Microsoft Word - 235-Final.docx


Colclasure et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 4, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Blake C. Colclasure, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science, Doane University, 1014 Boswell Ave., Crete, NE 68333, 

blake.colclasure@doane.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-286X  
2. Andrew C. Thoron, Professor and Department Head for Agricultural Education and Communication, Abraham Baldwin 

Agricultural College, ABAC 8, 2802 Moore HWY, Tifton, GA 31793, andrew.thoron@abac.edu,   

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9905-3692 
3. Jack Dempsey, Lecturer in Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Education Bldg., 1310 S 6th 

St, Champaign, IL 61820, jkdemps2@illinois.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1267-6780  
 

1 

 

Factors Relating to Agriculture Teachers’ Perceived Use of 
Instructional Methods 

 
B. C. Colclasure1, A. C. Thoron2, J. Dempsey3 

 
 

  

Abstract 
School-based agricultural education (SBAE) teachers have been encouraged to use a variety of 
instructional methods. Despite teacher education programs covering numerous instructional 
methods and promoting active teaching strategies, prior research has indicated teachers’ 
predominant use of teacher-centered methods. Guided by social cognitive theory, we sought to 
determine relationships between teachers’ use of instructional methods, belief of method 
effectiveness, and teacher characteristics. We developed a web survey and administered it to all 
Florida SBAE teachers. We analyzed 146 usable responses using means, standard deviations, 
frequencies, zero order correlations, and mixed selection step-wise linear regressions. Findings 
indicated the most commonly used teaching methods were lecture-discussion, cooperative learning, 
demonstration, and paired/small group discussion. Teachers believed demonstration and 
cooperative learning to be most effective and debate and role-play least effective. Significant and 
positive correlations were found between belief of method effectiveness and method use for 
lecture-discussion, cooperative learning, demonstration, and paired/small group discussion. 
Regression models revealed similar trends, with the exception of lecture-discussion. We recommend 
pre-service and in-service teacher education programs emphasize the importance of student-
centered instruction. In this effort, facilitators of teacher education programs should recognize the 
positive relationships between teachers’ beliefs of a method’s effectiveness and use of that method.     
 

Keywords 
Social cognitive theory, teacher beliefs, teaching effectiveness, teaching methods 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Developing teachers’ pedagogy is central to pre-service and in-service teacher education and 
professional development. The successful teacher not only has a repertoire of teaching 
strategies but also uses the most appropriate method based on the instructional content, 
student learning goals, and characteristics of students and the environment (Stronge, 2018). 
Agriculture teachers have been encouraged to use a broad array of teaching methods 
(Newcomb et al., 2003; Rayfield et al., 2011), and teacher preparation programs are integral in 
exposing pre-service teachers to the variety of effective instructional methods (Smith et al., 
2015). In fact, most teacher education programs include at least one course specifically on 
teaching methods (Jao, 2017; McLean & Camp, 2000; Peercy & Troyan, 2016). Ball and 
Knobloch (2005) reviewed 40 course syllabi for teaching methods courses and determined 
common methods taught to be the problem-solving approach, discussion, demonstration, and 
field trips.  
 
School-based agricultural education (SBAE) has long highlighted the importance of experiential 
and hands-on learning (Phipps et al., 2008). Student-centered teaching strategies have been 
promoted in agricultural education to improve a variety of learning outcomes (Baker & 
Robinson, 2016; Thoron & Myers, 2011; 2012). However, teacher educators have questioned 
teacher preparedness for implementing active teaching strategies for some time (Crunkilton, 
1976). Furthermore, teachers themselves have identified concerns related to their effective use 
of different teaching methods (Duncan et al., 2006; Stair et al., 2012). Despite the promotion of 
student-centered teaching in SBAE (McLean & Camp, 2000), reports have indicated that 
teachers consistently use underwhelming rates of student-centered instruction compared to 
teacher-centered instruction (Martin & Odubiya, 1991; Smith et al., 2015). This phenomenon 
begs for investigation of factors related to teachers’ use of instructional methods. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
We used social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; 2002) as the theoretical framework to guide 
this study. According to social cognitive theory, human behavior operates through a multi-
dimensional interaction between three influential factors: personal, behavioral, and 
social/environmental (Bandura, 2002; Schunk & Usher, 2019). In the context of teaching, 
teachers’ personal and environmental factors have influence on their teaching behavior (An & 
Meaney, 2015; Chan & Yuen, 2014; Dusick, 1998; Holzberger et al., 2014). Prior research in 
SBAE (Smith et al., 2015; Voges et al., 2020) applied the social cognitive theory to examine 
agriculture teachers’ selection and use of instructional methods. We followed a similar 
approach and investigated the influence of specific personal and environmental factors on the 
behavior of use of instructional methods.  
 
 
 
 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  3 
 

Personal Factors  
 
Personal factors are described by an individual’s cognitions, beliefs, skills, and affects (Schunk & 
Usher, 2019). The influence of numerous personal factors have been investigated toward 
teacher behavior, e.g., pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome et al., 2017), job 
satisfaction (Baluyos et al., 2019), and learning style (Young et al., 2021). Bandura (1997) 
described outcome expectations and self-efficacy as key personal factors. The relationship 
between teachers’ self-efficacy and use of teaching strategies has been well documented 
(Evans et al., 2014; Gibbs, 2003; Holzberger et al. 2014), whereas the impact of teachers’ 
expected outcome of using specific teaching methods have been studied to a lesser extent. 
Outcome expectations of the behavior (e.g., believing how effective an instructional method is) 
may be influenced by teachers’ social/environmental factors (e.g., traditional vs. provisional 
teaching certification), as well as prior reinforcement received after completing the behavior.  
 
Social/Environmental Factors 
 
Social/environmental factors interact with both personal and behavioral factors (Bandura, 
1986; 2002). Characteristics of the teaching environment such as grade level-taught (Oliver et 
al., 2011), administration (Liebowitz & Porter, 2019), access to resources (Mumtaz, 2006), class 
size (Hattie, 2006) and subjective norms (Van Acker et al., 2013), among other factors, can 
influence teaching behavior. In a modified model of the social cognitive theory, Smith et al. 
(2015) included certification type, gender, and length of teaching career as environmental 
factors, as these are “factors in which each individual interacts with their peers influencing their 
social environment” (p. 186).  
 
Behavioral Factors 
 
Teachers’ behavioral factors, such as the selection and use of a teaching method, are a result of 
multi-dimensional interactions between environmental and personal factors. Behavioral factors 
influence future behavior and behavior intention through the response an individual receives 
after a behavior is performed (Zhou & Brown, 2017). Prior studies on SBAE teachers’ use of 
instructional methods report teacher-centered instructional methods as the most commonly 
used (Martin & Odubiya, 1991). Smith et al. (2015) found lecture to be the most used method 
(23.6%), followed by demonstration (15.8%). In a study on early-career, Texas SBAE teachers, 
Voges et al. (2020) found cooperative learning (37.6%), demonstration (32.8%), and lecture 
(32.7%) to be the most frequently used instructional methods. 
 

Purpose 
 
SBAE teachers have been encouraged to use a variety of instructional methods. Despite teacher 
education programs covering many instructional methods and promoting active teaching 
strategies, prior research has indicated teachers’ limited use of active teaching methods. The 
purposes of this study were to establish a baseline for Florida agriculture teachers’ perceived 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  4 
 

use of instructional methods and to explore the influence of personal and environmental 
factors on the use of instructional methods. Findings from this study can be used to inform 
SBAE pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher professional development with the 
goal to increase teachers’ use of a variety of instructional methods, and in particular, active 
teaching methods rooted in the philosophy of agricultural education. The following objectives 
guided this study: 
1. Describe agriculture teachers’ use of instructional methods in agricultural courses.  
2. Describe agriculture teachers’ belief of effectiveness of instructional methods.  
3. Determine the relationships between teacher characteristics (i.e., environmental factors), 

belief of method effectiveness (i.e., personal factor), and perceived use of instructional 
methods (i.e., behavior factor).   

 
Methods 

 
All SBAE teachers in Florida were the target population for this study. From the state’s 
agriculture teacher database, we generated a list of all teacher names, teaching positions, and 
emails. We developed and administered through Qualtrics a survey instrument to collect 
quantitative data. The first section of the instrument collected voluntary participant consent 
and contained a screening question to ensure that respondents were currently teaching SBAE in 
Florida. The second question asked participants to indicate agriculture course areas they were 
currently teaching in from a given list. Next, for each course area that was selected, participants 
were given a list of instructional methods and were asked to indicate the percentage of 
teaching time they used each instructional method. The combined use of teaching methods for 
teaching time was required to be 100%. The list included the name and definition for 12 
common instructional methods and is shown in Table 1. The list was generated by a panel of 
four agricultural education faculty to ensure content validity and was similar to lists generated 
in related studies (Smith et al., 2015; Voges et al., 2020).   
 
  



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  5 
 

Table 1 
 
Instructional Methods and Corresponding Definitions 
Instructional Method 
  

Definition 

Brainstorming....................... Quick and creative analysis of a topic by generating ideas.  
Case Study............................ Actual or hypothetical scenario that require one or more 

decisions or actions.   
Cooperative Learning........... Learner-centered instruction that groups of 3-5 students work 

together on a well-defined learning task.   
Debate.................................. Formal discussion of the pros and cons of an issue in a timed 

format.  
Demonstration......................  Step-by-step explanation and visual example of a procedure or 

practice.  
Experiment........................... An investigation conducted to determine the effects of a 

procedure or device.   
Field Trip..............................  Firsthand observation and study of an off-site business, 

agency, enterprise, or other entity.  
Lecture-Discussion............... Presentation of information and questioning that provides 

students opportunities for interaction with the presenter.  
Paired/Small Group 
Discussion............................  

Structured discussion of a topic by students organized in small 
groups or pairs.  

Resource Person................... Outside guests/experts who are invited to share special 
knowledge, views, or skills.  

Role Play.............................. An acting out of a scenario or situation by students pretending 
to be characters in a scenario.  

Supervised Study.................. Teacher supervision of students as they independently 
examine a reference or information item.  

 
The next section of the survey asked participants to indicate their belief of method 
effectiveness using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not effective at all to 5 = extremely effective) 
for each of the 12 instructional methods. For each course area taught, instructors also indicated 
their degree of confidence teaching the course content through a similar 5-point Likert scale 
(e.g., 1 = not at all confident to 5 = extremely confident). The last section of the survey collected 
respondent demographics: age, gender, years teaching, teaching grade level, and teaching 
certification type.  
 
Survey Delivery and Data Analysis  
 
The survey was administered as a census sample (N = 406 teachers) during the spring 2018 
semester and followed the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al., 2014). A customized email 
was sent to all participants with a link to complete the survey. When responses dropped to 
zero, a reminder email was sent to non-respondents. A second reminder was sent following the 
same method. R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020) was used for data analysis. Data were 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  6 
 

compared between early and late respondents to identify response bias (Lindner et al., 2001) 
and no significant differences were detected. Descriptive statistics in the form of means and 
standard deviations were used to address Objective 1, and frequencies were used to address 
Objective 2. Zero order correlations and mixed selection step-wise linear regressions were used 
to address Objective 3 using the stats package. An a priori alpha significance was established at 
.05. 
 

Findings 
 
We received 183 responses, a response rate of 45.1%. Of the 183 responses, 30 were 
incomplete and seven responders did not meet the criteria to complete the survey, resulting in 
146 usable responses. Table 2 illustrates respondent characteristics.  
 
Table 2  
 
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n = 146) 
Demographic Variable n % 
Gender   
  Male 58 39.7 
  Female  87 59.6 
Age   
  20 to 30  38 26.0 
  31 to 40 32 21.9 
  41 to 50 40 27.4 
  Older than 50 35 24.0 
Highest Degree Level Earned    
  Bachelor’s Degree 96 65.8 
  Master’s Degree 46 31.5 
  Doctoral Degree 3 2.1 
Years Teaching Experience   
  Less than 5 years 43 29.5 
  Five to 15 years 42 28.8 
  More than 15 years 61 41.8 
Certification Type    
  Traditional Agriculture Teaching Certification   48 32.9 
  Provisional Agriculture Teaching Certification 86 58.9 
  Unsure  11 7.5 

 
Teachers reported teaching courses in the following areas: Introduction to Agriculture (n = 112); 
Animal Science (n = 73); Plant Systems / Horticulture (n = 57); Agribusiness (n = 29); Agricultural 
Mechanics (n = 26); Environmental Sciences / Natural Resource Management (n = 26); Food 
Products (n = 25); and, Biotechnology (n = 18).  
 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  7 
 

Objective 1 
 
Objective 1 was to describe teachers’ perceived use of instructional methods. Teachers 
indicated their use of each instructional method for each course taught, and use of each 
method was averaged across all courses for each teacher. Teachers reported using lecture-
discussion the most often (M = 30.3%; SD = 18.9). Cooperative learning was found to have the 
second highest mean percentage (M = 16.3%; SD = 14.23), followed by demonstration (M = 
12.23%; SD = 8.55) and paired/small group discussion (M = 11.68%; SD = 9.09). Resource 
person, debate, field trip, case study, and role play had the lowest perceived uses, with mean 
percentages below 3%. Table 3 displays agriculture teachers’ perceived use of instructional 
methods as a percentage of allocated class time. 
 
Table 3   
 
Teachers’ Perceived Use of Instructional Method by Percent Class Time 
Instructional Method Mean SD 
Lecture-Discussion 30.28 18.91 
Cooperative Learning 16.26 14.23 
Demonstration 12.23 8.55 
Paired/Small Group Discussion 11.68 9.09 
Experiment 6.70 7.39 
Supervised Study  6.64 9.51 
Brainstorming 5.50 6.17 
Resource Person (e.g., Guest Speaker) 2.77 4.16 
Debate 2.61 3.73 
Field Trip 2.59 4.44 
Case Study 2.09 3.66 
Role Play 0.64 2.13 

 
Objective 2 
 
Objective 2 was to describe teachers’ belief of effectiveness of each instructional method. 
Results indicated that teachers believed demonstration to be the most effective, with 78.8% of 
teachers believing demonstration to be very effective or extremely effective. Teachers also 
perceived cooperative learning to be highly effective, with 74% of teachers believing the 
method to be very effective or extremely effective. Other methods showing an overall high 
belief of effectiveness were experiment, field trip, supervised study, and paired/small group 
discussion. More than half of teachers believed lecture, case study, brainstorming, and debate 
to be moderately effective or slightly effective. Role play had the lowest perceived 
effectiveness with 11.6% (n = 17) of teachers believing the method is not effective at all, and 
30.8% (n = 45) believing that it is only slightly effective. Table 4 displays frequencies for 
teachers’ belief of effectiveness of each instructional method.   
 
 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  8 
 

Table 4 
 
Frequency of Teachers’ Belief of Effectiveness by Instructional Method  
 Not effective 

at all 
Slightly 

effective 
Moderately 

effective 
Very 

effective 
Extremely 
effective 

Instructional Method f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) f (%) 
Demonstration - 3 (2.1) 28 (19.2) 76 (52.1) 39 (26.7) 
Cooperative Learning 1 (0.7) 6 (4.1) 31 (21.2) 75 (51.4) 33 (22.6) 
Experiment - 6 (4.1) 37 (25.3) 76 (52.1) 27 (18.5) 
Field Trip 2 (1.4) 10 (6.8) 37 (25.3) 63 (43.2) 32 (21.9) 
Supervised Study 1 (0.7) 9 (6.2) 48 (32.9) 65 (44.5) 22 (15.1) 
Paired/Small Group 
   Discussion 

- 8 (5.5) 54 (37.0) 71 (48.6) 13 (8.9) 

Resource Person/Guest 1 (0.7) 9 (6.2) 53 (36.3) 66 (45.2) 17 (11.6) 
Lecture-Discussion - 13 (8.9) 63 (43.2) 62 (42.5) 8 (5.5) 
Case Study 5 (3.4) 14 (9.6) 67 (45.9) 46 (31.5) 12 (8.2) 
Brainstorming 1 (0.7) 23 (15.8) 69 (47.3) 44 (30.1) 9 (6.2) 
Debate 2 (1.4) 28 (19.2) 64 (43.8) 45 (30.8) 6 (4.1) 
Role Play 17 (11.6) 45 (30.8) 53 (36.3) 23 (15.8) 6 (4.1) 

 
Objective 3 
 
Objective 3 was to test for relationships between teacher characteristics, belief of method 
effectiveness, and perceived use of instructional methods. Zero order correlations were first 
used to analyze associations between teacher demographics, confidence teaching subject 
matter, instructional method use, and belief of method effectiveness. The four most commonly 
used teaching methods reported in Objective 1 were used in our analysis. These methods were 
lecture-discussion, demonstration, cooperative learning, and paired/small group discussion. 
 
Several significant correlations were found, all of which can be interpreted between a low and 
medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). More years teaching was associated with less use of 
paired/small group discussion (r = -.199, p = .037) and teaching higher grade levels was 
associated with higher use of demonstration (r = .190, p = .047). Higher reported confidence 
teaching subject matter was positively associated with belief in effectiveness for all methods 
except for cooperative learning (lecture-discussion: r = .279, p = .003; demonstration: r = .211, p 
= .027; paired/small group discussion: r = .253, p = .008). Pearson coefficients and 
corresponding p-values are reported in Table 5.  
 
  
  



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  9 
 

Table 5 
 
Zero Order Correlations for Teacher Demographics, Confidence Teaching Subject Matter, 
Method Use, and Belief of Method Effectiveness  
 
Variable 

Lecture-
Discussion 

 
Demonstration 

Cooperative 
Learning 

P/S Group 
Discussion 

 Use Effect. Use Effect. Use Effect. Use Effect. 
Age -.017 -.115 .026 .112 .017 -.103 -.134 -.116 
Gender (Female) -.008 -.025 .028 -.182 -.034 .142 .013 -.007 
Years Teaching .074 -.033 .056 .154 -.012 -.107 -.199* -.117 
Advanced Degree -.161 -.037 .035 .101 .019 -.024 -.051 .066 
Traditional Cert. -.059 -.075 .160 .146 -.084 -.102 -.032 -.081 
Grade Level (HS) -.036 .075 .190* .176 -.021 -.066 -.122 .087 
Confidence -.015 .279* .035 .211* .068 .022 .014 .253* 

Note. * p < .05 
 
Zero order correlations were used to determine associations between method use and belief of 
method effectiveness. Most notably, positive and significant correlations were found between 
belief in method effectiveness and method use for each respective method type (lecture-
discussion: r = .250, p = .008; demonstration: r = .300, p = .002; cooperative learning: r = .334, p 
< .001; paired/small group discussion r = .301, p = .001). The found associations can be 
interpreted as approximately, medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Three other significant 
correlations were found. These correlations indicated negative relationships between belief of 
method effectiveness and method use, but notably, between different method types (e.g., 
lecture-discussion use and belief of effectiveness of paired/small group discussion; r = -.278, p = 
.003). Zero order correlations between method use and belief of method effectiveness are 
reported in Table 6. 
 
Table 6 
 
Zero Order Correlations between Method Use and Belief of Method Effectiveness 
 
Method Use  

Belief of Method Effectiveness 
Lecture-

Discussion 
 

Demonstration 
Cooperative 

Learning 
P/S Group 
Discussion 

Lecture-Discussion .250* -.135 -.199* -.278* 
Demonstration -.085 .300* -.027 .003 
Cooperative Learning  .079 -.147 .334* .127 
P/S Group Discussion  -.244* .011 .147 .301* 

Note. * p < .05 
 
To provide a visual summary of the relationship between teachers’ belief of method 
effectiveness and percentage of use of the most commonly used methods found in our study, 
boxplots were made and are shown in Figure 1.  



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  10 
 

Figure 1 
 
Boxplots Showing Percentage of Time Spent Teaching in Each Method Based on Teacher Belief 
in Said Method’s Effectiveness.  
 

 
Note. All models reveal a positive trend such that as belief in effectiveness increases, the 
percentage of time used teaching in that method also increases. 
 
In addition to zero order correlations, mixed selection stepwise regressions were fit to average 
use data for the four most commonly used methods in our study. Predictor variables treated as 
continuous were teacher age, years teaching, belief of method effectiveness, and confidence 
teaching the subject matter. Predictor variables treated as binary were gender (male = 0, 
female = 1), degree level (bachelor’s degree = 0, graduate degree = 1), teaching grade level 
(middle school = 0, high school = 1), and certification type (provisional = 0, traditional = 1). The 
full model also included interactions between beliefs in effectiveness and all other predictors.   
 
The model fit to lecture-discussion use data revealed a single significant predictor of graduate 
degree such that those who did not hold graduate degrees used the lecture-discussion method 
more than those who did (Adj. R2 = .14, F [6, 103] = 2.688, p = .018). The model fit to 
demonstration use data revealed several significant predictors. Belief of method effectiveness 
was a significant predictor, as well as gender, such that males were overall less likely to report 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  11 
 

using the demonstration method. Additionally, a significant and positive interaction effect 
between belief in effectiveness and gender was revealed, such that reported use was higher in 
males compared to females when considering higher beliefs in effectiveness (Adj. R2 = .126, F 
[11, 98] = 2.425, p = .01). The models fit to cooperative learning use (Adj. R2 = .103, F [1, 108] = 
13.54, p < .001) and paired/small group discussion use (Adj. R2 = .12, F [5, 104] = 3.837, p = 
.003) both revealed belief in effectiveness as a significant predictor such that a higher belief in 
effectiveness predicted a higher use of each method. The significant predictors for each of the 
four final models are reported in Table 7. 
 
Table 7   
 
Regression Model Outputs for Factors Predicting Higher Method Use by Method Type 

Model Significant Predictors Estimate SE t p ηp2 
Model 1 
  Demonstration 

 
Effectiveness 

 
8.76 

 
3.57 

 
2.45 

 
.02 

 
0.08 

 Gender (Female) 22.37 8.57 2.61 .01 0.10 
 Effectiveness*Gender -6.29 2.56 -2.46 .02 .058 
Model 2 
  Lecture-Discussion  

 
Degree (Graduate) 

 
-7.75 

 
3.68 

 
-2.11 

 
.04 

 
.041 

Model 3 
  Cooperative Learning 
Model 4 

 
Effectiveness 

 
6.29 

 
1.71 

 
3.68 

 
< .01 

 
.111 

  P/S Group Discussion Effectiveness 16.76 7.96 2.11 .04 .091 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
Findings from our study provide baseline data for Florida agriculture teachers’ use of 
instructional methods and belief of method effectiveness. Our findings show that teachers 
reported using lecture-discussion the most often (30.3%), followed by cooperative learning 
(16.3%), demonstration (12.2%), and paired/small group discussion (11.7%). Least used were 
role play (<1%) and case study (2.1%). The dispersion of method use, with teacher-centered 
methods being highly used, support the findings from similar studies in other states (Martin & 
Odubiya, 1991; Smith et al., 2015; Voges et al., 2020). Florida agriculture teachers reported the 
highest belief in method effectiveness for demonstration, cooperative learning, and the use of 
experiments. These results align with Smith et al. (2015) who found teachers believed 
demonstration and experiments to be the most effective.    
 
According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; 2002), interactions exist between 
personal, environmental, and behavioral factors. We found several significant correlations 
between demographic factors and method use, and between demographic factors and belief of 
method effectiveness. More years teaching was associated with less use of paired/small group 
discussion, teaching high school was associated with higher use of demonstration, and higher 
confidence teaching subject matter was associated with higher belief in effectiveness for all 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  12 
 

methods except cooperative learning. More robust, significant correlations were found 
between teachers’ belief of method effectiveness and use of the same method for lecture-
discussion, cooperative learning, demonstration, and paired/small group discussion. Other 
significant correlations between these variables were negative. For example, higher belief in 
the effectiveness of cooperative learning was associated with less use of lecture-discussion.    
 
Follow-up regression models supported our overall observations that belief of a method’s 
effectiveness is positively associated with that method’s use. Belief of a method’s effectiveness 
was a significant predictor for the use of cooperative learning, demonstration, and paired/small 
group discussion. The regression analysis did not yield a significant interaction of belief in 
lecture-discussion effectiveness and average reported lecture-discussion use; so the significant 
correlation found may be due to other latent factors. These results may suggest that the use of 
lecture-discussion does not necessarily depend on teachers’ beliefs in that method’s 
effectiveness. Graduate education was the single significant predictor of use for lecture-
discussion, such as teachers who held graduate degrees used lecture-discussion less often. 
Interestingly, teachers’ age and certification type were not significantly associated with the use 
of a particular teaching method in any of our analyses.  
 
Results of this study provide strong evidence toward the positive relationship between 
teachers’ beliefs of a teaching method’s effectiveness and their level of use of that method. 
This finding is valuable to guide pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, 
particularly programs designed to encourage teachers to use specific instructional methods to 
meet learning objectives and student characteristics (Newcomb et al., 2003). This study is 
limited in that: (a) we measured teachers’ perceptions of their retroactive use of teaching 
methods in lieu of physical observations; (b) our respondents’ interpretation of teaching 
methods, although guided by given definitions, could have varied; (c) our results do not 
necessarily illustrate cause and effect, but rather infer associations between variables, and (d) 
our results are limited to the state of Florida. We recommend future research to seek why 
teachers believe some methods are more effective than others. Additional research that 
examines why teachers utilize lecture-discussion more than other methods would be beneficial, 
as teacher-centered instruction remains highly used in SBAE. Lastly, we recommend replication 
of this study or conducting similar studies on a state-by-state basis or on a national level. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We would like to thank the Florida SBAE teachers who participated in our study. 
  
Author Contribution Statement 
B. Colclasure – writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, investigation, methodology, 
formal analysis, conceptualization; T. Thoron – writing-review and editing, investigation, 
methodology, conceptualization; J. Dempsey – writing-original draft, writing-review and 
editing, formal analysis 
 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  13 
 

References 
 
An, J., & Meaney, K. S. (2015). Inclusion practices in elementary physical education: A social-

cognitive perspective. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 
62(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.998176 

 
Baker, M. A., & Robinson, J. S. (2016). The effects of Kolb’s experiential learning model on 

successful intelligence in secondary agriculture students. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 57(3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03129 

 
Ball, A. L., & Knobloch, N. A. (2005). A document analysis of the pedagogical knowledge 

espoused in agriculture teaching methods courses. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
46(2), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02047 

 
Baluyos, G. R., Rivera, H. L., & Baluyos, E. L. (2019). Teachers’ job satisfaction and work 

performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(8), 206–221. 
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.78015 

 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.  
 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. 

Prentice-Hall.  
 
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman 

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 121–153). Erlbaum.  
 
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-

fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69–77. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003 

 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence 

Erlbaum.  
 
Crunkilton, J. R. (1976). Undergraduate methods courses – teaching our teachers to teach? 

Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 17(2), 15–18. 
https://www.jae-online.org/attachments/article/1175/Crunkilton,J_Vol17_2_15-18.pdf 

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

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  
 
Duncan, D. W., Ricketts, J. C., Peake, J. B., & Uesseler, J. (2006). Teacher preparation and in-

service needs of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 
24–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02024 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  14 
 

Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members’ use of computers 
for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 
123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1998.10782246 

 
Evans, R. H., Luft, J. A., Czerniak, C. M., & Pea, C. H. (2014). The role of science teachers’ beliefs 

in international classrooms. Sense Publishers.  
 
Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. 

(2017). 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 

 
Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: Self-efficacy and thought control of action. 

Journal of Education Enquiry, 4(2), 1–14. 
https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/EDEQ/article/download/520/390 

 
Hattie, J. (2006). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. 

International Journal of Education Research, 43(6), 387–425. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.07.002 

 
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2014). Predicting teachers’ instructional behaviors: 

The interplay between self-efficacy and intrinsic needs. Contemporary Educational 
Psychology, 39(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.001 

 
Jao, L. (2017). Shifting pre-service teachers’ beliefs about mathematics teaching: The contextual 

situation of a mathematics methods course. International Journal of Science and 
Mathematics Education, 15(5), 895–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9719-9 

 
Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and 

school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. 
Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319866133 

 
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 

 
Martin, R. A., & Odubiya, A. O. (1991). Perceptions of Iowa vocational agriculture teachers 

regarding methods used in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
32(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1991.01013 

 
McLean, R. C., & Camp, W. G. (2000). An examination of selected preservice agricultural teacher 

education programs in the United States. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(2), 25–
35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2000.02025 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  15 
 

Mumtaz, S. (2006). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications 
technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher 
Education, 9(3), 319-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096 

 
Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., Warmbrod, J. R., & Whittington, M. S. (2003). Methods of 

teaching agriculture (3rd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.  
 
Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Reschly, D. J. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: 

Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 
1–55. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2011.4 

 
Peercy, M. M., & Troyan, F. J. (2016). Making transparent the challenges of developing a 

practice-based pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 26–
36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.005 

 
Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook on agricultural education in 

public schools (6th ed.). Thomas Delmar Learning.  
 
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for 
 Statistical Computing. 
 
Rayfield, J., Croom, B., Stair, K., & Murray, K. (2011). Differentiating instruction in high school 

agricultural education courses: A baseline study. Career and Technical Education 
Research, 36(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter36.3.171 

 
Schunk, D., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The 

Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.  
 
Smith, K. L, Rayfield, J. & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM integration: 

Describing teacher perceptions and instructional method use. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 56(4), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183 

 
Stair, K. S., Warner, W. J., & Moore, G. E. (2012). Identifying concerns of preservice and in-

service teachers in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(2), 153–
164. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.02153 

 
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd. ed.). Association for Supervision and 

Curriculum Development. 
 
Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2011). Effects of inquiry-based agriscience instruction on student 

achievement. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 175–187. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04175 

 



Colclasure et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235  16 
 

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

 
Van Acker, F., Van Buuren, H., Kreijns, K., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Why teachers use digital 

learning materials: The role of self-efficacy, subjective norm and attitude. Education and 
Information Technologies, 18, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9181-9 

 
Voges, S., Rayfield, J., Doss, W., Lawver, D., & Ritz, R. (2020). A comparison of early career and 

agricultural teacher training received, current practices and perceptions of instructional 
methods. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 182–193. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03182 

 
Young, H., Coleman, B. M., Jagger, C., Sweet Moore, P., & Bunch, J. C. (2021). Exploring the 

preferred learning style of preservice teachers and how this influences their philosophy 
of teaching. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 2(2), 97–109. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131 

 
Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (Eds.). (2017). Educational learning theories. 

https://libguides.daltonstate.edu/TeachingLearning 
 
 
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).