Category

Uncategorized

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


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.

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

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

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

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

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction/Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Theoretical Framework

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

Figure 1

Model of Attribution Theory

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

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

Purpose and Objectives

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

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

Methods and Procedures

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

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

Results

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

Table 1

CTE Supervisors Perception Toward Integration of Science in Agricultural Education Curriculum

Statement%D%N%A%NA
Integrating science concepts into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.03.293.63.2
Science concepts are easier for students to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program.0093.56.5
Students learn more about agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction.09.787.13.2
Students are motivated to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum09.787.13.2
Students are more aware of the connection between specific scientific principles and agriculture when science concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education.3.23.283.99.7
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when science is integrated into the agricultural education program.016.180.73.2
Students are better prepared in science after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates science.6.412.977.43.2
Integrating science into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.3.222.671.03.2
Less effort is required to integrate science in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.51.722.622.63.2
It is more appropriate to integrate science in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.64.66.522.66.5

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

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

Table 2

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

Statement%D%N%A%NA
Mathematics concepts are easier for students to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education program.03.280.63.2
Integrating mathematics concepts into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.03.280.60
Students are more aware of the connection between specific mathematics principles and agriculture when mathematics concepts are an integral part of their instruction in agricultural education.06.577.53.2
Students learn more about agriculture when mathematics concepts are an integral part of their instruction.019.467.80
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education program.6.416.167.80
Students are better prepared in mathematics after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates mathematics.016.167.83.2
Integrating mathematics into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.6.512.967.70
Students are motivated to learn when mathematics is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum.6.532.348.40
It is more appropriate to integrate mathematics in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.38.832.329.00
Less effort is required to integrate mathematics in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.45.219.422.60

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

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

Table 3

CTE Supervisors Perception Toward Integration of Reading in Agricultural Education Curriculum

Statement%D%N%A%NA
Students learn more about agriculture when reading strategies are an integral part of their instruction.09.777.40
Integrating reading strategies into agriculture classes increases the ability to teach problem solving.012.974.20
Students are better readers after they complete a course in agricultural education that integrates reading.012.970.93.2
Students are motivated to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education curriculum.3.216.167.80
Agriculture concepts are easier for students to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education program.016.167.83.2
Integrating reading into the agricultural education program requires more preparation than teaching traditional agriculture curriculum.9.79.767.80
Reading strategies are easier for students to learn when reading is integrated into the agricultural education program.019.467.70
Less effort is required to integrate reading in advanced agriculture classes as compared to introductory agriculture classes.41.919.425.90
It is more appropriate to integrate reading in advanced agriculture classes than into introductory agriculture classes.4219.425.80

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

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

Table 4

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Discussion

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

References

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

Balschweid, M. A., & Thompson, G. W. (2002). Integrating science in agricultural education: Attitudes of Indiana agricultural science and business teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.02001.

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

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

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

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

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

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1999). The influence of science application in agriculture courses on attitudes of Illinois guidance counselors at model student-teaching centers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.04057

Haynes, J. C., Gill, B. E., Chumbley, S., & Slater, T. F. (2014). A cross-case comparison of the academic integration human capital pre-service agricultural educators retain prior to their teaching internship. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05191.

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

Kalme, N., & Dyer, J. E. (2000). Perceptions of Iowa secondary school principals toward agriculture education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 116-124.  https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.04116.

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

Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference. https://www.aaaeonline.org/Resources/Documents/National/ResearchProceedings,%20National2001.pdf

McKim, A. J., Sorensen T. J., & Velez, J. J. (2016). Exploring the role of agriculture teachers in core academic integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04001.

Myers, B. E., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Integrating academics into agriculture programs: A delphi study to determine perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy participants. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02075.

Myers, B. E., Thoron, A. C., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy toward integrating science into school-based agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.04120.

Myers, B. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2008). Integrating science in the agriculture curriculum: Agriculture teacher perceptions of the opportunities, barriers, and impact on student enrollment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.0202

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

Nolin, J. B., & Parr, B. (2013). Utilization of a high stakes high school graduation exam to assess the impact of agricultural education: A measure of curriculum integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(3), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.03041.

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

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

Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective Practices in STEM Integration: Describing Teaching Perceptions and Instructional Method Use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182-201. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183.

Stone III, J. R. (2017). Introduction to pathways to a productive adulthood: The role of CTE in the American high schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(2), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1302207.

Taylor, P., & Mulhall, A. (1997). Contextualizing teaching and learning in rural primary schools: Using agricultural experiences (Department for International Development Education Paper Serial No. 20). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED461443.pdf

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

Thompson, G. W. (2001). Perceptions of Oregon secondary principals regarding integrating science intro agricultural science and technology programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.01050.

Thompson, G. W., & Balschweid, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of Oregon agricultural science and teachnology teachers toward integrating science. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1999.03021.

Washburn, S. G., & Myers, B. E. (2010). Agriculture teacher perceptions of preparation to integrate science and their current use of inquiry based learning. Journal of Agricultural Eduation, 51(1), 88-98. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.01088.

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

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

Fally Masambuka-Kanchewa, Iowa State University, fallymk@iastate.edu

Millicent A. Oyugi, Texas A and M University, millicent.oyugi@ag.tamu.edu

Alexa J. Lamm, University of Georgia, alamm@uga.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose and Objectives

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

The study used two research objectives to address the purpose:

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

Methods

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

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

Course Content and Administration

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

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

Data Collection

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

Data Analysis

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

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

Subjectivity Statement

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

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

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

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

Results and Discussion

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

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

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

Figure 1

Body Maps Presentation Before and After Taking the Class

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

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

Nature of Agricultural Communication

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

Knowledge of Agricultural Communication and Associated Theories

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

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

Awareness of communication challenges and issues

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

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

Type of Change

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

Knowledge and skills in science communication and communication

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

Perceptions about communication

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

Preparedness to serve as a science communicator.

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

Conclusion/ Implications/ Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Akers, C. W. & Akers, C. (2000). High school agricultural communications competencies: A national Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University].  ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304626677?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

Akinsanya, C., & Williams, M. (2004). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(03)00120-5

Ball, S, & Gilligan, C., (2010). Visualizing migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), 1-33.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1486

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjcp/13/2/158.full.pdf

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Bonnen, J. T. (1986). A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(5),1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241854

Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012) Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627

Breiting, S. (2009). Issues for environmental education and ESD research development: Looking ahead from WEEC 2007 in Durban. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902807584

Cannon, K. J., Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. B. (2016). Agricultural communications: A national portrait of undergraduate courses. Journal of Applied Communications100(1), 2, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1018

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213

Clem, C. A. (2013). Exploring the competencies, skills, and abilities needed by agricultural communications students: a Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/58458/CLEM-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1

Coetzee, B., Roomaney, R., Willis, N., & Kagee, A. (2017). Body mapping in research. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1 – 19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_3-1

Corder, J. & Irlbeck, E. (2018). Agricultural communications skills, abilities and knowledge desired by employers compared to current curriculum: A literary review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04177

Jager, A. D., Tewson, A., Ludlow, B., & Boydell, K. (2016). Embodied ways of storying the self: A systematic review of body-mapping. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research, 17(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2526

Dimick, A. S. (2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21035

Doerfert, D. L., & Miller, R. P. (2006). What are agriculture industry professionals trying to tell us? Implications for university-level agricultural communications curricula. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(3), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1273

Duby, Z., M. Hartmann, I. Mahaka, O. Munaiwa, J. Nabukeera, N. Vilakazi, F. Mthembu, C. J. Colvin, B. Mensch, & A. van der Straten. (2016). Lost in translation: Language, terminology, and understanding of penile–anal intercourse in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The Journal of Sex Research 53(9), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1069784

Fielding, M. (1996). Empowerment: Emancipation or enervation? Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 399 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093960110308

Gastaldo, D., Rivas-Quarneti, N., & Magalhães, L. (2018). Body-map storytelling as a health research methodology: Blurred lines creating clear pictures. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-26. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2858/4199

Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646

Irani, T., & Doerfert, D. L. (2013). Preparing for the next 150 years of agricultural communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(2), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1109

Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1019

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

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

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

Morgan, A. C. (2010). Competencies needed by agricultural communication undergraduates: An industry perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 94(1-2),19–32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1184

Mikhaeil, C. A., & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). Using semiotics to analyze representational complexity in social media. Information and Organization, 29(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100271

Mitsea, E., Drigas, A., & Mantas, P. (2021). Soft skills & metacognition as inclusion amplifiers in the 21st Century. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), 17(04), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i04.20567

Miller, J., Large, M., Rucker, J., Shoulders, K., & Buck, E. (2015). Characteristics of U.S. agricultural communications undergraduate programs. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4), 76–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1063

Naidoo, S., Duby, Z., Hartmann, M., Musara, P., Etima, J., Woeber, K., … & Montgomery, E. T. (2021). Application of a body map tool to enhance discussion of sexual behavior in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Field Methods33(2), 143–158. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1525822X20982082

Oyler, C. & Becker, J. (1997). Teaching beyond the progressive-traditional dichotomy: Sharing authority and sharing vulnerability. Curriculum inquiry, 27(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00064

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

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

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

Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090

Tucker, M., Whaley, S. R., & Cano, J. M. (2003). Agricultural education and agricultural communications: Striking a proper balance in the academy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01022

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

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

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

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

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

Figure 1

Direct and Indirect Secondary School Principal Perception Effects on Student Achievement

Note. From “The Importance of FFA and SAE Activities: A Comparison of Texas Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions,” by W. Doss and J. Rayfield, 202, Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(4), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04125

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

Purpose and Research Objectives

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

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

Methods and Procedures

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

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

Table 1

Oklahoma Superintendents Personal and Professional Characteristics (n = 185)

Characteristic f%
    
Age36 to 4063.2
 41 to 4594.9
 46 to 502513.5
 51 to 553921.1
 56 to 603116.8
 61 to 65147.6
 66 to 7031.6
 71 or older31.6
 Prefer to not respond5529.7
    
GenderMale8747.0
 Female4323.2
 Prefer to not respond5529.7
    
Years Serving asFirst Year42.2
     Superintendent2 to 54725.4
 6 to 105027.0
 11 to 153217.3
 16 to 2094.9
 21 to 2552.7
 26 to 3084.3
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    
School District SizeC84.3
 B2815.1
 1A2714.6
 2A4423.9
 3A137.0
 4A2010.8
 5A84.3
 6A73.8
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    
Number of SBAE110355.7
     Teachers in District24021.6
 3126.5
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    
Number of SBAE Teachers   
     Hired as Superintendent03418.4
 14725.4
 22815.1
 3179.2
 4179.2
 5 or more126.5
 Prefer to not respond3016.2
    

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

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

Findings

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

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

Table 2

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

Hiring PriorityRankMedianMode
    
Holds an Oklahoma Agricultural Education Teaching Credential11.01
Graduated from an Agricultural Education teacher preparation program22.02
Professionalism33.03
Has previous teaching experience44.03
Has agricultural industry experience55.04
Has livestock experience66.05
Ability to integrate STEM/core content alignment78.09
Has additional credentials (i.e., Certified to teach CASE curriculum or similar)89.09
Holds an advanced degree (i.e., Masters or Doctoral degree)99.010
Is from Oklahoma109.011
Undergraduate GPA1110.010
Is male1212.012
Is female1312.013
    

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

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

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

Table 3

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

Item DescriptionMSD
   
Observation outside classroom helps in agricultural education
     teacher evaluation
4.28.68
Classroom instruction is key in evaluating all teachers3.91.90
Agricultural education teachers require different evaluation
     techniques
3.58.97
I evaluate all teachers the same3.381.06
   

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

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

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

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

Table 4

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

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

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

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Clark, R. W., & Cole, B. (2015). A look at leadership: An examination of career and technical administrator preparation in the United States. Career and Technical Education Research, 40(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter40.1.63

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

Doss, W., & Rayfield, J. (2021). The importance of FFA and SAE activities: A comparison of Texas principals’ and teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(4), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04125

Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based, agricultural education (SBAE): A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223

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

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

Glennie, E. J., Ottem, R., & Lauff, E. (2020). The influence of earning an industry certification in high school on going to college: The Florida CAPE Act. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 35(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v35i1.a2

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

Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1990). The nature, causes, and consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239010001014

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

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

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

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

Self, M. J. (2001). On retention of secondary trade and industrial education teachers: Voices from the field. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(4), 41–61. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464213

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

Stronge, J.H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241

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

Zirkle, C. J., & Jeffery, J. O. (2017). Career and technical education administration: Requirements, certification/licensure, and preparation. Career and Technical Education Research, 42(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter42.1.21

Implications of Pandemic Responses for Extension Education and Outreach

Samuel Quinney, Clemson Extension, squinne@clemson.edu
Grace Greene, Clemson University, mgg2@g.clemson.edu
Christopher J. Eck, Oklahoma State University, chris.eck@okstate.edu
K. Dale Layfield, Clemson University, dlayfie@clemson.edu
Thomas Dobbins, Clemson University, tdbnns@clemson.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

As part of daily tasks of Cooperative Extension, agents handle public issues by offering programming by approved methods to inform the public. Within the context of this study, a mixed-methods approach was established to determine the factors impacting behaviors associated with Clemson Extension, programming efforts, and roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of Extension educators and key stakeholders (i.e., advisory committee members), researchers, faculty, and Extension educators can be better prepared to face future challenging while continuing to meet the public demand. This exploratory, mixed methods inquiry investigated the perceptions of current Clemson Extension agents across South Carolina and Extension advisory committee members related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and Extensions response. To meet the needs of this mixed methods approach, qualitative interviews were conducted with Extension agents and a survey questionnaire was utilized to collect pertinent data from Extension advisory committee members. Through this study, strengths and challenges for South Carolina Cooperative Extension Agents during the COVID-19 pandemic were learned, providing a framework in the event of similar challenges in the future. Adaptability is key moving forward for Extension, as it allows Extension agents to meet the needs in their communities, serve their primary stakeholder groups, and improve overall perceptions of what they offer. Extension professionals should consider the findings as a starting point to evaluate the current state of Extension programming and how to best move forward to address pertinent agricultural issues.

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

“The pace of innovation in the agriculture-related, health, and human sciences demands that knowledge rapidly reaches the people who depend on it for their livelihoods” (USDA-NIFA, 2021, para. 1). Specifically, the Clemson Cooperative Extension (2021) service aims to “improve the quality of life of all South Carolinians by providing unbiased, research-based information through an array of public outreach programs in youth development; agribusiness; agriculture; food, nutrition and health; and natural resources” (para. 1). The normal day to day operations of Clemson Extension was brought to a halt on March 18th, 2020, after the World Health Organization (2020) declared the Novel Coronavirus or COVID-19, a global pandemic on March 11, 2020.

As part of daily tasks of Cooperative Extension, agents handle public issues by offering programming by approved methods to inform the public (Dale & Hahn, 1994; Patton & Blaine, 2001). Most issues originate as private concerns and become public when outside agencies become involved and widespread support or opposition is gained. This is often related to an identifiable problem, whereas others may arise from misinformation or inaccurate perceptions (Patton & Blaine, 2001). These contentious issues often create situations in which public input and education can be keys to solving the problem; however, due to the highly charged nature of such issues, many leaders tend to avoid them (Jolley, 2007; Patton & Blaine, 2001; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Clemson extension has always made it a priority to provide relevant programming to address these public issues.

During today’s societal changes of the COVID 19 Pandemic, agricultural communities have faced challenges. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) (2021), the total number of cash receipts by commodity has remained steady, with some commodities increasing between the years 2020 and 2021. Animals and animal products increased just under $8.6 billion, and crops increased just over $11.8 billion via cash receipts reported by the USDA-ERS (2021). Some of these increases in consumer purchases have come through governmental policies, which increased American agriculture commodity purchases from foreign countries under the US and China trade deal. China will purchase and import $40 billion dollars’ worth of American agriculture products including meat goods (McCarthy, 2020), others came from a decrease in store availability, though no nationwide shortages have been reported (USDA, 2021). Though the total cash receipts have improved nationally, local agriculture producers face a distinct set of issues. Such issues include a misinformed public, slaughterhouse backups, and a lack of land availability. However, the agricultural cash receipts have yet to be reported for South Carolina according to the USDA-ERS (2021).

Clemson Extension was not alone, as schools, businesses and government agencies across the U.S. adapted to limit in-person contact (CDC, 2020). Extension agents had to cancel some scheduled programming and events and shift what they could to virtual platforms, such as Zoom, which has been identified as easy-to-use and engaging (Robinson & Poling, 2017). With the pandemic catching most off-guard, little account was taken into the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of Clemson Extension agents and advisory groups. To frame the evaluation of these concerns, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) was implemented (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior Model

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) “provides a useful conceptual framework for dealing with the complexities of human social behavior” (p. 206), as it provides a frame to outline the predictability of an individual’s future plans and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). The theory of planned behavior has further been implemented (Murphrey et al., 2016) to evaluate one’s perceptions and/or intentions related to formal and informal training (i.e., Extension programming). Within the context of this study, a mixed-methods approach was established to determine the factors (i.e., attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) impacting behaviors associated with Clemson Extension. Specifically, programming efforts (i.e., attitudes), roles (i.e., norms), issues (i.e., attitude and perceived control), and solutions (i.e., intentions) were addressed to establish best practices learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of Extension educators and key stakeholders (i.e., advisory committee members) allows researchers, faculty, and Extension educators to be better prepared to face future challenges while continuing to meet the current public demand.

Purpose and Research Objectives

During today’s societal changes, Clemson Extension has expanded its role to provide education to the public through virtual and other non-contact options. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the perceptions of Clemson Extension agents and the prevalent issues faced within the agriculture community in the South Carolina by interviewing Extension agents and surveying Clemson Extension advisory committee members. Four research questions were developed to guide this study:

  1. Describe the current perceptions of Clemson Extension agents amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. Identify the greatest issues facing agriculture in South Carolina according to advisory committee members during the COVID-19 pandemic?
  3. Determine current and potential solutions from Clemson Extension to address the issues faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. Create a list of preferred programs and program delivery methods for future Extension programming.

Methods

This exploratory, mixed methods inquiry investigated the perceptions of current Clemson Extension agents across South Carolina (N = 154) and Extension advisory committee members (N = 64) related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Extensions response. To meet the needs of this mixed methods approach, qualitative interviews were conducted with Extension agents (n = 6) and a survey questionnaire was utilized to collect pertinent data from Extension advisory committee members.

Qualitative Inquiry Procedures

As with most qualitative inquiries, this study sought to provide rich information from the Extension agents as they adapt with the changing dynamics of the pandemic. A purposive sampling strategy was implemented to reach data saturation amongst the variety of agents across the state. This sampling method included soliciting participation from agents from all five regions and 10 program teams, resulting in interviews with six agents representing five program teams and all five regions spanning 15 counties, as some agents work in multiple counties. For proper tracking of data, each participating agent was provided a pseudo name that is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Clemson Extension Agents Who Participated in the Study (n = 6)

Pseudo Name Sex Region Program Team 
Shawn Male Region 4 Horticulture 
Abigail Female Region 1 4-H Youth Development 
Violet Female Region 5 Livestock & Forages 
Leonard Male Region 3 Forestry & Wildlife 
Keith Male Region 4 Agronomic Crops 
Taylor Male Region 2 Horticulture 

To address the overarching research objective of the qualitative inquiry, a flexible interview protocol was established spanning four topic areas, including: 1) Accessibility and program impacts; 2) Responding in a time of crisis; 3) Remote instruction and distance education; and 4) Economic and communication concerns early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Each topic area included probing questions to help facilitate conversation, helping to uncover the specific paradigm being studied. Glesne (2016) identifies the specific paradigm or reality being evaluated within this study as an ontology, as the study aimed to discover and individuals’ beliefs associated with their current reality, further connecting to the theory base (Ajzen, 1991) as we try to uncover future intentions. The interview protocol was checked for face and content validity (Salkind, 2012) by two faculty members with teaching and research experience in Extension education and research methodology. All six interviews were conducted by an undergraduate student minoring in Extension education following the interview protocol for consistency. Additionally, a fieldwork notebook was compiled by the interviewer to document the interview experiences through observation notes, interview notes, and reflexive thoughts (Glesne, 2016).

The interviews were conducted using Zoom due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and University regulations. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using features embedded in the Zoom platform, which were then compared against one another for accuracy. In addition to the interview recordings and transcriptions, interviewer notes were used for triangulation of data. To further increase the trustworthiness of the study, the research team followed the recommendations of Privitera (2017) to establish credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability within the study. Creditability was addressed through coding member checks across the research team to reduce bias (Creswell & Poth, 2018) along with triangulation of data and saturation of emerging categories (Privitera, 2020). To enhance transferability the researchers described the participants (including pseudonyms), detailed the interview and data analysis process, and highlighted the perspectives of the participants. Procedural explanations and data triangulation furthered the dependability of the research (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Privitera, 2020), and a reflexivity statement was included to describe any inherent biases associated with then phenomenon (Privitera, 2020).

Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the findings and the ability to interpret the narrative of the experience of participants to determine the essence of the phenomena instead of the researcher’s bias (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Privitera, 2020). A reflexivity statement describes the researchers previous understanding of the phenom

To analyze the interview transcripts through a qualitative lens, this study implemented the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967), which permits the data to speak for itself, allowing themes to emerge. The first round of coding used open-coding sources, allowing themes to emerge through the process (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Axial coding was followed for second-round coding, where the relationships between open codes resulted in overarching categories (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Glasser & Strauss, 1967). Round three of coding was selective coding, where the researchers determined the core variables from the qualitative interviews.

The purposive sampling provides a limiting factor as only six Clemson Extension agents were interviewed for the purpose of this study. Therefore, the findings of this study are limited to the views of the participants and not necessarily that of all agents in the state, but the findings of the study can be used to inform practice, guide future research, and potentially offer state-wide implementations based on needs. The research team recommends caution when looking to generalize the data, although the data has transferable qualities if the readers deem the population and situations identified as germane to their inquiry.

Within a qualitative inquiry, Palaganas et al. (2017) recommends for researchers to acknowledge any inherent bias and reveal their identify to offer reflexivity. The research team consisted of two faculty members in agricultural education at Clemson, a current Extension educator, and an undergraduate student pursuing a minor in extension education. The faculty members have more than 30 years of experience combined in agricultural and extension education. We recognize our bias toward Extension because of our faculty roles and have attempted to harness that bias through a consistent interview protocol, interviewer, and extensive field notes.

Survey Research Procedures

This non-experimental descriptive survey research component aimed to reach Clemson Extension advisory committee members (N = 64) in Abbeville, Anderson, Greenville, Oconee, and Pickens counties in South Carolina. The counties selected to participate in the survey were selected for their vast differences, including suburban, rural agriculture/homesteads, small towns, and large cities. The populations of the participating counties were Greenville – 507,003; Anderson – 198,064; Pickens – 124,029; Oconee – 77,528, and Abbeville – 24,627 (United States Census Bureau, 2021).

The questions addressed in this study were designed to assess how the Clemson Cooperative Extension Service adapted during the COVID 19 pandemic. Survey questions were divided into three categories, 1) Agricultural issues, 2) Extension programming, and 3) Participant demographics. The agricultural issues category elicited open ended responses to determine the greatest issues facing agriculture and what Clemson Extension is and can do to help the issues. The second category aimed to determine the preferred program delivery methods and primary program teams of interest. The researcher-developed survey was reviewed for face and content validity by Agricultural Education faculty and Clemson Extension professionals.

Of the 64 advisory members who received the survey via email, 27 responded, resulting in a 42.2% response rate. Participants were 55.6% male and 44.4% female and ranged in age from 29 to 73 years old, with agricultural involvement varying from pre-production/production agriculture to agricultural consumers (see Table 2) across the five counties. Data was analyzed using SPSS Version 27 to address the proposed research questions.

Table 2

Personal and Professional Demographics of Extension Advisory Committee Members in South Carolina (n = 27).

Demographics   f %
Gender Male 15 55.6
  Female 12 44.4
  Prefer not to respond 0 0.0
Age 21 to 30 1 3.7
  31 to 40 5 18.5
  41 to 50 3 11.1
  51 to 60 8 29.6
  61 to 70 4 14.8
  70 or older 6 22.2
  Did not respond 0 0.0
 Current Role in Agriculture Pre-Production  7.4 
Production1452.9
Consumer1037.03
 Did not respond 1 3.7

Findings

Research Question 1: Describe the current perceptions of Clemson Extension agents amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The emerging codes, themes, and categories were used to explain the perceptions of Clemson Extension agents related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Four overarching categories emerged from the findings.

Category 1: Extension is Adaptable

 Keith stated, “we’re used to getting things thrown in our lap, everybody in the world or everybody in the country says, you have any questions call your county extension agent,” which reinforced this concept. When considering the COVID-19 pandemic, Keith went on to say, “as far as agronomy agents and a lot of the horticulture agents, we’ve never quit visiting farmers, when they call, we go.” The changes caused by the pandemic looked different across the state, depending on the needs of community, which was encompassed through the thoughts of Extension professionals “adapting every single day and the pandemic just made it a big step, as opposed to little steps. We just had to figure out a way to continue to do what we’re already doing, just in a different format” (Leonard). Other interviews built upon these same lines of thought to demonstrate the overall adaptability of Clemson Extension.

Category 2: Need for Training and Resources

The greatest need indicated across the interviews was specific training and resources to help Extension professionals and constituents navigate the pandemic. Keith simply stated that “everybody’s been putting out fires and handling their own problems … and I think some help and some guidance with all our delivery programs would be great.” Abigail further identified “a big chunk of people who are probably [her] age and younger and then a couple of older ones who … are more traditional, who need some help.” The participants identified specific training needs for agents across the state related to Zoom, virtual programming, and mental health of both adults and youth, “because as the times change, new stuff comes up.” Additional resources were also discussed by participants as many Extension professionals “live out in the middle of nowhere and Internet does not come to [their] house” (Shawn), requiring them to work of a limited data hot spot, when the data is gone, they are without internet. Participants also expressed a need for computers “that can handle Zoom,” so they can utilize Zoom features and provide essential programming to constituents. The final resource need is for the community members Extension professionals aim to reach, as many farmers and ranchers struggle to engage using technology, which Leonard explained that “it’s not necessarily that they can’t do it, a lot of them just don’t have the ability. Your rural areas just don’t have computers.”

Category 3: Community Perceptions

Perceptions of the communities Extension professionals serve was expressed by Violet as, “we’ve been at this so long, I wonder about our relevance… I’m still making farm visits, but a lot of people think we’re closed.” Similarly, Taylor struggled “going from what we normally do and being the face of the public and the face of the university to everything [moving] online, was tough. The biggest struggle was getting over the hill of convincing yourself that this is the way it’s going to be and then having to convince clientele that this is the way it’s going to be for a little while.” The change in delivery was difficult for all involved and many are concerned with the impact of the pandemic on the relationship between the Extension professional and the clientele moving forward. Which, Violet expressed as her “greatest concern, is how to bring those people back and have them trust us again and know that we’re still working, we’re still here and we still deserve to be paid, that sort of thing. I’ve heard all those things so that’s probably what I’m worried about the most.”

Category 4: Reluctancy to New Methods

Violet explained that “certainly the Zoom capabilities are good, but there’s been some reluctance to use them from our older crowd, and, unfortunately most farmers are 65 and older.” She went on to express the hardships as “it’s been a little bit hard to pull them [older farmers] in and get them to really feel connected. They like our meetings for the information side of it, but also the community feel, and I think you do lose a little bit of that with the virtual sense or virtual realm.” In contrast, Taylor found a positive side to the new methods as “we’re reaching a lot more people, especially on our side of the team that probably wouldn’t normally come to a meeting because they can just jump on a computer now.” But he also went on to explain the reluctance as “a majority of our clientele is older, the Zoom thing is tough for them, the technology piece is tough… We picked up a lot of clients… but we probably have some frustrated clients because of it.”

Research Question 2: Identify the greatest issues facing agriculture in South Carolina according to advisory committee members during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The second research question focused on determining the greatest issue(s) currently facing the agricultural industry in South Carolina. Of the 27 respondents, two primary issues arose, the cost/lack of agricultural inputs and outputs, and the need for local produce and meat products. Table 3 outlines underlying issues that make up those broader categories.

Table 3

Greatest Issues Facing South Carolina Agriculture (n = 27)

CategorySpecific Issues
Cost/Lack of Agricultural Inputs and OutputsLand, Seed, Feed, Fertilizer, Chemicals; Slaughter Facilities
 Increased Cost due to Urban Sprawl; Market Fluctuations
Need for Local Produce and Meat productsCOVID Restrictions; Farmers Market and Open-Air Markets Closed

Research Question 3: Determine current and potential solutions from Clemson Extension to address the issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The third research question addressed the current and potential solutions Clemson Extension is currently providing or could provide to address issues in agriculture. Table 4 outlines the current solutions being offered, although 14.8% of respondents felt that nothing was currently available. The two current solutions include agricultural education and agricultural land loss prevention. Specifically, agricultural education represents the Making It Grow programming offered through South Carolina Educational Television (SCETV), information provided by the Home Garden Information Center (HGIC), 4-H youth development programming, and Extension programs/Education. The second solution to currently assist agriculturalists is the agricultural land loss prevention program focused on agricultural land easements offered through the USDA-NRCS office.

Table 4

Solutions Available for Current Agricultural Issues (n = 27)

Current SolutionsSpecific Program/Offering
Agricultural EducationMaking it Grow
 HGIC
 4-H Youth Programming
 Extension Programs/Education
Agricultural Land Loss PreventionAgricultural Land Easements-NRCS

In addition to current programs, respondents’ ideas for potential solutions were of interest to the research team. Respondents identified two categories of solutions, the first being to publicize Extension programs and services better, so the public have a better understanding of what Extension does and what is being offered. The second solution was an increase in agricultural education, specifically targeting small farms and farming for-profit programs, additionally youth education opportunities, along with specific education programming highlighting the historical importance of agricultural land and keeping that land in agricultural production. Much of this was connected to 56% of respondents identifying COVID-19 as having a specific impact on agriculture in the state. Specifically, one of the greatest concerns was the impact of virtual programming during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many individuals did not have access to virtual programming due to lack of technology or internet. A potential option that was presented was being sure to offer recorded (asynchronous) programming options versus the live (synchronous) options currently available.

Research Question 4: Create a list of preferred programs and program delivery methods for future Extension programming.

The final objective aimed to establish the preferred program delivery methods for future extension programming, along with current and future program interests. Table 6 outlines the preferred information delivery method of respondents.

Table 6

Preferred Information Delivery Method (n = 27)

Delivery Methodf%
Email933.3
Office Visits622.2
No Preference622.2
Farm Visits13.7
Phone13.7
Text Updates13.7
Fact Sheets13.7
Postal Mail13.7
Social Media13.7

In addition, 55.6% of participants said they would be willing to participate in future virtual programming if offered, while 22.2% of participants said they would not participate, and the remaining 22.2% were unsure. To further understand programmatic interests, participants were asked to identify which of the Clemson Extension Program teams had provided the most information during the pandemic, Table 7 outlines their responses.

Table 7

Programmatic Teams Offering the Most Programming During COVID 19

Program Teamf%
4-H725.9
Unknown622.2
Forestry and Wildlife414.8
Agricultural Education311.1
Horticulture311.1
Food Systems and Safety27.4
Livestock and Forages13.7
Rural Health and Nutrition13.7

Although 4-H was reported as the program team providing the most programming during the pandemic, participants expressed the most interest in more programming from the forestry and wildlife team (33.3%), followed by the agricultural education and livestock and forages teams, both with 26% of the respondents interested. The agribusiness team (22.2%) and the horticulture team (18.5%) rounded out the top five. The remaining program areas had less than 14% of participants interested.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Through this study, strengths and challenges for South Carolina Cooperative Extension Agents during the COVID-19 pandemic were learned, providing a framework in the event of similar challenges in the future. As identified in the category one finding, “Extension is Adaptable,” discussed how agents continued to meet their constituent’s needs, but through use of many creative means. a benefit that will aide Cooperative Extension Agents is the ability to adapt quickly. This ability to adapt would support those aspects in the category two findings which identified a need for training/in-service of Cooperative Extension Agents and their constituents. Category three, “Community Perceptions,” is reflective of the anxiety and uncertainty that was commonly experienced during the pandemic. Shifts in time and locations of workplace during the pandemic created a variety of uninformed interpretations of staff labor and confusion among the clientele base. Category four, “Reluctancy to New Methods” was commonly thought to be a challenge, but during the pandemic, it became widely know that there are gaps in technological competencies. Altough Extension agents had negative perceptions about certain components of their ability to provide appropriate education and outreach to constituent groups, their overall intentions were positive leading to actionable behaviors (Ajzen, 1991) that made an impact in their communities and states.

According to the advisory committee members in this study, there are two primary issues (i.e., attitudes; Ajzen, 1991) facing agriculture (i.e., cost or lack of agricultural inputs and outputs and the need for local produce and meat products) in South Carolina. The first issue can be contributed to the availability of land due to urban sprawl as well as all input costs having significantly increased in spring 2021. Additionally, slaughter facilities have been waitlisted for the last year due to high demand for American meat products. The area of concern can be considered together with the first due to slaughterhouses being backed up, local meat producers are unable to get their product finished out and packed for sale. Open air markets and farmers have been under the mercy of local and federal government’s restrictions, which have limited or cancelled all opportunities for local produce to be made available (L. Keasler, personal communication, 2021). Although these issues are of concern, Extension has the opportunity to address some of them by providing timely and accurate information to those who need it most. This allows the agents to control what they can through communication, reducing the negative perception and informing stakeholders if the subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) currently impacting agricultural production.

Extension can work with local producers to ensure that they are in contact with their local and state representatives to be made aware of the issues that American agriculturalists are facing in today’s environment. Extension can also provide more agricultural education to the general consumer to assist our agricultural producers in informing the community what issues they face to maintain their livelihood. Some things cannot be controlled, such as market fluctuations and processing facilities operation. However, agents can make public representatives aware of the issues, asking them to push these issues in front of our elected legislative bodies to enact change through governmental policies. According to Anderson and Salkehatchie counties Cattlemen’s Association members and meat producers (personal communication, January 12, 2021), the availability of funds to build more USDA certified handling facilities would increase the speed at which products can be made available to markets, as well as increase jobs in areas where these facilities are housed. Perhaps, inputs such as fertilizers and herbicides can be regulated by government to avoid price gouging when they are needed the most, making the big companies richer and the hard-working farmers pockets tighter to continue to make a living in production agriculture.

Local fruit and vegetable producers face a slightly different issue in that they are at the mercy of local, state, and federal mandates, only operating at full capacity when they are told it is safe to do so (L. Keasler, personal communication, 2021). Similarly, Extension is subject to these same mercies, although we have seemed to reach a new normal, the findings of this study can be beneficial for Clemson Extension and similar Extension agencies in other states.

The implications support the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), as agents recognized that they could adapt to meet the needs of their constituents during time of many unknowns and countless challenges demonstrates how favorable attitudes and intentions result in adaptable behaviors. These behaviors include the awareness of need for additional training and to seek resources to meet needs. Paradoxically, the resistance of many constituents to accept alternative programming methods presented opposing behaviors from the agents, creating additional challenges. Regardless, adaptability is key moving forward for Extension, as it allows Extension agents to meet the needs in their communities, serve their primary stakeholder groups, and improve overall perceptions of what they offer. Although it should be noted that many of the factors impacting Extension during the COVID-19 pandemic were outside of the Extension agents’ control, ultimately impacting the perceived behavioral control the agents had on situations (Ajzen, 1991).

Considering recommendations for Extension professionals, a need exists to better publicize programs and services offered from the county offices to increase awareness and community participation. This can be done through local news organizations such as newspapers, radio stations, social media, and news channels. Although the pandemic has provided its share of challenges, the increased availability for virtual programming has some benefits, such as being able to reach a broader audience across the state who previously never participated in Extension programming. Moving forward it is recommended that Extension consider ways to offer programming in-person and virtually to continue to expand the diversity of people being reach for programming. Perhaps, with a collaborative effort Clemson Extension could make a greater impact on the future of agriculture across the state, as agriculture makes an impact on everyone’s daily life. Extension professionals should consider the findings as a starting point to evaluate the current state of Extension programming and how to best move forward to address pertinent agricultural issues.

Realizing the conclusions and implications addressed in this study, it is recommended that Cooperative Extension Services consider the following actions:

  1. Initiate an assessment of State Cooperative Extension Service staff to develop a comprehensive guide on best management practices in the event of future events of the magnitude experienced from the COVID-19 pandemic;
  2. Develop a series of in-service offerings on communications tools for delivery of online programming, provided at different skills levels;
  3. Coordinate with agencies that provide professional development in awareness of mental health issues and recommended practices and resources available, and
  4. Establish a review team of IT experts for the Cooperative Extension Service that will develop a standard protocol to assure that technologies (laptops, scanners, etc.) needed for online delivery and required Internet access will be available for staff to successfully complete their programming remotely as needed.

References    

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision 
            process, 50
(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Situation summary. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summary.html

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Dale, D. D., & Hahn, A. J. (Eds.). (1994). Public issues education: Increasing competence in resolving public issues. University of Wisconsin.     

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

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed). Pearson.

Hamilton, S. F., Chen, E. K., Pillemer, K., & Meador, R. H. (2013). Research use by cooperative extension educators in New York State. Journal of Extension, 51(3). http://www.joe.org/joe/2013june/pdf/JOE_v51_3a2.pdf

Murphrey, T. P., Lane, K., Harlin, J., & Cherry, A. L. (2016). An examination of pre-service agricultural science teachers’ interest and participation in international experiences: Motivations and barriers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 12-29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01012 

Robinson, J., & Poling, M. (2017). Engaging participants without leaving the office: Planning and conducting effective webinars. Journal of Extension, 55(6). https://joe.org/joe/2017december/tt9.php

Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., & Gay, K. D. (2018). Identifying Extension Agent Needs Associated with Communicating about Policies and Regulations. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04072

Jolley, J. (2007). Choose your doctorate. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(2), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01582.x

Palaganas, E. C., Sanchez, M. C., Molintas, M. P., & Caricativo, R. D. (2017). Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 426–438. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2552&context=tqr

Patton, D. B., & Blaine, T. W. (2001). Public issues education: Exploring extension’s role. Journal of Extension, 39(4). http://joe.org/joe/2001august/a2.html

Privitera, G. J. (2017). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Sage.

Rasmussen, J. L. (1989). Data transformation, type I error rate and power. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1989.tb00910.x

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci, 4, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusions of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.

United States Census Bureau. (2021). South Carolina counties by population. https://www.SouthCarolina-demographics.com/counties_by_population              

United States Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA). (2021). Cooperative extension system. https://nifa.usda.gov/cooperativeextension-system

Clemson Cooperative Extension. (2021). Cooperative Extension. https://www.clemson.edu/extension/about/index.html

World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situationreport–51. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200311-sitrep-51-covid-19.pdf’sfvrsn=1ba62e57_10

           

Everyday People in Agriculture: Our Voices, Our Concerns, Our Issues

Chastity Warren

Dr. Chastity Warren English, Professor of Agriscience Education at North Carolina A&T State University, presented the 2023 Distinguished Lecture at the Southern Region Conference of the American Association for Agricultural Education in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Dr. Warren English’s talk focused on the importance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belong in agricultural education and allied sectors while also highlighting her lived experiences in the discipline. She also illuminated the concerns of her students in an 1890 Land-grant University context. This article is a philosophical work based on her distinguished lecture…

Read More

A Philosophical Perspective Revisiting Teaching “In” and “About” Agriculture

Blake C. Colclasure, Doane University, blake.colclasure@doane.edu

Brianna Shanholtzer, STEMscopes, brianna.shanholtzer@gmail.com

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

R. Kirby Barrick, University of Florida, kbarrick@ufl.edu

PDF Available

Abstract

School-based agricultural education (SBAE) has evolved considerably in the last century. This philosophical perspective examines the history of formal agricultural education in the United States and explores how early contributions to agricultural education shaped the structure of modern SBAE. The divergent roles of agricultural education to: 1) provide a qualified agricultural workforce for the 21st century, and 2) educate students about agriculture, are discussed. Furthermore, a conceptual framework for the structure of K-12 agricultural education is proposed, which attempts to provide a solution to gaps in agricultural career readiness and agricultural literacy.

Keywords:agricultural education, agricultural literacy, agriculture workforce, career and technical education

Introduction

The modern agricultural industry in the United States looks far different from the farming operations that provided the country with food, fiber, and natural resources during the early 20th century (Conkin, 2009). Today’s agricultural industry has become more complex and globally interconnected (Ajibola, 2019; Ding & Qian, 2016). Trends in technological advancements have led to increased efficiency and strive to meet demands of a growing global population, while agricultural production has been confronted with social, political, and environmental challenges (National Research Council [NRC], 2009a). The new era of a technological advanced and industrialized agricultural landscape offers solutions to global food shortages, but must continue to take critical steps to be more sustainable and environmentally sensitive (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2015; FAO, 2017).

The transformational shift in agriculture production has redefined the once blue-collar American farmer. The next generation of agriculturalists require an advanced skillset beyond a general knowledge in agriculture. Twenty-first century “farmers” need to be interdisciplinary problem solvers and critical thinkers who can work collaboratively with diverse groups of people (NRC, 2009a). Furthermore, the new era of agriculture requires workers who are able to apply science and technology to confront challenges that are not yet known (Little, 2019). There has been no other time in history when the requirements of the agricultural worker have been more complex nor the supply of qualified agricultural workers so low (Whittaker & Williams, 2016). The pipeline of qualified agricultural workers appears be corroding and the changing agricultural landscape requires a new definition for the agricultural worker. Consequently, how we prepare the future agricultural workforce may require a new approach (NRC, 2009b).

To add to these challenges, as the agricultural industry battles the shortage of qualified workers (Whittaker & Williams, 2016), the industry is also being confronted with a society that lacks a connection to agriculture (Kover & Ball, 2013). A 2011 national survey conducted by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) found that 72% of consumers indicated they know nothing or very little about farming or ranching (2011). A similar national-level survey sent one-year later indicated that more than one in four consumers are confused about the food they purchase and that young adults (i.e., 18- to 29-year-olds) are more confused about food purchases compared to other age groups (USFRA, 2012). However, the survey also revealed that nearly 60% of consumers desire to know more about how food is grown and raised and that lower-income households are particularly likely to say they want to know more but indicate not having the time or money to do so (USFRA, 2012).

Formal and informal educational programs designed to enrich students’ understanding of food and food systems have had a long history in America’s K-12 public education (Salin, 2018). However, these programs have waxed and waned along with shifts in educational theory and funding. Furthermore, socioeconomic gaps in educational opportunities remain. Due to the public’s expanding knowledge gap in agriculture (Kover & Ball, 2013) and growing concern about food production, formal school-based agricultural education (SBAE) needs to be well positioned to teach all students about agriculture in order for them to become informed consumers of agricultural goods and who possess a basic understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced.

Purpose

This philosophical paper explores the role and structure of SBAE in the United States to confront both the need for a modern agricultural workforce and an agriculturally-literate society. The historical development of agricultural education that has led to divergent pathways is discussed: teaching about agriculture and teaching in agriculture. A 21st century model for the structure of SBAE is proposed which attempts to conceptualize agricultural education as a solution to combat two existing gaps: (1) agricultural career readiness; and, (2) agricultural literacy.

Summary of SBAE Structural Development in the United States

The first account of agriculture being formally taught in the United States occurred in Georgia in 1733 when three men were hired to instruct individuals how to produce raw silk (Moore & Gaspard, 1987). Since then, vocational education, and specifically agricultural education, has been evolving. The first major push for vocational education occurred in the early 20th century when the nation’s growing industrial and agricultural societies called for a more practical education beyond liberal arts (Moore & Gaspard, 1987). Hallmark legislative actions, such as the 1862 and 1890 Morrill Acts along with the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act, provided the foundation for formal education in agriculture and mechanical arts across the United States (Barrick, 1989). The passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 supplied each state with funding to establish colleges for higher education in agriculture and mechanical arts, which placed importance on the need for public vocational education in higher education (Moore & Gaspard, 1987).  

The 1917 Smith-Hughes Act directly impacted public vocational education at the secondary level by providing federal funding for vocational programs. The Federal Government believed that vocational education was essential to the nation’s welfare and established the act to allow states to develop a system to design and deliver vocational education (Federal Board for Vocational Education, 1917). The resources provided by the Smith-Hughes Act inspired swift changes in secondary vocational education and established state boards of vocational education. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 had many rules for the allocation of federal funding. One rule in particular stated that “if a high school student was taught one class by a teacher paid in full or in part from federal vocational funds, that same student could receive no more than fifty percent academic instruction” (Prentice Hall Documents Library, 1998, para 8). As a result, the Federal Vocational Board divided the time of students enrolled in vocational education into three segments, 50 percent in shop work, 25 percent in closely related subjects, and 25 percent in academic course work. The division of student enrollment became known as the 50-25-25 rule (Hayward & Benson, 1993). The Smith-Hughes Act and the 50-25-25 rule guided agricultural education towards a more vocational approach, which emphasized agricultural trade skills and the preparation of students to become farmers (NRC, 1988).

For the next half century, vocational education remained nearly the same. Vocational education emphasized job-specific skills, nearly eliminating theoretical content, and became increasingly segregated by subject matter (e.g., agriculture, industrial arts, home economics). As vocational careers began to evolve with technical changes, students lacked the skills needed in the new workplace and were not effectively trained to adapt to the changing environment. The need for a new paradigm in agricultural education was evident, yet the practice of teaching in SBAE remained stagnant, resulting in declining student enrollment and poor student career preparation.

As a result of declining enrollment in agricultural education in the 1980s, and subsequently a larger population becoming further removed from agriculture, the National Research Council sought to identify a new paradigm for agricultural education programs. The 1988 NRC publication, Understanding Agriculture – New Directions for Education, provided recommendations to broaden the scope of agricultural education as an effort to foster a renewed urgency for a society familiar with the workings of agriculture. In Understanding Agriculture – New Directions for Education, the NRC defined the term agricultural literacy as an “understanding of the food and fiber system [that] includes its history and current economics, social, and environmental significance to all Americans” (NRC, 1988, p. 8). The NRC (1988) claimed that the focus of agricultural education must change, stating that agricultural education is more than vocational agriculture. The NRC also recommended that students should receive education about agricultural from kindergarten through twelfth grade, suggesting the integration of agricultural content into existing core courses. Lastly, the NRC claimed that vocational education in agriculture must be continuously adapting to stay current with the evolving field of agriculture. The new paradigm of SBAE established that agricultural education must be comprehensive in coverage, scientific in method, and practical in impact and focus (NRC, 1988). 

Agricultural Education Today

Among the Career and Technical Education (CTE) disciplines established in the United States during the formative years of school-based vocational training, agricultural education has fared considerably well compared to the rest of its counterparts. The number of programs in industrial arts, technology education, and home economics have waned (Lynch, 1996; Volk, 1993) while enrollment in SBAE increased, recruiting an increasingly diverse student population (Brown & Kelsey, 2013; Warner & Washburn, 2009). Like other programs in CTE, SBAE continues to face a shortage of qualified teachers, expressing concern for the sustainability and growth of agricultural education across the country (Boone & Boone, 2009; Eck & Edwards, 2019; Kantrovich, 2010; Moser & McKim, 2020; Myers et al., 2005).

The complete agricultural education program is represented by the three-circle model, consisting of classroom instruction, Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE), and FFA (Phipps et al., 2008). Each of the three components seen within the model continues to play an integral part of agricultural education across the United States today, despite individual programs reporting varying emphasis on each component (Shoulders & Toland, 2017).

Classroom Instruction

The three-circle model suggests that contextual learning should take place in a laboratory or classroom setting. SBAE has experienced a strong history of experiential learning, stemming from vocational preparation through hands-on and problem-based learning (Parr & Edwards, 2004). Modern instruction in SBAE has become blended in both vocational and academic pursuits. Although active learning strategies have been central to the vision of SBAE, it has been documented that instruction using active learning is currently used far less by teachers than what is recommended (Colclasure et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2015). The emphasis of hands-on learning and skill-based learning in SBAE has provided an opportunity to make science topics applicable and relevant to students, all the while reinforcing academic content (Despain et al., 2016; Phipps et al., 2008). The integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education into agricultural curriculum has become central in modern SBAE (Roberts et al., 2016). Furthermore, the integration of science and math-based learning objectives and learning activities that require higher levels of cognition have shown to increase student learning (Parr et al., 2006; Spindler, 2015).

Student acquisition of content knowledge and skills remain the critical component of education programs. In an era of standard-based testing, measures of student content knowledge are used to provide accountability of student learning. It has been suggested that learning objectives across all disciplines be tied to federal and state learning standards and linked to assessment (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). For modern SBAE, The National Council for Agricultural Education (NCAE, 2015) developed national learning standards for agricultural education, promoting eight educational pathways that include: (1) Agribusiness Systems; (2) Animal Systems; (3) Biotechnology Systems; (4) Environmental Service Systems; (5) Food Products and Processing; (6) Natural Resource Systems; (7) Plant Systems; and (8) Power, Structural and Technical Systems (The Council, 2015). Many states have also created their own agricultural learning standards and have developed industry certifications for students completing course pathways and passing industry certification exams (Florida Department of Education, 2022; Street et al., 2021). The goal of industry certification is to produce highly qualified graduates who are career ready for specific entry-level positions. Industry certifications have established a more concrete link between industry needs and the content that is taught in some SBAE programs.

SAE

The SAE provides students planned, sequential agricultural instruction that applies classroom topics to student-invested applications that students can understand (Phipps et al., 2008). Through the completion of an SAE, students can gain knowledge in workplace skills, explore different careers in the agricultural industry, and conduct projects that make learning meaningful, inspiring future learning. Despite positive outcomes of the SAE component, many SBAE programs fall short in successfully incorporating SAE programs, which creates a clear deviation from the three-circle model (Lewis et al., 2012a).

Unfortunately, a continuous trend in declining levels of SAE participation has been documented (Lewis et al., 2012b). Despite declining trends in the use of SAE, teachers have generally supported the concept of SAE programs (Osborne, 1988; Retallick, 2010). According to Retallick (2010), the most emergent cause of low student SAE enrollment is teacher difficulty in implementing SAE programs. This phenomenon is not new. Foster (1986) identified factors associated with why SAE programs are not implemented that include: lack of teacher time; lack of facilities (e.g. land labs); lack of student desire; and student demands from other school activities. Adding to these factors, student demographics in SBAE have changed considerably, causing perceived opportunities for quality SAEs to decline (Phipps et al., 2008). A lack of comprehensive preservice teacher training in SAE implementation may also contribute to declining SAEs. In a study on perceived teacher self-efficacy, Wolf (2011) found that novice teachers had lower self-efficacy scores for SAE domains compared to domains for both classroom instruction and FFA. Rubenstein et al. (2016), found that engaged teachers were a primary indicator of students developing and implementing successful SAE programs. Programs that fully embrace the SAE as part of the three-circle model typically require every student to conduct an SAE (Rubenstein & Thoron, 2015) and have strong administrative support (Rayfield & Wilson, 2009).

FFA

The remaining component of the three-circle model is student participation in FFA. FFA provides students with opportunities for personal growth, career exploration, and leadership at local, state, and national levels. Recent FFA membership has become more diverse, consisting of student membership from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which account for a record number of over 850,000 student members (National FFA Organization, 2022). FFA members are provided with opportunities to apply what they have learned in the classroom through competitions that mimic real-world agricultural and career skills. FFA provides students these opportunities through Career Development Events (CDEs). CDEs not only test students’ knowledge about agriculture but also provide students with opportunities to showcase their experience and skills in agriculture (Lundry et al., 2015).

K-8 Agricultural Education

While a foundational level or introductory agriculture course promoting agricultural literacy continues to be a staple in most secondary SBAE programs, middle school agricultural education programs have emerged in some states throughout the country. Although the purpose of SBAE at the middle school level continues to be refined, some states have created guides for middle school agricultural education programs that include basic agricultural literacy and opportunities for students’ agricultural career exploration (Odubanjo, 2018). Further efforts to promote agricultural literacy in public education is evident. In 1981, the USDA established the Agriculture in the Classroom campaign, creating educational programs for K-12 students across the country to learn about agriculture. The Agriculture in the Classroom campaign established agricultural learning standards for K-12 public education that range from basic agricultural knowledge to specific knowledge of the agricultural industry (Spielmaker & Leising, 2013). The Agriculture in the Classroom campaign continues to promote agricultural literacy for K-12 students today.

Preparing an Agriculturally-Literate Society: Teaching “About” Agriculture

The cohesive design and delivery of SBAE across the country has become splintered by varying ideologies of the purpose of agricultural education. The creation of national and state learning standards and industry certification programs that are linked to career-specific pathways have attempted to re-align SBAE to vocational approaches of education. Concurrently, SBAE has seen a large push for increased agricultural literacy and curriculum integration (e.g., STEM) in the last decade, further expanding the mission of agricultural education beyond career readiness. The purpose of agricultural education seems to be split between preparing an agriculturally-literate society and preparing students for careers in agriculture.

The importance of agricultural literacy has been well-noted in the literature. Pope (1990) expressed that agricultural literacy is fundamental to a society that lacks direct connection to production agriculture, so that well informed individuals can make educated decision regarding agriculture. Igo and Frick (1999) claimed that an agriculturally-literate society is needed if the agricultural industry in the United States is to remain successful. Furthermore, Kovar and Ball (2013) suggested that agricultural literacy is imperative to maintain a sustainable and viable agricultural system that is capable to feed a growing global population.

Preparing a Workforce in Modern Agriculture: Teaching “In” Agriculture

CTE has provided a necessary link between workforce readiness, commercial industry, and public education (McNamara, 2009). SBAE, as part of the umbrella of CTE programming, has had an early history rooted within the sole purpose of preparing students for vocational careers within production agriculture (NRC, 1988). Curricula within vocational programs were designed to meet the needs of industry-related employers. From the 1920s to the mid-1980s, curriculum within SBAE was designed with the purpose to train students to become farmers (NRC, 1988). As production agriculture changed over time, SBAE curricula partially developed to reflect such changes, teaching industrial methods of technical agriculture.

Despite efforts across CTE programs to establish a career-ready workforce, a recent trend indicating deficiencies of the number of graduating students who have the knowledge and skills required by industry has led to a nation-wide skills gap (Whittaker & Williams, 2016). Evidence of the skills gap has sparked a recent return to the investment of CTE programs in the United States (Stringfield & Stone, 2017). Governing agencies within CTE have promoted the use of career pathways and industry certifications within secondary education to advance students’ acquisition of skills and successful transition from high school into the workplace (Stringfield & Stone, 2017). In an analysis of U.S. job growth after the Great Recession of 2008, Carnevale et al. (2013) found that the new jobs created after the recession look far different than the jobs that were lost.

Implications for School-based Agricultural Education

The question if agricultural education curricula should be focused in or about agriculture has been debated over the last several decades. Proponents who support either side of the debate have identified valid arguments and have advocated for the advancement of agricultural educational to align with their belief of the purpose of agricultural education. It is hard to disagree with the notion that agricultural education should provide students with a foundational understanding of the production of food, fiber, and natural resources. Increasing the agricultural literacy of our society has never been of greater importance, as today’s youth have become more disconnected from the farm (USDA, 2014; Vallera & Bodzin, 2016). However, if the primary goal of agricultural education lies within improving students’ agricultural literacy, we must question if we are drifting too far from the historical roots of agricultural education, where the initial purpose was to prepare the next generation of agricultural workers. If SBAE becomes too centered in teaching about agriculture, we must ask ourselves if we are still considered a member of the CTE community.

Furthermore, focusing on anything less than preparing students for careers could contribute to an increasing skills gap in the United States. There is clearly a need for agricultural education to be positioned to teach about agriculture and to teach in agriculture. In order to achieve both of these tasks, the structure of agricultural education must be critically examined and evaluated, and alternative structures of agricultural education should be considered. As can be seen in figure one, a conceptual framework is proposed that illustrates an example structure for K-12 public education that allows for the effective delivery of agricultural education programs to teach students about and in agriculture.

The conceptual framework illustrates that teaching about agriculture should occur in grades K-9, with agricultural curriculum integration into core curriculum high school courses. Once students obtain a basic understanding of agricultural concepts they can elect to enter a pathway for career readiness identified by state boards of curriculum and individual schools.

Figure 1
A conceptual framework for teaching “in” and “about” agriculture in K-12 education.

Kindergarten – 5th Grade

The first stage in a holistic effort to improve the agricultural literacy among the public is to teach agricultural topics in grades K-5. The importance of agricultural education programs in grades K-5 should not be undervalued, as this formative stage of cognitive development is central to establish a life-long appreciation and interest in agriculture. Programs such as the Agriculture in the Classroom campaign should continue to strive to make sure that every child is exposed to educational applications that engages them in agricultural topics. Opportunities for children to be exposed to agriculture should extend beyond the classroom, increasing the exposure of children to school gardens and working farms. Every child should know where food comes from at the most basic level, and public education at lower levels and in every community should be the primary mechanism to ensure this occurs.

6th Grade – 8th Grade

Federal and state efforts requiring a basic agricultural education course in public education is well-warranted. This framework proposes that students in grades sixth through eighth should be required to enroll in at least one agricultural education course. Courses at this level should focus on teaching students about agriculture on a foundational level. Coursework should be oriented toward agricultural literacy, consisting of subject matter that is rich in consumer knowledge that explores food production from field to fork. Ideally, students will take more than one agricultural education course at the middle school level. However, the teacher shortage in agricultural education (Camp et al., 2002; Kantrovich, 2010; Roberts & Dyer, 2004), and the current status of agricultural education, which is focused at the high school level, creates difficulties in providing agricultural education to every middle school student. Innovative solutions, such as additional middle school agricultural endorsement programs for core curriculum teachers, and offering online agriculture courses, could provide every middle school student with at least one agricultural course. Agricultural courses at the middle school level should focus on basic agricultural content knowledge and literacy.

9th Grade

This framework also proposes that every student should take an advanced introduction to agriculture course during their first year of high school. This course will expand upon the required middle school agriculture course by exposing students to complex agricultural issues that emphasize students’ use of higher order thinking. However, the focus of the advanced introduction to agriculture course will still be centered in teaching about agriculture and will allow students to explore agricultural careers.

9th-12th Grade

Contrary to the integration of core subjects into agriculture courses, this framework highlights the need to integrate agricultural topics into core classes. It is believed that this method will expand agricultural literacy for students who elect to not go into agricultural career pathways. Furthermore, the integration of real-life applications is needed in core curriculum. Stakeholders of agriculture and key organizations in agricultural education should design lessons that have an agricultural context for core curriculum classes that teachers can use to supplement their current lessons.

10th-12th Grade

In order to prepare a specialized and highly-qualified agricultural workforce for the 21st century, this framework proposes that programs should strategically implement a series of career pathway courses that are uniquely tailored to the occupational needs of each state. Such courses should be designed to allow students to obtain the skills needed in localized agricultural careers. The implementation of career certifications in SBAE, which are currently found in some states, provide a necessary link between industry and education. Furthermore, the design of career preparation courses should expand beyond the immediate skill sets needed in the industry and should promote students’ social, critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills that are needed in the 21st century workforce. 

Conclusion

The development of agricultural education was first established to prepare individuals for the skills they needed to work on a farm. Following the industrial revolution, federal acts expanded vocational education in secondary schools and post-secondary institutions. The focus in trade-based learning was evident in agricultural education until the reinvention of agricultural education during the 1990s. Agricultural education expanded its mission to teach beyond agricultural trades, emphasizing agricultural knowledge, as opposed to specific career skills. The new paradigm of agricultural education may have been essential for the growth of SBAE. However, the purpose of SBAE to teach about agriculture has led to deficiencies in students’ career preparation while also not fully reaching its potential to educate society about agriculture.

The conceptual framework provided in this paper was developed to offer a solution for agricultural education to be better positioned to teach both about and in agriculture. The framework expands upon existing efforts for agricultural education to reach K-8 students. An expansion of agricultural education at the middle school level is necessary to fully expose students about agriculture. An additional course at the 9th grade level, which exposes students to higher level thinking about agriculture, is necessary. These courses along with the integration of agricultural contexts into core curriculum will aim to decrease the public’s knowledge gap of agriculture. Courses beyond an advanced introductory course will focus on specific agricultural careers and will exist for the purpose of providing students with the advanced skills they need in specific agricultural industries. The authors of the proposed framework understand the complexities associated with the redevelopment of the structure of agricultural education programs; however, in order for agricultural education to simultaneously provide solutions to both career readiness and agricultural literacy, the structure and purpose of agricultural education at each level should be discussed and refined on a national level.

The implementation of the provided conceptual framework would have dramatic implications for SBAE. An enormous increase in the number of students enrolled in SBAE courses would be seen. The expansion of middle school agricultural education programs would educate all students about agriculture, putting less pressure for high school agriculture courses to teach both about and in agriculture. Furthermore, it would be expected that agricultural literacy would increase in society, resulting in a new generation that appreciates and understands the basic components of food production. A renewed focus on advanced career preparation for specific career pathways could potentially reduce the number of students being taught career-specific agricultural skills. However, students completing specific career pathways that are tailored to the demands of industry, would be adequately prepared to enter the workforce or continue advanced, postsecondary training in a specific field. The investment in this educational design could contribute to closing the large skills gap identified in industry. Agricultural education has advanced in many ways to become a model for CTE. Despite its many successes over the last century, the current structure of agricultural education is beginning to experience unintended strain from pressures asking agricultural education to do too much with its existing structure. The current structure of SBAE is not appropriately designed to teach both about and in agriculture, where both purposes are given the attention they need. The proposed conceptual framework included in this paper is one of many potential designs to offer alternatives for the structure of agricultural education to meet challenges that are currently being faced in agriculture. 

References

Ajibola, O. R. (2019). Trend of globalization and its impact on agriculture: Forestry share. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, 7(1), 5-11. http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=706&paperId=5284

Barrick, R. K. (1989). Agricultural education: Building upon our roots. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(4), 24-29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1989.04024

Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2009). An assessment of problems faced by high school agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01021

Brown, N. R., & Kelsey, K. D. (2013). Sidewalks and city streets: A model for vibrant agricultural education in urban American communities. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(2), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.02057

Camp, W. G., Broyles, T., & Skelton, N. S. (2002). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of agricultural education in 1991-2001. Virginia Tech, College of Agriculture and Life Science.

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl. J. (2013). Recovery: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/recovery-job-growth-and-education-requirements-through-2020/

Colclasure, B. C., Thoron, A. C., & Dempsey, J. (2022). Factors relating to agriculture teachers’ perceived use of instructional methods. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235

Conkin, P. (2009). A revolution down on the farm: The transformation of American agriculture since 1929. University Press of Kentucky.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.

Despain, D., North, T., Warnick, B. K., & Baggaley, J. (2016). Biology in the agriculture classroom: A descriptive comparative study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01194

Ding, X., & Qian, Y. (2016). Globalization, employment and agriculture: A review of the eleventh forum of the world association for political economy. World Review of Political Economy, 7(4), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.7.4.0541

Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based, agricultural education (SBAE): A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223

Federal Board of Vocational Education (1917). Statement of policies. (Bulletin No. 1). Government Printing Office.

Florida Department of Education (2022). Curriculum frameworks. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/career-adult-edu/career-tech-edu/curriculum-frameworks/2022-23-frameworks/agriculture-food-natural-resources.stml

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). The state of food insecurity in the world. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf

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

Hayward, G. C., & Benson, C. S. (1993). Vocational-technical education: Major reforms and debates 1917-present. United States Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education 1993 Report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED369959.pdf

Igo, C., & Frick, M. (1999). A case study assessment of standard benchmarks for implementing food and fiber systems literacy. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Corpus Christi, TX.

Kantrovich, A. J. (2010). The 36th volume of a national study of the supply and demand for teachers of agricultural education from 2006-2009. American Association of Agricultural Educators, Michigan State University.

Kovar, K. A., & Ball, A. L. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy research: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2013.01167

Lewis, L. J., Rayfield, J., & Moore, L. L. (2012a). An assessment of students’ perceptions toward factors influencing supervised agricultural experience participation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04055

Lewis, L. J., Rayfield, J., & Moore, L. L. (2012b). Supervised agricultural experience: An examination of student knowledge and participation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04070

Little, A. (2019). The fate of food: What we’ll eat in a bigger, hotter, smarter world. Penguin Random House, LLC

Lynch, R. L. (1996). In search of vocational and technical teacher education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 13(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v13i1.508

Lundry, J., Ramsey, J. W., Edwards, M. C., & Robinson, S. (2015). Benefits of career development events as perceived by school-based, agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01043

McNamara, B. R. (2009). The skill gap: Will the future workplace become an abyss. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 84(5), 24-27. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840446

Moore, G. E., & Gaspard, C. (1987). The quadrumvirate of vocational education. Journal of Technical Education, 4(1).

Moser, E. M., & McKim, A. J. (2020). Teacher retention: A relational perspective. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02263

Myers, B. E., Dyer, J. E., & Washburn, S. G. (2005). Problems facing beginning agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(3), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.03047

National Council for Agricultural Education (NCAE). (2015). Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources (AFNR) Career Cluster Content Standards, 1-142. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/afnr/

National FFA Organization. (2015). Our membership. https://www.ffa.org/our-membership/

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

National Research Council. (2009a). A new biology for the 21 century. The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009b). Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12602

Odubanjo, A. (2018). Perceptions of middle, high school and community college agricultural teachers in Iowa regarding agricultural awareness concepts and activities in the middle school curriculum: Grades 7-9 [Dissertation, Iowa State University]. Iowa State University Digital Repository. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7435&context=etd

Osborne, E. W. (1988). Planning and supervision strategies for SOE programs in agriculture. Journal of American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 29(4), 49-56.

Parr, B. A., & 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.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04106

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

Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook of agricultural education in public schools (6th ed.). Thomson Delmar Learning.

Pope, J. (1990). Agricultural literacy: A basic American need: The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62(9), 8.

Prentice Hall Documents Library (1998). Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. https://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/434/445252/DocumentsLibrary/docs/smith917.htm

Rayfield, J., & Wilson, E. (2009). Exploring principals’ perceptions of supervised agricultural experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1) 70-80. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01070

Retallick, M. S. (2010). Implementation of supervised agricultural experience programs: The agriculture teachers’ perspective. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(4), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.04059

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.2004.04057

Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (eds.) (2016). American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016-2020. Gainesville, FL: Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.

Rubenstein, E. D., & Thoron, A. C. (2015). Supervised agricultural experience programs: An examination of committed teachers and student-centered programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04075

Rubenstein, E. D., Thoron, A. C., Colclasure, B. C., & Gordon, J. A. (2016). Supervised agricultural experience programs: An examination of the development and implementation of urban programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 218-234. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04217

Salin, S. (2018). The sustained impacts of an agriculture-based youth development program on alumni’s connection to the environment, food, community and self [Master’s thesis, The Evergreen State College]. The Evergreen State College Archives. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Salin_Thesis_2018.pdf

Shoulders, C. W., & Toland, H. (2017). Millennial and non-millennial agriculture teachers’ current and ideal emphasis on the three components of the agricultural education program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01085

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

Spielmaker, D. M., & Leising, J. G. (2013). National agricultural literacy outcomes. Utah State University, School of Applied Sciences & Technology. Logan, UT. http://agclassroom.org/teacher/matrix

Spindler, M. (2015). Science integrating learning objectives: A cooperative learning group process. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01203

Street, A., Stripling, C., Ricketts, J., Conner, N., & Boyer, C. (2021). Identifying Tennessee school-based agricultural education student growth and program accountability metrics. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(2), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.91

Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R. (2017). The labor market imperative for CTE: Changes and challenges for the 21st century. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1302209

United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). Census highlights: Farm demographics. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2014/Farm_Demographics/index.php

United States Farmers and Ranchers Alliance. (2011). Nationwide surveys reveal disconnect between Americans and their food. Cision PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nationwide-surveys-reveal-disconnect-between-americans-and-their-food-130336143.html

United States Farmers and Ranchers Alliance. (2012). Americans say food production headed in right direction, widespread misperceptions remain. Cision PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-say-food-production-headed-in-right-direction-widespread-misperceptions-remain-179465971.html

Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). Knowledge, skills, or attitudes/beliefs: The context of agricultural literacy in upper-elementary science curricula. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(4), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.04101

Volk, K. S. (1993). Enrollment trends in industrial arts/technology teacher education from 1970-1990. Journal of Technology Education, 4(2), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v4i2.a.4

Warner, W. J., & Washburn, S. G. (2009). Issues facing urban agriscience teachers: A Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01105

Wittaker, J. G., & Williams, G. (2016). Skills gap – a strategy for increasing knowledge worker supply and demand. Journal of Business, 1(4), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.18533/job.v1i4.42

Wolf, K. J. (2011). Agricultural education perceived teacher self-efficacy: A descriptive study of beginning agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02163