Tag

agricultural mechanics

Early-Career Georgia Agriculture Teachers’ Agricultural Mechanics Professional Development Needs

Authors

Christopher C. Crump, Banks County High School, christopher.crump@banks.k12.ga.us

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

PDF Available

Abstract

Agricultural mechanics is a prominent agricultural subject matter area in many agricultural education programs throughout Georgia. Hainline and Wells (2024) indicated that early-career agriculture teachers often have different agricultural mechanics professional development (PD) needs than their more-experienced colleagues. Hence, our study focused on early-career agriculture teachers. We used human capital theory (HCT) to theoretically underpin our study. To conduct our study, we used a valid and reliable research instrument that contained eight demographics items and 65 agricultural mechanics items. Wells and Hainline (2021) previously used this instrument to conduct their national-level study of agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs. We distributed this instrument via e-mail to 253 early-career agriculture teachers throughout Georgia; however, only 243 emails delivered successfully. Seventy-six teachers provided usable data, yielding a 31.3% response rate. Using mean weighted discrepancy scores (MWDS), we found that the greatest PD needs among early-career Georgia agriculture teachers were: (1) American Welding Society (AWS) standards for welding procedures, (2) Procedures for structural welding, and (3) Principles of metallurgy (ex. identifying metals, proper use of metals, etc.). We recommend that Georgia agricultural education stakeholders use our findings to structure PD sessions that address early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ greatest agricultural mechanics PD needs. We advise that scholars should engage with mid- and late-career Georgia agriculture teachers to examine their agricultural mechanics PD needs as well.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

Undeniably, effective teachers are vital components of the agricultural education programs found within public schools across the United States. Considering the concept of effectiveness as professional educators, agriculture teachers must be knowledgeable and skilled in a wide range of agricultural subject matter to appropriately serve their students and their local communities (Eck et al., 2019). This is certainly applicable to agricultural mechanics as well (Granberry et al., 2023). Agricultural mechanics is broad in its nature and scope (Wells et al., 2021) and is popular with many students (Valdez & Johnson, 2020), including students in Georgia public schools (Georgia Agricultural Education, 2023). The teaching of agricultural mechanics subject matter in agricultural education programs presents a combination of learning opportunities for students, such as applying engineering concepts throughout a trailer fabrication project, and liability concerns for agriculture teachers, such as adequately supervising students during project activities (Wells & Hainline, 2021). Consequently, it is imperative that agriculture teachers be well-prepared to appropriately and professionally tackle the opportunities and challenges associated with this technical agriculture subject matter area (Granberry et al., 2023).

To help overcome potential deficits in agriculture teachers’ current knowledge and skills, offering teacher-oriented learning opportunities via professional development (PD) sessions or workshops is a frequent approach. Conceptually, PD can be structured to fit a range of time frames and can be leveraged to meet a variety of targeted needs, such as improvements in agriculture teachers’ pedagogical skills, strengthening their technical agriculture subject matter knowledge, and so forth. Ultimately, PD should be operationalized to help better prepare agriculture teachers to serve their students over both the short- and long-term (Grieman, 2010). Not surprisingly, agriculture teachers frequently need PD in agricultural mechanics subject matter to help them improve their capacities to serve students (Granberry et al., 2023; Wells & Hainline, 2021). However, as indicated by Hainline and Wells (2024) in their national-level study, agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs vary based on their career phases. Specifically, early-career agriculture teachers tend to have greater agricultural mechanics PD needs in comparison to their mid- and late-career colleagues (Hainline & Wells, 2024). Further, Solomonson et al. (2021) noted that taking steps to improve agriculture teachers’ (especially early-career teachers’) confidence to teach technical agriculture curricula can help increase their likelihood to remain in the profession. Considering the abovementioned factors, we found it prudent to examine early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs.

We employed human capital theory (HCT) to undergird our study. Regarding HCT, Becker (1993) noted that investing in individuals’ knowledge and skills yields improvements in their abilities to provide adequate returns. In the context of our study, we operationalized agricultural mechanics PD for early-career agriculture teachers as an investment. We characterized returns as improvements in early-career agriculture teachers’ capacity to teach technical agriculture subject matter to their students to help better prepare them for opportunities in the agricultural industry. By working with students, agriculture teachers directly facilitate the development of human capital for the agricultural industry (Stripling & Ricketts, 2016). As such, we anticipate that defining early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs will be helpful for the state’s agricultural industry stakeholders.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of our study was to determine the agricultural mechanics PD needs of early-career Georgia agriculture teachers. Our approach helps facilitate the strategic development of PD sessions that directly address early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ actual needs.

Methods

Our study, which we framed via Borich’s (1980) needs assessment model, used a census design and was a direct replication of Wells and Hainline’s (2021) study, Examining Teachers’ Agricultural Mechanics Professional Development Needs: A National Study. We used their valid and reliable instrument to collect our data. Their instrument contained several teacher demographics items and 65 agricultural mechanics items. The 65 agricultural mechanics items addressed diverse topics related to woodworking and structures construction, welding and metal fabrication, electricity, land surveying, plumbing, safety, project planning, construction, and tool and equipment usage. Their instrument included two five-point, Likert-type scales to collect data regarding the 65 agricultural mechanics items. One scale addressed agriculture teachers’ perceived importance for each item to be taught in agricultural education programs (i.e., the Importance scale). The other scale addressed agriculture teachers’ perceived competence to teach each item (i.e., the Competence scale). The Importance scale used the following anchors: (1) Not important (NI), (2) Of little importance (LI), (3) Somewhat important (SI), (4) Important (I), and (5) Very important (VI). The Competence scale used the following anchors: (1) Not competent (NC), (2) Little competence (LC), (3) Somewhat competent (SC), (4) Competent (C), and (5) Very competent (VC). In contrast to Wells and Hainline (2021), our study’s focus was solely on early-career agriculture teachers in Georgia during the 2023-2024 academic year (i.e., in years one through five as described by Solomonson and Retallick [2018]).

Upon Murray State University (MSU) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we partnered with Georgia agricultural education state staff to obtain the school e-mail addresses for all 253 early-career agriculture teachers in Georgia. Once we obtained all 253 agriculture teachers’ school e-mail addresses, we followed Dillman et al.’s (2014) advice and used five points of contact (i.e., e-mails) to conduct the data collection process via Qualtrics. These five e-mails included: (1) the initial e-mail that detailed the purpose of the study and contained an electronic link to the research instrument sent on Tuesday, October 3, 2023, (2) the first reminder e-mail sent on Tuesday, October 10, 2023, (3) the second reminder e-mail sent on Tuesday, October 17, 2023, (4) the third reminder e-mail sent on Tuesday, October 24, 2023, and (5), the fourth and final reminder e-mail sent on Tuesday, October 31, 2023. Of the five different contact e-mails sent, e-mails to 10 agriculture teachers bounced, yielding a failure rate of approximately 3.9%, thus reducing our potential respondents to 243. To help foster responses, we offered respondents a chance to win one of five $20.00 gift cards that we randomly drew after we concluded the data collection process. Because the data collection overlapped with the 2023 Georgia National Fair and the 2023 National FFA Convention, we elected to conclude our data collection on Friday, November 17, 2023 to help maximize responses.

Ninety-four respondents participated in our study. We elected, however, to analyze and report only the data from those 76 respondents who completed at least 75% of the research instrument, yielding a usable response rate of 31.3%. Both Sherman and Sorensen (2020) and Wells and Hainline (2021) reported similar response rates (26.8% and 27.5%, respectively). To identify the presence of non-response error, we compared early respondents (n = 29) to late respondents (n = 47) as recommended by Linder et al. (2001). We defined early respondents as those who responded prior to the first reminder e-mail that we distributed on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. We defined late respondents as those who responded on or after Tuesday, October 10, 2023. We used an independent samples t-test to compare the means of the two groups on the Competence scale of the research instrument. We determined that there were no statistically significant differences between early respondents and late respondents (t(74) = .24, p =.81).

We used Microsoft Excel to analyze our data. We employed a variety of descriptive statistics to analyze our respondents’ demographics data and their responses on the Importance and Competence scales. To identify and rank our respondents’ agricultural mechanics PD needs, we used McKim and Saucier’s (2011) Excel-Based MWDS [mean weighted discrepancy score] Calculator. We acknowledge that because we employed a census design within our study, we cannot generalize our results beyond the 76 early-career Georgia agriculture teachers who participated in our study.

Results

Teacher Demographics

We reported the agriculture teacher demographics data in Table 1 (below). Fifty-four respondents (71.1%) identified as female while 22 respondents (28.9%) identified as male. Also, 55% of respondents (f = 42) stated that they had taught agricultural mechanics courses in the past three years and 47% (f = 36) had worked in the agricultural industry prior to their current teaching position. Respondents had been teaching agriculture for an average of 2.87 years (SD = 1.70). Also, the majority of respondents (f = 48; 63.2%) reported that they had initially gained their teacher certification via an undergraduate-level teacher preparation program (see Table 1).

Table 1

Agriculture Teacher Demographics

Itemf%
What is your gender? (n = 76)      
Male2228.9
Female5471.1
Including this academic year, have you taught agricultural mechanics coursework in an agricultural education program during any of the past three academic years? (n = 76)  
Yes4255.3
No3444.7
Prior to your current agricultural education teaching position, did you previously work in the agricultural industry? (n = 76)  
Yes3647.4
No4052.6
Including this academic year, how many years have you have been teaching agricultural education? (n = 76)  
01114.5
133.9
22026.3
31215.8
41114.4
51925
Which of the following best describes how you obtained your agricultural education teacher certification? (n = 76)  
Undergraduate-level teacher preparation program4863.2
Began teaching agricultural education after working in industry1722.4
Graduate-level teacher preparation program79.2
Other (Alternative Certification, Provisional Certificate)45.3
Note. Some percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.  

Perceived Importance to Teach

We reported the responses from the 65 agricultural mechanics items within the Importance scale in Table 2 (below). We bolded the highest mode for each item across the five categories (i.e., Not important, Of little importance, Somewhat important, Important, and Very important). Twenty items had a mode of five (Very important) and 44 items had a mode of four (Important). The item with the highest percentage of Very important rankings was Safety procedures for agricultural mechanics activities (VI: 90.5%, f = 74, Md = 5, Mdn = 5). While all 65 items had a mode of four (I) or five (VI), Procedures for using legal land descriptions (VI: 15.5%, f = 64, Md = 4, Mdn = 4) had the lowest percentage of Very important responses (see Table 2).

Table 2

Early-career Georgia Agriculture Teachers’ Perceived Importance to Teach Agricultural Mechanics

  %  
ItemnNILI SIIVIMdnMd
Safety procedures for agricultural mechanics activities740.00.00.09.590.555
Use of personal protective equipment (PPE)740.00.00.012.287.855
Use of measuring tools (ex. tape measure, framing square, etc.)720.00.00.012.587.555
Use of laboratory safety equipment (ex. fire extinguishers, eye wash stations, etc.)740.00.01.410.887.855
Use of hand tools (ex. screwdriver, hammer, etc.)690.00.01.520.378.355
Use of handheld power tools (ex. cordless drill, jig saw, etc.)700.00.01.421.477.155
Use of fasteners (ex. screws, nails, glue, etc.)740.00.02.741.955.455
Estimating materials for projects740.00.02.750.047.344
Use of stationary power equipment (ex. band saw, table saw, etc.)710.00.02.840.956.355
Principles of electrical theory (ex. conductors, insulators, alternating current [AC], direct current [DC], etc.)650.01.51.546.250.855
Use of electrical measurement units (ex. amperes, volts, Ohms, etc.)650.01.51.540.056.955
Procedures for wiring outlets650.01.53.138.556.955
Use of electrical systems tools (ex. digital multi-meter, wire strippers, etc.)650.01.53.138.556.955
Procedures for laying out projects740.00.05.451.443.244
Procedures for building wood projects720.00.05.654.240.344
Creating a bill of materials for projects740.01.45.439.254.055
Use of marking tools (ex. chalk line, paint marker, etc.)700.01.45.742.950.04.55
Procedures for wiring single-pole switch circuits650.01.56.236.955.455
Procedures for wiring double-pole switch circuits650.01.57.746.244.644
Procedures for reassembling small engines640.04.74.748.442.244
Procedures for troubleshooting small engines630.03.26.446.044.444
Principles of welding theory (ex. joint types, positions, etc.)701.42.95.748.641.444
Procedures for disassembling small engines650.04.66.249.240.044
Interpreting project blueprints740.00.010.851.437.844
Procedures for wiring three-way switch circuits650.01.510.841.546.245
Procedures for SMAW (Arc welding)701.42.98.645.741.444
Procedures for GMAW (MIG welding)701.42.98.647.140.044
Use of precision tools (ex. micrometer, dial caliper, etc.)701.41.41047.140.044
Procedures for agricultural equipment operation651.51.510.840.046.245
Procedures for using PVC pipe720.01.412.551.434.744
Principles of four-stroke engine operational theory641.63.19.446.939.144
Drawing project plans to scale730.01.413.754.830.144
Procedures for wiring trailer electrical systems650.03.112.341.543.145
Principles of two-stroke engine operational theory651.53.110.847.736.944
Procedures for structural welding701.42.911.447.137.144
Principles of metallurgy (ex. identifying metals, proper use of metals, etc.)691.51.513.046.437.744
American Welding Society (AWS) standards for welding procedures691.51.51339.144.945
Procedures for wiring four-way switch circuits650.03.113.943.140.044
Principles of diesel engine operational theory651.54.610.847.735.444
Procedures for building metal projects (ex. trailers, barbecue pits, etc.)701.41.414.350.032.944
Procedures for oxy-fuel cutting701.42.914.342.938.644
Use of handheld pneumatic (air) tools (ex. impact wrench, paint spray gun, etc.)710.04.216.943.735.244
Procedures for plasma arc cutting701.410.011.441.435.744
Principles of vehicle powertrain operational theory641.24.717.242.234.444
Procedures for GTAW (TIG welding)711.44.218.343.732.444
Procedures for building masonry projects721.45.618.048.626.444
Use of hydraulic equipment (ex. shears, iron worker, etc.)700.02.922.935.738.645
Procedures for cold metalworking bending701.42.921.448.625.744
Procedures for oxy-fuel welding702.95.717.141.132.944
Procedures for FCAW (Flux-core arc welding)712.85.618.345.028.144
Procedures for painting projects740.02.724.347.325.744
Procedures for hot metalworking cutting701.45.720.045.727.144
Procedures for cold metalworking cutting701.44.321.447.125.744
Procedures for building fence projects720.04.123.641.730.644
Procedures for using PEX pipe720.06.920.844.427.844
Procedures for hot metalworking bending702.92.922.941.430.044
Procedures for using copper pipe721.49.720.843.025.044
Procedures for hot metalworking shaping701.47.124.340.027.144
Procedures for cold metalworking shaping701.44.327.141.425.744
Procedures for oxy-fuel brazing692.97.323.243.523.244
Use of computer numerical control (CNC) systems710.015.523.932.428.244
Procedures for using legal land descriptions643.118.818.843.815.644
Procedures for using land surveying equipment641.614.125.035.923.444
Procedures for conducting land surveys643.112.526.635.921.944
Note. Importance scale: 1 = Not important (NI), 2 = Of little importance (LI), 3 = Somewhat important (SI), 4 = Important (I), 5 = Very important (VI); Mdn = Median; Md = Mode.  

Perceived Competence to Teach

We reported the responses from the 65 agricultural mechanics items within the Competence scale in Table 3 (below). We bolded the highest mode for each item across the five categories (i.e., Not competent, Little competence, Somewhat competent, Competent, and Very competent). Two items had a mode of five, 24 items had a mode of four, four items had a mode of three, two items had a mode of two, and 24 items had a mode of one. Nine items had two modes. The item that had the highest reported combined Very competent and Competent ratings was Use of laboratory safety equipment (ex. fire extinguishers, eye wash stations, etc.) (VC: 39.2%, C: 56.8%, f = 74, Md = 4, Mdn = 4). The area that had the highest percentage of Not competent ratings (Md = 1) was Procedures for using unmanned aerial vehicles in land surveying (NC: 43.8%, f = 64) (see Table 3).

Table 3

Early-career Georgia Agriculture Teachers’ Perceived Competence to Teach Agricultural Mechanics

  %  
ItemnNCLCSCCVCMdnMd
Use of laboratory safety equipment (ex. fire extinguishers, eye wash stations, etc.)740.00.04.156.839.244
Use of personal protective equipment (PPE)740.01.45.435.158.155
Use of hand tools (ex. screwdriver, hammer, etc.)690.0 0.013.034.852.255
Use of measuring tools (ex. tape measure, framing square, etc.)721.40.019.441.737.544
Use of fasteners (ex. screws, nails, glue, etc.)741.46.816.241.933.844
Use of handheld power tools (ex. cordless drill, jig saw, etc.)705.72.917.14034.344
Procedures for SMAW (Arc welding)701.44.321.447.125.744
Safety procedures for agricultural mechanics activities741.45.421.636.535.144
Use of marking tools (ex. chalk line, paint marker, etc.)701.42.925.741.428.644
Procedures for painting projects742.76.825.744.620.344
Procedures for wiring single-pole switch circuits6512.39.215.440.023.144
Procedures for wiring outlets659.210.818.540.021.444
Procedures for building wood projects724.212.523.644.415.344
Use of electrical systems tools (ex. digital multi-meter, wire strippers, etc.)6510.86.226.238.518.544
Creating a bill of materials for projects745.46.832.424.331.143
Use of stationary power equipment (ex. band saw, table saw, etc.)715.614.125.428.226.844
Estimating materials for projects745.413.527.036.517.644
Use of electrical measurement units (ex. amperes, volts, Ohms, etc.)659.27.729.238.515.444
Principles of electrical theory (ex. conductors, insulators, alternating current [AC], direct current [DC], etc.)659.210.826.236.916.944
Use of handheld pneumatic (air) tools (ex. impact wrench, paint spray gun, etc.)714.219.722.539.414.144
Procedures for wiring double-pole switch circuits6513.910.823.135.416.944
Procedures for wiring three-way switch circuits6515.413.921.530.818.534
Procedures for laying out projects749.510.831.135.113.534
Procedures for using PVC pipe728.313.931.931.913.933 / 4
Procedures for building fence projects7212.515.329.230.612.534
Drawing project plans to scale739.620.627.431.511.034
Procedures for GMAW (MIG welding)7022.918.617.128.612.934
Use of precision tools (ex. micrometer, dial caliper, etc.)708.622.928.624.315.733
Procedures for agricultural equipment operation6526.213.921.524.613.931
Procedures for wiring four-way switch circuits6520.020.021.524.613.934
Procedures for disassembling small engines6526.212.326.223.112.331 / 3
Procedures for wiring trailer electrical systems6518.526.220.026.29.232 / 4
Procedures for reassembling small engines6425.017.223.421.912.531
Procedures for oxy-fuel cutting7027.118.621.417.115.731
Use of hydraulic equipment (ex. shears, iron worker, etc.)7021.418.627.117.115.733
Principles of four-stroke engine operational theory6425.017.225.021.910.931 / 3
Principles of two-stroke engine operational theory6524.618.524.621.510.831 / 3
Principles of welding theory (ex. joint types, positions, etc.)7025.725.717.118.612.921 / 2
Procedures for plasma arc cutting7028.625.714.321.410.021
Interpreting project blueprints7410.814.946.018.99.533
Procedures for troubleshooting small engines6327.019.127.014.312.731 / 3
Procedures for using PEX pipe7229.225.019.415.311.121
Procedures for structural welding7035.724.315.715.78.621
Principles of metallurgy (ex. identifying metals, proper use of metals, etc.)6931.924.620.315.97.321
Procedures for building metal projects (ex. trailers, barbecue pits, etc.)7037.122.917.114.38.621
American Welding Society (AWS) standards for welding procedures6937.720.320.313.08.721
Procedures for FCAW (Flux-core arc welding)7142.321.115.514.17.021
Procedures for GTAW (TIG welding)7139.422.516.915.55.621
Procedures for building masonry projects7226.433.319.415.35.622
Procedures for oxy-fuel welding7040.017.122.914.35.721
Procedures for conducting land surveys6432.828.120.314.14.721
Procedures for cold metalworking cutting7038.631.411.412.95.721
Principles of diesel engine operational theory6527.729.224.613.94.622
Use of computer numerical control (CNC) systems7136.625.419.711.37.021
 
Procedures for oxy-fuel brazing6943.524.614.513.04.421
Procedures for hot metalworking bending7038.628.615.710.07.021
Procedures for using copper pipe7230.630.622.28.38.321 / 2
Procedures for hot metalworking cutting7038.628.617.111.44.321
Principles of vehicle powertrain operational theory6434.425.025.010.94.721
Procedures for using land surveying equipment6431.321.931.312.53.121 / 3
Procedures for cold metalworking bending7040.028.617.110.04.321
Procedures for cold metalworking shaping7040.030.017.18.64.321
Procedures for hot metalworking shaping7038.630.020.07.14.321
Procedures for using legal land descriptions6435.932.821.96.33.121
Procedures for using unmanned aerial vehicles in land surveying6443.834.412.57.81.621
Note. Competence scale: 1 = Not competent (NC), 2 = Little competence (LC), 3 = Somewhat competent (SC), 4 = Competent (C), 5 = Very competent (VC); Mdn = Median; Md = Mode.  

Agricultural Mechanics PD Needs Ranked by MWDS

We reported early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs within each of the 65 different agricultural mechanics items in Table 4 (below). As indicated by their positive MWDS, the five greatest agricultural mechanics PD needs for early-career Georgia agriculture teachers were: (1) American Welding Society (AWS) standards for welding procedures (MWDS = 8.06), (2) Procedures for structural welding (MWDS = 7.42), (3) Principles of metallurgy (ex. identifying metals, proper use of metals, etc.) (MWDS = 7.32, (4) Procedures for building metal projects (ex. trailers, barbeque pits, etc.) (MWDS = 7.29), and (5) Procedures for cold metalworking bending (MWDS = 7.27). Conversely, the five lowest agricultural mechanics PD needs for early-career Georgia agriculture teachers were: (1) Use of marking tools (ex. chalk line, paint marker, etc.) (MWDS = 2.14), (2) Use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (MWDS = 1.85), (3) Use of hand tools (ex. screwdriver, hammer, etc.) (MWDS= 1.80), (4) Procedures for SMAW (arc welding) (MWDS = 1.33), and (5) Procedures for painting projects (MWDS = 0.91) (see Table 4).

Table 4

Early-career Georgia Agriculture Teachers’ Agricultural Mechanics Professional Development Needs by MWDS

    ImportanceCompetence
Item   nRankMWDSMSDMSD
American Welding Society (AWS) standards for welding procedures6918.064.250.852.351.34
Procedures for structural welding7027.424.160.852.371.34
Principles of metallurgy (ex. identifying metals, proper use of metals, etc.)6937.324.170.822.421.29
Procedures for building metal projects (ex. trailers, barbecue pits, etc.)7047.294.110.812.341.34
Procedures for cold metalworking bending7057.273.940.852.101.17
Procedures for troubleshooting small engines6367.134.320.742.671.36
Principles of vehicle powertrain operational theory6477.124.030.932.271.19
Principles of diesel engine operational theory6587.084.110.892.381.17
Procedures for GTAW (TIG welding)7197.074.010.902.251.28
Procedures for hot metalworking cutting70106.933.910.912.121.18
Procedures for cold metalworking shaping70116.893.860.912.071.15
Procedures for cold metalworking cutting70126.883.910.882.161.24
Procedures for hot metalworking bending70136.853.930.952.191.25
Principles of welding theory (ex. joint types, positions, etc.)70146.754.260.812.671.38
Procedures for hot metalworking shaping70156.753.840.962.091.13
Procedures for oxy-fuel welding70166.613.961.002.291.29
Procedures for FCAW (Flux-core arc welding)71176.543.900.972.231.32
Procedures for reassembling small engines64186.354.280.772.801.37
Procedures for oxy-fuel brazing69196.283.770.992.101.23
Procedures for wiring trailer electrical systems65206.084.250.792.821.27
Procedures for agricultural equipment operation65216.054.280.842.862.00
Procedures for disassembling small engines65226.014.250.772.831.38
Procedures for building masonry projects72236.013.930.892.401.19
Principles of four-stroke engine operational theory64245.954.190.852.771.34
Principles of two-stroke engine operational theory65255.824.150.852.751.33
Procedures for oxy-fuel cutting70265.744.140.872.761.43
Procedures for plasma arc cutting70275.664.001.002.591.37
Procedures for using copper pipe72285.603.810.972.331.23
Procedures for GMAW (MIG welding)70295.544.210.832.901.38
Use of computer numerical control (CNC) systems71305.473.731.042.271.26
Procedures for using PEX pipe72315.463.930.882.541.35
Interpreting project blueprints74325.374.270.653.011.08
Procedures for wiring four-way switch circuits65335.364.200.793.921.35
Procedures for using unmanned aerial vehicles in land surveying64345.093.391.111.891.01
Use of hydraulic equipment (ex. shears, iron worker, etc.)70355.044.100.852.871.36
Procedures for using legal land descriptions64364.983.501.072.081.06
Use of electrical measurement units (ex. amperes, volts, Ohms, etc.)65374.944.520.623.431.13
Procedures for using land surveying equipment64384.803.661.042.341.14
Procedures for conducting land surveys64394.743.611.102.301.20
Procedures for wiring three-way switch circuits65404.724.320.733.231.33
Principles of electrical theory (ex. conductors, insulators, alternating current [AC], direct current [DC], etc.)65414.674.460.613.421.17
Use of electrical systems tools (ex. digital multi-meter, wire strippers, etc.)65424.654.510.643.481.19
Procedures for laying out projects74434.624.380.593.321.14
Use of precision tools (ex. micrometer, dial caliper, etc.)70444.534.230.803.161.20
Safety procedures for agricultural mechanics activities74454.514.910.293.990.96
Procedures for wiring double-pole switch circuits65464.474.340.693.311.27
Use of stationary power equipment (ex. band saw, table saw, etc.)71474.414.540.563.561.19
Procedures for wiring outlets65484.374.510.643.541.21
Estimating materials for projects74494.334.450.553.471.10
Procedures for wiring single-pole switch circuits65504.194.460.693.521.29
Drawing project plans to scale73514.144.140.693.141.16
Use of handheld power tools (ex. cordless drill, jig saw, etc.)70523.874.760.463.941.08
Procedures for using PVC pipe72533.794.200.703.291.13
Use of measuring tools (ex. tape measure, framing square, etc.)72543.594.880.333.140.83
Procedures for building wood projects72553.504.350.593.541.03
Creating a bill of materials for projects74563.434.460.673.691.15
Procedures for building fence projects72573.324.000.853.151.21
Use of handheld pneumatic (air) tools (ex. impact wrench, paint spray gun, etc.)71582.894.100.833.391.09
Use of laboratory safety equipment (ex. fire extinguishers, eye wash stations, etc.)74592.504.860.384.350.56
Use of fasteners (ex. screws, nails, glue, etc.)74602.394.530.554.000.95
Use of marking tools (ex. chalk line, paint marker, etc.)70612.144.400.673.930.89
Use of personal protective equipment (PPE)74621.854.880.334.500.67
Use of hand tools (ex. screwdriver, hammer, etc.)69631.804.770.464.390.71
Procedures for SMAW (Arc welding)70641.334.230.843.910.88
Procedures for painting projects74650.913.960.783.730.96
Note. Importance Scale: 1 = Not important (NI), 2 = Of little importance (LI), 3 = Somewhat important (SI), 4 = Important (I), 5 = Very important (VI); Competence Scale: 1 = Not competent (NC), 2 = Little competence (LC), 3 = Somewhat competent (SC), 4 = Competent (C), 5 = Very competent (VC); MWDS = Mean weighted discrepancy score; M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation.

Conclusions, Discussion, Recommendations, and Limitations

The purpose of our study was to determine the agricultural mechanics PD needs of early-career Georgia agriculture teachers. Based upon our findings, we concluded that early-career Georgia agriculture teachers have PD needs in all 65 agricultural mechanics items included in our instrument. Consequently, therein lie opportunities for Georgia agricultural education stakeholders to strategically plan and implement a wide range of agricultural mechanics PD sessions that would potentially benefit early-career agriculture teachers throughout the state. More specifically, we further concluded that early-career Georgia agriculture teachers’ agricultural mechanics PD needs relate primarily to welding and metal fabrication. When examining Table 4, numerous items within welding and metal fabrication had high MWDS. Consequently, special consideration must be given to welding and metal fabrication-related items when developing PD sessions for early-career agriculture teachers in Georgia. To maximize the potential to address multiple items within this broad area, we recommend that Georgia agricultural education stakeholders consider facilitating long-duration (i.e., one day-long or longer) PD sessions. Examples of potential PD sessions that could likely address multiple items underneath the welding and metal fabrication umbrella may include beginner-level, skill development-oriented workshops along with more advanced, project-focused workshops.

We did note that the majority of our respondents did perceive all 65 agricultural mechanics items to be important to teach within agricultural education programs. Because agricultural mechanics instruction is popular with students in the state (Georgia Agricultural Education, 2023), we found it reassuring that early-career Georgia agriculture teachers indicated that this subject matter area is important to teach. In contrast, however, many respondents did not identify themselves as either Competent or Very competent on a wide range of the 65 agricultural mechanics items on our research instrument. We found this to be particularly evident with the highly-technical agricultural mechanics items (e.g., Use of computer numerical control [CNC] systems and Procedures for GTAW [TIG welding]) in comparison to the fundamental, introductory-level agricultural mechanics items (e.g., Use of hand tools [ex. screwdriver, hammer, etc.] and Procedures for painting projects). This gap was likely produced via a combination of both limited exposure to agricultural mechanics before entering a university (as was often found by Whitehair et al. [2020]) and limited undergraduate-level agricultural teacher education programming addressing agricultural mechanics.

As Granberry et al. (2023) noted, the credit hours within agricultural teacher education programs intended to prepare pre-service teachers to teach agricultural mechanics remain limited. As such, early-career Georgia agriculture teachers may not be prepared to adequately address their students’ learning needs, which may disrupt to the development of human capital for the state’s agricultural industry. Per HCT (Becker, 1993), investing in professionals’ knowledge and skills (i.e., developing and offering agricultural mechanics PD for early-career agriculture teachers) can produce quantifiable, measurable returns on investment. As agriculture teachers are vital developers of human capital for the agricultural industry (Stripling & Ricketts, 2016), they must be prepared to adequately deliver instruction in agricultural mechanics (Wells & Hainline, 2021).

Regarding further research to support agricultural education programming in Georgia, we recommend that scholars replicate our study with mid- and late-career Georgia agriculture teachers. On a national level, Hainline and Wells (2024) found that agriculture teachers have different agricultural mechanics PD needs based on career phase. Consequently, we believe that Georgia agriculture teachers may likewise have differing agricultural mechanics PD needs based on their respective career phases. Such data would be useful for Georgia agricultural education stakeholders as they work to strategically address agriculture teachers’ technical agriculture knowledge and skill shortcomings.

Regarding limitations of our study, we identified that our response rate (31.3%) was a primary limitation. Ideally, we intended to collect data from all 253 early-career Georgia agriculture teachers. While a response rate of 31.3% is usable, it is certainly not the ideal. However, our response rate was similar to recent national-level studies (Sherman & Sorensen, 2020; Wells & Hainline, 2021), indicating that other scholars are encountering challenges with response rates. A higher response rate in our study would have provided a more complete picture of the agricultural mechanics PD needs that early-career Georgia agriculture teachers have. We further acknowledge that because our study used a census design and we obtained a fairly-low response rate, we cannot generalize our results to all early-career Georgia agriculture teachers.

Both the timing of our data collection and the Qualtrics platform itself may have also served as limitations to potential respondents. Due to the 2023 Georgia National Fair and the 2023 National FFA Convention, many early-career Georgia agriculture teachers were likely traveling with (and supervising) their students while we were collecting data. Consequently, some potential respondents may have attempted to complete our research instrument on their mobile devices (i.e., smartphones). Our research instrument used a two-part, Likert-type scale that required scrolling back and forth as well as up and down. This may have led to some respondents either exiting our research instrument prior to answering all the items or electing to not respond at all. We recommend that scholars who elect to replicate our study carefully consider both data collection timing and the formatting of the research instrument when using Qualtrics.

References

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

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

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.

Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J. W., & Cole, K. L. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001

Georgia Agricultural Education. (2023, July). Georgia agricultural education 2022-2023 annual report. https://www.georgiaffa.org/docs/48404_2022-2023%20Georgia%20Ag%20Ed%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Granberry, T., Blackburn, J. J., & Roberts, R. (2023). The state of agricultural mechanics in the preparation of school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(4), 144-158. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i4.160

Grieman, B. C. (2010). Continuing professional development. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchel, A. L. Ball (Eds.) Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 180-201). The Ohio State University.

Hainline, M. S., & Wells, T.(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

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

McKim, B. R., & Saucier, P. R. (2011). An Excel-based mean weighted discrepancy score calculator. The Journal of Extension, 49(2). https://www.joe.org/joe/2011april/pdf/JOE_v49_2tt8.pdf

Sherman, A., & Sorensen, T. J. (2020). A national examination of the predictors of volunteer utilization in school-based agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.02339

Solomonson, J. K., & Retallick, M. S. (2018). Over the edge: Factors nudging mid-career, school-based agriculture teachers out of the profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04001

Solomonson, J. K., Still, S. M., Maxwell, L. D. (2021). Factors influencing the decision of Illinois school-based agricultural education teachers to remain in the profession. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03121

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

Valdez, E. D., & Johnson, S. (2020). Mismatch? Aligning secondary career and technical education with regional workforce demand. Texas Public Policy Foundation. https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2020/05/05112536/Valdez-Johnson-Workforce-Demand.pdf

Wells, T., & Hainline, M. S. (2021). Examining teachers’ agricultural mechanics professional

development needs: A national study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.02217

Wells, T., Hainline, M. S., Rank, B. D., Sanders, K. W., & Chumbley, S. B. (2021). A regional study of the agricultural mechanics knowledge and skills needed by school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(2), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.02148

Whitehair, R. L., Schramm, K. R. S., Wells, T., & Hainline, M. S. (2020). Preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of agricultural mechanics. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03060