Tag

professional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Clemons, Auburn University, cac0132@auburn.edu

Jason McKibben, Auburn University, jdm0184@auburn.edu

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

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

PDF Available

Abstract

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

Introduction and Review of Literature

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

Facilitating Understanding

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

Adaptability

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

Building Credibility

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

Effective planning

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

Agricultural Education Teacher Professional Development Systems

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

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

Conceptual Framework

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

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

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

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


Table 2

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

Purpose and Objectives

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

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

Findings

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

Table 3
Socio-demographic Characteristics of Participants

Objective One: Professional Development Needs in the Seven Career Pathways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions & Implications

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

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

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

Recommendations for Future Research

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional Development Needs of Tennessee School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers

Danielle E. Sanok, Christopher T. Stripling, Carrie A. Stephens, John C. Ricketts, Christopher M. Estepp, & Nathan W. Conner
School-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers feel the skills and knowledge they bring into the classroom may be inadequate for providing their students with the tools needed to face the changing world. The purpose of this study was to explore the professional development needs of Tennessee school-based agricultural education teachers. In addition, this study sought to determine if differences existed in the professional development needs of Tennessee school-based agricultural education teachers based on selected demographic variables. The sample for this descriptive study was 127 SBAE teachers in Tennessee. The researchers modified an existing survey instrument and used descriptive statistics to describe the demographic data and professional development delivery preferences. To describe the professional…

Read More