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

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

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

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

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

Figure 2
Bloom’s (1956) Cognitive Taxonomy

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

Purpose of the Study

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

Methods and Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesse Bower, Fresno State, jessebower@csufresno.edu

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

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

Christopher T. Stripling, University of Tennessee, cstripli@utk.edu

Matthew S. Kreifels, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, matt.kreifels@unl.edu

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

PDF Available

Abstract

This study investigated teachers’ levels of Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) using the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI). The population included 10 teachers completing an Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based Professional Development in Genetics, Muscle Biology, Microbiology, and Nutrition. Assessments were made at two points. First, the participants were assessed by using a pretest followed up by a posttest 12 months later after implementing the new curriculum. The teachers experienced gains during the professional development on both their personal science teaching efficacy and their science teaching outcome expectancy. However, the mean differences were not statistically significant. Results of this study indicate that the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based Professional Development may be used as a tool to increase PSTE and STOE in agricultural educators and science teachers.

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

In the 2020-2021 school year, the Nebraska student-centered assessment in the area of science indicates that only 50% of high school students meet the science expectation (Nebraska Department of Education, 2022). The lack of science proficiency is not surprising given the statistics from 2017 indicating students’ proficiency gradually decreases between 5th grade, 8th grade, and 11th grade (Nebraska Department of Education, 2017). In 2017, 28% of 5th graders were below proficient, 32% of 8th graders were below proficient, and 39% of 11th graders were below proficient (Nebraska Department of Education, 2017). Proficiency scores indicate that science efficacy needs to be addressed at all grade levels, but specifically at the high school level. Based on research and theory, it is determined that outcome expectancy (OE) and science efficacy (SE) are complementary factors in determining the success of teachers in a science-based classroom. (Stripling & Roberts, 2013)

Teacher self-efficacy relates to progressive teaching behaviors and positive student outcomes. Therefore, the social cognitive theory serves as the theoretical framework for this study. The social cognitive theory identifies the capabilities of humans, and their purposeful intentions, that can and will affect their course of action (Bandura, 1977, 1997). This process is called triadic reciprocal causation and was developed by Albert Bandura (1977, 1997). Triadic reciprocal causation suggests three interrelated factors that mutually impact people: environmental, behavioral, and personal factors (Bandura, 1977, 1997). These three factors determine what a person believes about themselves and aide in their decision-making process (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Triadic reciprocal causation advocates that no one single factor determines a person’s behavior, instead, it is the combination of all three factors (Bandura, 1977, 1997). When determining OE and SE, behavior could be predicted (Bandura, 1997) and efficacy beliefs help dictate motivation (Maehr & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Self-efficacy theory helps outline what motivates a person (Graham & Weiner, 1996), and so, the theory can be applied to any behavioral task and predict what will take place.

In the teacher efficacy belief literature, two dimensions of teacher self-efficacy, including Teaching Efficacy (Outcome Expectancy) and Personal Teaching Efficacy (Self- Efficacy), have been defined and utilized in subsequent studies. Several studies suggest that teacher efficacy beliefs may account for individual differences in teacher effectiveness (Armor et al., 1976; Berman & McLaughlin, 1977; Brookover et al., 1978; Brophy & Evertson, 1981). Student achievement has also been shown to be significantly related to teacher efficacy beliefs (Ashton & Webb, 1983). The measurement of Personal Teaching Efficacy has been used to predict teacher behavior with accuracy (Ashton et al., 1983).

Teachers’ content knowledge affects student learning (Ballou & Podgursky, 1999; Ma, 1999; Podgursky, 2005); therefore, science teachers are expected to be highly qualified in the subject area in which they teach. Not only do teachers need to have a high level of comprehension in the content area, but they also need to display passion and enthusiasm. Additionally, standardized tests, only prove that students can memorize and focus on the content because the performance goals measured only address low levels of learning (Meece et al., 2006).

Teacher self-efficacy has also been connected to beginner agriculture teachers’ pledge to the teaching career (Knobloch & Whittington, 2003). Teaching efficacy is a more specific type of self-efficacy (Stripling & Roberts, 2013; Stripling et al., 2008), and is a teacher’s belief in their competence to facilitate the learning environment and produce desired learning results (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Soodak & Podell, 1996). Beginning teachers who are more efficacious tend to have a greater obligation to teaching than those who are not as efficacious and consequently are more motivated to remain in the teaching profession (Whittington et al., 2003). In fact, beginner teachers could have an exaggerated sense of self-efficacy because of their student teaching experience (Knobloch, 2006).

This professional development program utilized inquiry-based learning as the main instructional approach. There have been numerous studies that show inquiry-based learning is an effective method for teaching science (Keys & Bryan, 2001). Inquiry-based learning requires students to manage their own learning and their success will be based on their engagement in the lesson through active listening and problem solving. Inquiry-based learning opportunities provide the foundation for students to make observations, pose questions, compare evidence, predict outcomes, and communicate research results (National Research Council, 2000).

Purpose/Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the teachers’ level of science efficacy in the agricultural education and science classrooms and compare the results as the teachers progressed through the yearlong professional development. The modified science teaching efficacy scale (based on Enochs & Riggs, 1990) consists of both personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE).

Objectives include:

1. Investigate secondary life science teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) within the sciences before and after the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based Professional Development in Genetics, Muscle Biology, Microbiology, and Nutrition.

• Investigate secondary life science teachers’ science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) before and after the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based Professional Development in Genetics, Muscle Biology, Microbiology, and Nutrition.

Two null hypotheses were used to guide this inquiry:

H01: There is no significant difference in the personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) of life science teachers before and after the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based

Professional Development in Genetics, Muscle Biology, Microbiology, and Nutrition treatment.

H02: There is no significant difference in the science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) of life science teachers before and after the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based

Professional Development in Genetics, Muscle Biology, Microbiology, and Nutrition treatment.

Methods/Procedures

Professional Development

This professional development (PD) program provided an opportunity for high school agricultural education teachers and science teachers to participate in a 12-month long PD. Applicants were encouraged to join the program with both a science and agriculture teacher from their school. The purpose of this was to bridge the gap between agriculture and science disciplines. After applications were submitted, there were not enough paring entries from all the same schools, so science and agriculture teachers were coupled from different schools (N = 10). For this study, the participants will be referred to as life science teachers. Applicants were recruited in the Spring of 2017. The project was divided into three phases.

Phase I

The PD program began in summer 2017 with a one-day workshop that took place at three different locations throughout Nebraska. The workshop introduced information centered around how students learn, more specifically, experiential learning, short-term and long-term memory, Bloom’s taxonomy, and learning styles. From there, the inquiry-based learning teaching method was introduced. All learning activities that were developed and used in this PD incorporated inquiry-based learning and allowed teachers to experience learning activities as students.

Basic scientific disciplines including biology, chemistry, and mathematics are interrelated in the growth and development of living beings.  For this reason, scientific units of study that focused on the Scientific Principles of Food Animal Systems were developed. The following units were included:

1. Genetics
2. Growth & Development / Chemistry of Muscle Biology

3)   Microbiology of Food Safety

4)   Physiology and Chemistry of Nutrition

Each unit provided basic content knowledge, hands-on inquiry-based learning activities, and student reflection instruments.  Content knowledge included educational videos and PowerPoint slides that could be used to introduce high school students to the topic and provided the scientific basis of the topic and related activities. Instructional materials also included a listing of necessary supplies and equipment, ordering information, and easy-to-follow instructions.  For those secondary life science educators that participated in the PD, selected supplies that would not normally be present in a typical high school science laboratory were provided to facilitate the small-group student learning activities. 

Finally, through inquiry-based learning, it is imperative that high school students be asked to reflect upon what they’ve just learned; to evaluate the results and to project how those results might relate to new situations or scenarios (Kolb, 1984).  To facilitate this final component of inquiry-based learning, instruments were developed to encourage high school students to reflect upon what they just learned and how that new knowledge may be applied to different situations in the future. Scientific principles related to genetics, muscle biology, microbiology, and nutrition were used to demonstrate a hands-on, inquiry-based learning pedagogy. 

Phase II

The program continued throughout the 2017-2018 academic year. Conference calls through Zoom, a video conferencing platform, took place in August and December of 2017, and April of 2018. The calls were used to discuss how life science teachers were implementing the prescribed learning activities that focused on genetics, muscle biology, microbiology, and nutrition.

Phase III

Life science teachers were placed in small teams and asked to develop additional inquiry-based learning activities that were presented during the final PD session in June of 2018. Each team was assigned a specific unit (genetics, muscle biology, microbiology, or nutrition) to focus their efforts.  The overall purpose of this activity was to help life science teachers learn how to develop their own inquiry-based learning activities and share their activities with a broader audience.

Data Collection

Quantitative methods were used to determine the change in teachers’ science teaching efficacy by using a modified science teaching efficacy scale (based on Enochs & Riggs, 1990). The instrument used for data collection was created by Enochs and Riggs (1990) to measure the self-efficacy of science teachers, called the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). Additionally, the data collected for this study was part of a larger data set.

The STEBI consisted of 23 questions scaled from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Terminology was adjusted by researchers to accommodate for high school teachers instead of preservice elementary science teachers. Example questions from Enochs and Riggs (1990) include “I will continually find better ways to teach science,” “The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be overcome by good teaching,” “The low science achievement of some students cannot generally be blamed on their teachers,” and “When a low achieving child progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention given by the teacher.”

The STEBI (Enochs & Riggs, 1990) is comprised of two scales that measure the constructs personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE).

All items use a 5-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The following item was modified from Enochs and Riggs (1990) by removing the word elementary: “I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary science.”

Additionally, Enochs & Riggs (1990) stated reliability analysis produced Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .90 for PSTE and .76 for STOE. Post-hoc reliabilities for PSTE and STOE were .799 and .732, respectively. These measures of internal-consistency are acceptable given the nature of the constructs and present reliabilities on comparable measures (Ary et al., 2014).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, percentages, and means) were used to describe the science teaching efficacy data. Additionally, based on Haynes and Stripling (2014) and Dossett et al. (2019), low, moderate, and high self-efficacy was defined as 1.00 to 2.33, 2.34 to 3.67, and 3.68 to 5, respectively. Data was summarized using descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, percentages, and means). Paired samples t-tests were utilized to determine if a significant difference existed in science teaching efficacy and outcome expectancy (OE).

The STEBI contains 23 items in the survey and 13 are designed to address science teachers’ level of belief that they can teach science (Personal Science Teaching Efficacy or PSTE) and 10 assess the respondents’ belief that their teaching will have a positive effect on the students they are teaching (Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy or STOE). Paired t-tests were run on the pre and post survey scores for the PD. The PSTE and STOE section, scores were analyzed separately. Therefore, all analyses of group mean differences were done as two tailed tests.

Results/Findings

The first and second objectives were to investigate the level of PSTE/STOE of the professional development participants before and after the PD. During the first phase of the study teachers reported before the PD, they had a mean personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) score of 3.83 (SD = .27) and an outcome expectancy (OE) of 3.35 (SD = 0.48). The second phase conducted after the 12-month PD teachers reported an increase in both areas with a mean PSTE of 3.95 (SD = 0.33) and an OE of 3.47 (SD = 0.47).

Means and analysis results for the surveys are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Analysis of surveys from the PD indicated no significant pre/post shifts on PSTE or STOE scores, however there were small actual mean differences.

Table 1

Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Scores 

Table 2

Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy Scores 

The mean differences between the pre and post teaching efficacy scores for PSTE and STOE are in Table 3. Analysis revealed a .11-point increase in PSTE, a .13-point increase in the STOE. However, the mean differences were not statistically significant. Thus, the null hypotheses were not rejected.

Table 3

Summary of Paired Samples t tests

Conclusions/Recommendations/
Implications

The purpose of administering the modified STEBI (based on Enochs & Riggs, 1990) was to investigate teachers’ level of science efficacy in the agricultural education and science classrooms and compare the results as the teachers progressed through the professional development.Personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) slightly increased from pre and posttest and science teacher outcome expectancy (STOE) also changed during the PD.

Analysis revealed a .11-point increase in PSTE, and a .13-point increase in STOE. However, the mean differences were not statistically significant. Thus, the null hypotheses were not rejected. Results of this study indicate that the Increasing Scientific Literacy through Inquiry-Based Professional Development program may be used as a tool to increase PSTE and STOE in life science teachers. Professional development opportunities focused on teaching science through inquiry-based learning could be a way to increase science efficacy (SE) and outcome expectancy (OE) over time. If professional development workshops could continually increase SE and OE, the SE and OE could be used to help determine teacher success in a science-based classroom, thus aligning with Stripling and Roberts’ (2013) assertion that OE and SE can be used to determine teacher success. Teacher educators should purposefully design teacher professional development programs to allow teachers to practice their science teaching skills, thus providing an opportunity for the teacher to increase their SE and OE. To align with Kolb (1984), the professional development should be designed to have purposeful reflection activities that allows the teachers to critically examine their ability and confidence when teaching science concepts.

We found life science teachers in this study to be moderately efficacious in their ability to teach science concepts before and after the conclusion of the PD. However, 20% of the life science teachers in this study moved from moderate to high efficacy with PSTE. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy influences behavior. Thus, theoretically, being highly efficacious in PSTE should positively impact the teaching of contextualized science in school-based agricultural education and science programs; on the other hand, being moderately efficacious may negatively impact the teaching of contextualized science. Additionally, educating life science teachers in technical science content aligns with Ballou and Podgursky, 1999, Ma, 1999, and Podgursky, 2005 assertion that teachers content knowledge impacts student learning. Therefore, we recommend the continuation of professional development programming that aims to increase technical content knowledge. Providing in-depth technical content knowledge should allow the teachers to increase their confidence because they will have a better understanding of the technical content and will feel more comfortable teaching the technical content in the classroom. It is important to note that the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings.

Future research should be conducted to determine why approximately an equal number of teachers are moderately or highly efficacious in PSTE and determine if moderate self-efficacy negatively impacts the teaching of contextualized science. In regard to science teaching outcome expectancy, a majority of the life science teachers were moderately efficacious in STOE. Theoretically, being moderately efficacious in STOE may negatively impact the teaching of contextualized science. The said research will also aid the planning of professional development for agricultural education and science teachers and can be used to guide experiences offered in agricultural and science teacher education programs.

References

Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnel, L., Pascal, A., Pauley, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school Preferred readiness programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (R-2007-LAUSD). Rand Corp.

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

Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, C. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense of efficacy (Final Report, Executive Summary). Gainesville: University of Florida.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1998). The case against teacher certification. The Public Interest.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

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

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal Programs supporting educational change: Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (R-1589/7-HEW). Rand Corporation.

Brookover, V. B., Schweitzer, J. J., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301-318.

Brophy, J. & Evertson, C. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. Longman.

Dossett, J., Stripling, C. T., Haynes, C., Stephens, C. A., & Boyer, C (2019). Mathematics efficacy and professional development needs of Tennessee agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04255

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990, April 8–18). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. [Paper presentation].

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA, united States.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. Berliner.

Gusky, T. R., & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal,31, 627-643.

Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(6), 631- 645. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023

Knobloch, N. A. (2006). Exploring relationships of teachers’ sense of efficacy in two student teaching programs [Electronic Version]. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 36-47. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02036

Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2003). Differences in teacher efficacy related to career commitment of novice agriculture teachers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v20i1.625

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall. 

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maehr, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10). JAI Press.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal, structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide of teaching and learning. National Academy Press.

Nebraska Department of Education. (2022). Launch Nebraska- Science. https://www.launchne.com/20-21/covid-19-special-report/.

Nebraska Department of Education. (2017). Nebraska State Accountability (NeSA)- Science. http://nep.education.ne.gov/State?DataYears=20162017.

Podgursky, M. (2005). Teaching licensing in U.S. pubic schools: The case for age simplicity and flexibility. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 15-43.

Stripling, C. T., & Roberts, T. G. (2013). Investigating the Effects of a Math-Enhanced Agricultural Teaching Methods Course, Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01124

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted con- struct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401-411.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Haynes, J. C., & Stripling, C. T. (2014). Mathematics Efficacy and Professional Development Needs of Wyoming Agricultural Education Teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 48-64. http://doi:10.5032/jae.2014.05048

Stripling, C., Ricketts, J. C., Roberts, T. G., & Harlin, J. F. (2008). Preservice agricultural education teachers’ sense of teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(4), 120-130. http://doi:10.5032/jae.2008.04120

Whittington, M. S., McConnell, E. A., & Knobloch, N. A. (2003). Teacher efficacy of novice teachers in agricultural education at the end of the school year. Proceedings of the 30th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference, Orlando, FL, 204-215.