed group. This growing issue was evident within Nebraska public schools and educators need to be prepared for it.

Throughout preservice teachers’ educational experiences, professors have utilized a variety of different methods to educate their students on this phenomenon. Cho et al. (2015) explored the option of educating teachers to be anthropologists in future encounters of student poverty, while Baggerly (2006) focused on the power of service-learning experiences. With a growing need for teacher confidence in the identification and accommodation of students of low socioeconomic status (SES), teacher educators must ensure they have prepared their students to effectively accommodate classroom instruction for students living in poverty.

Child poverty has reared its head as multidimensional poverty within American schools as students lack basic resources due to availability, location, and family structures (Dornan, 2017). Roelen (2017) discussed differences between children of monetary poverty and children of multidimensional poverty. Monetary poverty is described as strictly a measurement of household income and expenses and was also defined as indirect poverty because it is did not directly impact the resources of a family (Roelen, 2017). Roelen (2017) explained this concept by pointing out that not all financial funds accumulated by the household were used properly for the basic needs of all individuals within the household. Improper use of funds or lack of availability of basic needs within a community can create multidimensional poverty (Roelen, 2017). Multidimensional poverty was defined as the lack of and depletion of basic needs and resources (Roelen, 2017). This term was also referred to as direct poverty (Roelen, 2017). Each type of poverty is unique but not necessarily linked to each other depending on the economic status of the country inhabited (Roelen, 2017). 

Gupta (2017) gave readers a glimpse of a family’s life within poverty by providing a view of the assumptions and realities of their lives. America’s social work system has been known to sometimes forget to account for poverty when visiting families (Gupta, 2017). Gupta (2017) illustrated a situation in which individuals living in poverty were surrounded with assumptions of drug use and had parenting rights removed with little to no evidence. Thiede and Brooks (2018) outlined the correlation between immigration, family history, and poverty. This quantitative analysis identified that individuals of first and second generations who had two foreign born parents had a higher likelihood than other foreign individuals of living in poverty in America (Thiede & Brooks, 2018). This unfortunate relationship has been reality for many children in public schools and should be recognized by American school systems.

The direct relationship of poverty and its impacts on a child’s cognitive development was illustrated by Dolean et al., (2019) in a study done on the relation of socioeconomic status (SES) and development of reading and linguistic skills. SES was the likely root cause for many children’s inability to academically excel in the classroom (Dolean et al., 2019). Research identified frequent school absences, phonetic awareness, and bilingual homes to be largely impactful on the slow development of basic academic skills (Dolean et al., 2019). SES was directly linked to poor linguistic, phonetics, reading, letter knowledge, and nonverbal IQ (Dolean et al., 2019). Li et al. (2020) hypothesized that poverty and mental health have been negatively correlated. Li et al. (2020) survey asked school aged children about their access to common educational resources relative to their current mental health state. Anxiety and depression were common themes that manifested among students with lower SES, and poverty levels were associated with increased mental health issues in children (Li et al., 2020).

Over the past few years, school systems have subscribed to the ideas of Ruby Payne and her framework for understanding poverty (Osei-Kofi, 2005). These ideas were presented to communicate social norms and commonalities amongst those living in poverty (Osei-Kofi, 2005). Although these theories outlined positive things teachers can do for students, Osei-Kofi’s (2005) review identified its flaws of the framework in today’s world. Being a teacher himself, Osei-Kofi had a direct point of view on the impacts of Payne’s framework on his own school. He observed that the framework created biases around certain groups of people and the framework’s influence on the No Child Left Behind Act gave teachers almost impossible standards to reach (Osei-Kofi, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act created a system in which standardized tests blamed teachers for any student failure (Osei-Kofi, 2005). Although much of Payne’s research was valid, she made assumptions that stretch teacher’s limits and impose unfair assumptions on students (Osei-Kofi, 2005). One example from Osei-Kofi’s (2005) review indicated  that Payne outlined children in poverty as inadequate and in need of repair from a teacher. The responsibility of the student’s so-called repair was placed solely on the teacher (Osei-Kofi, 2005).

An article by Payne and Ortiz (2007) outlined multiple factors such as socioeconomic status of a household and the talent of teachers as huge impacts on the success of students in the classroom. Many of those students who have struggled with standardized tests may also be victims of multidimensional poverty (Payne & Ortiz, 2007). Educators cannot solve child poverty; they do not have the responsibility of child poverty, but they have been  doing everything they can to help children living in poverty (Payne & Ortiz, 2007).

The exploration of child poverty, cognitive development, and educator limits lead us toward identification of applicable solutions for how America’s educational system can help children in poverty. Jackson (2014) explored the emotions of educators and students surrounding children living in poverty and found that there was a shocking overall acceptance of poverty by our society. Educators have a duty to promote proper emotional response to social injustices (Jackson, 2014). There was no shortage of sympathy amongst students and teachers, but empathy will be  needed to impact society (Jackson, 2014). Empathy is the initial step in the emotional process and is needed to enact change within society (Jackson, 2014).

Sato and Lensmire (2009) pointed out that teachers should be culturally responsive. While teachers may already do this, it needs to be an intentional effort to really assist students in poverty. For example, teachers need to recognize that not all students, based on factors such as SES, have the same prior knowledge or commonalities that were often assumed within the classroom (Sato & Lensmire, 2009). Students of poverty may not have these shared experiences (Sato & Lensmire, 2009). An empathetic and involving teacher is one who is also culturally aware throughout their curriculum (Sato & Lensmire, 2009).

The Poverty Simulation was a program utilized in the education of college students entering social work and health care fields (Vandsburger et al., 2010). This case study utilized three common scales used in diversity education: (1) the Critical Thinking Scale, (2) Understanding of Others Scale, and the (3) Active Learning Scale are used to measure the effectiveness of this simulation (Vandsburger et al., 2010). The simulation consisted of daily tasks and navigation through life for a given amount of time as an individual of poverty (Vandsburger et al., 2010). While 82.2% of individuals who participated in this simulation experienced further contemplation of poverty’s effects, only 58.4% of participants were moved to take social action (Vandsburger et al., 2010). Results of this study showed that the simulation was impactful in the education of college individuals, but true empathy was not always reached (Vandsburger et al., 2010).

Community connections and service learning are powerful educational tools that were explored by Baggerly (2006) in the setting of the education of preservice teachers. Service learning was outlined as a symbiotic relationship between urban communities and universities within them (Baggerly, 2006). A lot of students attending universities have minimal experience with poverty themselves, so properly designed service-learning projects can provide them exposure to the impacts of poverty (Baggerly, 2006). This experience was valuable for preservice teachers because it helped them understand the background of future students in poverty (Baggerly, 2006). Major goals of service learning should be for students to experience different cultures and to encourage students to take social action (Baggerly, 2006). These impactful projects can create knowledge that preservice teachers can draw from in their teaching careers (Baggerly, 2006). This experience was recognized as impactful in educating students about the realities of poverty (Baggerly, 2006).

Purpose

The purpose of this case study was to explore the perceived preparedness of first year agricultural teachers from the University of Nebraska to educate an increasing population of children of low socioeconomic status (SES) in Nebraska public schools. The preparedness of first year agriculture  teachers to educate students of poverty was defined as their feelings toward the accommodations they are able to make. The overarching research question was, do first year agricultural teachers who graduated from University of Nebraska feel prepared to educate students who are impacted by childhood poverty?

Methods

Qualitative research was conducted because it allows researchers to create a vivid interpretation of the world around them (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This qualitative study was working on the assumption that there was a growing need for first year agricultural teachers to be holistically educated on child poverty to increase their confidence in the identification and accommodation techniques for these students. A case study methodology was used in this study. As defined by Creswell and Poth (2018), a case study is the study of an actual, real life, case within a real context. A case study also takes place within a system that is bounded by a place and time (Crestwell & Poth, 2018). The bounded system recognized in this study, and hence the participation criteria for this study, was first year agricultural teachers from University of Nebraska who were employed by Nebraska public schools.

This study utilized purposeful sampling to select the individuals who provided experiences and information that were consistent to this bounded system. An initial recruitment email was sent to 28 agricultural teachers who met the participation criteria. There were only eight first year agriculture teachers from University of Nebraska that agreed to participate in the study. Creswell and Poth (2018) posited that five participants are adequate for a case study, however, we used eight participants to help achieve data saturation.

Participant/School Description

Teacher one came from a school in northeastern Nebraska and was the only agricultural teacher at this school. Student diversity included about a 69% population of white individuals and around a 22% population of American Indian individuals (Nebraska Department of Education, 2021). Teacher two was one of two agricultural teachers at a large high school in eastern Nebraska. This diverse school had a population of about 68% Hispanic students with 13% white as the next highest race within the population (Nebraska Department of Education, 2021). Teacher three came from a one teacher agricultural education program at a school in southeastern Nebraska with a high majority white student population (Nebraska Department of Education, 2021). The fourth, fifth and sixth teachers interviewed were also in one teacher programs at schools in the central (T4), northern (T5), and southern (T6) parts of Nebraska with high majority white student populations (Nebraska Department of Education, 2021). The seventh and eighth teachers came from small, one teacher program schools, while being located in western (T7) and central (T8) Nebraska schools. Both T7 and T8 were located at schools with a high majority white student population as well (Nebraska Department of Education, 2021).

Data Collection and Analysis

This qualitative case study used semi-structured interviews to collect data during September 2021. The semi-structured interviews took place over Zoom and lasted approximately 20 minutes. The interview questions allowed for open-ended answers that encouraged storytelling and real-life examples. The interviews were recorded and transcribed through Zoom. Data was analyzed for the emergence of themes. The transcripts were read three times and reoccurring words, phrases, and ideas were categorized together and used to identify the themes that emerged. Creswell and Poth (2018) stated, “themes are broad units of information that consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea.” (p. 186). Codes were organized into themes using tables to help conceptualize the overarching concepts.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness measures were used to determine the truth, value, credibility, and reliability of the research study (Dooley, 2007; Erlandson, et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation was achieved in this study by use of multiple researchers (Dooley, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer debriefing was used and allowed a researcher that was not associated with the study to review the data and give insight on how the data was analyzed(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Dooley, 2007).

Subjectivity Statement

As an agricultural education teacher at a public school and the lead researcher on this article, I have encountered a higher rate of students living in poverty or of low SES than I expected. This study was completed during my third-year teaching and I found myself still having to adapt to many new and shocking situations. For example, many of my students lack funds available to supply their own jeans and boots for welding classes and other students have told me about nights they spend in their cars. The reason why I wanted to select my sample specifically from agricultural teachers because in my personal experience, many disadvantaged students are ‘dumped’ in agricultural courses to explore careers. Even though school counselors have good intentions, students in poverty can easily fall behind in these hands-on classes. These students may have a difficult time purchasing or providing the extra supplies that are typically needed. As a teacher, I would like to be better prepared to help these students and to identify tools to help support them as an empathetic, positive role model in their lives.

Findings

The following themes emerged from the data: (a) teacher emotions, (b) observations of poverty, and (c) accommodations. Within these themes, various codes were identified to help sort and categorize data and commonalities throughout the interviews.

Theme #1: Teacher Emotions

The theme of teacher emotions was defined by the internal feelings’ teachers have as they navigate difficult decisions when working to accommodate students of poverty. During interviews, many emotions were discussed. Teachers identified common emotions of empathy, concern, and compassion. Empathy was expressed by T1, T2, T4, T5, and T8 when acknowledging that many students were in poverty situations through no fault of their own. T1 indicated that students were usually helpless in their own availability of resources. T2 explained that many students living in poverty missed out on opportunities teachers try to provide, this leaves teachers feeling heartbroken. T2 continued to explain their feelings on this issue by saying, “I know they’re going to have these struggles in life because they are already behind the eight-ball compared to many other peers, and for no reason than being born into the circumstances.” T2 and T4 also expressed an interest in breaking the cycle of poverty experienced by many of their students.

When the concerns of participants were addressed, the collective consensus of T1, T3, T6, and T7 was that all teachers feel the stress and difficulty of helping these students. T3 illustrated their own worry over the physical conditions these students live in each day and how the physical conditions impacted their abilities within the classroom. T3 and T7 both expressed a feeling of helplessness in many of the situations they encountered. Emotions of grace and compassion were also identified with T2 and T8. Prioritizing what was best for students and having a forgiving attitude was emphasized by T2. T8 described a deep respect for students who juggled the complications of a life in poverty yet maintain a positive influence within school.

Theme #2: Observations of Poverty

Observations of poverty was defined by the identifying factors of poverty teachers have witnessed within their first couple of months teaching. These observations were broken down into the following sub themes: physical observations, impacts of poverty, and lack of resources.

Physical Observations

Location of observations made by educators who participated in these interviews ranged from the general community to inside the school building. T1 reported their own physical observations of poverty by simply driving around town and seeing where students were living. Behaviors observed inside the schools by T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, and T8 included students missing school due to babysitting responsibilities, wearing old clothes every day, lack of hygiene, taking home school lunch to share with family, difficulties focusing, and a lack of engagement whenever money was mentioned in class. T6 stated, “As I discussed details for a fieldtrip, I watched a student physically slump in their chair when I requested students bring money for lunches.”

Impacts of Poverty

Many teacher observations were made individually through strong personal relationships built with students in poverty. Through relationships, students can reveal details about their lives that identify themselves as children of poverty. These conversations created observable information for teachers. T4 and T5 discussed being shocked at the sheer lack of confidence many students express during conversations with students of poverty. T2 described one situation by saying, “I’ve got one student, I know, that works until 11 o’clock every night to help her family pay the bills, so they have a lot of missing assignments.” T3 and T7 also could identify students in similar situations. T2’s students also expressed interests in being the first generation in their families to attend college or trade school. T1 theorized that many students living in poverty were highly motivated by simply wanting to break their own cycle. T4 expressed their observations of high levels of hard work and determination from students living in poverty. T3, T4, and T8 identified lack of sleep and emotional stress as two consequences of poverty. T3, T4, and T8 reported students helplessly falling asleep in class after working a long night shift. T3 also reported having students act distant and emotional due to the stresses of their everyday life. These two impacts had a severe negative toll on the student’s abilities to learn and participate in class. Through personal conversations with students T3 and T8 concluded students who were consistently overly tired in class usually spent time working to pay bills. Students could easily be overscheduled, and some employers may not recognize the demands on their time. T3 said, “Our school actually reached out and said, hey, just be aware that these are high school students and we know that they’re working a lot. First and foremost, they need to be students.” T3 and T4 pointed out that poverty may not allow children to experience as many opportunities.

Lack of Resources

All teachers interviewed identified examples of actual lack of resources from students in poverty. During the shutdown of many schools, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students were expected to learn from home using technology and the internet. However, T1, T2, and T4 identified the lack of reliable internet and technology was problematic for many students in poverty. T4 indicated that students living in poverty had issues sourcing these necessary resources and sharing them with siblings in the same situations. This lack of resources could include a lack of equipment within a household, lack of bandwidth, or lack of reliable internet. All teachers interviewed also indicated that transportation and financial support impact students’ school experiences. Although public education is free, extracurricular activities that compliment classroom learning are not. T2, T4 and T8 explained different situations in which students could not afford opportunities that FFA provides. However, these teachers made their own accommodations for these students.

Theme #3: Accommodations

The theme of teacher accommodations was defined as any adaptations or changes teachers made to help students of poverty. The different accommodations teachers made all fell into the following sub themes: (a) advocacy, (b) relationships, and (c) monetary support.

Advocacy

Some great points brought up through discussion with T3 included strong intentions to advocate for students. T3 stated: “I will do whatever I can to make sure that you’re (students are) supplemented with whatever you (students) need.” T1 stated that agricultural educators, have a unique advantage compared to other teachers because of their preparation to mentor a student to explore certain careers and trades. Agricultural educators teach classes directly tied to real life careers. Students who have taken agricultural classes were taught basic skills needed for entry level positions out of high school within agricultural careers or the trades. T1 also expressed focusing class content on trades that all students could explore. All teachers interviewed believed it was their job to advocate for their own students.

Relationships

Relationships, built through classroom experiences, were a huge asset when working with students. Through strong student relationships, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6 provided examples of simple accommodations provided. Based on student suggestions, accommodations made by T1, T2, and T6 included virtualizing assignments for accessibility, providing class work time, and allowing retakes. These simple steps provided a more stress-free environment for students. T3, T4, T7, and T8 also accommodated students by providing all materials needed for class and creating an open line of communication where teachers can easily check in on students.

Monetary Support

T1 and T4 mentioned that FFA provided help to support students who cannot afford opportunities that exist within the organization. T5, T6, and T7 also discussed how they discretely provided extra cash to students who cannot afford lunches on trips and hold fundraisers for all students to provide free opportunities within FFA. These young teachers were already expressing the importance of finding a way to include all students in all activities to create a strong organization and environment.

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

Educators of today are almost certain to encounter a significant percentage of students living in poverty. America’s public school system has not clearly set the expectations of educator’s role in these student’s lives. Child poverty is a phenomenon that increasingly plagues our world and is currently being addressed through policy changes. These policy changes in our nation as well as others have the intent of bringing children out of poverty through economic focuses (Dornan, 2017). Nations are working to assist the growing population of children in poverty.

Teachers interviewed in this study were able to convey how they have felt while accommodating students of poverty. Emotional stress of teachers is a real issue and relating it to their education of students of poverty may be an indicator of their preparation to deal with this issue. Feelings of helplessness was a key concept identified through these interviews that could indicate deficiency in the preservice teacher’s education. When looking at the emotions reported by teachers interviewed, concern was likely stemming from the level of care they have for students. Most teachers interviewed appeared to genuinely care about their student’s wellbeing and little to no emphasis was placed on the teachers’ own feelings about their own abilities. Empathy was a concept utilized by all teachers interviewed. As Jackson (2009) mentioned, empathy is critically important in creating a learning environment that accompanies all students. The fact that all teachers interviewed were aware of and practicing empathy was a clear indication that they know what they need to do to help their students in poverty. However, teachers need to be taught how to take care of their own mental health needs. Agricultural teacher preparation programs should incorporate stress management techniques into their programing and develop units or workshops on how to take care of your mental health. A focus on taking of your mental health should be embedded into the entire agricultural teacher education program. Preservice agriculture teachers need to see positive examples of self-care and they also need structured opportunities throughout their program to practice self-care.

Although these young teachers were only a couple of months into their teaching career, they have been able to report a wide array of observations that can be used to identify students in poverty. Signs of poor health, both mental and physical, were used as identified by the teachers, which aligns with Li et al. (2020) assertion that students living in poverty struggle with maintaining their mental and physical health. All teachers interviewed had some sort of observation or story to report in which they identified poverty. These young teachers were able to see poverty in front of them; therefore, something in their education has prepared them for this issue. All of the teachers that participated in this study completed a 20-hour service learning project that required them to work with after school programs in a city. The service learning projects during their agricultural teacher education preparation program exposed the teachers to students of various social economic statuses. The incorporation of a service-learning project at after school programs is recommend for agricultural education teacher preparation programs to help expose the future teachers to a diverse group of students.

The accommodations explained by the teachers interviewed were both effective and creative in their nature. Financial, emotional, and health focused support was given by all teachers interviewed through simple accommodations they made in their classrooms and organizations. Teachers interviewed explained how they listen to student’s needs and communicate with them to create great relationships and effectively help students. This use of relationships to benefit students was a major sign of competency amongst these teachers. Similarly, this could be attributed to the service learning project that exposed the preservice agriculture teachers to students from diverse backgrounds.

Many children living in poverty not only lack financial resources, but also emotional resources, role models, and a general support system (Cuthrell et al., 2007). All of the teachers interviewed identified experiences they had in which positive relationships with students helped them provide individualized support to students in need. Positive relationships not only help students emotionally but will likely lead to higher academic achievement. It is recommended that agriculture teacher preparation programs emphasize the power of positive student teacher relationship and give the preservice teachers multiple opportunities to work with high school students so they can practice building relationships.

The young teachers interviewed demonstrated that they felt adequately prepared to deal with the realities of educating students of poverty. Although some indications of helplessness were communicated through interviews and many creative and adapting accommodations were discussed by each teacher. There were great solutions that already exist amongst this group of young agricultural teachers. Agricultural education is unique because it is so closely related to careers and hands-on opportunities. Because counselors push students of poverty towards career focused opportunities, many are enrolled in agricultural classes. These interviews revealed the young agricultural teachers were aware of this poverty issue, and they are up to the challenge of bettering student lives. We recommend that teacher preparation programs select courses that specifically address working with students living in poverty. Additionally, exposure to students from low SES backgrounds early in their teacher preparation program will help them to learn how to build positive relationships with students and how to accommodate them. The development of a sustained mentorship relationship between a preservice agriculture teacher and a low socioeconomic high school student is recommended. This mentor/mentee relation should be sustained over a long period of time so that the high school student and the preservice agriculture teacher can both experience growth and development. Ideally, the mentor/mentee relationship would start when the preservice teacher is in the first year of their program and the high school student is a freshman. If possible, the mentor/mentee relationship could last between two to four years depending on the duration of the agricultural teacher preparation program.

Future research that should follow up this study to include identifying what specific education methods for poverty education are the most impactful. A phenomenological case study should be conducted to better understand the feelings, perspectives, and needs of low socio-economic agriculture students.  An analysis of current poverty educational methods used may give teacher educators a better idea on how to create the most impactful experience for their students.

References

Baggerly, J. (2006). Service learning with children affected by poverty: Facilitating multicultural competence in counseling education students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34(4), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2006.tb00043.x

Cho, M., Convertino, C., & Khourey-Bowers, C. (2015). Helping preservice teachers (PSTs) understand the realities of poverty: Innovative curriculum modules. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9366-9

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Cuthrell, K., Ledford, C., & Stapleton, J. (2007). Empty tissue boxes considering poverty in diversity discourse. Childhood Education, 83(5), 273–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522931

Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., & Ledford, C. (2009). Examining the culture of poverty: Promising practices. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903217689

Dolean, D., Melby-Lervåg, M., Tincas, I., Damsa, C., & Lervåg, A. (2019). Achievement gap: Socioeconomic status affects reading development beyond language and cognition in children facing poverty. Learning and Instruction, 63(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101218

Dooley, K. (2007). Viewing agricultural education research through a qualitative lens. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.04032

Dornan, P. (2017). Children, poverty and the sustainable development goals. Children & Society, 31(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12209

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage.

Gupta, A. (2017). Learning from others: An autoethnographic exploration of children and families social work, poverty and the capability approach. Qualitative Social Work QSW Research and Practice, 16(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015620946

Jackson, L. (2014). “Won’t somebody think of the children?’ Emotions, child poverty, and post-humanitarian possibilities for social justice education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(9), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.931430

Li, C., Yin, X., & Jiang, S. (2020). Effects of multidimensional child poverty on children’s mental health in Mainland China. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(3), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317718379

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

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass

Nebraska Department of Education. (2021). 2020/21 free and reduced lunch counts by school. Author. https://www.education.ne.gov/dataservices/data-reports/.

Nebraska Department of Education (2021). 2020/2021 membership information. Author. https://www.education.ne.gov/dataservices/data-reports/

Osei-Kofi, N. (2005). Pathologizing the poor: A framework for understanding Ruby Payne’s work [Review of the book A framework for understanding poverty by R. Payne]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500299833

Payne, C., & Ortiz, C. (2017). Doing the impossible: The limits of schooling, the power of poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217719019

Roelen, K. (2017). Monetary and multidimensional child poverty: A contradiction in terms? Monetary and multidimensional child poverty. Development and Change, 48(3), 502–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12306

Sato, M., & Lensmire, T. (2009). Poverty and Payne: Supporting teachers to work with children of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(5), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000512

Talk Poverty. (2020). Nebraska 2020. Center for American Progress. https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/nebraska-2020-report/

Thiede, B., & Brooks, M. (2018). Child poverty across immigrant generations in the United States, 1993–2016: Evidence using the official and supplemental poverty measures. Demographic Research, 39, 1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.40

Vandsburger, E., Duncan-Daston, R., Akerson, E., & Dillon, T. (2010). The effects of poverty simulation, an experiential learning modality, on students’ understanding of life in poverty. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(3), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2010.497129

How do Animal Science Standards Align: A Comparison of South Carolina Standards to AFNR Standards

Kayla N. Marsh, Oklahoma State University, Kayla.marsh@okstate.edu

Christopher J. Eck, Oklahoma State University, Chris.eck@okstate.edu

K. Dale Layfield, Clemson University, dlayfie@clemson.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

Content and performance standards were the basis on which school-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers develop effective and relevant instruction. These standards prepare students for future agricultural careers and support the needs of the community. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which South Carolina SBAE standards align with the national AFNR standards for the animal science career pathway. This study implemented an existing data design, comparing the South Carolina animal science standards and the national AFNR animal science pathway standards through content analysis. Thirty-one percent of standards were written at or above the Applying level, as compared to 95% of the AFNR standards. The analysis of standards demonstrated the lack of rigor in current standards. Although this study highlights concerns with SBAE standards in South Carolina, additional research is needed to see how other states’ standards align with AFNR standards. It is further recommended that teacher educators develop preservice and in-service activities that will prepare SBAE teachers to plan activities and assignments at higher-order levels of thinking.

Introduction

“A standard is both a goal (what should be done) and a measure of progress toward that goal (how well it was done)” (Ravitch,1995, p.7). Standards help teachers design courses and develop objectives to deliver content and evaluate student learning (Nilson, 1998). Specifically, content and performance standards were the basis on which school-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers, school districts, and state education departments rely. These standards develop effective and relevant instruction to prepare students for future agricultural careers and support the needs of the community (Molina, 2009; Swafford, 2018). To be effective, content standards need to be current to support effective SBAE teachers, build capacity for abstract learning, and prepare students for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) based agricultural careers (Swafford, 2018). Judson et al. (2020) defined the process of teachers adapting standards to meet the community’s needs, beliefs, culture, and values as the sensemaking of educational standards. This evidence suggested that strong state standards provide a needed structure to empower teachers while still giving the sensemaking freedom to implement and support student learning (Judson et al., 2020).

The push for national standards started in 1989 with policy goals focused on academic achievement and an increase of rigorous coursework for all students. They prompted the reform of learning expectations and assessment, which led to state and national debate over content, assessment, and evaluation in educational systems (Clune, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Ravitch, 1995). Many oppose the adoption of national standards for a multitude of reasons, including federal control of educational standards, weak or narrow standards due to political influence, controversial values imposed by the government, and diminishing of teachers’ creativity and ability to connect with students in the classroom because they were forced to teach to an assessment or examination (Ravitch, 1995). These concerns still exist, as well as evidence that strong educational standards indicate learning gains, equity for all students, and increased collaboration and communication of needs (Bloom, 1956; Judson et al., 2020; Ravitch, 1995). Sharing ideas between teachers and educational content developers (i.e., textbook writers, curriculum and software developers, and assessment companies) requires well-defined standards as a guide (Anderson, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Ravitch, 1995). The debate was further complicated by diverse types of standards that have been ill-defined and vaguely used, but each were essential when creating coherent educational expectations for students (Ravitch, 1995). Specifically, content standards are appropriate when discussing what students should learn, while performance standards relate to measuring the level at which it was learned (Ravitch, 1995). Interrelated but irrelevant without the other is the consistent relationship between content and performance standards, making the process of adopting and revising standards messy (Ravitch, 1995). Therefore, it has become best practice to address the complexity and develop content and performance standards that serve as a strong framework to support SBAE teachers, students, administrators, faculty, and content developers because vague non-measurable standards are an ineffective tool in supporting rigorous and relevant instruction and learning (Anderson, 2001; Judson et al., 2020; Ravitch, 1995; Swafford, 2017).

To support these efforts, the Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR) content and performance standards were developed and supported by the National Council for Agriculture Education (2015). AFNR standards provide a baseline to support SBAE career clusters that incorporate STEM integration for multiple agricultural career pathways (The Council, 2015; Swafford, 2018). The eight different SBAE career pathways align AFNR standards with the components of a comprehensive SBAE program for instruction, career and leadership development (FFA), and Supervised Agricultural Experiences (SAE) with the following national standards to ensure a robust framework of rigor and relevance for SBAE programs: Common Career and Technical Core (CCTC), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), Common Core Mathematics (CCSS), Common Core English Language Arts (ELA), National Standards for Financial Literacy and Green/Sustainability Knowledge and Skill Statements (The Council, 2015; see figure 1). Not only were the AFNR standards a thoroughly crafted framework for SBAE teachers, students, and support professionals for classroom instruction, but they were purposely constructed to support the comprehensive model for secondary agricultural education developed by Baker et al. (2012), which includes supervised agricultural experiences (SAE) and leadership and career development through the national FFA organization.

Figure 1
Comprehensive Model for SBAE (Baker et al., 2012)

“Adoption and use of these standards is voluntary; states and local entities are encouraged to adapt the standards to meet local needs” (The Council, 2015, p. 2), ultimately allowing SBAE teachers to prepare students for future STEM careers by providing rigorous and relevant instruction while also meeting the needs of the community and program (Baker et al., 2012; Judson et al., 2020; Ravitch, 1995; Swafford, 2018). According to Swafford (2018), at least one STEM component (i.e., science, technology, engineering, or math) was directly aligned with AFNR standards within each pathway, with science the most prevalent as it was found in six of the eight pathways. Therefore, comprehensive SBAE programs were supported by strong content and performance standards with increased levels of rigor and career preparation through the relationship between AFNR and STEM standards (Baker et al., 2012; Judson et al., 2020; Swafford, 2018).

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study was undergirded by Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, which established distinct levels of learning and engagement as a hierarchical structure representing six categories, ranging from basic learning objectives (i.e., knowledge of content) to higher-order learning (i.e., synthesis and evaluation; Bloom, 1956; Clemons & Smith, 2017). Bloom formed the basis for early work on the development of instructional objectives, standards, and learning goals for classes and curricula, providing a framework and shared vocabulary for teachers, school districts, and educational content developers (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). Each of the six categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy has been defined and represented by an action verb that distinguishes the level of learning and retention taking place, as represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Bloom’s (1956) Cognitive Taxonomy

The rigor, relevance, and retention of the content and skills learned increase as we move to the pinnacle of the pyramid represented by the action verb create from the base represented by the action verb remember (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). Remember represents cognitive tasks that are more concrete and less abstract, including memorization, recall, and labeling as learning activities. Understanding demonstrates concrete learning through cognitive activities of comparing, contrasting, and explaining. Applying is achieved by organizing, developing, or utilizing concrete concepts learned in a new and abstract situation. Analysis reflects when learning activities ask students to analyze content to make assumptions, conclusions, and simplifications. Evaluation is an abstract process of detailed parts or critical elements to criticize, defend or justify within the learning activity. Create is the abstract use of many dissimilar sources to build, invent, solve, or test within the learning activity (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). According to Anderson et al. (2001), we should approach this taxonomy as a guide to communicating the cognitive rigor expected from content and performance standards to construct relevant and effective learning activities and content materials. While the action verb is our first indicator as to the level of rigor associated with a learned activity, the context in which the action verb was used in the standard will impact the level of rigor of the task (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). For this study, the hierarchical structure was used to determine the cognitive level of animal science standards in South Carolina compared to that of the national AFNR standards.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which South Carolina SBAE standards align with the national AFNR standards for the animal science career pathway. Three research objectives guided this study: (1) What percentage of South Carolina SBAE standards align with the AFNR standards for animal science; (2) At what level of Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy are the South Carolina SBAE standards written; and (3) How does the level of rigor compare between the South Carolina SBAE standards and AFNR standards?

Methods and Procedures

This study implemented a non-experimental existing data design (Privitera, 2020), comparing the South Carolina animal science standards and the national AFNR animal science pathway standards through content analysis. A content analysis allows researchers to analyze written records that outline detailed content (Privitera, 2020), in this case, educational standards. The publicly available electronic documents served as the existing data (Privitera, 2020) being analyzed, which included South Carolina SBAE standards for the Animal Science Career Pathway (South Carolina Cooperative Extension, 2021) and the national AFNR Standards for Animal Science (The Council, 2015).

The research team evaluated the state and national standards to determine the alignment between South Carolina standards and national AFNR standards. The research team consisted of a graduate student with nine years of SBAE teaching experience and two faculty members in agricultural education with over 40 years of combined experience in teaching and preparing students to be effective SBAE teachers. The team aimed to answer the three proposed research objectives through collaborative content analysis. Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) was the lens used to evaluate the state and national standards by the research team. Using the complete research team to analyze the existing data helps the researchers overcome the potential experimenter bias (Privitera, 2020).

Microsoft Excel was implemented to categorize, compare, and analyze animal science standards through the lens of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956). As the research team analyzed each South Carolina standard, the standard was categorized into one of the 20 performance indicators associated with the eight AFNR content standards for the animal systems career pathway (see Table 1).

Table 1
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR) Animal Systems Pathway Content Standards

AFNR Standard AFNR Performance Indicator
AS.01. Analyze historic and current trends impacting the animal systems industry AS.01.01. Evaluate the development and implications of animal origin, domestication and distribution on production practices and the environment.
  AS.01.02. Assess and select animal production methods for use in animal systems based upon their effectiveness and impacts. 
  AS.01.03. Analyze and apply laws and sustainable practices to animal agriculture from a global perspective.   
AS.02. Utilize best-practice protocols based upon animal behaviors for animal husbandry and welfare.    AS.02.01. Demonstrate management techniques that ensure animal welfare.   
  AS.02.02. Analyze procedures to ensure that animal products are safe for consumption (e.g., use in food system, etc.).  
AS.03. Design and provide proper animal nutrition to achieve desired outcomes for performance, development, reproduction and/or economic production.      AS.03.01. Analyze the nutritional needs of animals.      
  AS.03.02. Analyze feed rations and assess if they meet the nutritional needs of animals.  
   AS.03.03. Utilize industry tools to make animal nutrition decisions.   
AS.04. Apply principles of animal reproduction to achieve desired outcomes for performance, development and/or economic production.   AS.04.01. Evaluate animals for breeding readiness and soundness.  
  AS.04.02. Apply scientific principles to select and care for breeding animals   
   AS.04.03. Apply scientific principles to breed animals   
AS.05. Evaluate environmental factors affecting animal performance and implement procedures for enhancing performance and animal health.   AS.05.01. Design animal housing, equipment and handling facilities for the major systems of animal production.  
  AS.05.02. Comply with government regulations and safety standards for facilities used in animal production  
 AS.06. Classify, evaluate, and select animals based on anatomical and physiological characteristics.     AS.06.01. Classify animals according to taxonomic classification systems and use (e.g. agricultural, companion, etc.).
   AS.06.02. Apply principles of comparative anatomy and physiology to uses within various animal systems.     
  AS.06.03. Select and train animals for specific purposes and maximum performance based on anatomy and physiology.    
AS.07. Apply principles of effective animal health care.    AS.07.01. Design programs to prevent animal diseases, parasites and other disorders and ensure animal welfare.   
  AS.07.02. Analyze biosecurity measures utilized to protect the welfare of animals on a local, state, national, and global level.    
AS.08. Analyze environmental factors associated with animal production.    AS.08.01. Design and implement methods to reduce the effects of animal production on the environment.   
  AS.08.02. Evaluate the effects of environmental conditions on animals and create plans to ensure favorable environments for animals.   

To address the second research objective, the research team evaluated each South Carolina standard and categorized the taxonomical level (i.e., remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, or create) at which the standard aimed to represent. The percentage of standards at each taxonomical level was then compared to address the final research objective using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Research Objective 1: What Percentage of South Carolina SBAE Standards Align with the AFNR Standards for Animal Science

The first objective sought to identify the percentage of South Carolina SBAE standards aligning with the AFNR standards for animal science. The South Carolina animal science pathway included 19 courses and 150 standards that were analyzed in comparison to the AFNR animal science pathway, which consists of eight standards and 20 performance standards. Ninety-five percent of the AFNR standards were written at or above Bloom’s applying level of taxonomy; in comparison, only 39% of South Carolina standards were written at a comparable level. The majority (57%) of South Carolina standards fell in the lowest taxonomy levels, including 12% at remembering and 45% at the understanding level. Additionally, 14% of the South Carolina standards were written at the applying level, 5% at the analyzing level, 3% at the evaluating level, and 20% at the creating level. Although 20% of South Carolina standards were representative of creating based on the action verbs used, 17 of the 31 (11%) used “Discuss” as the verb, when really it was being used to represent explain, which suggests that the South Carolina SBAE standards belonged to the t (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002). Sixty-eight percent of South Carolina SBAE standards were at or below the understand level compared to five percent of the AFNR Standards for the animal science pathways after the verb meaning adjustment (see Table 2).

Table 2
Comparison of State SBAE Standards and AFNR Standards at Each Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy

StandardIIIIIIIVVVI
AFNR
    Standard
0%5%35%30%20%10%
South Carolina 
     SBAE
     Standard
     with Adjusted
     Verb Meaning
  12%      56%  14%      5%  3%  9%

Research Objective 2: At what Level of Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy are the South Carolina SBAE Standards Written

The second objective explored South Carolina SBAE standards for animal science to be analyzed using Bloom’s taxonomy shown in Figure 1 (i.e., remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create). The South Carolina standards align to remember (12%) and understand (56%) levels of rigor, which were limited to basic cognition tasks representing knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001). In addition, the wording of South Carolina SBAE standards and action verbs indicated the intended level of rigor at basic knowledge levels of remember and understand. Eleven percent of standards used the action verb discuss to represent lower cognitive tasks.

Furthermore, South Carolina SBAE content and program standard’s strength and value were hard to measure due to the limited number of standards per each of the 19 courses in the animal science pathway. Courses within the South Carolina SBAE animal science pathway ranged from 46 to zero standards, with an average of eight and a median of six. Additionally, five of the 19 South Carolina SBAE animal science pathway courses had no animal science standards. Table 3 compares the number of standards at each of the six levels of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy with each of the 19 courses in the animal science career pathway in South Carolina.

Table 3
Comparison of South Carolina SBAE Course Specific Standards at Each Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy                                                                                               

 South Carolina SBAE courseIIIIIIIVVVITotal Standards per course
5624 – Agricultural Science
     and Technology
2400006
5691 – Agricultural and
     Biosystems Science
0720009
5620 – Agricultural Science
     and Technology for the
     Workplace
0000011
5600 – AgriBusiness and
     Marketing             
0000000
5614 – Agricultural Crop
     Production and
     Management
0301105
5660 – Agricultural
     Mechanics
     and Technology
0000000
5663 – Aquaculture3140008
5692 – Biosystems Mechanics
     and Engineering
0000000
5679 – Equine Science212210219
5657 – Food Processing0100001
5646 – Cattle Production06121111
5647 – Farm Animal
     Production
0320027
5612 – Small Animal Care630220646
5613 – Introduction to
     Veterinary Science
55100213
5627 – Soil and Water
     Conservation
1030004
5630 – Soil and Soilless
     Research
0000000
5603 – Animal Science04213010
5621 – Equipment Operations
     and Maintenance
0000000
5608/5609a – Animal Science
     for the Workplace I and II
08200010

Note. aCourse codes 5608 and 5609 represent the same course that is to be taken concurrently within an academic year. For the purpose of our standard analysis, they have been counted as a single and complete course.

Research Objective 3: How does the Level of Rigor Compare Between the South Carolina SBAE Standards and AFNR Standards

The final objective compared the level of rigor between the South Carolina SBAE standards and AFNR standards for the animal science pathway. Ninety-five percent of AFNR standards for the Animal Systems Career Pathway have expected student learning outcomes at or above the applying level, whereas 31% of South Carolina SBAE Animal Science standards were found in corresponding levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Discussion

Thirty-one percent of South Carolina animal science standards were written at or above the applying level of Bloom’s Taxonomy compared to 95% of the AFNR standards. The analysis of standards demonstrated the lack of rigor in current South Carolina standards, as they were primarily written at or below the understanding level. Comparatively, the AFNR standards were written at or above the applying level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, allowing students to integrate the new knowledge in the future, draw conclusions, and produce their own products. Unfortunately, the South Carolina standards asked students to memorize or recall basic information or describe the material, with students very rarely (less than 31%) getting to the application level. Furthermore, the South Carolina SBAE standard’s strength and value are hard to determine due to the apparent lack of consistent standards or expected quality of written standards in the animal science pathway. The number of standards spanned from zero to 46, with an average of eight standards per course. Additionally, five of the 19 animal science courses had no animal science standards, which represented a vague attempt at a rigorous and relevant framework for supporting SBAE students, teachers, school districts, content developers, and community needs (Molina, 2009; Ravitch, 1995; Swafford, 2018). The concept of vague standards was further exacerbated by unclear and misaligned action verbs with the expected student learning activity, where discuss was used at the level of create to represent higher-order learning activities that were truly explaining basic knowledge at the understanding level (Bloom, 1956; Clemons and Smith, 2017; Judson et al., 2020).

The movement from teacher-led learning activities to student-led learning creates higher-order learning activities that allow students to use and process information abstractly (Baker et al., 2012; Judson et al., 2020; Swafford, 2018). Upon further evaluation of South Carolina SBAE standards, they should be considered incomplete, according to Ravitch (1995), since complete standards must include content and performance standards. Content standards describe what was taught, and performance standards describe the depth and use of that learning (Ravitch, 1995). The two types of standards were connected, and South Carolina standards currently lacked both. Despite the current South Carolina SBAE standards weak level of rigor and clarity in both content and performance standards, standards remain essential for effective teaching (Nilson, 1998), furthering the need to evaluate and revise these standards to provide relevant and purposeful standards for SBAE teachers across the state (Kraftwohl, 2002; Ravitch, 1995).

Perhaps this misguided attempt was purposeful to allow teachers creative freedom in their SBAE program content and teaching, but the current South Carolina standards burden SBAE teachers with the search for relevant frameworks to align content due to its incomplete, weak, and confusing nature. Ravitch (1995) found that teachers and administrators who argue against national content and performance standards actively seek curriculum, textbooks, industry certification, or mandated exams to align their course content. SBAE teachers need and deserve the support provided by clear, consistent, and measurable content and performance standards (Judson et al., 2020; Ravitch, 1995). Further demonstrating that a strong and clear framework of standards can support all involved, but vague, unclear, and unmeasurable standards have little value for teachers and students when it comes to designing lessons that promote abstract learning for STEM integration. This lack of alignment limits the ability to meet the rigor and relevance needed to support SBAE teachers in preparing students for future STEM-based agricultural careers (Baker et al., 2012; Judson et al., 2020; Swafford, 2018).

Developing strong, clear, and realistic content and performance standards can be a messy and complex process, but it is essential to support the success of our SBAE students, teachers, programs, and communities (Judson et al., 2020; Molina, 2009; Ravitch, 1995). Perhaps South Carolina should consider adopting or cross-walking the AFNR standards to support their SBAE programs, as reevaluating and updating the state-level standards will allow teachers an opportunity to increase further the rigor and relevance of SBAE programs across the state. To accomplish this task, it is recommended that a team of SBAE teachers, state agricultural education staff, and faculty be developed. Further research should investigate the level of rigor taught in SBAE classes across South Carolina, comparing the rigor established in the state standards with what has been taught in classrooms. Although this study highlighted concerns with SBAE standards in South Carolina, additional research is needed to determine how other states’ SBAE standards align with AFNR standards. SBAE standards provide a structure for teachers, but the impact of these standards on student performance and outcomes remains unknown, although Swafford (2018) connected the implementation of cross-walked AFNR standards in SBAE teacher preparation programs to increased preparation and STEM integration.

Preservice teacher preparation programs should consider preparing SBAE teacher aspirants to recognize and utilize rigorous and relevant higher-order learning standards. Ultimately allowing them to understand and be better prepared to adapt and find support when standards do not provide enough support, such as those identified in this study. Additionally, SBAE teacher aspirants should be familiar with AFNR standards, as they are aligned with the complete SBAE program (i.e., classroom/laboratory instruction, FFA, and SAE), which serves as a valuable resource. SBAE teacher preparation faculty should consider the current standards in their state and how professional development opportunities cross-walking AFNR standards could benefit the rigor and relevance of SBAE teachers and programs across their state.

Parallel to the recommendations for preservice programs expanding instruction on higher-order learning standards, readiness to teach specific agricultural and natural resources content at higher levels could be an equally challenging issue. In a study by Snider et al. (2021), preservice teachers were surveyed to assess their self-perceived competence to teach different topics in the AFNR standards. Students were found to have a “need for competence enhancement in the Power, Structural, and Technical Systems and the Biotechnology Systems Pathways,” (Snider et al., 2021, p. 44). Other areas preservice teachers indicated gaps in were Agribusiness Systems and Food Products and Processing Systems. In contrast, preservice teachers indicated greater competence in the Natural Resources Systems, Plant Systems, and Animal Systems pathways. Snider et al. discussed that pathways such as Animal Systems were an established curriculum in their state and that preservice teachers sought out skill development opportunities in these pathways. Does self-efficacy of specific AFNR pathways influence the level that state standards were written? 

The Agribusiness Systems career pathway has been noted to have great inservice need for years (Radhakrishna & Bruening, 1994; Joerger & Andreasen, 2000; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002). Further, preservice agricultural education programs have called for increased coursework offerings in agribusiness recently (DiBenedetto et al., 2018; Snider et al., 2021). Might these needs have impacted the lack of alignment between the state and AFNR standards for the Agribusiness and Marketing courses, as shown in Table 3? It is recommended that future research in self-efficacy of AFNR skills areas have any influence on those writing standards for state and national curricula.  

Whether the state program adopts the AFNR standards or chooses to revise its current work, this does not guarantee that the new/revised standards will be taught at the higher levels. Ulmer and Torres (2007) found that SBAE teachers exhibit lower-order (knowledge and comprehension) teaching 83% of the time. The same study found that this is not isolated to agriculture teachers, as science teachers were at the lower levels 84% of the time. Similarly, Cano and Metzger (1995) also found that horticulture teachers were at the lower levels 84% of the time. All of these researchers recommended that SBAE teachers were engaged in professional development that would assist them in developing student activities and assignments that encourage higher-order thinking skills. It is recommended that teacher educators develop purposeful professional development that will prepare SBAE teachers to plan activities and assignments at higher-order thinking levels.

Future research should consider the replication of this study on a state-by-state basis as deemed necessary. Additionally, a mixed method approach could be beneficial to assess teachers’ current level of self-efficacy to implement STEM-based higher-order instruction in SBAE, aligning with Bloom’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy. This study could also establish a repository of resources, materials, and curriculum currently being utilized as a framework to deliver STEM-based higher order instruction, helping prepare future SBAE teachers. Researchers should also consider exploring teachers’ content needs, current curriculum resources, and their perspectives on content and performance standards through qualitative interviews. Finally, as state-level changes are made related to SBAE, teachers’ perceptions of current standards should be considered to support and improve the adoption of new state standards.

References

Anderson, L. W, Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Baker, M. A., Robinson, J. S., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Aligning Kolb’s experiential learning theory with a comprehensive agricultural education model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04001  

Blooms, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. D. McKay.

Cano, J., & Metzger, S. (1995). The relationship between learning style and levels of cognition of instruction of horticulture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(2), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1995.02036

Clemons, A., & Smith, A. (2016, March 8–13). Recontextualizing Bloom’s Taxonomy: Quantitative measures in formative curriculum. Proceedings of 28th International Conference of Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, pp. 111–142. Pearson Education Inc.  

Clune, William H. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 233–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164341

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). National standards and sssessment: Will they improve education? American Journal of Education, 102, 478–510. https://doi/org/01956744/94/0204-0005

DiBenedetto, C., Willis, V., & Layfield, K. D. (2018, May 15–18). Determining content knowledge needs for professional development of in-service agricultural education teachers in South Carolina. 45th Annual National Research Conference of the American Association for Agricultural Education. Charleston, SC.

Joerger, R. M., & Andreasen, R. (2000). Agribusiness standards: A comparison of the choices of Utah agriscience and technology teachers and agribusiness representatives. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3), 23–30. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2000.03023

Judson, E., Hayes, K. N., & Glassmeyer, K. (2020). Understanding how educators make sense of content standards. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 812–821. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-8-11-1.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–225. http://doi/org/10.1207/s1543042tip4104_2

Molina, Q. (2009). Program & curriculum standards: Mapping the future of agricultural education. The Agriculture Education Magazine, 81(4), 11–12. https://www.naae.org/profdevelopment/magazine/archive_issues/Volume81/2009_01-02.pdf

Nilson, L. B. (1998). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Anker Publishing Company.

Privitera, G. J. (2020). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Radhakrishna, R. B., & Bruening, T. H. (1994). Pennsylvania study: Employee and student perceptions of skills and experiences needed for careers in agribusiness. NACTA Journal, 4, 15–18. http://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/775/

Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide. Brookings.

Snider, C., Robinson, S., Edwards, C., & Terry, R. (2021). Student teachers’ views on their competence to teach the national AFNR career pathways: Implications for the preparation of preservice teachers in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 34–50. https//doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03034

Stanny, C. (n.d.). Action Words for Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved January 13, 2016, http://uwf.edu/media/university-of-west-florida/offices/cutla/documents/Action-Words-

South Carolina Cooperative Extension. (2021). Plant and Animal Pathway. South Carolina Agricultural Education Swafford, M. (2018). STEM education at the nexus of the 3-circle model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(1), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01297

The National Council for Agricultural Education (The Council). (2015). Animal systems career pathway. Author. https://www.teamaged.co/CMDocs/IowaTeamAgEd/Animal%20Systems%20
            Career%20Pathway.pdf

Ulmer, J., & Torres, R. (2007). A comparison of the cognitive behaviors exhibited by secondary agriculture and science teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.04106

Technical Professional Development Needs of Agricultural Education Teachers in the Southeastern United States by Career Pathway

D. Barry Croom, University of Georgia, dbcroom@uga.edu

Ashley M. Yopp, Florida Department of Education, ashley.yopp@fldoe.org

Don Edgar, New Mexico State University, dedgar@nmsu.edu

Richie Roberts, Louisiana State University, roberts3@lsu.edu

Carla Jagger, University of Florida, carlajagger@ufl.edu

Chris Clemons, Auburn University, cac0132@auburn.edu

Jason McKibben, Auburn University, jdm0184@auburn.edu

O.P. McCubbins, Mississippi State University, am4942@msstate.edu

Jill Wagner, Mississippi Department of Education, am4942@msstate.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

Determining the professional development needs of teachers framed through the national career pathways of agricultural education has become imperative for modern classrooms. Participants in this study were from six Southeastern U.S. states. Most were female educators, with the largest group having teaching experience between 11-20 years. Participants indicated their professional development needs regarding technical content in the seven agricultural education career pathways. Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that participants needed professional development in plant science, followed closely by animal systems. The least beneficial area for professional development was power, structural and technical systems, and food products and processing systems. No differences existed between male and female teachers regarding their technical professional development needs except within the power, structural, and technical pathway. Teachers with less than 10 years of teaching experience reported a greater need for professional development in animal science than their more experienced counterparts. Finally, participants in rural school systems were more likely to desire professional development on natural resources.

Introduction and Review of Literature

Teachers with a high level of content knowledge are better equipped to help their students succeed academically and can be more effective as educators (National Research Council, 2010). The content knowledge held by teachers has been shown to have a statically significant effect on student learning. When content knowledge is of sufficient depth and quality, the impact on student learning has also been positive (Ambrose et al., 2010). As teachers employ high-quality pedagogical strategies, their content knowledge helps students improve knowledge retention and learning transfer (National Research Council, 2010). In agricultural education, teachers need content knowledge of sufficient depth and breadth to meet the current and future demands of the agricultural industry (Solomonson & Roberts, 2022).

Facilitating Understanding

Teachers with quality content knowledge can help students understand the material more deeply and meaningfully. They can explain concepts clearly, provide relevant examples, and confidently answer questions (Driel, 2021; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). On this point, Harris and Hofer (2011) found that teachers with more content knowledge were more strategic in selecting learning tasks, created more student-oriented learning activities, and were more deliberate in planning lessons. Pursuing this further, Marzano (2017) proposed that teachers with a high level of content knowledge were more capable of helping students detect errors in their reasoning and successfully solve problems in the real world. Teachers often use content knowledge to guide students to examine how new technical content differs from their existing assumptions. This strategy deepens their understanding of key concepts (Dean & Marzano, 2012; Walshaw, 2012). Ambrose (2010) suggested that content knowledge and intellectual proficiency were key drivers in a teacher’s ability to successfully use technical content to facilitate students’ learning in the classroom. 

Adaptability

Adaptability refers to the ability of teachers to modify their teaching strategies to meet the needs of their students. Teachers with content knowledge can be more adaptable in their teaching. They can adjust their teaching strategies and methods to suit the needs of their students and make adjustments when necessary (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009). Edgar (2012) postulated that the more content knowledge a teacher possesses, the more likely the teacher would employ varying means to teach the content.

Building Credibility

Building credibility as a teacher has become essential to creating a positive and effective learning environment. Teachers with content knowledge are more credible to their students, parents, and colleagues. The rich source of content knowledge that teachers can draw upon in the classroom has become the source of most of this credibility (Forde & McMahon, 2019). They can speak with authority on their subject matter and inspire confidence in their teaching (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; Finn et al., 2009).

Effective planning

Teachers with content knowledge can also create more effective lesson plans and assessments and deploy more effective teaching strategies (Orlich et al., 2012; Senthamarai, 2018). For example, they can design activities and assessments that accurately measure student learning and identify the essential concepts students need to learn (Hume et al., 2019). Previous research has suggested that teacher preparation programs must focus more on understanding how teachers acquire technical content knowledge and support their ability to communicate such to their students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Levine, 2008). For this study, technical knowledge referred to the lesson elements designed to provide students with instruction, practice, and review of information regarding the agricultural sciences.

Agricultural Education Teacher Professional Development Systems

Agricultural education teachers who were traditionally certified often receive technical content training during their initial teacher preparation phase. Formal teacher preparation traditionally begins during college coursework (Croom, 2009). During this period, the preservice teachers are inducted into teaching through training and development (Talbert et al., 2022). However, concerns arise about the ability of novice teachers to deliver content-rich lessons (Roberts et al., 2020a, 2020b). Induction follows the competency-building stage, where technical content skill development continues. This phase is where most professional and skill development occurs (Croom, 2009; Fessler & Christensen, 1992).

Professional development usually involves teachers attending professional development sessions based on their perceived technical content deficiencies (Smalley et al., 2019) because teachers sense their need to address technical content deficiencies through continuous professional development (Easterly & Myers, 2019). Despite this desire to develop technical skills, previous research has found a significant gap in agricultural mechanics skill development and other technical agriculture concepts (Easterly & Myers, 2019; Yopp et al., 2020).

Conceptual Framework

Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) proposed that teacher professional development proceeds through seven elements (see Table 1). Effective professional development employs strategies that deepen a teacher’s technical content knowledge. However, this is not enough. Teachers also need sustained professional development activities of sufficient duration that demonstrate how to teach technical content. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) further proposed that teachers were best served by professional development provided in a social environment, with teachers collaborating and exploring effective instructional models under expert coaches’ guidance. Teachers needed to reflect on their performance to internalize new content knowledge and the strategies for teaching it (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). This model for professional development begins with developing technical content knowledge (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). The research team focused on this element of the model because we contended that professional development was grounded in content skill development applied through effective teaching strategies.

Table 1
Elements of Effective Professional Development adapted from Darling-Hammond et al. (2017)

The connection between professional development in the content taught is that both are needed to support effective teaching practices. Teachers who have a strong understanding of the content they are teaching and who have the skills and knowledge needed to teach that content effectively will be better equipped to meet the needs of their students and support their learning (Ambrose et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Additionally, ongoing professional development and content training can help teachers stay up-to-date with the latest research-based practices, teaching strategies, and techniques, which can further improve their teaching practices over time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).

The agricultural education curriculum covers a range of grade levels and a wide range of technical content. It provides students with knowledge as the content transitions from more basic to advanced skill development through pathway progression. As a result, secondary agricultural education teachers must provide essential knowledge and experiences through advanced instruction in animal science, agricultural engineering, plant and soil science, forestry, natural resources, food processing, and agricultural business management (Talbert et al., 2022). Therefore, secondary students must have the skills to navigate complex problems regarding agriculture, food, and natural resources using good reasoning skills (Figland et al., 2020). Table 2 illustrates the seven areas of agricultural sciences as identified by Advance CTE (2018) and describes the primary learning attribute guiding the learning activities.


Table 2

Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources Career Pathways adapted from Advance CTE (2021)

Purpose and Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the professional development needs of teachers in the Southeast United States regarding the national career pathways for secondary agricultural education. After describing the demographics of teachers who participated in the study, the objectives were to:

  1. Determine the professional development needs of teachers in the Southeastern region of the United States in each of the seven career pathways described by Advance CTE, and
  2. Compare the professional development needs of teachers by gender, years of teaching experience, and community setting.

Methods

This descriptive study sought to determine teacher perceptions regarding professional development needs as framed by the seven career pathways in the agricultural education curriculum. We distributed an instrument Yopp et al. (2020) developed to the target population of agricultural science teachers in six Southeastern states. We used each state’s directory of agricultural science teachers provided by state agricultural education authorities to define the target population.

We developed the questionnaire to address each research objective, including demographic questions. We included 54 Likert-scale items based on seven career pathways developed by Advance CTE (2018): Power and Technical Systems (16 items), Plant Systems (8 items), Natural Resources (4 items), Food Products and Processing (7 items), Environmental Service Systems (5 items), Animal Systems (7 items), and Agribusiness Systems (7 items). We asked participants to rate each item based on its perceived benefit level using this scale: 1 = not beneficial to 5 = essential. We entered data into SPSS® version 24.0 to calculate means and standard deviations. We conducted further analysis through t-tests to determine the significance between variables of interest.

A panel of agricultural teachers with expert knowledge of Advance CTE career pathways examined the questionnaire for content and face validity. Using methods proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2017), we pilot-tested the questionnaire with a sample of 14 pre-service agricultural education teachers using the test re-test method. These test measures yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .83 to .91 (.70 or higher acceptable range). Our post-hoc reliability analysis of the instrument yielded an overall valid measure (α = .86).

Guided by Dillman et al. (2014) tailored design method, researchers administered the instrument to prospective participants via email using each state’s unique agricultural education teacher listserv. The research team sent an initial invitation to participate in the study. We followed this with a second message to engage participants through an opt-in email directing them to a Qualtrics hyperlink specific to their respective instrument by state. Lastly, the researchers sent two follow-up reminder emails to non-respondents over four weeks. Previous instrument implementation (Yopp et al., 2020) yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .83 to .91 (Creswell & Clark, 2017). Post-hoc analysis of the instrument based on the population of interest revealed an overall α = .81.

Due to the nature of school-based agricultural education (SBAE) and participants’ ability to respond in a timely manner, early and late responders were evaluated to determine whether response differences occurred (Lindner et al., 2001). Analysis revealed no differences (p = .45) in the population of interest. The final response rate gained was 52.24 %. We anticipated this because decreased response rates to web-based instruments have been reported, especially in recent decades, with the influx of messaging in professional environments. Baruch (1999) noted that rates have declined from approximately 65% to 48% when using electronic survey methods. On this issue, Fraze et al. (2003) found that SBAE teachers responded less frequently to electronic surveys, possibly due to overloaded work schedules.

Findings

Female participants outnumbered male participants in this study, and most participants were still in their first 10 years of teaching. Most participants received formal training to become teachers through a traditional undergraduate program in agricultural education. Many teachers (n = 107) earned their teacher certification through an alternative certification program. The majority of teachers in this study taught in rural schools. Urban agricultural educators made up the smallest percentage of participants in this study. Table 3 provides a detailed representation of the socio-demographic characteristics of participants.

Table 3
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Participants

Objective One: Professional Development Needs in the Seven Career Pathways

Based on data gathered from SBAE teachers and guided by the career pathway to frame the professional development needs, we found that the essential area was that of Plant Systems (M = 4.17, S.D. = .78) and closely followed by Animal Systems (M = 4.14, S.D. = .98). The career pathway with the least beneficial area for professional development was Power, Structural & Technical Systems (M = 3.26, S.D. = 1.02) with Food Products & Processing Systems (M = 3.46, S.D. = 1.02) having a similar response by respondents. The two lowest career pathways also displayed the most variation of answers, as identified by participants. Table 4 shows the professional development needs of agriculture teachers based on career pathways in agricultural education.

Table 4
Professional Development Needs of Agriculture Education Teachers Based on Career Pathways

Note. 1 indicates a scale used from 1 = Not beneficial to 5 = Essential with 3 = No opinion

Objective Two: Professional Development Needs of Teachers by Gender, Years of Teaching Experience, and Community Setting.

The research team collected data on the professional development needs of participants aligned with career pathways and disaggregated based on gender. Two pathway areas had statistically significant differences based on gender. We found significant differences between genders within the Power Technology (p = .000) and Natural Resources (p = .005) pathways. The remaining pathways did not reveal significant differences based on gender. Table 5 displays the needs for professional development in career pathways by gender.

Table 5
Needs for Professional Development in Career Pathways based on Gender

Note. 1 indicates a scale used from 1 = Not beneficial to 5 = Essential with 3 = No opinion

The research team gathered data on the professional development needs of participants aligned with career pathways and analyzed it based on years of experience. The Animal Systems pathway has significant differences based on experience (p = .005). Although the means reported were similar (4.14 and 4.13), the associated standard deviations were dissimilar (1.07 and 0.86), resulting in statistically significant differences between the groups regarding experience. The remaining pathways did not have substantial differences based on experience level. Table 6 details participants’ professional development needs based on years of teaching experience.

Table 6
Needs for Professional Development in Career Pathways Based on Experience

Note. 1 indicates a scale used from 1 = Not beneficial to 5 = Essential with 3 = No opinion

Participants reported their professional development needs regarding career pathways based on the impact of the community setting. The Natural Resources pathway (p =. 049) indicated significant differences based on the community setting. Table 7 displays the needs for professional development based on the community type.

Table 7
Needs for Professional Development in Career Pathways Based on the Community Type

Note. 1 indicates a scale used from 1 = Not beneficial to 5 = Essential with 3 = No opinion

Conclusions & Implications

This study aimed to investigate the professional development needs of teachers in the national career pathways in agricultural education. The divisions of gender and years of experience do not represent a generalizable representation of each state regarding the professional development needs of agriculture teachers. Participants in this study were from six states in the Southeastern United States. Most respondents were female, with the largest group having teaching experience between 11-20 years. Respondents were experienced and prepared mainly for their teaching career through traditional means.

Participants were asked to indicate their professional development needs regarding technical content in the seven career pathways. Based on the findings, we concluded that professional development was most needed in the specialized content area of plant science, followed closely by animal systems. Meanwhile, we also conclude that the least beneficial areas for professional development were Power, Structural & Technical Systems, and Food Products & Processing Systems. Concerning Power, Structural & Technical Systems, the findings are inconsistent with the results of similar studies (Easterly & Myers, 2019; Smalley et al., 2019) that have reported a significant gap in teacher preparation in this area. However, we conclude from our findings that teachers do not perceive technical training in Power, Structural & Technical Systems to be a significant need.

Further conclusions evoked through this research population werethat no differences exist between male and female teachers regarding their technical in-service training needs, with two exceptions. More males than females found the need for training in natural resources and power and technical systems. Further, teachers with less than 10 years of teaching experience need more training in animal science than their more experienced counterparts. This is consistent with the teacher development model developed by Fessler and Christensen (1992). The only significant difference among respondents for this research objective was that rural teachers rated natural resources training higher than their urban counterparts. We found that teachers in rural schools were more likely to require training on natural resources. This could result from rural teachers’ access to more natural resources and, therefore, more opportunities to teach this content area than a teacher in an urban setting.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the conclusions from this study, this study should be replicated in other regions of the United States to gain a clearer picture of the professional development needs of agricultural education teachers. Agriculture operations vary across the United States due to climate, arable land, geography, and access to infrastructure that supports markets and transportation. The teachers in one region may have different professional needs from those in another. This study should be replicated in the future to determine if teacher training needs have changed. The agriculture industry uses human ingenuity and innovation to power new and better methods for producing food, fiber, and natural resources. Consequently, agricultural educators must be well-equipped to educate students using innovative technology.

This study found differences between male and female teachers in power, structural and technical systems, and natural resources. Additional research in this area may help determine why these differences exist. Furthermore, we noted differences between new and experienced teachers concerning animal science. This begs the question as to whether Inservice training needs should be customized based upon the years of experience. Researchers should conduct follow-up studies to determine if this would benefit teachers.

References

Advance CTE. (2018). Agriculture, food & natural resources. Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources. https://careertech.org/Agriculture

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.

Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200401

Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 296–306. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952280

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.

Croom, B. (2009). The effectiveness of teacher education as perceived by beginning teachers in agricultural education. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 59, 1-13. http://jsaer.org/pdf/Vol59/2009-59-001.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022487102053004002

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Dean, C. B., & Marzano, R. J. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. ASCD

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

Driel, J. V. (2021). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004505452_001

Easterly, R. G., & Myers, B. E. (2019). Professional development engagement and career satisfaction of agriscience teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02069

Edgar, D. W. (2012). Learning theories and historical events affecting instructional design in education: Recitation literacy towards extraction literacy practices. Sage Open, 2(4), 1–9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244012462707

Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. C. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understsnding and guiding the professional development of teachers. Allyn and Bacon.

Figland, W., Roberts, R., & Blackburn, J. J. (2020). Reconceptualizing problem-solving: Applications for the delivery of agricultural education’s comprehensive, three-circle model in the 21st Century. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 70(1), 1–20. http://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Volume-70-Full-Issue.pdf#page=35

Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K. A., & Larson, L. M. (2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58(4), 516–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903131154

Forde, C., & McMahon, M. (2019). Teacher quality, professional learning and policy: Recognising, rewarding and developing teacher expertise. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53654-9

Fraze, S. D., Hardin, K. K., Brashears, M. T., Haygood, J. L., & Smith, J. H. (2003). The effects of delivery mode upon survey response rate and perceived attitudes of Texas agriscience teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(2), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01027

Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in Action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570

Hume, A., Cooper, R., & Borowski, A. (Eds.). (2019). Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5898-2

Levine, S. (2008). School lunch politics: The surprising history of America’s favorite welfare program. Princeton University Press.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

Marzano, R. J. (2017). The new art and science of teaching. Solution Tree Press.

National Research Council (U.S) (Ed.). (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. National Academies Press.

Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2012). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.

Roberts, R., Stair, K. S., & Granberry, T. (2020a). Images from the trenches: A visual narrative of the concerns of agricultural education majors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02324

Roberts, R., Wittie, B. M., Stair, K. S., Blackburn, J. J., & Smith, H. E. (2020b). The dimensions of professional development needs for secondary agricultural education teachers across career stages: A multiple case study comparison. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03128

Senthamarai, S. (2018). Interactive teaching strategies. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 36–38. https://doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.166

Solomonson, J. K., & Roberts, R. (2022). Organizing and administering school-based agricultural education systems and the FFA. In A. C. Thoron & R. K Barrick (Eds.)., Preparing agriculture and agriscience educators for the classroom (pp. 17-34). IGI Global.

Smalley, S., Hainline, M., & Sands, K. (2019). School-based agricultural education teachers’ perceived professional development needs associated with teaching, classroom management, and technical agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02085

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

Walshaw, M. (2012). Teacher knowledge as fundamental to effective teaching practice. Math Teacher Education, 15, 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9217-0

Yopp, A., Edgar, D., & Croom, D. B. (2020). Technical in-service needs of agriculture teachers in Georgia by career pathway. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02001