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/).