Category

Vol. 74

School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers’ Current Level of STEM Integration

Authors

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

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

PDF Available

Abstract

Agricultural careers require a higher level of STEM comprehension and application than ever before, and SBAE teachers have the opportunity to be at the forefront of preparing the next generation of this essential workforce. The need for SBAE to prepare students for college and career readiness is evident, but a gap in the research makes it difficult for teachers to integrate STEM curriculum in their agricultural classrooms. This study implemented human capital theory to undergird the research, as the purpose of this study was to determine the current level of STEM integration in SBAE classrooms in Oklahoma and South Carolina. An exploratory, non-experimental survey research study, undergirded by the human capital theory, aimed to reach SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina. Science was the most commonly integrated STEM component, with 91% of participants reporting regular integration in their curriculum. Overall, SBAE teachers reported being most efficacious in science, followed by math, technology, and engineering. Although this study is limited to SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina, teacher preparation programs should consider the findings of this study as a potential need in their state related to SBAE teachers’ preparedness to integrate STEM. As this study was exploratory, additional research is essential to better support SBAE teachers.

Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) preparedness is of growing concern across the United States (Bostic et al., 2020; Kuenzi et al., 2006), as students struggle to reach proficient levels in science and math (ACT, 2019; Wilmer, 2008). These current conditions beg the question, are teachers themselves prepared to teach STEM content within their curriculum (Hayes, 2017; Kuenzi et al., 2006)? School-based agricultural education (SBAE) is not exempt from this question, as McKim et al. (2017) illuminated the foundational connection of science across “all aspects of SBAE” (p. 107), providing practical application of the core content in the oldest science in the world (Ricketts et al., 2006). Additionally, science has been further emphasized in SBAE by the National Council for Agricultural Education (2012) as “a systematic program of instruction available to students desiring to learn about the science, business, technology of plant and animal production and/or about the environmental and natural resources systems” (para. 1).

Today’s agricultural careers require a higher level of STEM comprehension and application than ever before (Stubbs & Myers, 2016). Agricultural education has been described as providing a seamless avenue for applying and integrating STEM concepts (Smith et al., 2015). Moreover, agricultural education programs have shown the capability to enhance achievement in science and mathematics (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Conroy & Walker, 2000; Parr et al., 2006; Ricketts et al., 2006; Stubbs & Myers, 2016). The body of literature is rich with examples pertaining to the integration of specific components of STEM integration within SBAE programs. Although, those focused on integrating all four components of STEM within SBAE programs are not as vast. Researchers’ primary focus has been on the integration of science concepts into agricultural education curricula (Boone et al., 2006; Brister & Swortzel, 2009; Clark, 2013; Conroy et al., 2000; Johnson, 1996; Stripling & Roberts, 2012; Swafford, 2018a, 2018b; Thoron & Myers, 2012a, 2012b; Warnick et al., 2004; Whisenhunt et al., 2021). Over the past 30 years, numerous studies (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Ricketts et al., 2006) have confirmed and reinforced the value of illuminating science concepts within agricultural education classrooms on student performance and achievement outcomes. Students enrolled in agriscience courses consistently display higher science scores than students who are not (Haynes et al., 2012; Scales et al., 2009). Additionally, findings consistently show that SBAE teachers feel most efficacious in their ability to implement science concepts into their curriculum (Haynes et al., 2012; Johnson, 1996; Ricketts et al., 2006; Scales et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2015) followed by mathematics, but teachers often lack in the necessary confidence to implement elements of technology and engineering (Eck et al., 2021, Wang & Knobloch, 2020). But why? Do SBAE teachers perceive themselves to be more adequately prepared to teach concepts of biological and physical sciences due to their undergraduate coursework and teacher preparation program?

Perhaps this is the case, as SBAE teachers’ prior educational experiences have been found to impact their perceptions of STEM integration (Stubbs & Myers, 2016). Trends within agricultural teacher education preparation programs are steeped in rigorous science-based coursework but lack the same rigor when it comes to advanced mathematics and/or engineering courses. “The lesser amount of engineering and mathematics integration described by the teachers suggested the two disciplines may need more attention from teacher educators and researchers” (Stubbs & Myers, 2016, p. 98). Stripling’s and Roberts’s (2012) study of Florida preservice agricultural education teachers reported that “[m]ore preservice teachers completed an intermediate mathematics course as their highest level of mathematics than basic or advanced mathematics in high school and/or college” (p. 118). Interestingly, the study identified a lack of competency in basic mathematics skills yet also revealed a high level of efficacy in their ability to teach mathematic concepts. Studies have shown (Parr et al., 2006; Shinn et al., 2003) when math-enhanced curricula are presented within the appropriate context (e.g., agricultural power and technology), they can improve students’ comprehension and understanding of mathematical concepts within the agricultural education classroom. If preservice and in-service SBAE teachers feel efficacious teaching aspects of mathematics within their curriculum, why is there reluctance to implement mathematics within the SBAE classroom?

Despite positive attitudes toward the implementation of STEM concepts in agricultural education curriculum, barriers to integration have been identified by SBAE teachers across the nation (Haynes et al., 2012; Myers & Washburn, 2008; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999; Thompson & Balschweid, 2000; Warnick et al., 2004). Specifically, the lack of preservice and in-service professional development opportunities allowing SBAE teachers to enhance their core content knowledge in the areas of STEM was identified as a consistent barrier, inhibiting the integration of STEM concepts within the SBAE classroom (Haynes et al., 2012; Myers & Washburn, 2008; Thompson & Balschweid, 1999; Thompson & Balschweid, 2000; Warnick et al., 2004). Furthermore, the lack of funding and essential resources (Ricketts et al., 2006; Warnick et al., 2004) to integrate STEM concepts within SBAE programs and secondary education classrooms was also expressed. These barriers were coupled with a perceived lack of support from school administration, counselors, other classroom teachers, and community stakeholders regarding the integration of STEM concepts into agricultural education programs (Myers & Washburn 2008; Warnick et al., 2004), ultimately exacerbating the problem. The aforementioned barriers are a small representation of many others expressed throughout the literature pertaining to STEM integration in agricultural education. Therefore, to better facilitate the preparation of preservice SBAE teachers and meet the professional development needs of in-service teachers, an analysis of current in-service SBAE teacher perceptions of STEM integration within the SBAE classroom is essential.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

This study implemented human capital theory to undergird the research, as the study aimed to determine the current level of STEM integration and the self-efficacy of SBAE teachers. Specifically, the education, skills, experiences, and training (Becker, 1964; Little, 2003; Shultz, 1971; Smith, 2010; Smylie, 1996) an individual possess related to their profession are essential components of this study. Ultimately, an individual’s human capital impacts their preparedness and competence in completing trade-specific tasks (Heckman, 2000), which in the case of this study is teaching SBAE. Eck et al. (2020) connected SBAE specific human capital development with effective teaching across a complete SBAE program (i.e., classroom/laboratory instruction, FFA advisement, and SAE supervision), identifying the connection between human capital development and effective teaching in SBAE. This connection is pivotal considering the positive impact self-efficacy has on a teacher’s educational aspirations (Roy et al., 2018). Specifically, teachers who feel more efficacious have greater aspirations to improve their future human capital as an educator (Roy et al., 2018). Figure 1 depicts the development of SBAE specific human capital (i.e., the identified components of an effective SBAE teacher along with personal, professional, and environmental factors) with effective teaching in SBAE (Eck et al., 2020).

Figure 1    

Conceptual Model of Effective Teaching for School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers (Eck et al., 2020)

Using the model developed by Eck et al. (2020) as a framework to better understand the current level of STEM integration put forth by SBAE teachers and their preparedness to do so helps to identify the gaps related to the specific human capital needed by SBAE teachers (Robinson & Baker, 2013) to be effective (Eck et al., 2021). As STEM integration has been identified as an integral part of a complete SBAE program (McKim et al., 2017; Ricketts et al., 2006). Therefore, it aligns with the necessary pedagogical preparedness to be an effective SBAE teacher, as identified in Figure 1. Furthermore, effective SBAE teachers impact the human capital (i.e., learning and development) of their students through the knowledge and skills taught and the personal dispositions exhibited (Smylie, 1996) throughout the complete SBAE program. This student-specific human capital development aligns with parents who “. . . want local educators to provide children with diplomas, if not specific job skills, that will ensure fruitful participation in the economy” (Sweetland, 1996, p. 356) and is furthered by industry leaders who believe educators should produce “. . . young people who are ready to function productively in a competitive workforce” (Sweetland, 1996, p. 356). Fortunately, Roberts and Ball (2009) discussed the potential for SBAE programs to meet the needs of both parents and industry professionals by developing both college and career readiness skills. Additional research is essential to further the human capital of SBAE teachers, ultimately impacting the necessary STEM workforce of the future.

Purpose and Objectives

While the barriers to STEM integration and teacher self-efficacy related to teaching STEM has been explored, and SBAE continues to aspire to prepare students for college and career readiness, a gap in the research specifically related to STEM integration in agricultural education exists (Stubbs & Myers, 2015). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the current level of STEM integration in SBAE classrooms in Oklahoma and South Carolina. Four research objectives guided this study:

  1. Determine Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE teachers’ current level of STEM integration.
  2. career clusters Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE teachers integrate STEM.
  • Explain the components of STEM commonly integrated by SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina.
  • Identify Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE teachers’ self-efficacy related to teaching STEM.

Methods and Procedures

This exploratory, non-experimental survey research study (Privitera, 2020) aimed to reach SBAE teachers in Oklahoma (N = 467) and South Carolina (N = 153) through a census approach. The two states were selected based on similarities related to current challenges facing education (Stanford, 2023), the historical significance of agriculture, and the focus on STEM in agricultural education (Oklahoma Department of Career and Technical Education, n.d.; South Carolina Department of Education, 2023). Therefore, individual emails requesting participation were sent to all SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina. The survey research design implemented a 16-item questionnaire developed to determine the level of STEM integration currently in SBAE programs in Oklahoma and South Carolina. Four questions were utilized for each of the four STEM components; for example, for science, SBAE teachers were asked (1) Do you regularly integrate science in their agricultural classes?; (2) What classes do you regularly integrate science in?; (3) What components related to science do you regularly integrate in the listed classes?; and (4) What is your current level of self-efficacy related to teaching science in agriculture? The same question structure (i.e., four questions with a change in STEM component) was implemented for technology, engineering, and math. Figure 2 outlines the questions used for math as an example, along with the sliding self-efficacy scale for each of the four STEM components.

Figure 2

STEM Integration in SBAE Instrument Example

If respondents reported not integrating a component per question one, they were prompted to answer why. In addition to the 16 items, six demographic questions (i.e., gender, age, certification pathway, SBAE teaching experience, highest degree earned, and the number of teachers in the program) were implemented to describe the participants. Prior to distribution, the questionnaire was evaluated for face, construct, and content validity (Privitera, 2020) by two faculty members in agricultural education and one in the College of Education, who focuses on STEM teaching and learning. Given the exploratory nature of this study and the open-ended response questions in the survey questionnaire, validity was the primary focus in the survey development, followed by experimenter bias. The research team aimed to reduce all potential biases that unintentionally could influence participants’ responses (Privitera, 2020). Finally, the survey questionnaire was pilot tested with 12 preservice SBAE teachers to further establish face and content validity. As the aim of the study was related to the current integration of in-service SBAE teachers, the pilot data was not used in past survey development. The questionnaire was distributed via individual email addresses to 153 SBAE teachers in South Carolina and 467 SBAE teachers in Oklahoma. A total of four points of contact (i.e., an initial email followed by three reminder invitations to participate) were utilized following the tailored design method to increase survey participation (Dillman et al., 2014).

Data collection resulted in 131 SBAE teachers responding to the online questionnaire after the initial participation invitation, 104 from Oklahoma and 27 from South Carolina, resulting in an overall response rate of 21.2%. The respondents were 65.2% male and 34.8% female, ranging from 22 to 66 years old. The majority (83.6%) of respondents were traditionally certified (i.e., agricultural education bachelor or master’s degree with student teaching), 13.4% were alternatively certified i.e., A route to teacher certification that varies

from short summer programs that place candidates in teaching assignments with full responsibility for students after a few weeks of training to those that offer one- or two year post-baccalaureate programs with ongoing support, integrated coursework, close mentoring, and supervision, (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002, p. 287) and 3.0% were emergency certified (i.e., “a process whereby states grant temporary teaching certificates to individuals who do not meet the standard certification criteria. Emergency teaching certificates can only be granted in cases where no certified teacher can be found to fill a given position” (Childs, 2012, para.1). The SBAE teachers ranged from first year teachers to those with over 35 years of experience, ranging from 59.7% with bachelor’s degrees to 38.8% with master’s degrees, and one reporting to have a Ph.D. The majority of respondents (53.7%) were in single teacher programs, while 38.8% reported being in two teacher departments, and 7.5% were in three teacher programs.

Although the study only reached 21.2% (n = 131) of the target population, the demographics collected allowed the researchers to compare respondent’s demographics to those of SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina, of which the respondents were representative of the state populations based on the distribution of personal and professional characteristics (NAAE, 2022). To further address the limitation associated with a low response rate, following data collection, early (i.e., those responding following the first two contacts [n = 72]) and late respondents (i.e., those responding following the last two contacts [n = 59]) were compared based on the recommendations of Lindner et al. (2001). The comparison between the two groups resulted in no difference; therefore, the results of this study should be considered generalizable to the target audience of SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the data using SPSS Version 25. Specifically, the first research objective evaluated frequencies and percentages, while research objectives two and three relied on frequencies, and the final research objective was analyzed using means and standard deviations.

Findings

Research Objective 1: Determine Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE Teachers’ Current Level of STEM Integration

When asked if they regularly integrate each of the STEM components (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) in their SBAE classroom, teachers most commonly integrated science, as 90.8% (n = 119) of respondents indicated they regularly incorporate science. Adversely, engineering was the least common STEM component incorporated, with only 33.6% (n = 44) integrating it in the SBAE classroom. Table 1 outlines the level of integration for each of the STEM components.

Table 1

Frequency of SBAE Teachers Integrating STEM Components (n = 131)

STEM Componentf%
Science 119 90.8
Technology 76 58.0
Engineering 44 33.6
Math 66 50.4

Although many teachers identified integrating some STEM components, those who did not were asked why. When asked, SBAE teachers responded with “I am not a science teacher,” “I am not familiar enough with the state science curriculum to make relevant connections,” “STEM is not currently integrated into the curriculum I am using,” or “I am not comfortable teaching these components .”Some respondents went on to say that teaching STEM “is someone else’s job” or that “[they] would, but they do not know how.”

Research Objective 2: Identify the Career Clusters Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE Teachers Integrate STEM

To address the second research objective, individual courses were grouped by their identified career cluster specified by their state. SBAE in Oklahoma and South Carolina offers 29 different classes spanning seven career clusters, including agricultural communications, agribusiness and management, agricultural power, structures, and technology, animal science, food products and processing, natural resources and environmental science, and plant and soil science. In addition to the 29 classes, three additional classes are available as introductory agricultural courses not specific to a career cluster. Introductory Courses (i.e., introduction to agriculture, introduction to agriscience, Ag 1) had highest integration of science (f = 61) and technology (f = 22). While engineering was most commonly reported in Agricultural Power and Technology (f = 25). Math had the lowest reported level of integration, with Plant and Soil Science being the most common pathway, with five teachers reporting integration. The frequency of science, technology, engineering, and math integration for each pathway is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2

Cluster Specific STEM Integration for SBAE Teachers (n = 131)

Career ClusterScienceTechnologyEngineeringMath
        
Agribusiness 0 1 0 0
Agricultural Communications 0 16 0 0
Agricultural Power and Technology 13 10 25 2
Animal Science 32 10 1 1
Environmental Service Systems 0 0 0 0
Food Science 3 0 0 0
Introductory Courses 61 22 4 6
Natural Resource and Environmental Science 11 2 0 2
Plant and Soil Science 26 5 1 5

Research Objective 3: Explain the Components of STEM Commonly Integrated by SBAE Teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina

The third research objective aimed to explain the specific topics addressed within agriculture related to each of the STEM components. When prompted to answer what components related to science they regularly integrated into their agricultural curriculum, participants commonly responded with genetics, anatomy, photosynthesis, plant and animal cells, animal reproduction, animal nutrition, and biology. Considering technology principles, SBAE teachers reported using computers, Google classroom, Canvas, Quizlet, iCEV, PowerPoint, Promethean boards, electronic record books, online curriculum, and computer software in general. A few teachers went past the technology integration for teaching and added the usage of CNC machines, drones, cameras, survey instruments, and pH testers. Engineering elicited responses, including reading blueprints, metal fabrication, construction, surveying, project design, and small engine repair. The final component of math demonstrated teachers making connections to feed rations, mixing fertilizer, record keeping, calculating area, measurement, calculating slope, and compiling a cost list of building materials. Table 3 outlines the 14 topic areas mentioned for science, 19 for technology, seven for engineering, 12 for math, and the corresponding frequency of participants who identified integrating that topic area.

Table 3

SBAE STEM Integration Topics Addressed by SBAE Teachers (n = 131)

STEM ComponentTopicf
    
Science Genetics 21
 Anatomy 18
 Photosynthesis 14
 Plant Cells 13
 Animal Reproduction 11
 Animal Nutrition 10
 Biology 10
 Plant Classification 9
 Animal Cells 8
 Scientific Method 6
 Chemistry of Herbicides 5
 Plant Propagation 5
 Animal Processing 3
 Scientific Process of Welding 2
    
Technology Google Classroom 26
 Online Curriculum/iCEV 18
 SMART/Promethean Boards 17
 Computers 15
 Computer Software 13
 Electronic Record Books/AET 11
 PowerPoint 10
 Quizlet 7
 CNC Machines 7
 Canvas 4
 Drones 4
 GPS 4
 Cameras 3
 Survey Instruments 3
 pH Testers 2
 YouTube 2
 Microscopes 1
 3-D Printers 1
 Virtual Reality 1
    
Engineering Project Design 20
 Construction 18
 Reading Blueprints 17
 Metal Fabrication 16
 Surveying 10
 Small Engine Repair 10
 Irrigation Systems 5
    
STEM Component Topic f
Math Feed Rations 23
 Measurement 23
 Record Keeping 20
 Fertilizer Calculations 18
 Cost Sheets 17
 EPDs 14
 Yield Percentages 14
 Average Daily Gain 13
 Calculating Area 9
 Calculating Slope 9
 Soil Triangle 8
 Ear Notching 2
    

Research Objective 4: Identify Oklahoma and South Carolina SBAE Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Related to Teaching STEM

The final research objective asked SBAE teachers to report their level of self-efficacy related to teaching science, technology, engineering, and math from zero to 100, where zero was no self-efficacy, and 100 was very high self-efficacy. Respondents ranged from SBAE teachers integrating STEM for the first time to those who reported to have been integrating STEM for over 35 years. SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina felt most efficacious in integrating science and least successful with engineering. Table 4 outlines the mean and standard deviation for teacher STEM self-efficacy for each component.

Table 4

SBAE Teacher STEM Self-Efficacy (n = 131)

STEM ComponentMeanSD
    
Science 78.20 15.73
Math 75.62 19.05
Technology 74.29 18.36
Engineering 53.07 25.95

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

While this study was limited to SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina who responded to the study (n = 131), their personal and professional characteristics were representative of those in their respective states. Science was the most commonly integrated STEM component, with 91% (n = 119) of participating SBAE teachers reporting they regularly integrate science into their curriculum. Similarly, science is the most regularly integrated STEM component with preservice SBAE teachers in multiple studies over the past 25 years (Boone et al., 2006; Brister & Swortzel, 2009; Clark, 2013; Conroy et al., 2000; Johnson, 1996; Stripling & Roberts, 2012; Swafford, 2018a, 2018b; Thoron & Myers, 2012a, 2012b; Warnick et al., 2004; Whisenhunt et al., 2021). Science being the dominant component further aligns with previous research referring to agriculture as the oldest science globally (Ricketts et al., 2006) and an applied science (Balschweid & Thompson, 2000). In the case of this study, science was followed by lower integration levels, with 58% (n = 76) integrating technology, 50% (n = 66) integrating math, and 34% (n = 44) integrating engineering.

These levels of STEM integration align with recent research related to technology and engineering integration in SBAE (Eck et al., 2021, Wang & Knobloch, 2020), which outlined a lack of concern for technology and engineering as STEM components. Although only 50% of the participants reported integrating math, the math enhanced curriculum in SBAE has significantly impacted secondary students’ math performance (Parr et al., 2006). Therefore, it is essential to further understand SBAE teachers’ level of STEM integration, including the courses for each component of STEM.   

Introductory agricultural courses (i.e., eighth or ninth-grade ag, introduction to agriculture) were the most commonly reported cluster of integration for science, technology, and math. In contrast, engineering was most frequently integrated in agricultural power and technology courses. Although much of the reported integration aligns with the career clusters, others have little to no integration even though respondents reported teaching those courses. For example, no STEM integration was reported for environmental service systems, and only one SBAE teacher reported integrating STEM in agribusiness, which was in technology. Overall, technology was integrated across most career clusters of the STEM components.  

Although technology was reported across most career clusters, the technology integration focused on classroom technologies, including computers, Google classroom, Canvas, Quizlet, iCEV, PowerPoint, Promethean boards, electronic record books, online curriculum, and computer software in general. Unfortunately, only a few SBAE teachers (n = 3) went past the technology integration for teaching and focused on integrating technology in agriculture, including the use of CNC machines, drones, cameras, survey instruments, and pH testers. Perhaps this is due to the nature of their training as they prepare to be certified teachers, focusing on teaching pedagogy and educational technologies? Additional research is warranted related to SBAE teachers’ understanding of the STEM technology integration in agriculture, as it was integrated across the most career clusters, even though respondents’ technology self-efficacy resulted in a mean score of 74.3.

Overall, SBAE teachers reported being most efficacious in science, followed by math, technology, and engineering. This corresponds with science also being the most integrated item reported in this study. In addition, many SBAE teacher preparation programs provide additional science emphasis or coursework in the undergraduate degree plans, as nearly 84% of respondents were traditionally certified. Although participants felt most efficacious in science, the mean score for self-efficacy in integrating science in agriculture was only 78.2. This C grade in science self-efficacy is concerning considering the vast body of literature focused on science integration in SBAE. Perhaps additional resources need to be developed for preservice and inservice SBAE teachers to further understand and develop skills related to STEM self-efficacy and integration.

Considering the current level of STEM integration reported by SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina and their current level of self-efficacy to integrate STEM, we must consider how this impacts their human capital. Specifically the human capital undergirding this study focuses on career specific (Heckman, 2000) human capital (i.e., teaching SBAE) that ultimately leads to effective teaching in SBAE, according to Eck et al. (2020). This study’s levels and depth of STEM integration highlight the need for purposeful professional development for in-service SBAE teachers focusing on STEM integration in the classroom while simultaneously increasing STEM teaching self-efficacy. This supports the development of SBAE specific pedagogical preparedness (Eck et al., 2021) and better situates teachers to effectively integrate STEM, which has been identified as an integral part of a complete SBAE program (McKim et al., 2017; Ricketts et al., 2006).

Although this study was limited to SBAE teachers in Oklahoma and South Carolina, teacher preparation programs should consider the findings of this study as a potential need in their state related to SBAE teachers’ preparedness to integrate STEM. Additionally, in-service teachers reported varying levels of STEM integration, leading to the need for a scaffold approach to professional development. This approach should consider each component of STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and math) along with a career cluster focus (i.e., ag communications, agribusiness and management, agricultural power, structures, and technology, animal science, food products and processing, natural resources and environmental science, and plant and soil science), allowing teachers to determine the best fit for their current level of understanding and programmatic needs. Beyond developing preservice and inservice SBAE teachers, school, district, and state-level administrators should be made aware of the rigor and relevance within SBAE classrooms, as these teachers are not only making real-world connections that lead to viable STEM careers (Bostic et al., 2020; Kuenzi et al., 2006), but they are also making relevant connections to concepts taught in classes across campus. Effective SBAE teachers ready to integrate STEM in their classroom have the opportunity to address the current struggle students face (The Condition of College & Career Readiness, 2017; Wilmer, 2008) as they attempt to reach proficient levels in science and math. Perhaps additional support and value can be placed on SBAE teachers by administrators who are aware of the effort put forth by the teacher and the potential impact agricultural classes have on students.

As this study was exploratory, additional research is essential to better understand and support in-service and preservice SBAE teachers. Therefore, this study should be replicated in other states to determine the specific needs of teachers. Likewise, an adapted study should be implemented with preservice teachers to evaluate the impact of coursework in their teacher preparation program on their preparedness to effectively integrate STEM during their clinical teaching experience and beyond. Although SBAE teachers reported integrating STEM, it is essential to consider if they really are and, if so, how? Therefore, to further understand the STEM integration of SBAE teachers, a qualitative focus group interview should be conducted to explore the current integration and barriers associated with STEM integration across career clusters. Additionally, the evaluation of in-service SBAE teacher lesson plans or the observation of SBAE classes could further the understanding of the current level of STEM integration. As research on STEM integration is expanded, SBAE Stakeholders (i.e., school administrators, state agricultural education and FFA staff, SBAE teacher educators) will better grasp the need to support the development of purposeful STEM integration training for in-service and preservice SBAE teachers.

References

American College Testing (ACT). (2019). The condition of college & career readiness 2019. https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/reports/act-publications/condition-of-college-and-career-readiness-2019.html

Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2000). Agriculture and science integration: A pre-service prescription for contextual learning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2),36–45. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.02036

Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. The University of Chicago Press.

Boone, H. N., Gartin, S. A., Boone, D. A., & Hughes, J. E. (2006). Modernizing the agricultural education curriculum: An analysis of agricultural education teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.01078

Bostic, J. D., Clark, Q. M., Vo, T., Esters, L. T., & Knobloch, N. A. (2020). A design process for developing agricultural life-science focused model electing activities. School Science and Mathematics, 2020(00), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12444

Brister, M. H., & Swortzel, K. A. (2009). A comparison of attitudes of agriscience teachers, counselors, and administrators toward science integration with student attitudes toward agriscience programs. Paper presented at the American Association for Agricultural for Agricultural Education Research Conference, Louisville, KY.

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), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.5032.jae/2001/01061

Childs, B. (2012). What is emergency teacher certification? https://certificationmap.com/emergency–teacher–certification/

Clark, A. R. (2013). Effects of integrating mathematical concepts into an animal science curriculum (Master’s thesis, Utah State University) http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1950/

Conroy, C. A., Dailey, A. L., & Shelley-Tolbert, C. A. (2000). The move to agriscience and its impact on teacher education in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 51– 61. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.04051

Conroy, C. A., & Walker, N. J. (2000). An examination of integration of academic and vocational subject matter in the aquaculture classroom. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.02054

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://doi.org10.1177/0022487102053004002

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry Jr., R., & Ramsey, J. W. (2020). 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., 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., Whisenhunt, J., Robinson, J. S., Neumann, K. L., Utley, J., & Gossen, D. (2021). How pre-service agricultural education teachers plan to integrate STEM competencies in their lessons. NACTA Journal, 65(1), 242–253. https://www.nactateachers.org/index.php/volume-65-november-2020-october-2021/3123-how-pre-service-agricultural-education-teachers-plan-to-integrate-stem-competencies-in-

            their-lessons

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Hayes, S. (2017). Preparation matters most in STEM (Issue brief). ACT. http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1647-preparation-matters-in-stem-2017-05.pdf

Haynes, J. C., Robinson, J. S., Edwards, M. C., & Key, J. P. (2012). Assessing the effect of using a science-enhanced curriculum to improve agriculture students’ science scores: A causal          comparative study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(2), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.02015

Heckman, J. L. (2000). Invest in the very young. Ounce of Prevention Fund. http://www.ounceofprevention.org/downloads/publications/Heckman.pdf

Johnson, D. M. (1996). Science credit for agriculture: Perceived support, preferred implementation methods, and teacher science course work. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.01022

Kuenzi, J. J., Matthews, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. Congressional Research Report. Congressional Research Services. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474889.pdf

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

Little, A. W. (2003, December). Motivating learning and the development of human capital. British Association for International and Comparative Education, 33(4), 437–452.

McKim, A. J., Velez, J. J., Lambert, M. D., & Balshweid, M. A. (2017). A philosophical review of science and society within agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.02098

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.2008.02027

National Association of Agricultural Educators (NAAE). (2022). Agricultural Education supply and demand. Author. https://www.naae.org/teachag/supplyanddemand.cfm#sd

National Council for Agricultural Education. (2012). About agricultural education. Author.            https://www.ffa.org/thecouncil/aboutus

Oklahoma Department of Career and Technical Education. (n.d.). Agricultural education. Author. https://oklahoma.gov/careertech/educators/agricultural-education.html

Parr, B. A., Edwards, M. C., & Leising, J. G. (2006). Effects of a math-enhanced curriculum and instructional approach on the mathematics achievement of an agricultural power and technology students: An experimental study. Journal of Agricultural Education,47(3), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03081

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

Ricketts, J. C., Duncan, D. W., & Peake, J. B. (2006). Science achievement of high school students in complete programs of agriscience education. Journal of Agricultural    Education, 47(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02048

Roberts, T. G., & Ball, A. L. (2009). Secondary agricultural science as a content and context for teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01081

Robinson, J. S., & Baker, M. A. (2013). The effect of human capital on principals’ decisions to interview candidates in agricultural education: Implications for pre-service teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01139

Roy, S., Morton, M, & Bhattacharya, S. (2018). Hidden human capital: Self-efficacy, aspirations and achievements of adolescent and young women in India. World Development, 111, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.002

Scales, J., Terry Jr, R., & Torres, R. M. (2009). Are teachers ready to integrate science concepts         into secondary agriculture programs? Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 102–113.    https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02102

Shinn, G. C., Briers, G. E., Christiansen, J. E., Edwards, M. C., Harlin, J. F., & Lawver, D. E., (2003). Improving student achievement in mathematics: An important role for secondary   agricultural education in the 21st century. Monograph, National Council for Agricultural Education. https://doi.org/10.1.1.130.5829

Shultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. The Free Press.

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. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183

Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teaching learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177152

South Carolina Department of Education. (2023). About. Author. https://ed.sc.gov/about/ 

Stanford, L. (2023). The state of rural schools, in charts: Funding, graduation rates, performance, and more. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/the-state-of-rural-schools-in-charts-funding-graduation-rates-performance-and-more/2023/11

Stripling, C. T., & Ricketts, J. C. (2016). Research priority 3: Sufficient scientific and professional workforce that addresses the challenges of the 21st century. In T. G. Roberts, A. Harder, M. T. Brashears (Eds.), American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016-2020 (pp. 29-36). Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.

Stripling, C. T., & Roberts, T. G. (2012). Florida pre-service agricultural education teachers’         mathematics ability and efficacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.01109

Stubbs, E. A., & Myers, B. E. (2016). Part of what we do: Teacher preparation of STEM integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03087

Stubbs, E. A., & Myers, B. E. (2015). Multiple case study of STEM in school-based agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02188

Swafford, M. (2018a). 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

Swafford, M. (2018b). The state of the profession: STEM in agricultural education. Journal of

Agricultural Education, 59(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04315

Sweetland, S. R. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of a field of inquiry. Review of

Educational Research, 66(3), 341–359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170527?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of Oregon agricultural science and     technology teachers toward integrating science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(2),        21–29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.02021

Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. M. (2000). Integrating science into agriculture programs:       Implications for addressing state standards and teacher preparation programs. Journal of  Agricultural Education, 41(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.02073

Thompson, G. W., & Warnick, B. K. (2007). Integrating science into the agricultural education

            curriculum: Do science and agriculture teachers agree? Journal of Agricultural

            Education, 48(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03001

Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2012a). Effects of inquiry–based agriscience instruction and subject matter–based instruction on student argumentation skills. Journal of Agricultural          Education, 53(2), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.02058

Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2012b). Effects of inquiry–based agriscience instruction on  student scientific reasoning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 156–170.

https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04156

Wang, H.-H., & Knobloch, N. A. (2020). Pre-service 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

Warnick, B. K., Thompson, G. W., & Gummer, E. S. (2004). Perceptions of science teachers           regarding the integration of science into the agricultural education curriculum. Journal of            Agricultural Education, 45(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.02073

Whisenhunt, J., Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Key, J., R., & Ramsey, J. W. (2021) How the duration of a student teaching internship impacts the overall quality of interns’ lesson plans: A comparison of two formats. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education

Research, 71. http://jsaer.org/2021/04/08/how-programmatic-changes-impact-the- lesson-plan-quality-of-student-teaching-interns-a-comparison-of-two-formats/

Wilmer, E. (2008). Student support services for the underprepared student. Inquiry, 13(1), 5–19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ833908.pdf

Guidance Counselors’ Perceptions of Agriscience Courses

Authors

Mark Bloss, Pawnee City High School, Nebraska, mbloss@pawneecityschool.net

Brian Johnson, Litchfield Public Schools, Nebraska, brian.johnson@litchfieldps.org

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

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

Mark Balschweid, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, mbalschweid2@unl.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

This study examined the perceptions of high school guidance counselors in Nebraska in regard to the science present in high school agriscience courses. An understanding of guidance counselors’ perceptions of science incorporated into high school agriscience courses will help agriscience instructors successfully highlight the significance of science in their courses to improve perceptions of the science that is taught in agriscience courses. Interviews were conducted with 10 guidance counselors in Nebraska. The following themes emerged from the study: (a) Science Credit for Agriscience Courses, (b) Superficial Knowledge of Agriscience Courses, (c) Real World Connections, (d) Reasons for Student Placement in Agriscience Courses, (e) Lack of High School Agriscience Experience, and (f) Agricultural Connections. Findings indicated that guidance counselors see real world applications in agriscience courses, but specific connections to science principles need to be highlighted for the agriscience courses to count as science credit. Additionally, agricultural educators who depend on sustained enrollment in agriscience courses, and for agriscience students who wish to receive science credit for those courses, it is imperative that agriscience instructors inform guidance counselors of the science taught through agriscience courses.

Introduction and Review of Literature

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is an interdisciplinary and applied approach to integrating the four specific disciplines. STEM integrates the four disciplines into a cohesive learning paradigm based on real-world applications (Hom, 2014). There has been increased interest in STEM education over the past few decades (Harrington, 2015). Even though the United States is considered a world leader, our students’ achievement in math and science, as well as STEM degree attainment, is low (Kuenzi, 2008). The U.S. ranks in international assessments for 15-year-old students were lower than expected. The U.S. ranked 24th in math (Kuenzi, 2008). For 24 year-old’s pursuing degrees in engineering or natural science, the U.S. ranked 20th (Kuenzi, 2008). According to the PEW research center, the  United States is below average in math, but above average in science when compared to the other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Kennedy, 2024).

Science literacy is important, and the need for it is continually increasing (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; McLure & McLure, 2000; Miller, 2010). Even though science is everywhere, high school science teachers have adjusted their curriculum to ensure better state testing results (Alberts, 2004). State testing can be useful, as long as it is not about students memorizing facts but teaching students to critically think about important issues (Marincola, 2006). With there being a need to increase science literacy, there is always room for incorporating new approaches when teaching science. Science taught at the high school level is often abstract and lacking relevance, which could be contributing to the lack of scientific literacy (Conroy et al., 1999; Shelley-Tolbert et al., 2000).

Historically, career and technical education courses (agriscience education courses) are known for teaching industry specific skills that prepare students for employment (Gordon, 2008). Similarly, students recognize science concepts taught within an agricultural context. Agriscience programs offer an opportunity for students to apply skills and knowledge learned through science courses to real-life situations. This is why agriculture programs integrate science into their courses (Castellano et al., 2003; Israel al., 2012). Agriscience helps students to learn STEM concepts and to utilize those skills through practical applications (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Mabie & Baker, 1996; Myers et al., 2009). STEM concepts have been taught in many agricultural content areas, including horticulture and floriculture (Ferand et al., 2020) and animal science (Harmon et al., 2023).

However, at the secondary school level, guidance counselors are often the gatekeepers to a student’s future. One of their functions is to assist students throughout their high school career, and to help them decide, plan, and pursue post-secondary education (Rowe, 1989). College personnel see high school guidance counselors as individuals who have significant influence on students as they transition from high school (Rowe, 1989). Counselors tend to advise students toward conventional educational choices more than vocational education choices (Lewis & Kaltreider, 1976). While guidance counselors help students identify educational and career paths that are suited to their interests, there is often a low counselor to student ratio. This can be an issue for availability.

Counselors cannot be experts in every occupational area, which is why consultation will have to come from more than one person (Johnson & Brown, 1977). If counselors do not have information about the agriculture program in the school, they may not be able to advise correctly for that department. Communication between agriculture teachers and guidance counselors is important for students to provide the information they need to choose courses. Counselors may not be familiar with the science that is present in high school agriscience courses. As a result, agricultural educators need to highlight the significance of science in their courses to improve perceptions of the science that is taught in agriscience courses.

Theoretical Framework

Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) was used as the theoretical framework for this study (1991). The TPB model indicates that a person’s attitude, their subjective norms, and their perceived behavioral control impacts their intentions, which then impacts their behavior (Ajzen, 1991). For our study, we are looking at the behavior of teaching science through agriscience courses. Ajzen’s TPB allows us to examine the guidance counselors attitudes and perceptions of teaching science through agriscience.

Purpose and Research Questions

In 1990, the Carl Perkins Act was amended to emphasize the integration of academic skills and knowledge to a career and technical education setting (Gordon, 2008). This movement focused on utilizing agriscience courses to meet learning outcomes (Stern & Stearns, 2006) that are academic in nature. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of high school guidance counselors across the state of Nebraska regarding the science that is present in high school agriscience courses. Understanding guidance counselors’ perceptions of the science present in high school agriscience courses could help agriscience instructors to successfully highlight the significance of science in their courses and to improve perceptions of the science that is taught in agriscience courses. The following research question guided this study: How do high school guidance counselors perceive the science that is taught in agriscience?

Methods

This study is qualitative in nature. According to Creswell (1998), a qualitative study allows for the researchers to better understand what is happening. More specifically, Merriam’s basic or generic qualitative methodology was used for this study (1998). The basic or generic methodology allows the researcher to provide a detailed description, adhere meaning to the data, and organize the data into themes (Merriam, 1998).

The guidance counselors consisted of both male and female guidance counselors that worked in the state of Nebraska. To determine which guidance counselors would be asked to participate, the “School & Teacher Directory” page was referenced on the Nebraska Department of Education’s Career Education Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources website. From the list of all schools in Nebraska offering agriscience courses, a list of the high school guidance counselors from those schools were made. An email was sent to each of them asking if they were willing to participate. After each guidance counselor agreed to participate, a follow up email containing an Institutional Review Board approved consent form was sent to each Guidance Counselor that was willing to participate. Once the participants confirmed their consent to participate, interviews were scheduled and conducted via Zoom, lasting between 45-60 minutes each. Ten guidance counselors across Nebraska participated in the study.

A semi-structured interview approach was used to ask probing questions based on participant responses. In accordance with Creswell (1998) each interview was recorded and transcribed for data analysis. The data was analyzed by the researchers using thematic data analysis. Thematic data analysis allowed for the data to be grouped into smaller chunks for the researchers to focus on recurring words and phrases found in the data (Grbich, 2007). The block and file approach was also used to delineate words and phrases found in the data (Grbich, 2007). The recurring words and phrases were categorized together into themes. The data was coded by hand through a process of color-coding words and phrases that were similar in nature. The color coding allowed for the data to be grouped together and for themes to emerge.

In qualitative research, it is important to address trustworthiness (Dooley, 2007). In order to achieve credibility, triangulation amongst the researchers was used. Three of the researchers analyzed the data and came to agreement on the themes that emerged from the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member checking was also used to help ensure credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). During the interviews, the guidance counselors were given the opportunity to verify the meaning of what was stated. The researcher directly asked the participants for clarification and if they were accurately interpreting what was said. In order for this study to be replicated and to account for dependability and confirmability, the researchers kept an audit trail by writing down notes to trace the decisions that were made throughout the research process (Dooley, 2007). Transferability was ensured by provided a description of the context.

The researchers in this study all have experience working in the field of agricultural education. Four of the researchers have experience teaching high school agriculture and two of the researchers are professors of agricultural education. Additionally, one researcher has a background as an animal science professor and has experience facilitating professional development for high school agriculture teachers. Three of the researchers have multiple publications focused on science literacy and integrating science into the agriculture classroom.

Findings

From the interviews, six themes emerged: (a) disagreement about science credit for agriscience courses, (b) superficial knowledge of agriscience courses, (c) real world connections, (d) reasons for student placement in agriscience courses, (e) lack of high school agriscience experience, and (f) agricultural connections.

Disagreement about Science Credit for Agriscience Courses

The guidance counselors interviewed agreed regarding the real-world applications of science in agriscience courses. The most practical science is happening in those courses. The science there is “absolutely real and useful.” While seven counselors interviewed believe science credit should be awarded for agriscience courses, others were not as receptive. Guidance counselors want agriscience instructors that are highly qualified in the area of science. Agriscience courses “need real science” in them, although there is the idea that agriscience is already integrated into science courses. If the agriscience instructor is accredited to teach science, students taking those courses should be able to receive science credit, especially with a perceived shortage of science teachers across our state.

In some cases, science credit is available for some courses. One guidance counselor who believed agriscience courses should count for science credit said specifically, “Agriscience, Plant Science, Animal Science and Environmental Science are ones that could be taken for science credit.” Of course, there are differences in perceptions of the science being taught in agriscience programs compared to traditional science courses. One counselor said, “Personally, I feel that’s just as much as what is being taught in a regular science course. I would have to say that they should be able to receive credit.”  Another counselor disagreed. “The science teacher thought it should be more rigorous.”

Despite the shared belief that agriscience courses apply science principles to real world experiences, those experiences may not be traditional enough to fulfill normal expectations for a science class. One counselor said that agriscience courses not counting for science credit “comes down to the fact that they really don’t do and didn’t have the labs [that] would probably need to count as a science credit.”  That counselor went on to say that, “There is definitely science in the ag courses, but it’s not every day.” 

While guidance counselors felt the most practical and real science is happening in agriscience courses, the idea of giving science credit for agriscience courses was not as easily agreed upon. Interestingly, a perceived lack of rigor or laboratories was enough to question whether the science in agriscience courses is practical or real enough to equate to science credit.

Superficial Knowledge of Agriscience Courses

All the guidance counselors involved in this study played a part in helping students schedule their courses. Even with a large role in guiding students through class scheduling, their knowledge of the agriscience courses offered is largely superficial. Only one of participants were knowledgeable about agriscience courses offerings. The remaining participants relied primarily on course descriptions. The participants all had course descriptions that they review with students when scheduling courses. One participant used the course description to provide guidance if a student asked for assistance. Another participant lets the student read the descriptions to decide on their own. If, after reading the description, the student is still unsure, he or she is advised, “We won’t know unless you try.”

In addition to course descriptions, guidance in class selection is dependent on additional factors. What grade level “can take” each class is used with course descriptions, so grade appropriateness is important. Options within the schedule were also factor. Largely, though, course descriptions were the most common resource used by the guidance counselors in helping students select courses.

Real World Connections

All guidance counselors surveyed addressed the connections between agriculture and the real application of science. A common theme that emerged was the real-world connections of science in agriculture. As one guidance counselor pointed out, the connection to agriculture makes the core subject material more real. By having a link to real-world experiences, to some degree, agriscience courses give students an opportunity to look at science differently.

The importance of cross-curriculum in agriscience is a noted benefit. From the interviews, agriscience courses drew connections to mathematics, English, and business courses, in addition to science. One guidance counselor twice pointed out how highly connected math, science, and communication skills are in agriculture. That teacher went on to say that “there are a lot of realities and skills that are connected with agriscience that will be utilized by people across many different areas in life.” Agriscience courses provide students with real world examples when and how science concepts are use. One guidance counselor said, “There seems to be a connection everywhere to agriculture.”  The hands-on application and connections to real experiences in agriscience courses help students buy into and apply science concepts that students need to know.

Reasons for Student Placement in Agriscience Courses

The recommendations by guidance counselors for elective courses were based on student interest, perceived skill level, and future plans. Class recommendations are individualized and depend on what students tell them. The options of courses, then are based on the students’ expressed interests. If students have passion, interest and skill level in a specific area, then the student is advised to take that particular course. If they are not interested in a recommended area, different electives are suggested.

Students with an interest in agricultural careers are highly encouraged by their guidance counselors to take agriscience courses. From the interviews, agriscience courses are recommended to students with interests specifically in veterinary science and technology, agronomy, farming, agribusiness, landscaping, lawn care, gardening, welding, automotive, diesel mechanics, and ranching. Two of the interviewed guidance counselors recommend agriscience courses to students who may not have agriculturally related career goals or are unsure of their interest in agriculture. One of the two said that the type of students who typically enrolls in agriscience courses are “those who aren’t sure they have an interest and those who want to see if they have an interest.”  There is also an expressed potential for those students to enjoy agriscience courses and take additional agriscience courses. Another guidance counselor noted the potential benefits from taking an agriscience course not directly related to their career goals. “Even if they are not going to use that in their future college career, I still think there are benefits to be gained from being in those courses.” 

Lack of High School Agriscience Experience

Of the 10 guidance counselors interviewed, only one was enrolled in agriscience courses as a high school student. Five attended high schools that did not offer agriscience courses. One counselor responded saying, “It was not encouraged. I didn’t think I could.” 

Agricultural Connections

All of the respondents to the interviews had personal experiences or direct family connections to agriculture. Seven of the respondents grew up on farms, one respondent’s father farmed on the side while owning and operating a grain elevator, and one cited her experiences on her grandparents’ farm growing up. Two of the respondents are still personally involved in agriculture by raising livestock and one is involved in a family farming operation. One interviewee stated that “agriculture has always been a part of my life.”  The responses by the guidance counselors interviewed showed some level of connection to agriculture through personal experiences or connections to family growing up.

Conclusion

Guidance counselors assist students throughout their school career by helping decide, plan and pursue post-secondary education, particularly by making recommendations for course enrollment. They are the gatekeepers to students’ futures. Guidance counselors’ jobs are important for students in finding a path that is suitable for their interests. Counselors tend to avoid advising students to enroll in vocational courses (Lewis & Kaltreider, 1976), and this study of high school counselors showed that the recommendations by guidance counselors for elective courses are based on student interest, perceived skill level, and future plans that are largely based on what the student tells them or the students’ expressed interests.

This study found that students with an interest in agricultural careers are highly encouraged by their guidance counselors to take agriscience courses. However, what about students who may be unaware of the possibilities in agriculture? Even though the guidance counselors in this study have connections and experiences in agriculture, their knowledge of specific agriscience courses is largely superficial and their own experiences in high school agriscience courses were limited. By having a superficial knowledge of agriscience courses, guidance counselors are missing opportunities to expose new students to opportunities through agriculture. This means that potential students could miss the opportunity to learn about STEM through animal science courses (Harmon et al., 2023) and floriculture and horticulture courses (Fernand et al., 2020). For example, real world skills learned in animal science could translate to skills in the medical field, but students may miss the opportunity to be exposed to those real experiences by not being advised to take agricultural courses. By being specific about the applicable science skills in agriscience courses, guidance counselors can find parallels that translate to skills outside of agriculture.

Even though their role in guiding students to specific courses, counselors are largely dependent on course descriptions provided by the instructor. Counselors cannot be “experts” in every occupational area, which is why consultation from agriscience instructors is critical. If counselors do not have information about the agriculture program in the school, they will not be able to advise correctly for that department. Agriscience instructors need to take a more active role in providing specific necessary information about their courses to appropriately assist guidance counselors in helping students with the selection of their courses. Agriscience teachers could work with their students to develop short YouTube videos that demonstrate the science that is being taught in the agriscience classroom. These YouTube videos could help the guidance counselors better understand the agriscience classroom and the videos could also be shared with students as a recruitment effort. The YouTube video should highlight the STEM concepts taught within agriscience courses. If more students enrolled in agriscience courses, more students would be exposed to courses that use applied STEM concepts, which could help remedy the issue that Conroy et al., 1999 and Shelley-Tolbert et al., 2000 raised with the abstractness of traditional science courses.

Guidance counselors perceived a lack of rigor regarding science in agriscience courses. When examined through Ajzen’s TPB (1991), the guidance counselors do not have a positive perception of the rigor associated with the science being taught. Therefor the guidance counselors’ attitude toward the science being taught through agriscience is less than positive.  Because guidance counselors were reliant on course descriptions in helping students select their courses, agriscience course descriptions should be enhanced to showcase the science in agriscience. Agriscience courses with “science” incorporated into the name are perceived to be more advantageous to fulfilling science credits. To fulfill science requirements, guidance counselors need to see the connection to traditional science courses. Current science standards should be used to show that specific science principles are being taught. Related career areas, both related to agriculture and outside of agriculture, should also be listed. Course descriptions should be complete enough to benefit the guidance counselor, the agriscience instructor and the student. By clearly making the connection between traditional sciences course and agriscience courses, more students may enroll expanding the agriscience teachers’ opportunity to successfully help students improve their standardized test scores, which could contribute to improved high school students math and science scores in the United States (Kuenzi, 2008).

This study of guidance counselors identified the common view of the “realness” of science and cross-curricular benefits of agriscience courses. Laboratory experiences are an important part of science education. In regard to agriscience courses, there appears to be ambiguity in regard to what constitutes a laboratory experience. Guidance counselors see the real experiences and hands on approach to agriscience as advantages to learning in agriculture. Agriscience teachers need to be proactive in selling those experiences as being as beneficial as labs in a science classroom. Agriscience teachers should make it a priority to invite guidance counselors to observe and participate in laboratory experiences that have practical applications. This will let the guidance counselors experience the science that is being taught and it will allow for further discussion between agriscience teachers and guidance counselors. Additionally, it is the practical application in agriscience  that helps students to learn and use STEM concepts (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Mabie & Baker, 1996; Myers et al., 2009).

With an increased importance in science literacy, there is a need for new approaches to teaching science. Agriculture programs have science integrated into their courses and students are able to recognize science concepts taught through an agricultural context (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Mabie & Baker, 1996;  Myers et al., 2009). Agriscience programs offer opportunities for the skills and knowledge learned in science courses to be linked directly to authentic applications, which is why agriculture programs have science integrated into their courses (Castellano et al., 2003). Students are able to learn STEM concepts and be able to see those skills through practical applications and contextualizing science concepts. Inquiry-based instruction is one teaching method being used in science standards. Inquiry-based teaching methods have been found to enhance a student’s ability to conduct experiments and to help them gain a better understanding of the process of scientific inquiry (National Research Council [NRC], 2007). Teachers should purposefully select methodologies when integrating STEM content into the context of agriculture (Baker et al., 2014). Although guidance counselors agree about the realness of science in agriculture, they are conflicted on whether that realness is enough to fulfill the requirements of a traditional science class. Science is a core principle of agriscience courses. Agriscience programs offer opportunities for the skills and knowledge learned in science courses to be linked directly to authentic applications, which is why agriculture programs have science integrated into their courses (Castellano et al., 2003).

Student enrollment in agriscience courses is largely dependent on the role guidance counselors play in advising those students. While guidance counselors may have connections to agriculture and see real world connections to principles of agriscience, their experience with and knowledge of agriscience courses is largely superficial. The decisions they make for student placement is largely dependent on student interest and provided course descriptions. While guidance counselors see the real-world applications in agriscience courses, specific connections to science principles must be drawn for them to qualify for science credit. For agricultural educators to depend on enrollment in agriscience courses and for agriscience students to receive science credit, agriscience instructors must work with guidance counselors and provide all of the necessary information. Agriscience teachers need to be instrumental in educating guidance counselors about what they are currently doing in their programs to show them the connection between agriscience and science standards. This will help to show guidance counselors the importance of agriscience courses and how they impact academic learning. Agriscience education professionals understand how agriscience courses improve and enhance students’ academic achievements in the field of science (Enderlin & Osborne, 1992, Enderlin et al., 1993; Roegge & Russell, 1990; Whent & Leising, 1988) and how science is integrated into agriscience courses. Agriscience teachers should invite guidance counselors to come to their classrooms and participate in some learning activities that demonstrate how science is used in agriscience courses. Additionally, brochures/handouts that emphasize the science components within agriscience should be developed and left with the guidance counselors. The brochures/handouts could be used with the students when the guidance counselor is helping the student select courses.

Future research needs to be conducted in this area. Research has clearly documented that STEM concepts are effectively taught through agriscience (Chiasson & Burnett, 2001; Mabie & Baker, 1996;  Myers et al., 2009). Future research should be done to see if guidance counselors in other states have similar perception. An investigation focused on what agriscience teachers are currently doing to educate and promote their agriscience courses with their guidance counselors would allow us to better understand what needs to be done in the future. Additionally, there may be some agriscience teachers doing a phenomenal job educating and promoting their agriscience courses with their guidance counselors.

References

Alberts, B. (2004, April 19). A world that banks on science. National Academy.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., Stone, J. R., III. (2003). Secondary career and technical education and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 231-272.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002231

Chiasson, T. C., & Burnett, M. F. (2001). The influence on enrollment in agriscience courses on

the science achievement of high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education,

42(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.01061

Conroy, C. Trumbull, D., & Johnson, D. (1999). Agriculture as a rich context for teaching and learning, and for learning mathematics and science to prepare the workforce of the 21st Century [White paper]. National Science Foundation.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications.

Dooley, K. E. (2007). Viewing agricultural education research through a qualitative lens. Journal of Agricultural Education48(4), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.04032

Enderlin, K. J., & Osborne, E. W. (1992). Student achievement, attitudes, and thinking skill attainment in an integrated science/agriculture course. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 37-44. St. Louis, MO.

Enderlin, K J., Petrea, R. E., & Osborne, E. W., (1993). Student and teacher attitude toward and performance in an integrated science/agriculture course. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Central Region Research Conference in Agricultural Education. St. Louis, MO.

Ferand, N. K., DiBenedetto, C. A., Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2020). Agriscience Teacher Professional Development Focused on Teaching STEM Principles in the Floriculture Curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education61(4), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04189

Gordon, H. R. (2008). The history and growth of career and technical education in America. Waveland Press.

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage.

Harmon, K., Ruth, T., Reiling, B., Conner, N. W., & Stripling, C. T. (2023). Predicting teachers’ intent to use inquiry-based learning in the classroom after a professional development. Advancements in Agricultural Development4(3), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.345

Harrington, E. G. (2015, Summer). Science and technology resources on the internet. http://istl.org/15-summer/internet.html

Hom, E. J. (2014, February). What is STEM education? https://www.livescience.com/43296-what-is-stem-education.html

Israel, G., Myers, B., Lamm, A. & Galindo-Gonzalez, S. (2012). CTE students and science achievement: Does type of coursework and occupational cluster matter? Career and Technical Education Research. 1, 3-20(18). https://doi.org/10.5328/cter37.1.3.

Johnson, R. W. & Brown, R. A. (1977). Who provides agricultural career information? Journal of Agricultural Education, 18(1), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1977.01017

Kennedy, B. (2024). Most americans think U.S. K-12 STEM education isn’t above average, but test results paint a mixed picture. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/most-americans-think-us-k-12-stem-education-isnt-above-average-but-test-results-paint-a-mixed-picture/

Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action (Government Report). Congressional Research Service.

Lewis, M. V. & Kaltreider, L. W. (1976). Attempts to overcome stereotyping in vocational education. Institute for Research of Human Resources.

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

Mabie, R., & Baker, M. (1996). A comparison of experiential instructional strategies upon the science process skills or urban elementary students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(2), l–7. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.02001

Marincola, E. (2006). Why is public science education important? Journal of Translational Medicine, 4. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-4-7

McLure, G., & McLure, J. (2000). Science course taking, out-of-class science accomplishments, and achievement in the high school graduating class of 1998. ACT Research Report Series 2000.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

Miller, J. D. (2010). The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the twenty-first century. In J. Meinwald & J.G. Hildebrand (Eds.), Science and the educational American: A core component of liberal education. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 136, 241-255.

Myers, B. E., Thorn, 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.

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

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113-130.

http://doi.org/10.1086/46138

Roegge, C. A. & Russell, E. B. (1990). Teaching applied biology in secondary agriculture: Effects on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31 (1), 27-31.  https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1990.01027

Rowe, F.A. (1989). College students’ perceptions of high school counselors. The School Counselor, 36, 260-264.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/23903412

Shelley-Tolbert, C. A., Conroy, C. A., & Dailey, A. L. (2000). The move to agriscience and its impact on teacher education in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 51-56. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae2000.04051

Stern, D. & Stearns, R. (2006). Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: Preparing California’s youth for college, career, and civic responsibility. http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/projects/multiplepathways/index.html

Whent, L. S., & Leising, J. (1988). A descriptive study of the basic core curriculum for agricultural students in California. Proceedings of the 66th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Seminar. Fort Collins, CO.

Instructor Levels of Importance and Competence With Alabama Agricultural Mechanics Standards

Authors

Brook Faulk, Auburn Community High School, absfaulk@auburnschools.org

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

Christopher A. Clemons, Auburn University, cac0132@auburn.edu

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

PDF Available

Abstract

School-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers formally acquire requisite skills across many content-based curricula pathways. This study aimed to understand Alabama agricultural mechanics teachers’ perceived levels of competence with and the importance of Alabama agricultural mechanics standards. The participants were purposively stratified, including being a practicing SBAE teacher in Alabama with experience teaching agricultural mechanics, access to agricultural mechanics laboratory spaces, and currently teaching SBAE. The average participant in this study was a white male teacher who had been teaching for six to 11 years, and either was currently teaching or had taught agricultural mechanics in the past. Participants reported their perceived levels of importance and competence using interval-based measurement scales framed using the Borich Scale Analysis. The conclusions of this study suggested that standards connected to General Safety (Standard 1) and Electrical Wiring Tools (Standard 9) were “Very important.” While nine of the remaining ten standards (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 12) were determined to be “Important.” More research needs to be done to understand the perceived barriers agriculture instructors in Alabama experience when implementing the agricultural mechanics curriculum standards in their classrooms.

Introduction

School-based agricultural education (SBAE) is integral to many public school systems. It serves the learning needs of students while helping to provide the future workforce for the farming industry and its allied sectors (Eck & Edwards, 2019). Clemons et al. (2018) discussed the importance of SBAE for developing competent and energetic students ready to embrace the needs of the 21st – century workforce. Clemons et al. (2018) further emphasized the importance of agriculture education as a “[l]lifelong journey of utilizing foundational skills and training for anticipated societal needs for the development of a well-trained and motivated student.” (p. 87).

In 2015, The National Council for Agricultural Education established content standards in eight career pathways, known as the National Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR) content standards (NCAE, December 2023). Science, math, communications, leadership, management, and technology are integral components of a comprehensive SBAE program (NAAE, December 2023). McKibben and Murphy (2021) recognized the applied, practical, and experiential nature of agricultural education’s reinforcement of the concepts taught in core classes. Howerton et al. (2019) specifically addressed the importance of preparatory programs to address the value of graduates entering the workforce with lifelong skills.

Talbert et al. (2014) defined a learning standard as “the expectation of what students should know and be able to do after completing the class.” (p. 137). Although content standards may provide pedagogical directives, SBAE teachers are tasked with the deconstruction, delivery, and evaluative performance relative to the success of standards-based instruction. Essentially, learning standards exist to guide the educator to identify student learning opportunities and evaluate student performance. Collectively, learning standards outline a content-rich curriculum for the establishment of career pathway preparation.

Career pathways often include (a) power, (b) structural and technical systems, (c) plant systems, (d) natural resource systems, (e) food products and processing systems, (f) environmental service systems, (g) biotechnology systems, (h) animal systems, and (i) agribusiness systems (NCAE, 2023). These content disciplines ground agricultural education instruction while the agriculture teacher’s strengths, talents, and preparatory programs frame a pragmatic approach to student learning. Each pathway uses instructional learning standards to ensure that learning objectives and goals are universal across all SBAE programs in Alabama. Power, structural, and technical systems are ubiquitously and traditionally called agricultural mechanics. Agricultural mechanics is a long-standing and foundational career pathway in many SBAE programs, requiring the SBAE teacher to have sound preparatory skills to deliver instruction safely and effectively (Hainline & Wells, 2019; Saucier et al., 2014). SBAE teachers are equipped to teach several pathways within Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources (AFNR).

According to the National FFA Organization (2016), over 11,000 SBAE programs exist in the United States. Clark et al. (2021) reported that 59% of those programs offered agricultural mechanics courses, which are almost exclusively experiential and laboratory-based (McKibben et al., 2023). Shoulders et al. (2013) emphasized the importance of laboratory instruction in creating experiential learning opportunities that the teacher can successfully facilitate to increase students’ positive learning gains. Laboratory spaces in agricultural education often include greenhouses, farms, and agriculture mechanics facilities for student instruction and experience (Hancock et al., 2023). Positive learning outcomes are usually associated with how students interact with the instructional content delivered (McKibben et al., 2023). The value of instructional facilities dedicated to the development of cognitive analysis, critical thinking, and the development of problem-solving capacities is a vital component of the entire SBAE program (Clark et al., 2021; Cooper, 1992; Johnson & Schumacher, 1989; Phipps et al., 2008).

The SBAE teacher’s awareness of content and pedagogy significantly impacts how the agricultural mechanic’s laboratory is used (Rice & Kitchel, 2018). Newcomb et al. (1993) reported that preservice agriculture teachers and practicing teachers realize that staying updated on their current knowledge and skills is essential. Harlin et al. (2007) found that specific competencies, specifically broad content knowledge and content specialization, are critical to the success of a SBAE teacher. Teachers must take the initiative to have adequate preparation and experience in an agricultural classroom and laboratory to lead their instruction successfully. Clark et al. (2021) reinforced the value of teacher preparation in the mechanical sciences to develop future employees with basic mechanical aptitude and skills. Hubert and Leising (2000) suggested a need for sound laboratory and shop management instruction due to the significant time SBAE teachers spend in laboratories. McKibben et al. (2022a) spoke about the deficient levels of efficacy in basic agricultural mechanics skills with incoming preservice teachers, especially those who were highly active when they were agriculture students, the largest group of new teachers (McKibben et al., 2022b). With a large percentage of time spent in an agricultural mechanics laboratory, secondary and preservice agricultural education teacher candidates must be competent in multiple skills to effectively teach agricultural mechanics (Byrd et al., 2015).

Conceptual Framework

A needs assessment approach was conducted to better address the realities of SBAE teachers’ instructional experiences when teaching agricultural mechanics standards. Needs assessment frameworks have often been used in agricultural education research to understand better the skills, knowledge, interests, and desires of SBAE teachers for their instructional and professional development. Numerous studies (Clemons et al., 2018; Salem et al., 2023; Weeks et al., 2020; Wells & Hainline, 2024) in SBAE have addressed the frameworks for needs assessment studies to identify the needs of teaching professionals more accurately.

Using reliable measurement tools is vital to understand better Alabama SBAE teachers’ perceptions of standards-based instruction in agricultural mechanics. Specifically, when asking potential participants to assess their levels of competence and determine the degrees to which they value the importance of standards-based education, the Borich (1980) scale was most appropriate. According to Borich (1980), the measurable gap between importance and competence helps focus the chasm between importance and competence.  

The Borich assessment model for conducting follow-up studies is often used in agriculture education research to identify participants’ perceptions of various topics (Clemons et al., 2018; Duncan et al., 2005; Garton & Chung, 1996; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Ray et al., 2023; Saucier & McKim, 2011; Sorenson et al., 2010; Yopp et al., 2017). The use of the Borich model in this study is bound within the use of 12 AFNR and Alabama agriculture mechanics teaching standards. Borich (1980) pioneered his model by designing a survey instrument that weighs and ranks needs in order of respondent priorities, allowing the responses to be linked to a practical decision framework to improve the competency importance of the standards. Borich models attempt to gather additional information from respondents regarding their current knowledge of the topic under investigation and their ability to apply learning skills (Alibaygi & Zarafshani, 2008). Competency models such as the Borich needs assessment model are designed around the skills individuals and groups need to be effective in the future and are used to make human resources decisions (Alibaygi & Zarafshani, 2008).

Purpose and Research Objective

This quantitative study investigated Alabama SBAE teachers’ experiences implementing agricultural mechanics curriculum standards in their classrooms. This study aimed to understand Alabama agricultural mechanics teachers’ perceived levels of competence with and the importance of Alabama agricultural mechanics standards.

Methods

A statewide study was conducted to understand SBAE teachers’ training needs and levels of importance/confidence regarding Alabama agriculture mechanics teaching and learning standards. The participants of this study consisted of 28 purposively selected Alabama SBAE teachers. Participants were selected to participate in the study if they had access to agricultural mechanics laboratory facilities, actively taught agricultural mechanics courses, and were teaching SBAE in Alabama. The participant frame for this study was obtained and accessed using the Alabama Association of Agriculture Education teachers’ digital membership roster. The membership roster contained only currently teaching SBAE teachers who are current and paid members of Alabama association. Participants with incomplete or missing data were removed from the potential population to reduce the potential for error. Consideration was given to the accuracy of the membership list as described by Lindner et al. (2001). Membership lists could contain missing or erroneous information about the participant population. To mitigate possible errors in membership reporting, a review panel consisting of Auburn University faculty, state agricultural education staff, and current practicing SBAE teachers in Alabama reviewed the membership data for accuracy and potential exclusion of participants with incorrect information.

The instrument for this study was adapted from Ray et al. (2022) study addressing the professional development needs of SBAE teachers in Georgia and modified to address the parameters of this investigation. The instrument consisted of 12 learning standard statements to address participants’ confidence in teaching each of the 12 standards. The standards were arranged in the Borich model using interval measurement scales to determine participant responses: 1) very important/very competent, 2) important/competent, 3) somewhat important/somewhat competent, 4) of little importance/little competence, and 5) not important/not competent. A three-column instrument was developed where Alabama agriculture mechanics standards and their descriptions were displayed between the importance and competence columns in the center column.

A pilot study was conducted to address content and face validity with a representative group (n = 8) of dual roles SBAE teachers in Alabama and Georgia who also serve as adjunct professors at Auburn University and met the criteria for participants in this study (Lindner et al., 2001). The pilot study was used to reduce measurement error while maintaining that the statements and questions aligned with this study’s research objectives (Dillman et al., 2014).

The pilot study was distributed using Qualtrics for panelists to address sentence structure, inclusivity, appropriateness of the Borich model, and any technological challenges associated with unique email address links, progression through the instrument, and submission. Pilot study participants recommended various changes to the language’s syntax, aesthetics of the instrument’s user interface, and minimal language changes. The recommended changes were incorporated to ensure the face and content validity of the instrument addressing the research objectives.

Purposively selected participants (N = 28) were contacted using Qualtrics distribution lists from [STATE ASSOCIATION] membership rosters. The initial email was structured according to Dillman et al. (2014) suggestions for recruitment, instruction, and delivery of email-based survey instruments. Three email reminders were sent to the potential respondents at one-week intervals. A comparative analysis between early and late participants was conducted using randomly selected variables to address the potential for and control of non-response error (Lindner et al., 2001). An independent t-test indicated no statistical differences between early and late study participants. Descriptive analyses were used to evaluate the resulting t-test data and were consistent with established methods reported by Blackburn et al. (2017).

Participant Characteristics

The participants of this study (Table 1) consisted of 28 (N = 28) SBAE teachers in Alabama, and the response rate was 100% (N = 28). Eleven participants reported actively teaching the agricultural mechanics pathways. Eleven participants reported that agricultural mechanics pathways had been taught but were not currently taught, and eight (f = 8) participants did not teach the agricultural mechanics pathway but would like to in the future.

Male teachers comprised the largest gender group of participants (f = 23). Six (f = 6) respondents were female, while one respondent (f = 1) preferred not to say (Table 1). Participants were asked to report their race using an open-ended question. White/Caucasian participants represented most respondents (f = 29), and one participant (f = 1) preferred not to say. The data was further analyzed by the number of years participants had taught. Four (f = 4) participants had been teaching for less than one year, and five (f = 5) participants had been teaching for one to five years. Of the participants, ten had been teaching for six to 10 years. Two (f = 2) respondents indicated that they had been teaching SBAE for 11 to 15 years, three (f = 3) participants had taught between sixteen and 20 years, and six (f = 6) indicated that they had been teaching between 21 and 25 years.

Table 1

Personal Characteristics of Participants

Personal Characteristicsf%
Gender  
Male2377.00
Female620.00
Prefer Not To Say13.00
Total30100.00%
Race  
Caucasian2996.70
Prefer Not To Say13.30
Total30100.00%
Years Teaching  
< 1413.00
1 – 5517.00
6 – 101033.00
11 – 1527.00
16 – 20310.00
21 – 25620.00
Total30100.00%

Results

The data and results of this study are represented in table (Table 2) and narrative format, and the findings are described in the context of Alabama SBAE teachers’ characteristics, perceived importance, and levels of competence of Alabama agriculture mechanics standards. The instrument consisted of 12 statements about the importance and competence of including agriculture mechanics teaching and learning standards in SBAE curricula.

Research Objective One: Better understand Alabama agricultural mechanics teachers’ perceived levels of competence with and importance of Alabama agricultural mechanics standards. Results were calculated using the mean score and standard deviation of teachers’ competency levels and significance. After collecting personal characteristics, two participants were removed from the study due to non-response.

Table 2

Participant Levels of Competence and Importance Related to Standards

StandardStandard CodeCompetenceImportance
  MSDMSD
Standard OneBlinded4.960.194.600.56
Standard TwoBlinded4.700.464.400.73
Standard ThreeBlinded4.600.573.700.96
Standard FourBlinded4.800.443.900.97
Standard FiveBlinded4.400.683.600.98
Standard SixBlinded4.301.073.401.18
Standard SevenBlinded3.901.184.400.77
Standard EightBlinded4.400.623.930.83
Standard NineBlinded3.871.144.600.57
Standard TenBlinded4.401.073.801.08
Standard ElevenBlinded4.500.834.200.74
Standard TwelveBlinded4.400.633.700.89

Standard One (Blinded): Incorporating Safety Procedures When Handling, Operating, and Maintaining Tools and Machinery, Handling Materials, Utilizing Personal Protective Equipment, Maintaining a Safe Work Area, and Handling Hazardous Materials and Forces

The mean competence score for standard one was M = 4.96, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.19. The aggregated level of importance was M = 4.60, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.56. Most respondents (f = 26) reported standard one as very important and felt competent to incorporate the skills into their lessons. One participant (f = 1) indicated that standard one was very important but only felt somewhat competent when including the standard in their lesson. One fn = 1) teacher reported standard one as important and felt competent in incorporating it into their agricultural mechanics lessons.

Standard Two (Blinded): Instructing Students to Utilize Power Tools to Construct and Maintain Systems Within the Agriculture Industry

The mean competence score for standard two was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.46. The aggregated level of importance was M = 4.60, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.73. Participants (f = 15) indicated standard two to be very important while feeling very competent in teaching it in their classroom. Five (f = 6) teachers indicated that standard two was very important and reported that they felt competent in teaching the standard. Four teachers (n = 4) reported standard two as both important and felt competent in incorporating the standard of their teaching. Participants (f = 4) indicated that using power tools for constructing and maintaining systems was important, although they only felt somewhat competent in teaching these concepts.

Standard Three (Blinded): Properly Using Metal Fabrication Tools and Equipment in SBAE Classrooms

The mean competence score for standard three was M = 4.60, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.57. The aggregated level of importance was M = 3.70, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.96. Seven teachers (n = 7) considered the standard important and felt competent. Six teachers (f = 6) believed standard three was important and felt competent when teaching students. Five teachers (f = 5) reported the standard as somewhat important and felt competent. Four teachers (f = 4) indicated they felt somewhat competent and believed the standard was important. Three teachers (f = 3) reported that the standard is somewhat important and felt somewhat competent when teaching the skills addressed in the learning standard. Teachers reported the standard as somewhat important (f = 3) but thought they needed more confidence in applying it in their curricula.

Standard Four (blinded) Students Will Be Able to Identify Electrical Hazards and Explain Ways to Avoid or Minimize Them in Agricultural Construction

The mean competence score for standard four was M = 4.80, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.44. The aggregated level of importance was M = 3.90, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.97. In contrast to teachers’ competency levels, the importance of the standard was of less concern and was supported by the clustering of responses using the standard deviation of scores. Nine teachers (f = 9) thought standard four was important and felt competent in incorporating it into their curriculum. Seven (f= 7) reported that standard four was very important while feeling competent with teaching the standard. Increasing levels of agreement among teachers showed that four fn = 4) thought standard four to be very important and felt somewhat competent to teach it, and four (f = 4) indicated the standard was important and competent. Two teachers (f = 2) believed the standard was very important but only felt slightly competent in the associated skills, and two teachers (f = 2) found standard four to be important while feeling somewhat competent in teaching the standard. One teacher (f = 1) described the standard as important and felt slightly competent.

Standard Five (blinded): Recommended Maintenance Techniques for Troubleshooting Industrial Maintenance Issues in Various Types of Machinery

Standard five’s mean competence score was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.98. The aggregated level of importance was M= 3.60, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.98. Seven teachers (f = 7) felt the standard was important and competent to teach the standard, while six participants (f = 6) found standard five to be very important and competent. Four teachers (f = 4) showed the standard to be very important and felt somewhat competent. Three participants (f = 3) reported standard five as important. However, they only felt slightly competent when teaching maintenance procedures, and three teachers (f = 3) indicated that standard five was somewhat important and felt somewhat competent. Three teachers (f = 3) reported standard five as important and somewhat competent when embedding this standard in their agricultural mechanics curricula. Two teachers (f = 3) stated that standard five was very important and felt competent.

Standard Six (blinded): Develop Students’ Skills To Describe The Difference Between System Grounding and Agricultural Wiring

Standard six’s mean competence score was M = 4.30, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.07. The aggregated level of importance was M = 3.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.18. Seven teachers (f = 7) reported standard six as very important. They also felt very competent in teaching the skills, and four (f = 4) teachers claimed standard six to be very important and felt somewhat competent. Three teachers (f = 3) indicated standard six was important and felt somewhat competent, and three (f = 3) teachers indicated standard six to be very important and felt competent when teaching the standard. Three teachers (f = 3) reported standard six to be very important in addition to feeling slightly competent in their ability to incorporate it into their lessons. In contrast, two participants (f = 2) indicated standard six as somewhat important while feeling slightly competent. One teacher (f = 1) believed the standard to be important but did not feel competent in teaching it, one teacher (f = 1) reported the standard to be important and felt slightly competent, one (f = 1) felt that standard six was not important but felt somewhat competent. Individual teachers believed that standard six was slightly important and felt somewhat competent (f =1), the standard was somewhat important and somewhat competent (f = 1), and one  (f = 1) responded that the standard was somewhat important and felt competent.

Standard Seven (blinded): Students Will Identify Factors to Consider In Selecting Building Materials For Agricultural Structures

Standard seven’s mean competence score was M = 3.90, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.18. The aggregated level of importance was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.77. Ten teachers (f = 10) reported standard seven as very important. They felt very competent; five teachers (f = 5) ranked this standard to be important and felt competent in teaching, and three teachers (f = 3) indicated standard seven to be somewhat important and felt somewhat competent, and three (f = 3) claimed standard seven to be very important and indicated themselves as somewhat competent in teaching it. Two teachers (f = 2) considered standard seven very important while feeling competent. Two teachers (f = 2) stated this standard as important to teach and felt very competent.One teacher (f = 1) indicated this standard to be somewhat important, whereas they thought they needed to be more competent; one teacher (f = 1) stated the standard to be important, though they did not feel competent. One teacher (f = 1) reported standard seven as very important and felt slightly competent.

Standard Eight (blinded): Students Will Explain and Demonstrate Safety Techniques for Using Oxy-fuel Equipment, Including Setting Up and Shutting Down, Lighting and Adjusting a Torch, Disassembling The Equipment, Changing Cylinders, Cutting Straight Lines and Square Shapes, Piercing and Slot Cutting

Standard eight’s mean competence score was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.62. The aggregated level of importance was M= 3.93, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.83. Nine (f = 9) respondents indicated this standard to be important and felt competent to teach the skills related to the standard. Six teachers (f = 6) reported the standard to be very important and very competent, and four (f = 4) teachers indicated this standard to be very important but only felt somewhat competent. Four (f = 4) respondents reported standard eight to be very important and felt competent, and two (f = 2) teachers indicated the standard as important and felt slightly competent in teaching. Two teachers (f = 2) believed standard eight to be somewhat important and felt competent. In contrast, one (f = 1) respondent reported the standard as important and felt very competent.

Standard Nine (blinded): Students Will Be Able To Identify Tools Used For Electrical Wiring and Demonstrate Their Use

Standard nine’s mean competence score is M = 3.87, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.14. The aggregated level of importance was M= 4.60, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.57. Seven (f = 7) teachers reported standard nine to be very important and felt very competent. Five teachers (f = 5) indicated standard nine as important and competent to teach. In comparison, five teachers (f = 5) indicated standard nine to be very important and felt competent when teaching the skills of the standard. Three teachers (f = 3) reported standard nine as very important and felt somewhat competent. Three teachers (f = 3) indicated that standard nine was important and felt very competent when incorporating electrical tool identification into their lessons. Two teachers (f = 2) indicated standard nine as important. They felt somewhat competent, and one teacher (f = 1) responded that they believed the standard was important but needed to feel more competent when teaching the skills. One teacher (f = 1) believed standard nine to be very important but needed to feel more competent. One teacher (f = 1) reported that standard nine was very important but only felt slightly competent.

Standard 10 (blinded): Calculate Equipment and Workspace Requirements for Building Agricultural Structures

Standard 10’s mean competence score was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.07. The aggregated level of importance was M= 3.80, with a standard deviation of SD = 1.08. Eight teachers (f = 8) believed Standard 10 was very important and felt very competent. Five teachers (f = 5) ranked Standard 10 as important and felt competent when teaching students how to calculate equipment and workspace requirements for agricultural structures. Three teachers (f = 3) responded that the standard was important while feeling slightly competent when teaching, and three teachers (f = 3) believed the standard wasvery important and felt somewhat competent. Three teachers (f = 3) indicated that Standard 10 was very important and felt competent. Two teachers (f = 2) believed Standard 10 to be important in addition to feeling somewhat competent in their ability to incorporate it into their lessons; two teachers (f = 2) reported Standard 10 as somewhat important while feeling competent to teach the standard. One teacher (f = 1) indicated that Standard 10 was important and felt slightly competent. One teacher (f = 1) reported the standard as very important and felt slightly competent.

Standard 11 (blinded): Students Will Participate in Supervised Agricultural Experiences (SAE) and Work-Based, Experiential, and Service Learning

The mean competence score for Standard 11 was M = 4.50, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.83. The aggregated level of importance was M = 4.20, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.74. Ten teachers (f = 10) believed Standard 11 was very important and felt very competent in directing SAE and service-learning experiences. Six teachers (f = 6) thought Standard 11 was very important and felt competent in teaching the standard. Three teachers (f = 3) indicated Standard 11 as somewhat important. They felt competent to incorporate it into their lessons, and three teachers (f = 3) reported standard eleven as important while also feeling competent. Two teachers (f = 2) reported that Standard 11 was important and felt somewhat competent. In comparison, two teachers (f = 2) ranked Standard 11 as very important but only felt somewhat competent when teaching SAE and service-learning experiences. Two teachers (f = 2) believed standard eleven was important and felt very competent.

Standard 12: (blinded): Identify Specific Tools Used on Agricultural Engines and Demonstrate Their Use

The mean competence score for Standard 12 was M = 4.40, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.63. The aggregated level of importance was M= 3.70, with a standard deviation of SD = 0.89. The largest group of teachers (f = 10) believed that standard twelve was important, and they felt competent to teach tools used for agricultural engines. Five teachers (f = 5) indicated that Standard 12 was very important. They felt competent to teach, and four teachers (f = 4) believed standard twelve was very important but only felt somewhat competent. Four teachers (f = 4) reported that standard twelve was very important and felt very competent when teaching. Two teachers (f = 2) believed standard twelve was slightly important and felt competent to teach the skills. Two teachers (f = 2) thought the standard was important and were only somewhat competent. One teacher (f = 1) reported that the standard was important but needed to feel more competent.

Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations

Conclusions

Teachers felt that standards connected to General Safety (Standard 1) and Electrical Wiring Tools (Standard 9) were very important. In comparison, nine of the remaining ten standards (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 12) were considered important. The highest level of importance, with the least variability, is being put on the standard covering general safety; this supports the work of Hancock et al. (2023), which suggests that safety is the most significant concern for SBAE teachers. The question has been raised in research presentations as to the fidelity of the statement and if it is part of a learned response where teachers feel anything less than very important would not be appropriate, no matter their honest opinions (Hancock et al., 2022). Standard six did not meet the determined threshold for this study: “Describe the difference between system grounding and equipment grounding related to agricultural wiring.” Participants rated it as somewhat important.

Using the same conventions of interpreting the true limits for interval measurement type data (Lindner & Lindner, 2024), teachers felt very competent in their ability to incorporate five of the standards: General Safety (Standard One), Power Tools (Standard Two), Metal Fabrication Tools (Standard Three), Electrical Hazards (Standard Four), and Supervised Agricultural Experience/Work-based Learning (Standard Eleven). They also reported they were competent in incorporating the remaining seven standards: Maintaining and Troubleshooting Machines (Standard Five), System Grounding and Equipment Grounding (Standard Six), Selecting Building Materials (Standard Seven), Oxy-Fuel Related (Standard Eight), Electrical Wiring Tools (Standard Nine), Equipment and Workspace requirements for Structures (Standard Ten), and Tools for Engines (Standard Twelve). Both competent and very Competent were determined to be appropriate levels for these teachers in their self-determined competencies.

Implications and Recommendations

The average participant in this study was a white male teacher who had been teaching for six to eleven years, and either was currently teaching or had taught agricultural mechanics in the past. This finding does not represent the changed demographics of SBAE teachers as has been reported by (McKibben et al., 2022a), indicating that either Alabama’s teacher demographics do not mirror the national trends, or more likely, those who would respond to an instrument about agricultural mechanics are more likely to be male, older, and white. Future work should address why or if either Alabama or the discipline of agricultural mechanics remains male-dominated.

The teachers in this study overwhelmingly reported that safety was very important. These unsurprising results of this single-state paper support the larger body of evidence that SBAE teachers, specifically those teaching agricultural mechanics, respond to any question about safety and its importance with quick and written responses. While safety is important, and it would not be wise to suggest in any form that it was not, there is the possibility that our development of a culture of safety within agricultural mechanics has been more focused on the recognition of safety as important and less on the implementation of long-term safety habits as our industry partners would suggest would be appropriate. After all, what does it mean to, as standard one says: “Incorporate safety procedures in handling, operating, and maintaining tools and machinery; handling materials; utilizing personal protective equipment; maintaining a safe work area; and handling hazardous materials and forces.” While this standard appears specific in its prolific use of vocabulary, it does little to address what any of those words mean or how to address the standard pragmatically. It has been shown that when SBAE teachers speak about safety, they speak in housekeeping and safety glasses, not in developing a safety culture and safe decision-making.

The standard not reaching the minimum threshold for importance: “Describe the difference between system grounding and equipment grounding related to agricultural wiring,” when compared to the other eleven standards, appears to be the most specific and relatively esoteric. It would be safe to say that SBAE teachers not teaching specifically about electrical motors or motor controllers would never need to reach this standard. This standard is singular in its specificity, and though likely crucial in specific areas where electric motors and motor controls are prevalent, we determined that its overly detailed characteristic results in some SBAE teachers viewing it as less important.

Though not originally part of this study, these objectives could be viewed from the lens of specificity and generality. One interpretation of the data is that rankings of importance should be more about the standards of importance to an agricultural industry. Instead, the rankings may be more of a representation if the standard is written in a general enough way that local decisions can be made regarding how to interpret the meaning of the standard in the norms of local agricultural industries. What is done in a region of all-row cropping should look different than what is done in an area of predominantly ruminant animal agriculture, and levels of variability need to be allowed in the writing of the standards. Further study should be conducted on the level of specificity and prescription, as well as SBAE teachers’ views on the importance of that standard.

References

Alabama High School Athletic Association. (2022). 2024 reclassification. https://www.ahsaa.com/Portals/0/PDF’s/AHSAA/AHSAA/Re-Classification/2022-2024/2022-2024%20Classification.pdf?ver=0DtCm0opi6OvcUcAkdnr4g%3D%3D&timestamp=1639497592551

Alibaygi, A., & Zarafshani, K. (2008). Training needs of Iranian extension agents about sustainability: The use of Borich’s need’s assessment model. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(10), 681–687. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR

Blackburn, J. J., Bunch, J. C., & Haynes, J. C. (2017). Assessing the relationship of teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and perception of work-life balance of Louisiana agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01014

Borich, G. D. (1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 39-42. https://doi:10.1177/002248718003100310

Byrd, A. P., Anderson, R. G., Paulsen, T. H., & Schultz, M. J. (2015). Does the number of post-secondary agricultural mechanics courses completed affect teacher competence?  Journal of Agricultural Education. 56(1), 20-31. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2015.01020  

Clemons, C. A., Heidenreich, A. E., & Lindner, J. R. (2018). Assessing the technical expertise and content needs of Alabama agriscience teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(3), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.03087

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

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

Duncan, D. W., Ricketts, J. C., Peake, J. B., & Uesseler, J. (2006). Teacher preparation and in-service needs of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02024

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:10.5032/jae.2019.04223

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

Hancock, G. T., McKibben, J. D., & Lindner, J. R. (2022, October 26 – 29). HEARING in practice [Paper presentation]. 41st Annual National Ag Mechanics Professional Development Blue Ribbon Research Conference. Indianapolis, IN, United States. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19739.23840/1

Hancock, G. T., McKibben, J. D., Byrd, A. P., Lindner, J. R., & Clemons, C. A. (2023). Hearing education in agriculture: Re-evaluating interest, needs, and growth. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health29(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.15331

Hainline, M. S., & Wells, T. (2019). Identifying the agricultural mechanics knowledge and skills needed by Iowa school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(1), 59–79. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2019.01059

Harlin, J. F., Roberts, T. G., Dooley, K. E., & Murphrey, T. P. (2007). Knowledge, skills, and abilities for agricultural science teachers: A focus group approach. Journal of Agricultural Education48(1), 86–96. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2007.01086

Hubert, D. J., & Leising, J. (2000). An assessment of agricultural mechanics course requirements in agriculture teacher education programs in the United States. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 50(1), 24–31. http://www.jsaer.org/pdf/vol50Whole.pdf

Howerton, T., Clemons, C. A., & Lindner, J. R. (2019). Perceived factors that influence the success of vertical transfer students in agricultural education: A Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(3), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.03032

Layfield, K. D., & Dobbins, T. R. (2002). Inservice needs and perceived competencies of South Carolina agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(4), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.04046

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

McKibben, J. D., Clemons, C. A., & Nurradin, M. (2022a). Hybrid vigor: A quantitative analysis of job satisfaction of United States school based secondary agricultural education classrooms. Journal of Agricultural Education63(2), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.02238

McKibben, J. D., Giliberti, M., Clemons, C. A., Holler, K., & Linder, J. R. (2022b). My ag teacher never made me go to the shop! Preservice teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in mechanics skills change through experience. Journal of Agricultural Education63(3), 283–296.

McKibben, J., Holler, K., Clemons, C., & Lindner, J. (2023). Locus of control and pedagogy in skill-based agricultural mechanics. NACTA Journal, 67(1), 257 – 261.

McKibben, J. D., & Murphy, T. H. (2021). The effect of authenticity on project-based learning: A quasi-experimental study of STEM integration in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(1), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01144

National Council for Agricultural Education  (2023, December). AFNR standards. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/afnr/

Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., & Warmbrod, J. R. (1993). Methods of teaching agriculture (2nd ed.). Interstate Publishers, Inc. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2001.04043

Parr, B., & Edwards, M. C. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction in secondary agricultural education: problem-solving – an old friend revisited. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(4), 106–117. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2004.04106  

Pense, S. L., Freeburg, B. W., & Clemons, C. A. (2015). Implementation of common core state standards: Voices, positions, and frames. Career and Technical Education Research, 40(3), 157 – 173. https://doi.10.5328/cter40.3.157

Ray, B. L., Clemons, C. A., McKibben, J. D., Lindner, J. R., Fuhrman, N. E., & Barlow, R. J. (2022). Implementing forestry and natural resource curricula in Georgia. A quantitative analysis of perceived barriers towards implementation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(3), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03149

Rice, A. H., & Kitchel, T. (2018). Agriculture teachers’ integrated belief systems and its influence on their pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(1), 51–69.  https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.01059

Salem, M., Doss, W., & Estepp, C. (2023). Determining professional development needs of school-based agricultural education teachers for working with English language learners. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 48 – 61. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.91

Saucier, P. R., & McKim, B. R. (2011). Assessing the learning needs of student teachers in Texas regarding management of the agricultural mechanics laboratory: Implications for the professional development of early career teachers in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 24 – 43. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04024

Saucier, R. P., Vincent, S. K., & Anderson, R. G. (2014). Laboratory safety needs of Kentucky school-based agricultural mechanics teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(2), 184-200. https://doi:10.5032/jae/2014.02184

Shoulders, C. W., Blythe, J. M., & Myers, B. E. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions regarding experiential learning attributes in agricultural laboratories. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(2), 159-173. https://doi:10.5032/jae.2013.02159

Sorensen, T. J., Tarpley, R. S., & Warnick, B. K. (2010). Inservice needs of Utah agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03001

Steffes, T. L. (2020, July 24). Smith-Hughes Act. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smith-Hughes-Act

Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., Croom, B., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Foundations of Agricultural Education. Pearson Education, Inc.

Wells, T. & Hainline, M. (2024). Examining differences in teachers’ agricultural mechanics professional development needs: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 65(1), 245 – 264. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v65i1.2473

Weeks, K. J., Lawver, R. G., Sorensen, T. T., & Warnick, B. K. (2020). Do teachers have the skills: 21st century skills in the agricultural education classroom? Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 127 – 142. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04127 Yopp, A., McKim, B. R., Moore, L. L., Odom, S. F., & Hanagriff, R. (2017). A multidimensional needs assessment of social emotional learning skill areas. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01186


Communication and Trust: Leverage Points for Extension in Innovation Adoption and Discontinuance Experiences for Greenhouse Growers

Carrie N. Baker, University of Florida, baker.carrie@ufl.edu

Kathleen D. Kelsey, University of Florida, kathleen.kelsey@ufl.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

This phenomenological study was underpinned by both value-belief-norm (VBN) and diffusion of innovations (DI) theories to explore the adoption/continuance experiences of three mid-size greenhouse growing operations with a new-to-market advanced growing system. We collected data using Rapid Evaluation and Assessment (REA) methods to understand growers’ adoption/rejection decision-making behaviors and explored factors that influenced their confirmation decisions of an advanced growing system that held the potential to significantly reduce production costs if adopted. We identified three themes (a) value alignment; (b) reliable hardware; and (c) software integrity that contributed to the phenomenological essence: Communication and trust: Leverage points in the software/hardware overlap. Our findings suggested that growers’ experiences and confirmation decisions were influenced by a lack of technological observability, reinforced by miscommunication and distrust in evidence and interactions with the change agent. We provide recommendations for practitioners such as horticultural Extension professionals, grant managers, inventors, product developers, and horticultural industry representatives, to facilitate information sharing and enhance transparency and accountability when diffusing an advanced growing system with greenhouse growers. Research to further explore change-agent role conflict and its impact on project adoption that engages growers and similar publics is needed to understand responsible, sustainable research and innovation diffusion.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

Sustainable greenhouse management allows for optimized production and promotes innovative solutions for energy conservation, including the use of advanced growing systems (Saad et al., 2021). New systems and technologies are being developed to support resilient, climate-smart agri-food systems, with specific attention to supplemental lighting, automation, and remotely controlled systems (Nemali, 2022). As innovative products come on the market, there is a need to evaluate their performance and use-effectiveness and understand the role of Extension in supporting the diffusion of these technologies. Research evaluating the adoption of advanced growing systems within the greenhouse industry heavily focuses on technical improvements and benefits and has been aimed at providing estimates for energy use, resource conservation, and cost savings (Paris et al., 2022). However, there is a need for social evaluation of the adoption-continuance decision to understand early adopters’ adoption experiences and perceptions of the new technology to examine the diffusion capacity of advanced growing systems through networks of growers and other relevant stakeholders in agriculture and Extension.

This research study was underpinned by Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations (DI) theory and Stern et al. (1999) value-belief-norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism (Stern, 2000) to explore growers’ innovation adoption decision process and the influence of pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors on decision-making. Social science scholars commonly apply DI theory to understand how innovations and novel technologies gain traction within a social system. Rogers (2003) proposed five perceived attributes that influenced innovation adoption. They are relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, observability, and trialability. These attributes impact individuals’ attitudes toward innovation and the decision-making process of adoption. Within our study, this included stages of knowledge (awareness of the new system), persuasion (attitude forming), decision (choice to participate in the project and adopt the system), implementation (active use and application of the innovation in greenhouses), and decision confirmation (feedback and assessment of decision to adopt). DI is a widely cited and appropriate theoretical framework for adoption, specifically in advanced growing systems (Gikunda et al., 2022; Moons et al., 2022). In our study, we examined a new-to-market advanced growing system that used automated sensor-based controls to measure, monitor, and adjust lighting based on individualized client needs to optimize plant production and conserve energy.

In addition to DI theory, we also applied Stern et al.’s (1999) value-belief-norm (VBN) theory to understand better how certain beliefs activate significant environmental behaviors and social movements (Stern, 2000). Stern defined environmentalism as “the propensity to take actions with pro-environmental intent” (p. 411). Industry experts and academics commonly apply this theory to examine the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors (Canlas & Karpudewan, 2023) inherent in designing the advanced growing system we examined. Behroozeh et al. (2023) used the facets of the VBN framework to understand growers’ motivations and intentions to conserve energy in greenhouse production systems. Applying DI and VBN theory, we aimed to explore growers’ perceived attributes of the advanced growing system and understand how pro-environmental beliefs may have influenced their participation in a project designed to introduce a new technology bundle to maximize greenhouse efficiency. Practical recommendations are presented to increase the adoption of similar innovations in future iterations.

Purpose

The purpose of this phenomenological research study was to explore (a) the innovation-decision process of mid-size greenhouse growers during the adoption of an advanced growing system; (b) examine how they perceived attributes of the innovation; and (c) if pro-environmental beliefs influenced their confirmation decisions. We were guided by the following question: What was the essence of growers’ adoption and confirmation decisions regarding the use of the advanced growing system in their operation?

Methods

Research Design

We sought to discover the essence of three greenhouse growers’ adoption experience of an advanced growing system technology bundle using phenomenological research design. Phenomenology is described as “the discovery of meanings and essences in knowledge” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 27) and is commonly applied to understand innovation adoption and technology use in agriculture (Mulvaney & Kelsey, 2020). Knowledge gained and innovation perceptions resulted from their conscious collective experience using the technology and working with the change agent (Moustakas, 1994). During the project, the business promoting the technology closed unexpectedly, causing an interruption in the adoption cycle. Therefore, the phenomenon of interest was the forced discontinuance and diffusion breakdown in the context of the business closure (McNall & Foster-Fishman, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). Given time constraints, rapid evaluation assessment (REA) methods allowed for more “rapid, cost effective, technically eclectic, and pragmatic” evaluation protocols (McNall & Foster-Fishman, 2007, p. 155). REA is widely recognized as an appropriate, trusted method among agricultural and Extension professionals, especially as it relates to adoption decisions (Comito et al., 2018; Halbleib & Dinsdale, 2023; Patton, 2002).

Population and Sampling

We used criterion-based sampling to purposively sample three greenhouse growers who opted to install a software and hardware technology bundle, demonstrated active/continued use of the system during the project, and remained in contact with the change agent. While 10 growers initially enrolled in the program to trial the growing system, only four met the criteria of active/continued use. We sent initial recruitment emails to those four growers to coordinate site visits. Three agreed to participate in the study. We conducted site visits in June and July 2023.

Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted site visits to three greenhouses and engaged the participants in a one-hour semi-structured interview (Patton, 2002). We analyzed growers’ websites to gain insight into their pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors. Interviews were transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai, anonymized, and sent to growers as a form of member checking (Fossey et al., 2002). Supplemental data included notes from participating in all project meetings, a research log with field notes, transcribed voice memos, and analytical and process memos for reflexive analysis and to establish an audit trail to support dependability (Annink, 2016). The log, a previous evaluation report, meeting notes, and grower profiles were used to triangulate findings and enhance credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To analyze interviews and website content, we used Nvivo 12 Plus as an assistive tool. We used concept and a priori coding as a first-round method (Saldaña, 2021). Concept coding was used to identify words or phrases that represented common grand concepts. A priori coding was used to identify theoretical incidents where the five attributes of an innovation and/or pro-environmental anecdotes were present (Rogers, 2003; Saldaña, 2021). We used code charting and then pattern coding as a second cycle method to categorize codes and assign themes before declaring the phenomenological essence (Moustakkas, 1994; Saldaña, 2021).

Researcher Positionality

The lead author was not part of the original grant team and was brought on later into the project’s cycle to assist the lead evaluator. As a farmer’s daughter, they have experience and knowledge of running an agricultural operation with limited crop experience but little to no formal training or experience in horticulture. This positionality and the timeline of my entrance into the project were made evident early on in the conversation in the hopes the growers might recognize me as a third party attempting to understand their personal experience with the technology and grant implementation. Opening with these statements often served as a point of connection and trust, especially for two of the growers whose businesses were primarily family-owned. For these growers, decisions seemed to be felt more heavily, given the stakes and potential impacts on their livelihood, as compared to the grower whose production was commercialized. As an evaluator, the lead author was conscious of the potential for pro-innovation bias. Even more, as someone whose identity is situated in both academia and production agriculture, the lead author felt especially compelled to ensure the integrity of their experience, including the critical realities, and unintended and undesirable consequences of innovation adoption, which are often neglected in innovation research (Sveiby et al., 2012), were captured and elevated. This was balanced by the lead evaluator, who provided perspective and brought historical knowledge about the grant implementation, and the development and rollout of the advanced growing system.

Limitations

As an evaluation rooted in phenomenology, findings are limited to the three enrolled growers. While insights may transfer to the diffusion of similar systems among similar populations and be of interest to horticultural Extension professionals, inventors, and industry representatives, we express caution in extrapolating findings outside this study’s context. Similarly, as external evaluators, we had limited engagement with the growers. Supplemental data, intentional rapport and trust-building, and insights from the change agent garnered a deeper understanding of the setting and context for adoption. Additionally, discussions with the project lead and previous co-investigators provided additional insights.

Findings

We identified three themes to map the essence of growers’ adoption and confirmation decision process (a) value alignment; (b) reliable hardware; and (c) software integrity. Comprehensively, these factors characterized the essence of the phenomena: Communication and trust: Leverage points in the software/hardware overlap. In this instance, software refers to the human dimensions of adoption, and hardware refers to the lighting control system’s technology and equipment.

Theme 1: Value Alignment

In each of the cases, one primary decision-maker drove the initial decision to adopt and implement the technology bundle in their operations. Growers conveyed how their values, or those demonstrated through their business model, influenced their adoption decisions. We recognized a general inclination toward innovation, which was manifested by investing in on-farm research and development. Wholesale grower 1, employed in-house R&D staff and encouraged an understanding of the latest technologies. This was demonstrated through the statement, “we’ve seen research articles from various universities about how much light you should give for plants in terms of mols per day, so we wanted to see if we can get a little closer to what our crops needed.” They also supported “progress in modernizing growing technologies” through virus testing, breeding, and hybridization as listed on their website. Similarly, grower 3 described seeding and growing hydroponic lettuce to eliminate soil use altogether. And grower 2 emphasized their inclination to innovate saying, “there are hundreds of things that have to be watched or anticipated, and you have to get out ahead of all that.”

Because the project’s original objectives promoted energy conservation, we were particularly interested in how growers’ pro-environmental beliefs or behaviors influenced adoption and confirmation decisions. Pro-environmental behaviors and beliefs were evident during on-farm observation and through analysis of growers’ websites. All three of the growers’ websites demonstrated consensus toward their commitment to sustainability. For example, one site stated, “We’re dedicated to sustainable farming: By adhering to agricultural and food production practices that do not harm the environment, provide fair treatment to workers, and that support and sustain our local communities.” Another growers’ website read, “[The company] prides itself on its sustainability, as well as the work we do to protect water resources, prevent erosion, and build up [of] our soil by planting many beneficial green manure cover crops.” During the on-farm visits, all three growers provided examples of on-farm sustainability behaviors they have adopted to conserve the environment, such as efficient supplemental lighting and automated systems, water use controls, integrated pest management practices, and the use of solar and alternative energy. In these efforts, however—there was often a direct translation to cost savings, or avoided costs, for growers—and added value for marketability. This was especially evident during our on-farm visit with grower 2, who expressed personal conviction toward conservation while recognizing the positive consequences for their business. They stated,

It was important to me, because since I was a kid, I’ve always thought that you don’t waste things. That’s how I was raised. And whether it’s something tangible you can hold your hand or power, you just don’t… Now that we’ve grown, we’re pulling about 100,000 watts to run the farm. That’s our peak load. And that’s how we get billed. There was that incentive too. So, I wanted to be frugal and optimize the load for the power bill.

Grower 1 echoed this value and said, “We’ve got a lot of acreage here underneath lights. And if we can just make sure those pictures are hitting our targets, that could be some huge cost savings for us.” Grower 3 was most candid about their motivations to adopt in this instance saying, “I don’t think the sustainable part had a lot to do with this decision.” At large, it was evident growers saw value in pro-environmental attributes of the advanced growing system, especially when it aligned with the values of their consumer base but were perhaps more motivated by the translation of energy conservation to cost savings. 

Theme 2: Reliable Hardware: Demonstrating Potential for Filling a Niche Industry Need

The second theme centralized around the technology itself and factors that influenced adoption and continued use. Through this theme, growers described their experiences with installing, using, and evaluating the technology bundle. This was presented through two categories: innovation attributes and technical challenges, with subcategories identified for compatibility, complexity, relative advantage, and trialability. Growers expressed how the new system filled a niche need in the industry that provided more precise lighting control for product finishing and quality, and they were generally satisfied with the new technology. Grower 1 said, “We ship a lot of flowers out in March, April, and May, and to finish that product, we need those warm environments with grow lights. As we keep expanding, we need a technology that can help us manage those systems.” This sentiment was reiterated by grower 3, who stated,

Well, the decision to put the lights in was mostly for quality and production in the dark months. We didn’t have enough product at the right times because it was tied up on the table. So one of the things I liked the most is I could go in and [customize the lighting] ….You can actually control it and then have [the product] when you want it.

All three growers described how the systems’ ability to measure and control mols afforded them advantages over previous systems or approaches they had used. For grower 1, the technology advantage came from being able to acquire more precise mol detection from sensors inside the greenhouse. They explained, “I think our outside sensor will pick up on the reflection from the snow, just from being outside. Because when there is really fresh snow, my lights [controlled by the replaced system] would be off, when I think they should be on. With this new system, they were on.” Whereas for grower 2, the benefit was the ability to record and analyze data. They said,

The controller we had was sort of like the next best thing to their control. But it didn’t measure. So, it was alterable and it could be adjusted. So in other words, it measures light, but it doesn’t record light. It measures intensity in watts per square meter. And so I was able to set our existing controller to come on and off at certain thresholds. And that would change as we went into darker periods or came back out. I would adjust it manually, but it was a guess.

For the growers, the ability to both record light levels and automatically set system controls to control use based on their specific crop needs offered added value in a way that was novel but still simple and easy to use. Growers described how, in theory, the system was “just right,” robust enough to have an advantage over other systems, and user-friendly enough to make it attainable for mid-size growers, if they have existing lighting technology or means to expand. “It’s simple, straightforward…. There are systems out there that are high tech, but we don’t really need that,” grower 3 said. Grower 1, a larger grower relative to others in their area, cautioned that “the technology from the light standpoint has to work well with this system. I’m not sure a lot of growers have that kind of lighting technology.” For these growers, even when their existing systems did not completely accommodate the new system, they were able to adapt their current systems with relatively low cost. Growers conceded the added cost of time or resources either to learn, install, or troubleshoot the system was minimal. Grower 2, who had to reinforce their internet access prior to use, mentioned that the installation cost incurred, though more than expected, was offset by the relatively low-risk trialability afforded by the project. This was echoed by grower 3 who said, “with the project benefits, it wasn’t really going to be a big investment. So, we’re like, let’s just give it a shot.”

Growers were able to manage risk even further by trialing the system on just one or two bays of product to compare quality or performance against their other systems. In the event the system did not perform, they could revert to their previous systems. This proved to be necessary at times because, despite its simplicity, the system did experience some technical challenges. Most of these had to do with the reliability of the system turning on and off as intended. They said,

I remember looking up the lights, but they weren’t working. So then I had to disconnect the lights again, and I put a little pilot light up there so that, they could trigger it on and off remotely. And we could see some indicators that it actually would do what we wanted it to, without putting our crop in jeopardy.

For grower 3, technical challenges with the lighting and the initial use of red lights compromised crop quality, causing stunted growth and tip burn. They ultimately found the

the system worked better with some varieties than others.

Theme 3: Software Integrity and the Importance of the Client-Change Agent Interaction

The technical challenges growers faced seemed to be mediated by what we identified as software integrity, or the strength and quality of elements unrelated to the technology or its attributes but integral to the adoption and confirmation decision-making process. Discussions of the client-change agent interaction related mainly to categories that characterized the overall project management and communication, observability, and trust. When managed well, these elements and efforts compensated for technical challenges with the innovation’s hardware. However, when unattended to, the experiences growers described created vulnerabilities and caused a breakdown in the adoption process. Early in the project cycle, during installation and setup, growers routinely communicated with the change agent, who was quick to help them troubleshoot and make necessary adjustments. All three growers were satisfied with the nature and extent of the communication at the beginning of the project. Growers 1 stated,

I talked to [the change agent] quite a bit, just with the issues that we were seeing. [Their team] would email me those monthly reports, I would text or call if I had any issues. He was always very responsive and good at responding within a timely manner, so I appreciated that.

Likewise, grower 2 affirmed the change agent’s willingness to work with them to remedy issues, though these requests were often reactive and grower-led. There did not appear to be structures in place for proactive communication, and at times growers had to be persistent.  

If there was something critical and we wanted to change the system, we just had to call him a couple of times, or make sure they knew that it was important to talk to him, and then they would get right on it.

By the projects’ end, their experiences are best summed by a remark from grower 1, who said, “It did seem like support tapered off at the end.”

I emailed [the change agent] in March or May. I said, ‘Hey, I switched over to our old system. We’re not using your system anymore. That’s when he was like, ‘Oh, well, the company’s not doing so well. I’ll reach out when I know more.” And I haven’t heard anything back yet. It’s probably been one or two months.

When we collected data for this study, all three growers were informed the company was going out of business, and the project was terminating. Growers were confused regarding next steps and if there would be further interactions with the change agent. “Is anyone going to collect this [equipment]? Or do we just dispose of it as we feel fit?” one asked. These statements bled into discussions of how the project was managed, and we recognized how that impacted their experience. Grower 1 discussed experiencing delays in installation that affected their ability to evaluate the system’s performance. Grower 1 said, “Because of the late installation in 2022, we didn’t get it going until end of March or April, and so that was a critical time for us. We missed out on a year of collecting information.” For growers 2 and 3, this was less of an issue, they were recruited much earlier in the calendar year, so even after significant delays, were operational by the following winter. Growers 1 and 2 discussed frustrations with the intended incentive payments, either that they never received it, or that they opted not to because they felt the paperwork was too complicated. “It’s not the end of the world, you know, but it was a little disappointing,” one said.

These examples of miscommunication and disappointment influenced other areas of the client-change agent interaction. As the project ended, the three growers indicated a lack of trust in the change agent and the system’s ability to deliver as intended, specifically as it related to the data they were receiving on energy and cost savings. Because data comparisons were based on projections, rather than past performance, grower 2 was skeptical about the accuracy of the reports and did not feel they painted the whole picture. They said, “It was a bit too nebulous…and I didn’t trust it.” Similarly, grower 1 expressed a desire to validate the data they were receiving. They said,

“We were going to input our stuff from [the other system] into there to see how it compared and they were going to help me with that. But by the time we were ready to take those steps, they’re no longer in business.”

Without being able to validate the information they were receiving, it made it difficult for growers to make objective comparative judgments about the new system, impacting trialability. This uncertainty further confounded the nature of the information-sharing throughout the project and the lack of observability of the innovation. While growers discussed having immediate access to the change agent and their support team early in the project, there did not appear to be a mechanism to consult with other growers in the program. Additionally, it did not appear there was much effort or perceived need on behalf of the growers, to share information or consult with others either during the initial adoption decision-making process or throughout the project. While growers expressed an awareness and use of Extension for other aspects of their business, there was minimal involvement or resource-seeking from their state Extension systems during the project. In one instance, grower 1 was recruited through an Extension affiliate; however, the other two growers found out about the program from a trade publication and reached out directly. In each case, they did not seek out more information either because they believed it to be a low-risk decision or because they trusted that the product would deliver as the change agent had described. Growers 1 said,

No, there was no one else I really talked with. I had mentioned to a few other growers that we were getting involved. And being that we’ve got a lot of acreage of lights here, we felt comfortable just doing a smaller section…and didn’t feel like we needed to consult with anybody.

Grower 3 felt similarly, indicating they had previous experience with a similar system. Their recognition of its benefit motivated them to adopt and enter the trial.   

I did not. I did not because I knew he told me what it could do or what it would do. And then I knew from the [old system], that’s what we wanted. Because we had the [old system], did without, and we really missed it.

Despite these challenges with software integrity, growers conceded that, ultimately, the system demonstrated its potential. However, the most evident barriers to continuance were the limited trialability and observability due to the project’s closure and a lack of support from the change agent. Grower 1 said, “it just seemed like [the system] had a few glitches that never got quite ironed out. But if the glitches had been ironed out, I think it would have been nice.” Despite the lack of continued support, grower 3 was the only one still using the system.

I’m still hooked up….If there’s a problem, I don’t have anybody to fix it, [and] then we’ll have to look elsewhere. There’s a couple of systems, but they are very expensive. So hopefully somebody else comes along with a system like this—this is very inexpensive. We don’t want to get into a lot of software. But hopefully somebody comes up with a system similar to this, if there is an issue. 

Despite their discontinuance, grower 2 expressed a similar desire. They said,

You know, I know this probably did not turn out like they wanted. But I hope the funder continues to invest in things like this so that we can continue improving the technology for growers. Because it is needed if we want to keep moving in the right direction.

Through these sentiments, growers indicated a recognizable need for this technology and demonstrated interest in more opportunities to engage with new products in similar ways.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research supports growth and innovation in the horticultural industry and can provide valuable insights for inventors, agricultural sales professionals, Extension specialists, and grant managers during the recruitment of growers and diffusion of new technologies in the industry. While the business closure disrupted adoption and hindered diffusion, the technology-filled an operational need, aligned with business values, and was well-received. This underscores the importance of continued research and development of automated lighting systems with enhanced data collection and measurement capacity.

In regard to pro-environmental beliefs, growers took on more of an egoistic rather than an altruistic lens (Stern, 2000). While they affirmed its importance, their pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors seemed to influence adoption and continuance decisions to a lesser extent than cost savings, added value, and marketability to their consumers. This translated to growers’ emphasis on trialability. These findings hold implications for how the benefits of advanced growing systems, practices, and similar technologies are communicated to growers and potential adopters (Rust et al., 2021). In marketing to midsize growers seeking to invest in this type of technology, change agents and Extension professionals should engage with product inventors as opinion leaders in technology diffusion and leverage existing grower relationships. Recruitment should target growers whose consumer base values social responsibility (Jansson & Biel, 2011) and frame benefits around cost savings and economic gain. Ultimately, cost remains a barrier for growers seeking to invest in new on-farm technologies (Fiocco et al., 2023). This further reinforces the need to provide growers with low-cost, low-risk opportunities to test systems through grants, or in partnership with university Extension systems. It also underscores the importance of trialability in diffusion (Rogers, 2003). To avoid diffusion failure in new projects, we recommend conducting pilot research with change agents to assess the innovation’s sustainability, risk, and burden of adoption, should the business fail or grant funding expire (Sherry, 2002).

The essence of the diffusion phenomena, Communication and trust: Leverage points in the software/hardware overlap, demonstrated how these essential factors compromised adoption decisions and led to diffusion breakdown. In our phenomena, these were central to the innovation software or “the information base for the tool” (Rogers, 2003, p. 259). Miscommunication and misunderstandings led to uncertainty and distrust in the change agent and performance data, which made growers skeptical about the reliability and effectiveness of the system. Rogers (2003) suggested that “uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, of structure, of information” (p. 6). While they started the project with confidence in the change agent and the system’s ability to deliver, this breakdown in communication and information caused growers’ trust to wane over time. In our case phenomenon, these vulnerabilities contributed to growers’ decision to discontinue. However, grower 3, who chose to adopt without support after the project’s closure, conveyed the most satisfaction with their experience. This underscored the importance of consistent, effective project management to avoid disproportionate treatment of early adopters. Throughout the project, growers dealt primarily with the change agent, who also invented the product. Therefore, serving multiple roles might also have impeded diffusion.

Our finding aligns with more recent scholarship exploring change-agent role conflict when research, scholarship, and industry collide (Schuijer et al., 2021). Depending on the change agent’s threshold for neutrality and critical feedback, role tension could perpetuate pro-innovation bias and inequitable treatment of adopters. Future research should be conducted to explore role conflict in technology diffusion through Extension systems throughout the adoption process to monitor potential effects. Role conflict is a potential compounding factor evaluators should be aware of when assessing grant or programmatic outcomes. Additionally, like-projects should use a client liaison to improve transparency and accountability in client-change agent interactions. Additionally, lack of observability hindered continuance. Despite the importance of social networks, modeling, and success visibility in diffusion (Rogers, 2003), the three growers made decisions in a vacuum.

We recommend creating a grower support network to encourage open communication, heighten observability, promote shared problem-solving, and strengthen multistate industry relations. There is an immense opportunity to collaborate more productively and diffuse new technology through Extension systems. We recommend capitalizing on growers’ existing relationships with land-grant university Extension systems. In the rollout of these technologies, inventors and project managers could collaborate with state Extension horticultural specialists or local county agents to facilitate on-farm adoption and reinforce their role as opinion leaders in the innovation diffusion process. Future research should evaluate perceived economic barriers to adopting growing systems and identify relationships between their risk tolerance, target markets, and willingness to adopt. Additional research on change-agent role conflict in diffusion is needed to understand responsible innovation in horticulture better (Owen et al., 2012).

Historically, discussion among Extension professionals and change scholars has been limited regarding the integrity of an innovation’s software in diffusion of horticultural technologies. In our case, “software malfunction” or vulnerabilities in communication and trust enhanced growers’ uncertainty and threatened diffusion, even when the hardware was technologically sound. Communication is a key element of diffusion (Rogers, 2003). Theoretically, scholars emphasize communication in adoption but neglect its role at the nexus of where hardware and software meet. We argue breakdowns in the hardware/software overlap, specifically as they relate to communication and trust, can disrupt adoption of new technologies or lead to discontinuance, over time. Future research should continue exploring the role of trust in growers’ perception of advanced lighting technologies and the research team (i.e. scientists, change agents, change agents, industry stakeholders) and how trust might influence their motivation to adopt. Given growers’ skepticism and wavering trust in outcome data being presented, we recommend future projects place an increased focus on effective science communication when sharing results with growers. Extension professionals are uniquely positioned and motivated to translate science to their audiences (O’Brien et al., 2024). Projects targeting growers for adoption could collaborate with Extension professionals or agricultural communicators to present data in more digestible, user-friendly formats and increase growers’ trust in the validity of project outcomes.

Inventors and industry professionals leading change should collaborate with opinion leaders in Extension to proactively reinforce leverage points in the software/hardware overlap of new technologies, as they can have significant, and perhaps underestimated, impacts on perceived attributes of successful innovation diffusion. As scholars, we often publish best-case scenarios and findings from successful adoption. However, given the richness of findings from this evaluation, despite project challenges, we believe continued research that examines diffusion breakdown and discontinuance is important. This vein of scholarship can help us identify nuance and divergent evidence to refine DI (Rogers, 2003) theory application in an Extension context. Finally, we recommend that increased efforts be directed toward enhancing transparency and accountability in the rollout of new, growing technologies, especially in grant-funded trials. Continuation plans and mechanisms for continued technological and financial support should be developed to ensure growers can sustainably manage their new system post-adoption.

References

Annink, A. (2016). Using the research journal during qualitative data collection in a cross-cultural context. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2015-0063.

Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., & Karami, E. (2023). Energy consumption behaviors in greenhouse production systems based on the value-belief-norm theory: The case of Kerman Province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal, 18(2), 163–180. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20081758.1401.18.2.10.5

Canlas, I. P., & Karpudewan, M. (2023). The continuum of pro-environmental behavior in the context of the value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism: Implications toward sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 26(1), 22–50. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2023.129143

Comito, J., Haub, B. C., & Licht, M. (2018). Rapid needs assessment and response technique. Journal of Extension, 56(2). https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.56.02.08

Fiocco, D., Ganesan, V., de la Serrana Lozano, & Sharifi, H. (2023). Agtech: Breaking down the farmer adoption dilemma. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agtech-breaking-down-the-farmer-adoption-dilemma

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717–732 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x

Gikunda, R. M., Lawver, D., & Riziki, J. M. (2022). Culture as a predictor of effective adoption of climate-smart agriculture in Mbeere North, Kenya. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(2), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.203

Halbleib, M. L., & Dinsdale, B. (2023). Farmer-centered pesticide risk reduction education in Senegal: A novel, participatory approach. Journal of International Agricultural & Extension Education, 30(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1127

Jansson, M., & Biel, A. (2011). Investment institutions’ belief about and attitudes toward socially responsible investment (SRI): A comparison between SRI and non-SRI management. Sustainable Development, 22(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.523

McNall, M., & Foster-Fishman, P. G. (2007). Methods of rapid evaluation, assessment, and appraisal. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007300895

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

Moons, I., Pelsmacker, P., Pijnenburg, A., Daems, K., & Van de Velde, L. J. (2022). Growers’ adoption intention of innovations is crucial to establish a sustainable greenhouse horticultural industry: An empirical study in Flanders and the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129752         

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658

Mulvaney, C., & Kelsey, K. D. (2020). A phenomenological inquiry to understand Ugandan farmers’ perceived barriers to fertilizer use. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.374333/aad.v1i1.7

Nemali, K. (2022). History of controlled environment horticulture: Greenhouses. HortScience, 57(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI16160-21

O’Brien, K., Baker, C. N., Bush, S. A., Elliot, M., & Wolf, K. J. (2024). Exploring identities of Extension faculty and educators as science communicators. Journal of Applied Communications, 108(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2529

Owen, R. Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Paris, B., Vandorou, F., Balafoutis, A. T., Vaiopoulos, K., Kyriakarakos, G., Manolakos, D., & Papadakis, G. (2022). Energy use in greenhouses in the EU: A review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption. Applied Sciences, 12(10), 5150. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12105150                       

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Rust, N. A., Jarvis, R. M., Reed, M. S., & Cooper, J. (2021). Framing of sustainable agricultural practices by the farming press and its effect on adoption. Agriculture and Human Values, 38, 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10186-7

Saad, M. H. M., Hamdan, N. M., & Sarker, M. R. (2021). State of the art of urban smart vertical farming automation system: Advanced topologies, issues, and recommendations. Electronics, 10(12), 1422. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10121422

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Schuijer, J. W., Broerse, J., & Kupper, F. (2021). Juggling roles, experiencing dilemmas: The challenges of SSH scholars in public engagement. NanoEthics, 15, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00394-8

Sherry, L. (2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15131/   

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060

Sveiby, K.-E., Gripenberg, P., & Segercrantz, B. (2012). Challenging the innovation paradigm: The Prevailing Pro-Innovation Bias. In P. Gripenberg, K.-E. Sveiby, & B. Segercrantz (Eds.), Challenging the Innovation Paradigm (Routledge studies in technology, work and organizations). Routledge.

Using Students’ Chosen Gender Pronouns in School-Based Agricultural Education (SBAE): An Exploratory, Longitudinal Study of Preservice Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge and Preparedness

Authors

Tyler J. Price, Rutherford County Schools, tyler.price24@rcschools.net

M. Craig Edwards, Oklahoma State University, craig.edwards@okstate.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

The growing diversity of American society requires that U.S. teachers be prepared to effectively teach students from a variety of backgrounds. However, many teachers are ill-prepared by teacher preparation programs to instruct and mentor lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) youth. Using students’ chosen pronouns is a way to show respect for an individual’s identity and make gender minority youth feel welcome and included. This study spanned three consecutive courses in a School-Based Agricultural Education (SBAE) teacher preparation program. Its purpose was to explore the attitudes of preservice teachers toward pronouns during their teacher preparation program, emphasizing the importance of creating more inclusive environments for LGBTQ+ students. Findings revealed the participants’ views over multiple observations. Although they somewhat agreed on the importance of gender pronoun knowledge, a decline was noted after their student teaching experiences. The findings suggest a need for improved teacher preparation efforts, stressing the role of curriculum and experiences to foster understanding. Recommendations include enhancing teacher preparation programs with content on pronouns and increasing awareness of the benefits of inclusivity that could serve all stakeholders. Further research should explore the long-term impact of teacher preparation on SBAE teachers and the influence of cooperating teachers’ attitudes regarding students’ chosen pronouns.

Introduction

Even though educators have the ability to take steps to foster welcoming and affirming environments for all students regardless of their gender identity (Cross & Hillier, 2021), a notable challenge persists as many U.S. teachers graduate from teacher education programs without adequate preparation to guide and mentor LGBTQ+ individuals (Blair & Deckman, 2022; Clark, 2010). As such, Price and Edwards (2022) found that after completing their teacher preparation program, preservice SBAE teachers did not perceive they were sufficiently prepared to support LGBTQ+ students This may be due in part to these preservice SBAE teachers not undergoing diversity or multicultural courses during their preparation program (LaVergne et al., 2011). As a consequence, this omission contributes to unsupportive classroom environments, which have been linked to adverse truancy rates, grades, and postsecondary aspirations among LGBTQ+ youth (Aragon et al., 2014; Kosciw et al., 2022). Recognizing this, Hall (2021) emphasized the need for schools to develop strategies likely to foment inclusive and welcoming learning spaces for LGBTQ+ students. In addition, research has shown that youth organizations are important in supporting the development of youth, such as the FFA component of SBAE programs (Murray et al., 2023).

Aragon et al. (2014) found that when classrooms actively support students of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, educational outcome disparities diminish. The intersectionality of gender and sexual orientation is an important facet of academic performance with the gap between gay male students and lesbian female students greater than that of gay males and straight females (Mittleman, 2022). As such, teachers using gender-neutral language and acknowledging chosen pronouns in educational settings are straightforward ways to create an inclusive atmosphere for transgender and gender minority students (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2023; Matsuno, 2019). The use of chosen gender pronouns is particularly significant as it represents the initial step in demonstrating respect for an individual’s identity and agency, allowing them to share their gender identity and avoiding assumptions based on physical appearance (GLSEN, 2023). However, when asked to think about their futures as teachers, Blair and Deckman (2020) found that many preservice teachers were fearful of or resistant to engage with topics of gender and gender identity in their classrooms.

In the context of career and technical education (CTE), Hall (2021) identified strategies for educators to enhance inclusivity, including responding to anti-LGBTQ+ language, learning LGBTQ+ terminology, incorporating inclusive language, and employing gender pronouns. Teacher preparation, if focused on cultivating professionals through experiential courses to enhance their pedagogical and content knowledge (Franklin & Molina, 2012), requires an intensified emphasis on diversity across all fronts (Mayo, 2014). The American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) addressed this need through its Standards for School-Based Agricultural Education Teacher Preparation Programs, setting a framework for universities preparing SBAE teachers (Myers et al., 2017). Of note, Standard Four emphasized the preparation of SBAE teachers to embrace and celebrate diversity (Myers et al., 2017), albeit this standard was somewhat less prescriptive compared to others, providing additional rationale supporting the need for this study. Further, AAAE (2023) identified “Ensuring Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging” (p. 10) as a research value that seeks to expand diversity through agricultural education and related evaluation efforts. This is important as teachers work to keep students involved in their comprehensive SBAE programs. Moreover, Murray et al. (2023) concluded that hostile school climates for LGBTQ+ youth may lead them to seek support and acceptance through out-of-school activities instead of participating in programs such as SBAE.

Purpose and Objectives

This manuscript presents the results of an exploratory and longitudinal study. The overall goal of the study was to assess preservice teachers’ knowledge and preparedness regarding the use of students’ chosen pronouns in SBAE as they matriculated through the teacher preparation program at Oklahoma State University (OSU). For the purpose of this study, the teacher preparation program included three consecutive, sequential, and required courses of agricultural education (OSU, 2024). As such, we sought to describe the changes in attitudes of preservice teachers regarding chosen gender pronoun usage in SBAE from a baseline observation at the end of their first agricultural education course to the conclusion of their student teaching internship experiences, i.e., the third of three courses. Two research objectives guided this exploratory study: 1. Describe the perceived knowledge of SBAE preservice teachers regarding students’ chosen gender pronouns; and 2. Determine the perceived preparedness of SBAE preservice teachers to properly use students’ chosen gender pronouns.

Conceptual Framework

This study was guided by a three-part conceptual framework rooted in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT), which asserts that individuals are more inclined to adopt a particular action or object if they perceive associated benefits are accrued by doing so (Bandura, 1986; Vasta, 1989). Using this theory with the understanding that as a preservice teacher realized the benefits of using gender pronouns, they would be more likely to adopt such behavior, recognizing that doing so would assist them as inservice professionals. Our framework was comprised of (1) gender pronoun knowledge and preparedness, (2) the proper use of gender pronouns, and (3) the realization of perceived benefits (see Figure 1).A major component of SCT includes self-efficacy or a person’s confidence to perform a behavior (Bandura, 1986; Vasta, 1989). A need, therefore, exists for teacher preparation programs to emphasize the advantages, i.e., realized benefits, of using students’ chosen pronouns and establishing inclusive learning environments to build teachers’ self-efficacy regarding related behaviors. In addition, other than their formal coursework, preservice teachers may also participate in campus and community events addressing LGBTQ+ inclusivity, potentially contributing to their understanding of gender pronouns and readiness for real-world scenarios during student teaching or as inservice teachers. The precise impact of these learning experiences – formal and informal – on preparing preservice teachers to effectively use gender pronouns remains unclear and warranted investigation. Figure 1 displays the conceptual framework guiding the study.

Figure 1

The Study’s Conceptual Framework

Methods

The Institutional Review Board at OSU approved this study. The overall study included the collection of data at three points during the matriculation of a cohort of preservice SBAE teachers. Data were collected at or near the end of three courses completed sequentially in the preservice teachers’ preparation program. The degree plan designed by OSU for the agricultural education degree outlines the sequential completion of the three courses comprising the context of this study (OSU, 2024).

Description of the Participants


A convenience sample (Ary et al., 2014) of intact groups consisting of agricultural education undergraduate students in the SBAE teacher preparation program at OSU provided the study’s data. The participants’ personal characteristics were identified at each observation of this study. A majority of the 26 participants in the initial observation identified as women (18, 72.00%), and seven (28.00%) as men. The participants ranged from 20 to 24 years of age. Most participants (19, 76.00%) selected their race/ethnicity as White, while four (16.00%) identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and two (8.00%) selected other. When asked to identify their sexual orientation, nearly all (23, 92.00%) selected straight, one (4.00%) selected gay, and one (4.00%) chose other. Students from four states were represented in this study, with a majority (20, 80.00%) selecting Oklahoma as their home state. Other home states included Louisiana, Illinois, and California with one (4.00%), one (4.00%), and three participants (12.00%), respectively. Participants were also asked to identify the size of the community in which they grew up. Nearly two-thirds (16, 64.00%) reported rural (1 to 2,500), seven (28.00%) selected suburban (2,501 to 49,999), and two (8.00%) chose urban (50,000+).

Slight attrition occurred between the first (n = 26) and second observation (n = 23), however, the cohort of participants remained very similar. Female-identifying participants were still a majority (f = 14, 60.87%). A slight increase in age was found with participants ranging from 21 to 25 years. Most (f = 17, 73.91%) still identified as White while their sexual orientations remained predominantly straight (f = 22, 95.65%). Oklahoma was again the primary home state (f = 14, 60.87%). Similar to the initial observation, a majority (f = 16, 72.73%) of participants had been enrolled in SBAE programs in rural communities.

Twenty-four participants completed the instrument after student teaching. Seven (29.17%) participants in the third observation indicated having had experiences during student teaching that influenced their beliefs about students’ chosen pronouns in SBAE. Women (f = 17, 70.83%) remained a majority of students in the cohort, and the age range was still 21 to 25 years old. Eighteen (75.00%) identified as White, and all participants (n = 24) identified as straight in the third observation. A majority (f = 16, 69.57%) were residents of Oklahoma, and 15 (62.50%) had grown up in rural communities. Most (f = 16, 66.67%) participants completed their student teaching experiences in rural communities, and 14 (58.33%) desired to begin their teaching careers in similar settings.

Instrumentation

A web-based Qualtrics questionnaire was developed by the researchers to collect the study’s data. The instrument asked participants to rate six statements describing their knowledge and understanding of gender pronouns and perceptions regarding use of such in SBAE. Each statement was rated using a 7-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. In addition, participants provided personal characteristics as reported above at each observation. The questionnaire also included various open-ended questions depending on the observation. For the first observation, it included a question that asked participants to describe their attitudes regarding the use of gender pronouns in SBAE. The questionnaire at Observation two had an additional item that asked participants to provide any experiences they may have undergone that influenced their views of gender pronoun usage in SBAE since the initial observation. The third observation included two additional open-ended questions that asked participants to (a) describe any experiences they may have had during their student teaching internship that possibly influenced their views on the topic and (b) whether they followed the media coverage of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation progression during their student teaching semester. After data collection at each observation, post-hoc analysis revealed Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.755 to 0.890 for the six Likert-type items as a single construct, of which all were deemed acceptable (Field, 2013).

Data Collection

For the first observation, 45 preservice teachers enrolled in AGED 3103: Foundations and Philosophies of Teaching Agricultural Education during the Fall semester of 2021 were invited to participate through an anonymous link to the instrument via an electronic mail message. More than one-half (n = 26) completed the instrument. A QR code linked to the instrument was made available to 29 students enrolled in AGED 4103: Methods of Teaching Agricultural Education at the end of the Fall semester of 2022 for the study’s second observation. Most preservice teachers (n = 23) completed the instrument at the end of that course prior to their student teaching semester. The third observation was also collected through a QR code for the 25 preservice teachers enrolled in AGED 4200: Student Teaching in Agricultural Education during the Spring semester of 2023. All but one student (n = 24) completed the third instrument during their semester-ending seminar after their return to campus from student teaching. Participation in each observation was voluntary, completion of the questionnaire did not impact the participants’ overall grades in their courses, and the instructors were not present during the administration.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (Ary et al., 2014)were used to describe the participants’ perceptions. Frequencies (f) and percentages (%) were calculated for each response choice of the six Likert-type items. Mean scores (M) and standard deviations (SD) were also computed for the items at each observation so that the mean differences (MD) between the first and third observations could be determined. The open-ended questions were analyzed for content and meaning to expand on the quantitative findings, an approach supported by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). For interpretation and reporting, the real limits of the Likert-type scale items and overall were 1.00 to 1.49 = Strongly disagree, 1.50 to 2.49 = Disagree, 2.50 to 3.49 = Somewhat disagree, 3.50 to 4.49 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4.50 to 5.49 = Somewhat agree, 5.50 to 6.49 = Agree,and 6.50 to 7.00 = Strongly agree.

Limitations of this Study

The first limitation was the use of convenience sampling regarding one cohort of preservice SBAE teachers at one university who all completed their student teaching internship in the same state. As such, the findings of this study should not be generalized to preservice SBAE teachers in preparation programs nationwide. Another limitation of this study was the slight attrition and small participant variation regarding whom provided responses throughout the three observations as the sample size became marginally smaller and its composition deviated slightly over time. Further, the third observation occurred during a time that anti-LGBTQ+ legislation was proposed, amended, and enacted in state legislatures throughout the United States. Much of the progression of the legislation was covered by various media outlets. This coverage could have influenced the participants’ perceptions regarding the topic outside of their interactions and experiences during agricultural education, teacher education courses.

Results

The instrument’s first item sought to measure the participants’ perceptions of the importance of gender pronoun knowledge and preparedness of SBAE teachers to demonstrate related behaviors (see Table 1). Less than one-half (f = 11, 42.31%) agreed it was important during the first observation and none strongly disagreed. In the second observation, 10 (43.48%) agreed and no participants strongly disagreed or disagreed (see Table 1). However, in the third observation, nine (37.50%) agreed and three (12.51%) strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed. The item mean score for each observation (5.27, SD = 1.09; 5.48, SD = 1.06; 5.13, SD = 1.56) was in the range of somewhat agree (see Table 1). The second item measured whether participants understood gender pronouns. In Observation 1, four (15.39%) participants strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed that they understood gender pronouns. In Observation 2, two (8.70%) participants either strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed. However, in Observation 3, no participants strongly disagreed or disagreed. The item mean score for the initial observation (5.12, SD = 1.60) was in the range of somewhat agree. Further, the item mean score for the second and third observations (5.52, SD = 1.35; 5.58, SD = 1.22) were in the range of agree. The third item sought to describe whether participants felt prepared to address situations regarding students’ chosen gender pronouns in SBAE. Ten (38.47%) strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed in the initial observation. Fewer (f = 6, 26.10%) strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed in Observation 2 and five (20.83%) in Observation 3. The item mean scores for this item at the first and second observations (4.38, SD = 1.67; 4.22, SD = 1.59) were in the neither agree nor disagree range, and the item mean score for Observation 3 (4.83, SD = 1.62) was in the range of somewhat agree (see Table 1).

The fourth item measured participants’ perceptions of how well their teacher preparation program had prepared them to understand and use gender pronouns. In the first observation, only one (3.85%) participant strongly agreed that their teacher preparation program had adequately prepared them (see Table 1). No participants strongly agreed regarding this item in the second and third observations. The item mean scores for each observation (3.81, SD = 1.54; 3.61, SD = 1.58; 3.71, SD = 1.49) were in the range of neither agree nor disagree. The fifth item sought to measure if the participants perceived that SBAE teachers should use their students’ chosen pronouns. Each observation saw an increase in those who strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed with this statement. Two (7.70%) either disagreed or somewhat disagreed in the initial observation. Three (13.04%) disagreed in the second observation, and five (20.80%) strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed in Observation 3. The item mean score for Observation 1 (5.77, SD = 1.28) was in the range of agree. The second and third observations’ item mean scores (5.48, SD = 1.56; 4.92, SD = 1.87) were in the range of somewhat agree. The final item sought to measure if participants perceived that SBAE teachers should inquire about their students’ chosen pronouns. Eighteen (69.23%) participants somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed during the initial observation. In the second observation, 16 (69.57%) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed, and nine (37.49%) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed in Observation 3. The item mean scores for the first and second observations (5.00, SD = 1.80; 4.83, SD = 1.49) were in the range of somewhat agree. The item mean score for Observation 3 (4.29, SD = 1.62) was in the range of neither agree nor disagree (see Table 1).

Table 1

Participants’ Perceptions of the Use of Students’ Chosen Pronouns in SBAE over Three Teacher Preparation Observations

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, and 7 = Strongly agree.

The item mean scores were compared across the study’s three observations. To assess the change in participants’ perceptions of using students’ chosen gender pronouns in SBAE while matriculating through a teacher preparation program, mean differences (MD) were calculated by subtracting the item mean scores in Observation 1 from the corresponding scores in Observation 3 (see Table 2), recognizing that the participants who completed the instruments varied slightly over time, but overall were a cohort. In the third observation, participants indicated that they somewhat agreed on the importance of SBAE teachers possessing gender pronoun knowledge and preparedness (M = 5.13, SD = 1.56), but not as strongly as they had during Observation 1 (MD = -0.14) [see Table 2]. In addition, at the third observation, participants affirmed an enhanced understanding of gender pronouns compared to the initial observation (M = 5.58, SD = 1.22). Their overall perception shifted (MD = 0.46) [see Table 2] from somewhat agreed to agreed. Moreover, at Observation 3, participants somewhat agreed (M = 4.83, SD = 1.62) that they felt prepared to address situations related to gender pronouns, which was also an increase over the first observation (MD = 0.45) [see Table 2]. Participants neither agreed nor disagreed on whether their teacher preparation program adequately equipped them to comprehend and use gender pronouns (M = 3.71, SD = 1.49), as evidenced by the third observation’s finding (see Table 2), which was slightly lower than the first (MD = -0.10) [see Table 2]. Following their student teaching experience, participants somewhat agreed (M = 4.92, SD = 1.87) that using the chosen pronouns chosen of students was a responsibility of SBAE teachers, despite a decline in agreement, as noted in the second and third Observations. The rating slipped from agreed to somewhat agreed between Observations 1 and 3 (MD = -0.85) [see Table 2]. Further, participants considered it less important for SBAE teachers to inquire about students’ chosen gender pronouns after completing their student teaching internships (M = 4.29, SD = 1.62). The perception declined (MD = -0.71) from somewhat agreed to neither agreed nor disagreed (see Table 2).

Table 2

Mean Differences in SBAE Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender Pronoun Knowledge and Preparedness at the End of Their First Agricultural Education, Teacher Education Course (Observation 1) and After Completing Student Teaching (Observation 3)

Note. Mean differences (MD) were calculated by subtracting the item mean scores in Observation 1 from the corresponding item mean scores in Observation 3.

Following the study’s second observation and prior to their student teaching internships, more than three-fourths of participants reported no experiences, formal or informal, influencing their beliefs regarding pronoun preparedness and usage. Five participants reported that they did participate in experiences influencing their beliefs. Two of those highlighted the impact of a lab instructor in their agricultural education courses and the instructor’s passion for the topic. In response to an open-ended question about SBAE teachers’ use of gender pronouns in the third observation, one participant advocated for comprehensive support and stated: “I think as educators, we should all support our students in all parts of their life.” Another participant emphasized adherence to students’ assigned genders as designated by parents or guardians. A third student, however, expressed that using students’ chosen gender pronouns is a sensitive topic in need of more study and understanding before they would be comfortable implementing associated behaviors as a SBAE teacher.

Although a majority (n = 17) of participants did not report having episodes during student teaching that influenced their beliefs about gender pronoun usage, those who did shared impactful experiences. One participant revealed that their cooperating teacher did not use students’ chosen pronouns, which they perceived as negatively impacting the engagement of some students and their FFA participation. Another described a situation where the cooperating teacher consistently disregarded a student’s pronoun choice. In addition, a participant stated that some students were comfortable sharing their chosen pronouns with them, leading the preservice teacher to pay heightened attention to the use of pronouns while interacting with students. Despite these experiences, participants generally expressed an understanding of the meaning of students’ chosen gender pronouns. Acknowledging the extensive media coverage of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation during the participants’ student teaching internships, both in Oklahoma and other states, it is recognized that this coverage may have influenced participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon. However, only three (12.50%) students confirmed following the media coverage, with one noting that it “helped inform me of what some of my students may be experiencing.”

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Following their student teaching experience, participants somewhat agreed on the importance of gender pronoun knowledge and preparedness for SBAE teachers. However, this perception decreased from the second to the third observation and was also lower than the initial observation. Despite perceiving increased readiness to address SBAE situations involving gender pronouns at the third observation compared to the first two, participants only expressed partial agreement regarding their level of preparedness associated with their teacher preparation program. This aligns with the findings of Clark (2010), who found that U.S. teachers were ill-prepared to serve LGBTQ+ youth. Although participants felt less prepared regarding gender pronouns by their teacher preparation program over time, it was found that their understanding of the meaning of gender pronouns did increase. As such, other experiences or interactions may have occurred outside of the formal learning setting that aided them in understanding the need to use gender pronouns and the application of such in SBAE. Another noteworthy trend was the participants’ perceptions of their increased preparedness to address situations involving gender pronoun usage after their student teaching experiences. This suggests that the participants may have had relevant experiences during their student teaching internships, but additional research is needed. The regression of some attitudes after student teaching also signals that teacher educators should pay close attention to the cooperating teachers with whom student teachers are placed, especially regarding their attitudes toward using students’ chosen gender pronouns, and the related professional development needs of these mentors. After student teaching, participants also reported a decrease in their agreement that gender pronoun knowledge and preparedness are crucial to the performance of SBAE teachers. This decline in agreement on whether SBAE teachers should use students’ chosen pronouns and inquire about their pronoun identification suggests that participants may not have fully grasped the potential benefits associated with these behaviors (Bandura 1986; Vasta, 1989), particularly after their student teaching experiences. These contradictory findings warrant further exploration and study.

Analyzing our data across multiple observations following three interventions (courses) over time revealed several discernible trends. For instance, it is worth exploring how cooperating teachers may influence student teachers’ acquiring less positive views regarding this issue. As such, we recommend that teacher educators exercise intentional selectivity when assigning preservice teachers to cooperating teachers and schools. Purposeful placements could align future teachers with educators more supportive of using students’ chosen pronouns, thereby fostering the adoption of such practices by their student teachers. Regarding course content and experiences within teacher preparation programs, participants expressed a need for additional training in using gender pronouns. To this point, our findings underscored the importance of dedicating more attention to the goals outlined in AAAE’s Standards for School-Based Agricultural Education Teacher Preparation Programs, specifically Standard Four which currently does not include any subtopics outlining how preservice teachers should be prepared to create inclusive learning environments and how to celebrate diversity (Myers et al., 2017). Such could emphasize the creation of more inclusive programs that establish positive relationships and thereby increase the likelihood of greater fairness and equity among students, teachers, parents, community members, and other SBAE stakeholders (Price, 2023; Murray et al., 2020).

We recommend that additional investigations be conducted with a larger population of preservice teachers to better understand the knowledge and preparedness of future SBAE teachers regarding gender pronouns. We further recommend that other teacher preparation programs replicate this study to determine their effectiveness in preparing preservice SBAE teachers to address situations regarding gender pronoun usage in SBAE. These studies could also help to identify those cooperating schools and teachers that may hinder or promote the use of gender pronouns in SBAE. We also suggest expanding this study by incorporating an additional observation after the participants have gained inservice teaching experience. This longitudinal extension would aim to evaluate the practical application of their preparation in educational programs and ascertain if any shifts in attitudes and behaviors had manifested due to the accrual of more benefits over time, as suggested by Bandura’s SCT (Vasta, 1989). Further, a complementary study should be conducted involving SBAE inservice teachers, both in Oklahoma and in other states. We also recommend that teacher educators at OSU enhance efforts to prepare SBAE teachers to understand and use their future students’ chosen pronouns (Cross & Hillier, 2021; Murray et al., 2020). This could involve an instructional unit delivering pertinent content on gender pronouns and strategies to foster more inclusive SBAE programs for gender minority students by promoting a sense of welcomeness and support (Price & Edwards, 2023). Given that experiences influencing participants’ views on pronoun usage in SBAE occurred during their teacher preparation coursework, this period offers an opportune time to introduce preservice teachers to the concept and its impact by providing examples of potential situations and appropriate responses. Such scenarios may also encompass rooming assignments for overnight trips and implementation of the National FFA Organization’s (2023) non-gendered official dress standards for students with chosen gender pronouns differing from their assigned sex.

References

American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE). (2023). AAAE research values. Author. https://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/FOR%20ONLINE       %20(8.5%20x%2011)%20-%20AAAE%20Research%20Values.pdf

Aragon, S. R., Poteat, V. P., Espelage D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2014). The influence of peer victimization on educational outcomes for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014 .840761

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2014). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Blair, E. E., & Deckman, S. L. (2020). “Distressing” situations and differentiated interventions:   Preservice teachers’ imagined futures with trans and gender-creative students. Teachers College Record, 122(7), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200704

Blair, E. E., & Deckman, S. L. (2022). Beyond pronouns: The case for gender-expansive and democratizing practice in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 124(8), 275-289.             https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221124194

Clark, C. T. (2010). Preparing LGBTQ-allies and combating homophobia in a U.S. teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 704-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.006

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cross, E., & Hillier, A. (2021). Respecting pronouns in the classroom. The educator’s handbook. https://www.gse.upenn.edu/news/educators-playbook/erin-cross-pronouns-gender-identity

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE.

Franklin, E. A., & Molina, Q. F. (2012). Teacher induction programs in agricultural education:    Description of the role of AAAE higher education teacher preparation programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.01123

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (2023). Pronoun guide. Author. https://www.glsen.org/activity/pronouns-guide-glsen

Hall, A. (2021). Creating a safe space for LGBTQ+ students in career and technical education. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 96(3), 17-19.  https://www.acteonline.org/lgbtq-safe-space/

Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., & Menard, L. (2022). The 2021 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network.    https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/NSCS-2021-Full  -Report.pdf

LaVergne, D. D., Larke, Jr. A., Elbert, C. D., & Jones, W. A. (2011). The benefits and barriers     toward diversity inclusion regarding agricultural science teachers in Texas secondary        agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 140-150.         https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02140

Matsuno, E. (2019, April). Breaking the binary in psychology: How to empower and support trans and non-binary graduate students in psychology. Division 44 Newsletter. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/publications/newsletters/division/2019/04/support-nonbinary

Mayo, C. (2014). LGBTQ youth & education: Policies and practices. Teachers College Press.

Mittleman, J. (2022). Intersecting the academic gender gap: The education of lesbian, gay, and bisexual America. American Sociological Review, 87(2), 303-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221075776

Murray, K., Cannon, C. E. B, Ching, C. C., & Trexler, C. J. (2023). LGBTQ access to generalized youth development programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.2464

Murray, K. A., Trexler, C. J., & Cannon, C. E. B. (2020). Queering agricultural education research: Challenges and strategies for advancing inclusion. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 296-316. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04296

Myers, B., Paulsen, T., Lawver, B., Alston, A., Baker, A., Bell, L. Burris., S., DeLay, A., Greiman, B., Rayfield, J., Robinson, S., & Warner, W. (Eds.). (2017). Standards for school-based agricultural education teacher preparation programs. American Association for Agricultural Education. https://aaea.wildapricot.org/Standards-for-Teacher-Preparation/

National FFA Organization. (2023). Official FFA manual. Author.             https://ffa.app.box.com/s/z6bkjdmqd7e329a58a27e5xn1fzcqeqq                

Oklahoma State University (OSU). (2024). Finish in four [Degree plan]. Department of Agricultural Education, Communications, and Leadership. Author.

Price, T. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2022, May16-19). Pronoun preparedness of preservice, school-   based agricultural education teachers: Baseline analysis of their knowledge and preparedness regarding gender pronouns. [Poster presentation]. American Association for Agricultural Education national meeting, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.

Price, T. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2023, May 15-18). Using students’ chosen gender pronouns in     school-based agricultural education: Preservice teachers’ perceived knowledge and preparedness – Phase II. [Poster presentation]. American Association for Agricultural Education national meeting, Raleigh, NC, United States.

Price, T. J. (2023). Impact of school-based agricultural education (SBAE) program climate on     the participation and continuation of LGBTQ+ students: A mixed-methods study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oklahoma State University. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14446/344223

Vasta, R. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of Child Development. Six Theories of Child Development, 6, 1-85. JAI Press. https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1 989ACD.pdf

You Can’t Train Them to Care: Perceptions of Florida’s Young Farmers and Ranchers Leadership Group on Necessary Skills for High School Graduates to Gain Entry-Level Employment

Heather L. Young, University of Florida, heather.young@ufl.edu

R. G. (Tre) Easterly III, University of Florida, tre.easterly@ufl.edu

Amy M. C. Brown, University of Florida, amybrown@ufl.edu

James (J.C.) Bunch, University of Florida, bunchj@ufl.edu

PDF Available

Abstract 

There has been an overall shortage of skilled workers in today’s workforce. Employers expect graduates to possess skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, analyzing, using logic, making informed judgments and conclusions, and maintaining strong leadership qualities, such as written and oral communication and attention to detail. Board members of the Florida Young Farmers and Ranchers (YF&R) Leadership Group participated in a focus group. They shared their perceptions of the skills necessary for high school graduates to gain entry-level employment. As representatives of the agricultural industry, the YF&R population provides insight into challenges associated with hiring graduates into the workforce. We concluded a general frustration about finding and keeping committed employees was present. Agricultural producers also noted that job applicants lacked the necessary skills for employment in industry operations. Findings suggested that school-based agricultural education programs focus on teaching and practicing essential skills, such as critical thinking, communication, time management and prioritization, willingness to learn, and building confidence. The study informs outcomes of secondary agricultural education programs to meet industry needs and boost student success.

Introduction

The demands of the global labor market have been at odds with the skills the workers possess (Cappelli, 2015). This mismatch in skills was evidenced by the 8.8 million job openings and the 6.3 million unemployed workers (Ferguson, 2023). Despite various calls for increases in skills in specific areas, predicting areas of employment need has been challenging (Capelli, 2015). The employee shortage in skilled trades has been noted (Alston et al., 2020; Capeilli, 2015; Parrella et al., 2023). High school career and technical education (CTE) programs have been positioned to give students the skills needed to meet industry demands in specialized areas (US Department of Education, 2019). For these programs to be successful, they must be in tune with the needs of the industry to prepare students. High school agricultural programs face a particular challenge in this area because of the disparate careers students can enter after graduation and the entrepreneurial nature of some of these careers (National Research Council, 1988).

The National Rural Education Association (NREA) Research Agenda (2016-2021) qualified career readiness as one of the rural education research priority areas. This identification was due in part to the growing global economy, ever-changing workforce needs, and educational equity (Bragg & Taylor, 2014; Hill & Turney, 2016; Lombardi et al., 2013; Mishkind, 2014; Monahan et al., 2020; Roberts & Grant, 2021.). Acknowledging the importance and severity of the changing workforce demands, Florida’s Department of Education Strategic Plan specifically focused on career and technical education, including career clusters, industry certifications, and business partnerships, to produce more career-ready high school graduates (Licata, 2014).

Up-to-date needs assessments and job analyses detailing required skills for agricultural employees are a critical part of the curriculum design process in determining the content taught in these programs (Dick et al., 2015). However, the literature was limited in describing specific skills desired by agriculture employers. The work of Slusher et al. (2011) and Easterly et al. (2017) provided insight into the technical skills needed by employers in the areas of animal science and agricultural communication, respectively. Ramsey and Edwards (2011) provided a detailed list of entry-level skills for agricultural employment. Although providing insight, the publications do not fully address the breadth of sectors within the industry and lack post-pandemic relevance to guide the curriculum decision-making process. Agricultural program advisory boards and curriculum review committees are likely informing this work (Masser et al., 2014); however, their work is unpublished and, therefore, inaccessible to a broader audience.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study was human capital theory (HCT). Human capital theory draws attention to the value educated and skilled employees bring to an organization (Becker, 1994; Mincer, 1962; Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1985; Schultz, 1961). Academics have conflicting perspectives on HCT; however, original definitions of the theory and the basis of this study complement each other. Schultz (1961) explained that education and training in developing knowledge and skills in employees is a form of capital. The capital is a product of purposeful investment and provides a return. HCT is also conceptualized as the use of education and schooling to prepare individuals for the workforce (Mincer, 1962). Untaught ability, education, school quality, training, and pre-labor market influences can affect human capital significantly. Becker (1994) emphasized “Education and training are the most important investments in human capital” (p. 17). Educators can increase the likelihood of students’ employment by investing early in education, training, and skill development. HCT was used to frame the research and examine the untaught ability and opportunities available to high school agricultural programs to better prepare graduates for the workforce.

Attention has been drawn to aligning school curricula with current industry needs (Morgan & Rucker, 2013; Webb, 2018). A suggested approach included clear communication between the industry and academia, marrying the expertise of both professions to inform future education (Morgan & Rucker, 2013). Being intentional in building relationships with industry stakeholders ensures the agricultural programs and curriculum remain in tune with each other’s needs (Easterly et al., 2017; Maiga et al., 2013). Cooperative research programs between the agricultural industry and the field of education allow students first-hand insight and experience, with educators remaining current on needs and advancements.

In 2013, the Virginia Department of Education implemented an updated “Strategic Review of Agriculture Education: Preparing Students for Successful Transition to College and Careers” in an effort to meet the needs of the current and future workforce (VDOE, 2013). Within this plan, there were five areas that focused on bringing the Virginia agricultural education programs and teachers up to date with the current industry standards and needs, through professional development workshops hosted by Virginia Tech’s Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education Department (Webb, 2018). Virginia recognized that by keeping teachers up to date with industry skillset needs, regionally and globally, they were better able to prepare students to be successful in the workforce. Even the ever-changing needs and careers helped to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Webb, 2018).

Erickson et al. (2018) acknowledged difficulties in the industry’s ability to find proficient workers in the specific areas needing fulfillment, as different skills are necessary for different positions. A content-based model for teaching agriculture requires curricula to reflect the context of the industry’s current needs by ‘creating’ skilled workers (Roberts & Ball, 2009; Slusher et al., 2011). Agricultural educators need frequent and consistent opportunities to stay current and ensure they are teaching relevant topics (Easterly et al., 2017; Roberts & Ball, 2009; Slusher et al., 2011; Talbert et al., 2007).

Educators can help increase the likelihood of their students becoming employed by investing early in their lives such as education, training, and skill development. Within agriculture, Roberts and Ball (2009) discussed the purpose and value of agricultural education programs and CTEs in the development and preparation of students for employment within the industry and related workforce. Kitchen et al. (2002) supported the importance of hands-on, practical experiences where students could practice the necessary skills. Attention to the need for instructors to be familiar with and competent in the systems and processes they teach has also been supported (Hurst et al., 2015; Kitchen et al., 2002; Webb, 2018). Slusher et al. (2011) reported that specific skills needed to be incorporated in high school curriculum designs for animal systems and cross-connected with college animal systems pathways to ensure that enrolled students are provided opportunities to learn entry-level skills that employers desire. See Table 1. As mentioned by Easterly et al. (2017), students need to practice communication skills throughout their academic careers. See Table 2. Similarly, they recognized that student-instructor relationships were stronger when the instruction was more technical and hands-on (Kitchen et al., 2002).

Table 1

Entry-level Technical Skills Needed in Animal Industries

Animal health, husbandry, & nutritionBusiness, marketing, & data managementProduction agricultureOperation & maintenance of tools & machinery
Understand animal needs & value animal healthBasic math skillsUnderstand selected aspects of production agricultureExecute general farm safety practices
Identify & monitor unhealthy animalsRecord & maintain relevant dataDemonstrate work experience in livestock industryOperate equipment safely
Understand basic animal reproduction & anatomyBasic accounting skillsUnderstand basic elements of plant & soil sciencesRead and follow equipment operating procedures
Feed livestockFollow basic laws, policies, & legalities Use basic mechanical tools
Understand basic animal handling (i.e., understanding of behaviors & points of balance)Perform cost/benefit analysis to determine potential costs, profit, & losses Perform general welding practices
Understand proper use & administration of antibiotics & vaccinationsOperate Microsoft Office  
 Create career development documents  
 Perform basic marketing skills  
 Create & send emails  

Note: See Slusher et al. (2011) for the full table

Table 2

Industry Perceived Important Personal and Leadership Skills

DependableCritical thinkingStrategic planningClear communication
Active listeningProblem-solvingAssertivenssReceptive to change
InnovativeFlexibleFocusedOpen to feedback
Positive attititudeOrganizedConfidenceTeam work
Emotional intelligenceSelf-motivation  

Note: See Easterly et al. (2017) for the full table

 Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to understand the agriculture industries desired skills of high school graduates to inform existing secondary agriculture curricula. The study was guided by the overarching question: What skills do high school graduates need to seek entry-level employment upon completing courses in agricultural career pathways within Florida?

Methods  

We used a case study design to explore the entry-level competencies needed by agriculture professionals (Stake, 1995). A case study was selected to understand the experiences of a group bound within a select case. The study population was young, emerging professionals in the Florida agricultural and natural resource industry. A convenience sample was drawn using the Florida Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers (YF&R) organization, specifically the board of officers (n = 16). They have recently experienced career entry and have navigated the challenges of finding suitable candidates to work on their operations. These officers, who serve two-year terms, were apprised of current talent pools due to maintaining contact with their high school post-graduation as a source of job candidates or interns. Participants in the study identified as males and females who were early- to mid-career and were under 35 years of age. Pseudonyms were created using ChatGPT. Professions included commodity producers, farm store managers, ranch administrative assistants, and extension agents. Specific industries included dairy, beef, timber, potato, row crops, sugar, off-farm occupations, and feed and lumber stores. See Table 3 for an in-depth description of the participants.  

Table 3

Description of the Participants’ Occupation, Experience, and Involvement in the Hiring Process

ParticipantCommodity/
specific position
Professional years of experienceInvolvement in hiring process
EmilyAgronomy Former Extension Agent5-10 yearsTraining & Operations
DanielBeef Former Ag & Nat Res Extension Agent6 yearsHiring, Training, Operations
MeganBeef    8-10 years Born & raised in industryTraining & Human Resources
RachelBeef10-12 years Raised in industryTraining
SamanthaBeefBorn in industry 
AndrewBeef, Citrus, Sugar Cane10 years in sugar cane Middle/High School–beef/citrus College–sugar caneHiring, Training, Internship Management, Human Resources
EthanBeefPart-Time Raised in industryHiring, Training, Operations
JessicaCitrus, Aquaculture, Forestry, Beef15 years Born into citrus industry High school – aquaculture Professionally – timberHiring, Training, Operations
AlexDairy, Cheese Production6 years Born & raised on farmHiring, Training, Operations, Internship Management, Human Resources
DavidFeed & Lumber, Beef Division ManagerFeed/lumber, full-time 15 years in beef, part-timeHiring, Training, Operations, Management
LaurenFertilizer/Agrochemicals10 years Born & raised in  industryHiring, Training, Operations
NathanForestry Consulting9 years Raised in industryHiring, Training, Operations
BrandonLand Management Procurement12 yearsOperations
JoshuaRow Crop, Dairy6-8 years in dairy industryHiring, Training, Operations
MichaelRow Crop, Ag Equipment, & Beef (cow/calf)*12 years (row crop/beef) & 7 years (ag equip service manager)Hiring, Training, Operations
SarahSugar Cane, Rice Farm & Research Manager15 yearsHiring & Training

Note. * = This participant specifically stated that their operation was cow/calf; other participants stated that they were in the beef industry without specification.

The focus group questions were semi-structured to determine the challenges of hiring within various agricultural and natural resource industries due to the lack of skilled and well-prepared applicants (Erickson et al., 2018; Slusher et al., 2011). For example, participants were asked to describe their hiring processes related to the candidate pool (i.e., range in work, educational experiences, qualifications) and the interview process. Participants shared skills they looked for in candidates (i.e., skills essential to the operation), skills candidates were expected to be fluent in, the willingness to teach and train candidates, and any other desired skills that were not demonstrated in candidates. Finally, we asked for participants’ opinions and suggestions regarding opportunities for high schools to develop the skilled laborers needed in the industry.

Data were collected from the sample in July 2022 in a one-hour-long focus group. The focus group was an appropriate method to allow participants to share ideas and experiences, building off each other’s perspectives for a more comprehensive understanding of the current hiring environment. The session concluded at the point of saturation across the 16 focus group members. We supported data saturation with one group when they were learning nothing new despite asking additional probing questions (Saldaña & Omasta, 2022). The focus group size was larger than the recommended six to 12 people (Holloway, 2005; Masadeh, 2012; Prince & Davies, 2001). However, due to their familiarity with YFAR and the greater agricultural community, the comfort level between participants reduced the risk of intimidation, which would limit the sharing of thoughts and opinions (Holloway, 2005; Saldaña & Omasta, 2022; Somekh & Lewin, 2005).  

Audio recordings of the focus group were transcribed using Microsoft Word (version 16.72). The documents were screened to ensure participant anonymity, and files were saved on a password-protected server. The transcripts were coded in two phases. First, open, inductive in vivo coding fracturing the data while maintaining participants’ perspectives and language (Saldaña, 2021). The second round used meta-coding, or pattern coding, organizing data into nodes or clusters to compare and condense data until distinct categories emerged (Saldaña, 2021). The coding process was guided using hand-written memos, which were reviewed in regular peer debriefing exercises.

Multiple strategies were used to establish rigor and trustworthiness (Ary et al., 2018; Harrison et al., 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was ensured through peer debriefing amongst multiple reviewers following transcription and throughout data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The focus group was the only source of data for this study; therefore, multiple sources could not be triangulated following the recommendation of Stake (1995). Participants’ personal contact information was kept private. To provide an additional layer of credibility, a deliberate effort was made to establish credibility through member checking, guided by an additional notetaker not involved in conducting the interview. Participants were given ample time to share their perspectives. Before concluding the focus group, we encouraged sharing any final thoughts that may not have been heard or clarifying points already made. Thick, rich descriptions of the participants and their experiences related to the industry provides evidence for transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Research team members utilized triangulation with notes from the day of, transcriptions, and amidst each other to verify patterns that emerged in the coding process, increasing dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, three separate times, researchers who attended the focus group confirmed the accuracy of the peer debriefing exercises and reviewed the transcript, our notes from the focus group, and the open codes to ensure the accuracy of emergent themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The study’s dependability was enhanced with the documentation of the coding process in extensive analytical memos and practicing reflexivity to sustain awareness of researcher bias throughout the process (Attia & Edge, 2017; Edge, 2011). One researcher has an extensive personal and professional background in the dairy industry. Two others are employed as agricultural education professors at a southern agricultural university (Creswell, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Note-taking was also employed during the focus group and reviewed through the analytical process.

Findings  

Participants shared their experiences in employee management within agricultural operations during the focus group. There was a specific emphasis on skills needed by employees. Through the inductive coding process, three major themes emerged. The first theme was related to human relations challenges and tradeoffs faced by employers. The second theme was a skill gap between the available workforce and the needs of the employers. The third theme was employees’ awareness of the value they can bring to an agriculture organization. Additionally, the findings explored the specific technical skills desired by employers. The following explanation addresses how themes emerged and provides details through participants’ voices. 

Human Relations

The first theme explains the human relations tradeoff employers have to make because of employees’ availability, reliability, and attention to detail. Employers were left filling in the capability and availability gaps. Nathan explained before hiring a new employee, they ask themselves: “Is the investment in another employee even worth it? Is that person going to allow you to do enough work to really justify the opportunities from a revenue standpoint or the added headaches?” The tradeoff of completing the work themselves or putting in extra effort for those they could hire was difficult because recruiting and retaining employees was already challenging. Alex noted, “…hav[ing] to deal with 23 full-time people all of the time, there’s constant issues….” This seemed to be one of the most challenging areas for their operations. Many participants shared recent experiences of not being able to find suitable employees or hiring them to work for only a brief time. Some participants’ frustration stemmed from being unable to find and keep employees in lower-wage and hourly positions. Alex shared, “We can only afford a certain clientele of folks.” Alex also noted that his interview process was as simple as, “Can you be here at 7:00? Do you have a truck? Does it run?”

Because they are hiring lower-wage employees with a limited skillset and reliability issues, the participants experienced frustrations in how much they can accomplish operationally. Rachel reported feeling “…held hostage by our employees…” because of what they could accomplish throughout the day. The constraints surpassed what could otherwise be accomplished and impacted how they could operate and grow their business. Alex is in the dairy industry and he considered limiting the size of his business to avoid the need for hiring additional employees. He stated, “I think I’d rather shrink my business to the point where I could do it all by myself, even if that means seven days a week than deal with the 23 employees I constantly have.”

Several participants noted the difficulties of working in the agricultural and natural resource industry that also influence employment challenges. The seasonality of the job and long days during specific times of the year were difficult for employees to manage. Some participants noted that the nature of the work was more desirable in other fields; therefore, competition with other low-skill labor opportunities presented a challenge. Lauren, who works in the fertilizer industry shared of a recent hire who left after one day because the work was too complicated and “…they could make more money at Popeye’s.” Andrew, who is a row-cropper, added that he does not know what he will do when one of his long-time grader operators decides to retire. “…I can’t afford to pay $60 an hour or whatever it is going to take me to find a grader operator running graders seven days a week all year long.” The group also noted the difficulty in offering a competitive wage. Daniel stated, “You can’t get employees [to run equipment] because construction is so hot right now.” They recognized this was in spite of the fact agriculture jobs remain steady, whereas roles in construction fluctuate being dependent on the economy.

The frustration extended beyond the lower wages and seasonal employees. Some participants noted similar challenges in their employees who are college graduates and individuals with prior work experience. David noted frustrations when hiring from this pool, “those hires have been just as challenging in a very limited pool than even our hourly positions.” Participants stated applicants with those backgrounds typically served in supervisory roles. These supervisors tend to leave and find other jobs because they lack the skills to manage lower-skilled workers. According to Andrew, “They spend most of their day babysitting instead of farming.” This theme of frustration stems from a lack of basic agricultural knowledge and a commitment to success in the operation. Megan recognized they could do a better job of training the employees at their operation.

Based on this theme, opportunities existed to improve onboarding, training, and school-based agricultural programs. There was evidence of a cyclical nature of employment patterns. With other sectors, like construction and food service, that also draw from this pool of applicants, it could be necessary for employers in agricultural fields to modify their employment practices to recruit and retain employees.

Gap in Necessary Skills for Employment 

The second theme that emerged was applicants lacked the necessary skills for gainful employment in their operations. Multiple participants recalled their recent hiring experiences and suggested applicants lacked soft and technical skills. Daniel noted,  

They don’t have the practical side; you know, they can’t take what they’ve learned and actually go out and apply it; they just know the theory behind it, and that’s fine and dandy, but if you’re going to be on the actual farm you got to be able to apply that as well.   

Some participants were looking for applicants to come to the interview already having a specific skill set and ready to go to work. Megan noted, “For our ranch, a lot of the times we’re hiring day workers, and we’re hiring people that know what they’re doing.” Other participants expressed their openness to train employees in areas they were lacking. Regardless, participants noted their disinterest in investing time in developing employees who would not stay. Nathan shared, “…if you say you want to be autonomous, but you really clearly can’t be, then I don’t want to invest much in you, right? [Be]‘cause I know you’re not going to be around that long.”

Nathan further explained his interview process to provide insight on the applicant’s skill set,

We’ll interview someone as many times as we think we need to… I’ll have several face-to-face interactions with them. We just have a casual conversation and just see, ‘In these types of situations and your previous experiences, what did you do here? How did you handle that?’ And then I kind of get a read for them as how they’re going to perform, what’s their dedication level to their job, how do they handle those types of stressful situations? 

Nathan also stated his organization was in a growing phase, which heavily impacted hiring decisions.

I don’t have to have somebody today. I’m ‘getting them today for tomorrow’ type of deal, so I can be a little more selective in that I’m not in a crisis of I’ve got to have a tractor driver today.

He also shared how they questioned the applicant during the interview to gauge their intentions, “…how much do we want to invest in this person, or are they just going to leave in a few years, and we’re going to train them up for our competition…so that’s a big concern.”  

Megan shared that often, “we’re hiring day workers…people that know what they are doing… [and then we’re] hiring kids right out of high school just to feed cows in the feedlots [only asking] ‘Are you afraid of cows? Are you going to show up?” Additionally, Sarah shared certain skills are not a “make-or-break” situation when hiring. She also considers an open mindset or an applicant’s willingness to learn and try new things. “If someone is willing to listen to you and actually do it, I’m willing to teach them whatever, if they have that right attitude. I’d rather hire somebody willing to learn [the] certain skills I’m looking for.”  

When probed about the specific technical skills they want in employees, the group shared a restricted-use pesticide license and running, fixing, or servicing equipment. Participants expected employees to identify sick animals, read syringes, complete conversions and fractions, and read tape measures. They felt employees should be capable of applied math, basic computer skills, and understanding basic finance.

Participants wanted specific soft skills in employees. They mentioned communication, forward-thinking, troubleshooting, critical thinking, problem-solving, adaptability, time management, prioritization of workload and tasks, accountability, drive, confidence, and willingness to learn. These representatives of the agricultural industry noted this was not an exhaustive list of required skills but would provide a leg up for employees entering the industry. The discussion also centered around applicants’ levels of experience. Some participants welcomed prior experience, while others favored applicants without existing habits. These preferences varied on the specific industry segment and vacancy.

Again, an absence of skills was not unwelcome if it was paired with the ability to learn. Alex noted, “I’d rather you not have experience…I would rather have a kid, 18 years old, show up that’s willing to work. I can train them the right way….” Andrew expressed the importance of work ethic because “you can train somebody day in and day out, but you can’t pay somebody, and you can’t train somebody to care.” Participants were open to investing time and effort into training applicants if they possessed an open mindset and willingness to learn.

Another burden on the operation’s productivity was the resources required for training. Andrew explained “I’m hiring that person because I need that person as another operator. Well, to train that person, I have to take an experienced operator from what he’s doing to train this person.” Other participants recognized as long-time industry experts that applicants may not have been taught specific tasks, like how to use a ratchet strap or to shut a gate when they walk through one; it did not negate them from helping others learn those skills. Megan said, “…we must be forgiving, understanding educators when they come onto our property. We have to take the initiative to teach them.” Agricultural programs are practical opportunities for graduates to learn these essential skills. The group agreed with Andrew’s statement: “You can train somebody day in and day out, but you can’t pay somebody, and you can’t train somebody to care.”  

Awareness of value and impact of actions

A third theme to emerge from this focus group was applicants seem to lack an overall awareness of the value they bring and how their actions impact the operation’s day-to-day business. Nathan noted, “They don’t understand where [they] fit into the whole process for what they’re doing and how it affects them.” David shared, “They are just there to collect a check.” This lack of buy-in produces specific and general influences from distracted employees unable to make simple cost-benefit analysis decisions and focus on essential tasks to being a contributing member of a successful operation. Andrew shared a story about an employee refueling a tractor. He said, “The kid is in the cab, on their phone, with diesel fuel spilling out. He doesn’t even know that’s money pouring out on the ground! And he’s like, ‘Oh, oops, sorry.'” 

Employees who lack attentiveness and practice poor decision-making hurt the business. Andrew shared another example about an employee who was distracted on their phone while running equipment in a “field [that] was just laser leveled at $125 an acre and dug a hole 100 yards into the field” from a lack of awareness. This was not only frustrating and costly but also dangerous. Participants stressed the need for applicants to be focused and present, not distracted by their phones or thoughts of after-work activities. Daniel tries to limit as many distractions as possible, so 

When we’re in the thick of it, I don’t answer my phone. I’m the one running things. I don’t answer my phone; I’m focused on the task at hand, and I feel like, a lot of times, they’re focused on what they’re going to do at 5 o’clock. They’re not focused on right now, being present in what we’re doing, critically thinking, being involved. They’re focused on what they’re doing when they get off work.  

Most employers realize mistakes and accidents will happen but become frustrated because a lack of reporting worsens mistakes. Alex shared,  

A kid that I had mowing hay for me backed into a limb and busted out the back window of the tractor. Instead of calling me and telling me that, he mowed the rest of the day, and then he parked the tractor with that broken back window. I had my bailer monitor in there, and it rained the next few days. That $1,000 bailer monitor is now fried. If the kid had told me he backed into a limb, I probably would have talked to them a little bit about paying attention, but we’d gone along, and I’d have pulled that bailer monitor out of there, and we’d been fine.   

Producers also noted frustration when employees do not report issues or problems they notice. Alex noted when milkers in the parlor failed to report a sick animal. He continued by saying,  

I’m not expecting you to treat that cow, I’m not expecting you to cut that cow out, but I need to know that cow’s sick. If I don’t know about it and we don’t see her not come to the feed trough, then she’s going to go three or four days without treatment. 

A few participants recognized that the level of respect and attention increased when they changed how they conversed with their employees and applicants. When the conversation became more inclusive, Michael noticed “[employees] feel like they’re part of the whole operation rather than just a, you know, tool.” Ethan believed the lack of applicant understanding was because “…they didn’t grow up in it, so they don’t know the costs that are involved and the time commitment that it actually is….” Joshua shared, “I worked until midnight last night on something that I sure as heck didn’t want to be doing, but I love what I do, and I love the company. I know it’s beneficial for them and part of my job.” Andrew noted, 

We have a season, and during that season, there is no start-stop time; it’s we go until the job gets done. I feel like a lot of these, like whether it’s a high school graduate or college graduate, that concept is not really instilled in them throughout their collegiate or high school career…[when] it’s busy season, we may be there before the sun comes up and well after the sun goes down. So, then you do that a couple of days in a row, and they want to drag up…but it’s just that eight-month stent is too much for most people. 

These feelings stemmed from applicants’ unawareness of the required hours during critical harvest times when the fields, crops, or livestock often cannot wait. 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

The findings present challenges with finding and keeping committed employees and applicants needing more skills for gainful employment in industry operations. This supported the work of Slusher et al. (2011). Represented by this population, the industry does not see recent graduates who confidently demonstrate the necessary basic skills, which has created recruitment challenges. These skills include communication and problem-solving skills (as seen in Knight & Yorke, 2003; Robinson & Garton, 2008; Sargent et al., 2003; Shaw et al., 2020; Whorton et al., 2017), as well as accountability, adaptability, communication, confidence, critical thinking, drive, forward-thinking, respect, commitment, troubleshooting, time management, task prioritization, willingness to try and learn new skills or techniques related to agriculture and other aspects of life. See Table 4.

Table 4

Potential Skills for Agricultural Education and CTE Programs to Focus On

AccountabilityAdaptabilityCommitmentCommunicationConfidence
Critical thinkingDriveForward-thinkingProblem-solvingRespect
Task prioritizationTime managementTroubleshootingWillingness to try 

We know high school graduates lack relevant skills (Slusher et al., 2011). High school agricultural programs can be a conduit for skilled agricultural labor by providing students with the above entry-level skills needed in these operations. Agricultural educators who stay in touch with industry trends can best fulfill this need. To start, increased exposure to introductory technical skills common across agricultural operations, such as reading tape measures, doing dilutions with water and food coloring, and using common computer programs, would be helpful in preparing graduates. High school agricultural teachers can easily incorporate these skills into their existing lesson plans. Addressing the skill sets identified by industry professionals can help address the need for ready-made graduates (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2011; Bean, 2011; Brooke, 2006; Brown, 2003; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Huba & Freed, 2000; Marin & Halpern, 2011; McDade, 1995; Popil, 2011). The specificity of these skills should be the focus of further inquiry.

The research conducted by Webb (2018) and further supported by Wells and Hainline (2021) demonstrated student performance benefits due in part to teachers participating in professional development opportunities. Tying back to human capital theory, Becker (1994) shared that “…learning on and off the job has the same kind of effects on observed earnings as formal education, training, and other investments in human capital” (p. 246). Therefore, when schools and industries invest in their teachers, the teachers become more effective and competent educators, which transfers to their students, providing an investment in human capital (Wells & Hainline, 2021). Schools should work to organize professional development sessions for their teachers, whether it be conferences, workshops, or collaborative professional learning communities. In addition to formal professional development opportunities and teacher collaborations, agricultural education teachers should develop or better utilize existing partnerships with the local industries. Fostering relationships with local agribusinesses, farms, or cooperatives can provide teachers with the necessary real-world insights by ‘getting a finger on the pulse’ of the local and regional industry. Relationships for students can be fostered by bringing in guest speakers, going on farm tours, and advocating for internship or mentorship opportunities for students in the agricultural and natural resources industries. By providing more frequent and routine interactions with current industry members, students and teachers will remain in tune with the industry and its needs.

Our findings indicated that job prospects lack awareness of the value they offer operations and how their actions directly impact a business’s profitability (Mincer, 1962).Clarifying students’ influence on the operation’s productivity is valuable to reinforce in the classroom or through SAE programs that connect students to professionals through long-lasting relationships (Crawford et al., 2011; Easterly et al., 2017). Programs such as those mentioned above can correct the lack of buy-in identified by researchers. Relationships with job prospects to foster value and connection could be enhanced from the industry’s professional side. Training and professional development related to building a cohesive team and similar leadership competencies can be helpful for these producers. 

Aggregating the present findings with previous studies on student workforce preparedness creates a baseline for the relevant student-focused knowledge in agricultural education programs. Based on the findings of this study, there is an opportunity for diagnosing agricultural industry problems and formulating reasonable solutions. This study used qualitative methodologies and non-generalizable sampling techniques; therefore, practice caution when implementing the findings. We recognize the limitation of the convenience sampling method and recommend replicating the study with additional Florida agricultural professionals. We also recognize there are potential research opportunities beyond state lines to explore various states’ SAE programs in the preparedness of their students for the workforce. This study informs agricultural education and CTE curriculum development through agricultural leaders’ view of the challenges faced by producers and the necessary skillset for employee success.

References

Alston, A. J., Roberts, R., & English, C. W. (2020). Toward a holistic agricultural student recruitment model: A national analysis of the factors affecting students’ decision to pursue an agricultural related degree. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-2118.1071

Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in education (9th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.  

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Becker, G. S. (1994, January). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-third-edition

Bragg, D. D., & Taylor, J. L. (2014). Toward college and career readiness: How different models produce similar short-term outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 994–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515231

Brooke, S. L. (2006). Using the case method to teach online classes: Promoting Socratic dialogue and critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 142–149. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE58.pdf

Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning in diverse classrooms. Education, 124(1), 49–55. https://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=11046940&S=R&D=slh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSeqLA4y9fwOLCmsEuep7RSsKa4SraWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGut1C1qbNJuePfgeyx43zx

Cappelli, P. H. (2015). Skills gaps, skills shortages, and skill mismatches: Evidence and arguments for the United States. ILR Review, 68(2), 247–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914564961

Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton, R., & Fielitz, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of soft skills: What is important for new graduates? Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282853470_Comparative_Analysis_of_Soft_Skills_What_is_Important_for_New_Graduates

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications.  

Easterly, R. G., Warner, A. J., Myers, B. E., Lamm, A. J., & Telg, R. W. (2017). Skills students need in the real world: Competencies desired by agricultural and natural resources industry leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(4), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.04225

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

Ferguson, S. (2023, October 16). Understanding America’s labor shortage. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage

Florida Farm Bureau. (2022). Program details: Young farmers and ranchers: Leadership group. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.floridafarmbureau.org/programs/young-farmers-and-ranchers/

Herreid, C. F. & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631584

Hill, J. & Turney, J. S. (2016). National Rural Education Association (NREA) research agenda – 2016-2021. The Rural Educator, 37(3), v–vii. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v37i3.236

Holloway, I. (Ed.). (2005). Qualitative research in health care. McGraw-Hill Education.

Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Allyn & Bacon.

Hurst, S. D., Conner, N. W., Stripling, C. T., Blythe, J., Giorgi, A., Rubenstein, E. D., Futrell, A., Jenkins, J., & Roberts, T. G. (2015). An exploration of the formal agricultural education system in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01141

Kitchen, N. R., Snyder, C. J., Franzen, D. W., & Wiebold, W. J. (2002). Educational needs of precision agriculture. Precision Agriculture, 3, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021588721188

Knight, P. T., & Yorke, M. (2003). Employability and good learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052294

Licata, P. B. (2014). 21st century workforce readiness skills: How are students being prepared [Doctoral dissertation, Lynn University]. SPIRAL. https://spiral.lynn.edu/etds/210

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

Lombardi, A. R., Conley, D. T., Seburn, M. A., & Downs, A. M. (2013). College and career readiness assessment: Validation of the key cognitive strategies framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(3), 163–171. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412448668

Maiga, A. A., Cartmell, D. D., Edwards, M. C., & Robinson, J. S. (2013). Competencies needed by graduates of agricultural communications in Mali: Implications for developing countries. North American Colleges & Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 57(3), 139–145. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1445180847/8C49914F58C641BEPQ/25?accountid=10920

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

Masadeh, M. A. (2012, December). Focus group: Review and practices. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(10), 63–68. https://ijastnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_10_December_2012/9.pdf

Masser, D. T., Falk, J. M., & Foster, D. D. (2014). Level of agricultural education advisory council implementation in Idaho secondary agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(3), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.03116

McDade, S. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_3

Mincer, J. (1962, October). On-the-job training: Costs, returns and some implications. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 50–79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1829104

Mishkind, A. (2014). Overview: State definitions of college and career readiness. American Institutes for Research. https://ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/CCRS%20Defintions
%20Brie f_REV_1.pdf

Monahan, J. L., Lombardi, A., Madaus, J., Carlson, S. R., Freeman, J., & Gelbar, N. (2020). A systematic literature review of college and career readiness frameworks for students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1044207320906816

Morgan, A. C., & Rucker, K. J. (2013). Competencies needed by agricultural communication undergraduates: An academic perspective. Journal of Applied Communication, 97(1), 50– 65. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1103  

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. The National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/766

Parrella, J. A., Leggette, H. R., Murphrey, T. P., Esquivel, C., & Bates, A. (2023). Investigating students’ career-readiness in the agricultural sciences: A phenomenological case study. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 7(1), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-2118.1115

Popil, I. (2011). Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Education Today, 31, 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002

Prince, M., & Davies, M. (2001). Moderator teams: An extension to focus group methodology. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(4), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005902

Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for development: An analysis of investment choices. Oxford University Press. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/477701468137718173/Education-for-development-an-analysis-of-investment-choices

Ramsey, J. W., & Edwards, M. C. (2011). Entry-level technical skills that agricultural industry experts expected students to learn through their supervised agricultural experiences: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02082

Roberts, J. K., & Grant, P. D. (2021). What we know and where to go: A systematic review of the rural student college and career readiness literature and future directions for the field. The Rural Educator, 42(2), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v42i2.1244

Roberts, T. G., & Ball, A. L. (2009). Secondary agricultural science as context and content for teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01081

Robinson, S. J., & Garton, B. L. (2008). An assessment of the employability skills needed by graduates in the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(4), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.04096

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2022). Qualitative research: Analyzing life (2nd ed.). SAGE. 

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE. 

Sargent, S. D., Pennington, P., & Sitton, S. (2003). Developing leadership skills through capstone experiences [Paper presentation]. Association of Leadership Educators International Conference, Anchorage, AK. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480969.pdf

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Education and economic growth. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Social forces influencing American education. University of Chicago Press.  

Shaw, A., Liu, O. L., Gu, L., Kardonova, E., Chirikov, I., Li, G., Hu, S., Yu, N., Ma, L., Guo, F., Su, Q., Shi, J., Shi, H., & Loyalka, P. (2020). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Validating the Russian HEIghtenâ critical thinking assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1933–1948. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672640

Slusher, W. L., Robinson, J. S., & Edwards, M. C. (2011). Assessing the animal science technical skills needed by secondary agricultural education graduates for employment in the animal industries: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02095

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., Croom, D. B., & Lee, J. S. (2007). Foundations of agricultural education. Professional Educators Publications, Inc.  

U.S. Department of Education. (2019, September). Bridging the skills gap: Career and technical education in high school. https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/cte/index.html

VDOE. (2013). A Strategic Review of Agricultural Education Preparing Students for Successful Transition to College and Careers, The Changing Face of Virginia Agriculture. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Department of Education.

Webb, R. C. (2018). A case study of how modern agricultural education programs may be designed to support innovative agricultural content [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/96756

Wells, T., & Hainline, M. S. (2021). Examining teachers’ agricultural mechanics professional development needs: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.02217

Whorton, R., Casillas, A., Oswald, F. L., & Shaw, A. (2017). Critical skills for the 21st century workforce. In Building Better Students: Preparation for the Workforce (J. Burrus, K. D. Mattern, B. Naemi, & R. D. Roberts, Eds., pp. 47–72). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373222.003.0003

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

Authors

Damilola Ajayi, University of Florida, d.ajayi@ufl.edu

Kathleen D. Kelsey, University of Florida, kathleen.kelsey@ufl.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

Theoretical Framework

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

Results

Q1. What Were Participants Roles within the Collaborative Team?

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

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

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

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

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of the Population

NameGenderSpecializationRegionYears Collaboration
James, PIMaleEntomologySE12
GraceFemaleEntomologySE12
CalebMaleEntomologySW14
EvaFemaleMolecular biologistSW10
JasonMaleEntomologySW10
CharlesMaleEntomologyNE12
DanielMaleEntomologyNE6
EmmanuelLeadEconomicsNE7
NoahMaleEntomologyNE12
AnthonyMaleEntomologyNE10
WilliamMaleEntomology/ BiologistNE6
OliviaFemaleEconomicsNW7

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

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

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

Theme 1: Nature and Distribution of the Problem

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

Theme 2: Need for Expertise

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

Theme 3: Quest for Knowledge

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

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

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

Theme 1: Collaboration with Good People

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

Theme 2: Professionalism

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

Theme 3: Capacity Development and Networking

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

Theme 4: Communication

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

Theme 5: Synergy and Cohesion

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

Theme 6: Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q6. How Did Participants Experience Communication Within the Team?

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

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

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

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

References

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). The collaboration behaviors of scientists in Italy: A field level analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 442-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.009

Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: Implications on teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 8(8), 49-56. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Social-Constructivism.pdf

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003

Arnal, Á. J. (2018) Implementation of PEF treatment at real-scale tomatoes processing considering LCA methodology as an innovation strategy in the agri-food sector. Sustainability,10(4),1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040979.

Arsenyan, J., Büyüközkan, G., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2015). Modeling collaboration formation with a game theory approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2073-2085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.010

Ashfield, A., Mullan, C., & Jack, C. (2020). Encouraging farmer participation in agricultural education and training: A Northern Ireland perspective. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 9, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.5836/ijam/2020-09-96

Baker, B. P., Green, T. A., & Loker, A. J. (2020). Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biological Control, 140, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analyzing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837-1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007

Bekkers, R. N. A., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2011). The performance of university-industry collaborations: empirical evidence from the Netherlands. A paper presented at the DRUID 2011 on Innovation, Strategy, and Structure, Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions. 1-36. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/57881156/448150161855381.pdf

Blanco, C. D. P. (2020) Water availability risk in agriculture: An application to guadalquivir and segura river basins. Estudios de Economia Aplicada, 29(1), 333-357. https://doi.org/10.25115/EEA.V29I1.3942.

Bodin, O. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352).1-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114

Brown, P., Von Daniels, C., Bocken, N. M. P., & Balkenende, A. R. (2021). A process model for collaboration in circular oriented innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125499

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

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 75(5), 647-663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432.

Cantner, U., Hinzmann, S., & Wolf, T. (2017). The coevolution of innovative ties, proximity, and competencies: Toward a dynamic approach to innovation cooperation. Knowledge and Networks, 11, 337–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45023-0_16

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

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

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

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

Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003) A cast of thousands: Co-authorship and subauthorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of American Sociology Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10278

Croom, D. B., Yopp, A. M., Edgar, D., Roberts, R., Jagger, C., Clemons, C., & Wagner, J. (2022). Technical professional development needs of Agricultural Education teachers in the southeastern United States by career pathway. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 73(73),132. https://jsaer.org/page/2/?cat=-1

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

Díaz, M. (2021). Environmental objectives of Spanish agriculture: Scientific guidelines for their effective implementation under the common agricultural policy 2023-2030. Ardeola,68(2), 445-460. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.68.2.2021.fo1.

Doolittle, P. E. & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v16i1.706

Doussou-Kpanou, B. D., Kelsey, K., & Bower, K. (2020). An evaluation of social networks within federally funded research projects. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.65

Duţă, N., & Martínez-Rivera, O. (2015). Between theory and practice: the importance of ICT in higher education as a tool for collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1466-1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.294

Eaton, W. M., Brasier, K. J., Whitley, H., Bausch, J. C., Hinrichs, C. C., Quimby, B., Burbach, M.E., Wutich, A., Delozier, J., Whitmer, W., Kennedy, S., Weigle, J., & Williams, C. (2022). Farmer perspectives on collaboration: Evidence from agricultural landscapes in Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Journal of Rural Studies, 94, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.05.008

Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014).Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 4(5), 914-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.006

Fernandes, G. & O’Sullivan, D. (2021). Benefits management in university-industry collaboration programs. International Journal of Project Management, 39(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.002

Foray, D., & Steinmueller, E. (2003). On the economics of R&D and technological collaborations: Insights and results from the project Colline. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590303118

Franz, N., Piercy, F., Donaldson, J., Richard, R., & Westbrook, J. (2010). How farmers learn: Implications for agricultural educators. Journal of Rural Social Sciences,25(1),37-59. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol25/iss1/

Garcia, R., Araújo, V., Mascarini, S., Santos, E. G., & Costa, A. R. (2020). How long-term university-industry collaboration shapes the academic productivity of research teams. Innovation, 22(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1632711

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

Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business model innovation: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 198, 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.240

Gladman, A. (2015). Team teaching is not just for teachers! Student perspectives on the collaborative classroom. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.144

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

Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012). A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 23-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269005

Hur, G., Roberts, T. G., Diaz, J., Diehl, D., & Bunch, J. C. (2023). Exploring teaching-focused personal networks of agriculture university faculty members: A mixed-methods egocentric network approach. Journal of Agricultural Education,64(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i1.28

Ikendi, S., Retallick, M. S., Nonnecke, G. R., & Kugonza, D. R. (2023). Influence of school garden learning approach on academic development of global service-learners. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.167

Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: Exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967-983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0474-y

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

Kelly, J., & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27. https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42876

Koskenranta, M., Kuivila, H., Männistö, M., Kääriäinen, M., & Mikkonen, K. (2022). Collegiality among social-and health care educators in higher education or vocational institutions: A mixed-method systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 114,1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105389

Lamm, K. W., & Carter, H. S. (2019). Leadership development program evaluation: A social network analysis approach. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 69(1), 4-19. https://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019_004-final-print.pdf

Li, K. M. (2015). Learning styles and perceptions of student teachers of computer-supported collaborative learning strategy using wikis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 32-50. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.521

Macknick, J., Hartmann, H., Barron-Gafford, G., Beatty, B., Burton, R., Seok-Choi, C., Davis, M., Davis, R., Figueroa, J., Garrett, A., Hain, L., Herbert, S., Janski, J., Kinzer, A., Knapp, A., Lehan, M., Losey, J., Marley, J., MacDonald, J., & Walston, L. (2022). The 5 Cs of Agrivoltaic success factors in the United States: Lessons from the InSPIRE research study, United States. A technical report, 1-80. https://doi.org/10.2172/1882930

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

Marlows, M. P., & Nass-Fukai, J. (2000). Collegiality, collaboration, and kuleana: Three crucial components for sustaining effective school-university partnerships. Education, 121(1), 188-194. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A66960822/AONE?u=tall22798&sid=googleScholar&xid=f666f6f2

Mcleod-Morin, A., Rumble, J. N., & Telg, R. W. (2021). Challenges and motivations of science communication: An administrative perspective at land-grant universities. Journal of Applied Communications, 105(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2387

McLeod-Morin, A., Telg, R., & Rumble, J. (2020). Describing interdisciplinary agricultural research center directors’ perceptions of science communication through goals and beliefs. Journal of Applied Communications, 104(1),1-18. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2300

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

Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2009). Effective communication, collaboration, and coordination in extreme programming: Human‐centric perspective in a small organization. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 19(5), 438-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20164

Narine, L. K., Harder, A., & Zelaya, P. (2019). A qualitative analysis of the challenges and threats facing Cooperative Extension at the county level. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 69(1), 20-32. http://www.jsaer.org/pdf/Vol69/2019_008%20final%20print.pdf

Paphawasit, B., & Wudhikarn, R. (2022). Investigating patterns of research collaboration and citations in science and technology: A case of Chiang Mai University. Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020071

Pham, H. T., & Tanner, K. (2015). Collaboration between academics and library staff: A structurationist perspective. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.989661

Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x

Reed, D. B., McCallum, D., & Claunch, D. T. (2021). Changing health practices through research to practice collaboration: The farm dinner theater experience. Health Promotion Practice, 22(1), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839921996298

Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Teacher’s ‘liking’ their work? Exploring the realities of teacher Facebook teams. British Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 230-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3325

Roberts, T. G., Cardey, S., & den Brock, P. (2023). Developing a framework for using local knowledge systems to enhance capacity building in agricultural development. Advancements in Agricultural Development,4(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305

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

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

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

Sial, A., Burrack, H., Loeb, G., Isaacs, R., Walton, V., Zalom, F., Daane, K. Chiu, J., Rodriguez-Saona, C., Beers, E., Northfield, T., Fanning, P., Hoelmer, K., Wang, X., Hoheisel, G., Gallardo, K., Gomez, M., & Kelsey.K. (2020). Moving from crisis response to long-term integrated management of SWD: A keystone pest of fruit crops in the United States. Proposal submitted to USDA-NIFA for funding. https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1023475-moving-from-crisis-response-to-long-term-integrated-management-of-swd-a-keystone-pest-of-fruit-crops-in-the-united-states.html

Schubert, A., & Glanzel, W. (2006). Cross-national preferences in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 69(2), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0160-7

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

Storksdieck, M., Shirk, J. L., Cappadonna, J. L., Domroese, M., Göbel, C., Haklay, M., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Roetman,P., Sbrocchi, C., & Vohland, K. (2016). Associations for citizen science: regional knowledge, global collaboration. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/cstp.55

Sulandjari, K., Putra, A., Sulaminingsih, S., Adi, C. P., Yusroni, N., & Andiyan, A. (2022). Agricultural extension in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: Issues and challenges in the field. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 137-143.https://doi.org/10.22124/cjes.2022.5402

Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university-industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117–1147. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts004

Thorgersen, K. A., & Mars, A. (2021). A pandemic as the mother of invention? Collegial online collaboration to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Music Education Research, 23(2), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1906216

van der Wal, J. E. M., Thorogood, R., & Horrocks, N. P. C. (2021). Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers. Proceedings Royal Society, 288, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0219

Velten, S., Jager, N.W. & Newig, J. (2021) Success of collaboration for sustainable agriculture: A case study meta-analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability,23, 14619–14641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01261-y

Ward, C., Holmes, G., & Stringer, L. (2018). Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation in protected‐area governance. Conservation Biology, 32(2), 437-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13000

Worley, B., Fuhrman,N., & Peake, J. (2021).A quantitative approach to identifying turfgrass key players. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(1), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i1.85

Wright, K. M., Rolling Meadows, I. L., Hauser, A., & Maxwell, L. D. (2021). Designing a technique for program expansion of secondary agricultural education. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 71(1), 43-60. https://jsaer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/71-Wright-Vincent-Hauser-Maxwell.pdf

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

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

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

Callan Hand, Tift County Schools, Georgia

Ashley M. Yopp, Florida Department of Education

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

James C. Anderson II, University of Georgia

Aaron Golson, University of Georgia

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

come from urban backgrounds with little exposure to agriculture.

Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

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

Research Objectives

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

Agricultural Education in Urban Schools

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

Methodology

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

Demographic Data and Descriptions of Participants

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

Data Collection

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

Data Analysis

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

Findings

Description of School Site

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

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

Teacher Perceptions of Student Interest in Agricultural Education

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

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

A Seat at the Table

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

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

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

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

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

Genuine Inclusiveness

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

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

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

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

Ag is a Hard Sell

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

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

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

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

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

Formative Experiences

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

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

Outside the City Limits

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

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

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

Making the Connection

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Discussion

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

Inclusiveness and Representation

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

Overcoming Cultural and Urban-Rural Challenges

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

Fostering Connections and Relevance

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

Supportive Learning Environments

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

The Role of Early Exposure and Extracurricular Activities

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

Addressing Negative Perceptions and Enhancing Recruitment

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

Recommendations

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

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

References

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

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

Croom, B. (2008). Development of the integrated three-component model of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.01110

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

Esters, L. T., & Bowen, B. E. (2005). Factors influencing career choices of urban agricultural education students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02024

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

Kenny, M. E., & Bledsoe, M. (2005). Contributions of the relational context to career adaptability among urban adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.10.002

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

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

Lawrence, S., Rayfield, J., Moore, L. L., & Outley, C. (2013). An analysis of FFA chapter demographics as compared to schools and communities. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01207

Leatherman, J. M., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020590918979

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

Levine, M., & Levine, A. G. (2014). Coming from behind: A historical perspective on Black education and attainment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099861

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

MANRRS. (2023). About us. MANNRS. https://www.manrrs.org

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

Robinson, J. S., Kelsey, K. D., & Terry, R. (2013). What images show that words do not: Analysis of pre-service teachers’ depictions of effective agricultural education teachers in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.0126

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

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

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

Talbert, B. A., Larke, Jr., Alvin, & Jones, W. A. (1999). Using a student organization to increase participation and success of minorities in agricultural disciplines. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7402_8

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

Vincent, S., Henry, A., & Anderson, J. (2012). College major choice for students of color: Toward a model of recruitment for the agricultural education profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04187

Warren, C. K., & Alston, A. J. (2007). An analysis of diversity inclusion in North Carolina secondary agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(2), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.02066

Westbrook, J. R., & Alston, A. J. (2007). Recruitment and retention strategies utilized by 1890 land grant institutions in relation to African American students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03123

Xing, X., Garza, T., & Huerta, M. (2019). Factors influencing high school students’ career and technical education enrollment patterns. Career and Technical Education Research, 44(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter44.3.53

Yopp, A., McKim, B., & Homeyer, M. (2018). Flipped programs: Traditional agricultural education in non-traditional programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02016

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