Microsoft Word - 71-Manuscript-857-1-11-20201209.docx


Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 3, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Eric D. Rubenstein, Associate Professor, University of Georgia, 405 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602, 
erubenstein@uga.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8799-2502  

2. Carolyn A. Copenheaver, Associate Professor, Virginia Tech, 310 West Campus Dr., Blacksburg, VA 24061, 
ccopenhe@vt.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1778-3593 

3. Jason B. Peake, Professor, University of Georgia, 405 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602, jpeake@uga.edu, 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1431-5447    

 
81 

 

Improving Forestry Secondary Education: Identifying Teachers’ 
Needs 

E. Rubenstein1, C. Copenheaver2, J. Peake3 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Industrial, technological, and societal changes require that teachers continually engage in 
professional learning activities that promote new scientific approaches in education and content. 
Providing teachers with current and relevant professional development is an important task in 
secondary education. This study identified the professional development needs for educators who 
teach forestry and forest ecosystem content to secondary students. The Delphi method employed 
with two participant groups investigated the diversity of thought held throughout the southeastern 
United States. Participants included agriculture and environmental science teachers, state 
department of education administrators, foresters, and environmental scientists. Participants report 
eleven areas of educational need: 1. Forestry career days, 2. Tree diseases and pathogens, 3. 
Graduation requirements limit student opportunities for electives, 4. Career counseling in forestry 
jobs, 5. Educate students about degrees needed for forestry careers, 6. Over commitment of 
students enrolled in extra-curricular activities, 7. Lack of foundational forestry knowledge, 8. Lack of 
forestry /agriculture programs in schools, 9. Develop forestry electives in middle school, 10. Lack of 
foundational forest management knowledge, and 11. Connect classroom content with FFA and 
Envirothon extra-curricular activities.  

 
Keywords 
forestry education, professional development, Delphi method, classroom instruction 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  82 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Undergraduate forestry programs in the United States have experienced a steady decline in 
enrollment over the past three decades, which corresponds with a reciprocal increase in 
enrollment in environmental studies programs (Sharik et al., 2015). A challenge for recruiting 
students into forestry programs is the perception that forestry courses are less welcoming to 
women and minorities than environmental studies programs (Rouleau et al., 2017). This 
reduction in students pursuing forestry degrees coincides with a peak in employment 
opportunities for recent forestry graduates (Connaughton, 2015), which leaves forestry 
undergraduate programs struggling with recruitment of students and looking towards 
secondary educators as a pipeline for potential forestry students. Most secondary science and 
agriculture educators identify forestry as an important topic in their classes; however, the 
likelihood of including forestry content in the classroom directly relates with teacher’s 
confidence and familiarity with the discipline (Munsell et al., 2016).  
 
Agriculture and environmental science teachers have a continuing need for in-service training 
ensuring that they are current with industry standards (Barrick et al., 1983). Pre-service and in-
service trainings needed by teachers to keep them current on industry specific competencies, 
however it is difficult identifying what trainings are most appropriate (Peake et al., 2007). 
Teaching is not a routine job and as technology advances teachers must be continually 
retrained especially, in a rapidly changing global environment (Darling-Hammond, 2006). 
Forestry equipment will advance substantially over the 30-year span of an educator’s teaching 
career and thus mandates the need for continuous professional development. Therefore, this 
study examines the professional development needs of educators assisting with increasing their 
abilities to teach forestry concepts and encourage students to enter the forestry profession. 
 
The relevant forestry industry knowledge that students and their teachers must know is 
reflected in the state standards which are based on industry practices. The state(s) forestry 
standards advance in conjunction with forestry industry technology. Teachers become outdated 
with regards to both industry validated agricultural curricula and the state standards 
simultaneously.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Using the conceptual framework developed by Roberts and Ball (2009), the researchers in this 
study sought to improve forestry secondary education by identifying teachers’ needs. The 
conceptual model for teaching agriculture as a content and context ensures all stakeholders in a 
community and school are engaged in the learning process, developing an educational 
curriculum to meet industrial and societal needs (see Figure 1). Specifically, this study examines 
educators’ needs in development of an integrated curriculum in forestry. The educators’ 
knowledge of the specific content area is vital for ensuring the correct skills, knowledge, and 
competencies have been taught to learners.  
 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  83 
 

This conceptual framework requires the integrated curriculum incorporate both content 
substantiated in the current industrial practices and within the context of the industry. The 
integrated curriculum should incorporate knowledge across all core subject areas and ensure 
that specific industry-based skills have been corroborated by industry experts. This integrated 
curriculum can then be taught through a process of a facilitated learning environment between 
the learner and the educator. This process of instruction prepares learners entering a skilled 
workforce and become a forestry advocate who values lifelong learning. This conceptual model 
guided the creation of the research questions for this study. 
 
Figure 1  
 
A conceptual model for teaching agriculture as a content and context (Roberts & Ball, 2009) 
 

 
 
 

Purpose 
 
The National Research Agenda reports that the agricultural education profession must continue 
examining the preparation of a sufficient workforce ready to address the challenging and 
complex problems of the 21st century. The purpose of this study was to examine the 
professional development needs of educators in teaching forestry concepts in their classrooms 
in Georgia and Virginia. The research question posed to participants was “What are educators’ 
areas of concern with teaching forestry and forest ecosystems?” The objective guiding this 
study is identifying the professional development needs for teaching forestry and forest 
ecosystem content to secondary students.  
 
 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  84 
 

Methods 
 
To collect the necessary data from educators, the researchers employed the Delphi method. 
The Delphi method is employed in a true (stakeholders meet in person) and in a modified 
(online survey) format in agricultural education research (Franklin, 2011; Myers & Thompson, 
2009; Robinson & Edwards, 2011; Rubenstein & Thoron, 2014). To collect stakeholder opinions, 
the Delphi method has been proven as an effective method (Landeta, 2006; Okoli & Pawlowski, 
2004). Social scientists use focus groups as the qualitative tools for conducting this type of 
research (Sussman et al., 1991, Krueger & Casey, 2008).  
 
Participants 
A true Delphi method is employed in this study allowing participants to meet face-to-face and 
share their thoughts and opinions on their professional development needs. The Delphi panel 
size should include a minimum of four people and that the panel’s composition should depend 
on the expert’s qualifications and demographics rather than a simple count (Thangaratinam & 
Redman, 2005). This study was conducted in two locations ensuring that educators’ concerns of 
different geographical areas were heard and recorded. Session one consists of six panelists who 
were high school forestry teachers and state Department of Education administrators from 
Georgia. Session two consists of 17 panelists who were educators, foresters, cooperative 
extension agent, and Career and Technical Education Directors from Virginia. During the study, 
two participant groups were examined to investigate the diversity of thought held throughout 
the southeast region of the United States. Specifically, teachers were included from various 
geographical areas, because inservice teachers’ professional development needs vary within 
the same state or between neighboring states (Washburn et al., 2001). 
 
Data Collection 
To engage the participants in the discussion, the researchers composed the following lead 
question, “What are educators’ areas of concern with teaching forestry and forest 
ecosystems?” The dialogue was led by a trained discussion leader who kept the conversation 
flowing and would ask appropriate probing questions ensuring each idea was clearly 
documented. During the discussion, a recorder typed each item into a word processing 
program, while a scribe wrote each item on large post-it sheets, clearly visible for all research 
participants. 
 
During the first round, participants responded to the lead question by sharing their ideas, 
without commenting on previous participants comments. At the end of the first round all of the 
items were compiled, and each participant rated each item, on an electronic device using a 
Qualtrics survey. Each item was rated using a five-point Likert scale based on their 
belief/perceived level of importance that this item should be included in a professional 
development session on forestry and forest ecosystems. At the end of each round the 
participants were given a report of the mean scores. During the second round, participants 
discussed the potential of adding new items, combining existing items, and removing items 
from the list. For items to be removed or combined the discussion leader would ensure 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  85 
 

consensus before taking any action on the item. An a priori score was set at a mean of 4.0 for 
the professional development items to be considered in the final data reporting and 
professional development sessions. To standardize each panelist’s responses, the researchers 
used a z-score to create an index value for each item and establish the top areas of concerns by 
environmental and agricultural education educators in Georgia and Virginia. The researchers do 
note a limitation in the use of z-scores for this study because of the small sample size in Session 
one (n = 7). However, due to the homogeneity of the participants, the researchers found a 
normal distribution in their responses deeming the use of z-scores effective. 
 

Findings 
 
All of the participants had teaching experience in the middle school, high school, or collegiate 
classroom. The participants had been in the education profession between six and 31 years. 
Each of the participants taught forestry or forestry ecosystem content as a portion of their 
courses. The researchers specifically selected each of the participants based on their level of 
experience and background, ensuring that a thorough sample of the teaching profession was 
selected and created a robust list of concerns relevant to educators at all experience levels. 
 
During Session one, the participants identified 48 professional development needs of teachers 
to effectively instruct students on forestry and forest ecosystems. Following round two, the 
panel narrowed the list to 27 items, reducing redundancies and eliminating items that had not 
reached consensus. Following the second round, the top four items were: tree diseases and 
disorders (M = 4.80, SD = 0.45), timber stand improvement/foundational knowledge (M = 4.60, 
SD = 0.55), forest management (M = 4.60, SD = 0.55), and FFA state forestry field exam (M = 
4.60, SD = 0.55). At the end of the process, 14 items achieved a mean score above the a priori 
level of 4.0 (see Table 1).  
 
Table 1 
 
Round Two – Levels of Agreement: Professional Development Needs in Forestry and Forest 

Ecosystems (Session One) 

Item M SD 

Trees diseases and disorders  4.80 0.45 

Timber stand improvement/foundational knowledge 4.60 0.55 

Forest management 4.60 0.55 

FFA state forestry field exam (match curriculum) 4.60 0.55 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  86 
 

Item M SD 

Maintenance and use of forestry equipment  4.40 0.89 

Forestry equipment 4.40 0.55 

GPS/GIS 4.20 0.45 

Career opportunities in forestry 4.20 0.84 

Regional differences in teaching forestry, pine vs. hardwood markets 4.00 1.00 

Timber harvesting, sawmill, hydraulics, 4.00 1.22 

Best management practices for forestry 4.00 0.00 

Tree identification and collection of samples 4.00 0.71 

How to teach forestry concepts that are not exact 4.00 1.22 

FFA contest, regional differences 4.00 1.73 

 
During Session two, the participants compiled a list of 93 professional development needs to 
effectively teach forestry and forest ecosystems. At the end of the second round the needs 
were reduced to 80 items by removing redundancies and those that received less than the a 
priori mean of a 4.0. The top four items on the list were: professional career speakers (M = 4.88, 
SD = 0.33), graduation requirements limit electives (M = 4.71, SD = 0.47), career counseling/job 
fairs in forestry (M = 4.71, SD = 0.47), educate students about degrees needs for forestry career 
(M = 4.71, SD = 0.47). At the conclusion of round two, 54 items received a mean average above 
the a priori level of 4.0 (see Table 2). 
 
Table 2 
 
Round 2 – Levels of Agreement: Professional Development Needs in Forestry and Forest 
Ecosystems (Session 2) 
Items M SD 

Professional career speakers  4.88 0.33 

Graduation requirements limit electives  4.71 0.47 

Career counseling/job fairs in forestry 4.71 0.47 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  87 
 

Items M SD 

Educate students about degrees needed for forestry careers 4.71 0.47 

Over commitment of students to sports/vacation/jobs 4.71 0.59 

Lack of background knowledge 4.65 0.86 

Lack of forestry /agriculture programs in schools 4.65 0.61 

Have forestry electives in middle school 4.65 0.61 

Better community engagement by forestry professionals 4.59 0.62 

Time management/proper instruction planning 4.53 0.51 

Forestry/Environmental Science related clubs  4.53 1.01 

High school internships with local conservation/forestry professionals  4.53 0.72 

Lack of bus and transportation funding 4.47 0.72 

Overall disconnect of students with the outdoors 4.47 0.87 

Making forestry cross-curricular 4.47 0.51 

Connection among elementary, middle, and high school curriculum 4.47 0.72 

College-bound students not seen as who should be taking forestry classes 4.47 0.72 

Reaching out to students on social media to educate about forestry 4.47 0.80 

How to change negative public perception of forestry 4.41 1.00 

Have Cooperative Extension agents visit classrooms 4.41 0.71 

More time for teacher curricular planning 4.41 0.80 

Reaching young kids to direct students towards forestry classes 4.41 0.80 

Understanding the impact of local environmental issues  4.41 0.71 

 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  88 
 

Items M SD 

Administration doesn't value subject matter (forestry and forest 

ecosystems) 4.35 1.06 

Lack of funding for student organizations/club activities 4.35 0.86 

Connect learning standards to forestry content 4.35 0.79 

Teachers from urban areas lack foundational knowledge  4.35 0.79 

Lack of collaboration between Science and Ag Ed program in school 4.29 0.92 

Administration viewing forestry as a lower level science 4.29 0.85 

No forestry or agriculture classes offered at high school level 4.29 1.10 

Grant opportunities  4.29 0.92 

Connect forestry four-year degree programs with community colleges 4.29 0.59 

Professional development for teachers across disciplines 4.29 0.92 

More scholarships for forestry bachelor degrees 4.29 0.92 

Students not interested in summer camps designed for forestry 4.29 0.77 

Improve parental education about careers in forestry  4.29 0.77 

Administrative removal of students from forestry classes for advising  4.24 0.83 

Substitute teachers to allow teachers to plan/develop new materials 4.24 0.97 

Better environmental education opportunities 4.24 1.03 

Create state position to recruit and educate high school students in 

forestry 4.24 1.09 

Increase forestry professionals on state curriculum review boards 4.19 1.05 

Teacher stipend for students clubs 4.18 1.07 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  89 
 

Items M SD 

Increase state agencies funding for forestry education 4.18 1.07 

Lack of forest teaching areas 4.12 1.05 

Perceived lack of fit between learning standards and forestry 4.12 0.93 

Administrative removal of student from forestry classes for remediation 4.12 0.86 

Forestry/environmental science scholarships connected with science fairs 4.12 1.05 

Push towards STEM - not connected well to forestry  4.12 0.99 

Improve day care/after school programs outdoor education programing 4.06 1.06 

Money to purchase teaching equipment 4.06 1.20 

Middle and high school students make career choices late in program 4.06 1.03 

Improve 4-H programs in forestry 4.06 0.90 

Lack of connection between learning standards and forestry content  4.00 0.94 

 
From Sessions one and two, 107 items were reported by the participants of the information 
sharing sessions. At the conclusion of data collection, the results were compiled and a ranking 
of the z-scores identified the top 13 areas of concern from environmental and agricultural 
education educators in Georgia and Virginia. The top five concern areas were: professional 
career speakers (z = 2.52); graduation requirements limit electives (z = 1.70); career 
counseling/job fairs in forestry (z = 1.70); education students about degrees needed for forestry 
careers (z = 1.70); and over commitment of students to sports/vacation/jobs (z = 1.70) (see 
Table 3). 
 
  



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  90 
 

Table 3 
 
Professional Development Needs Ranked by Z-score Combined from Session 1 and 2 
Item M SD z Session 

Professional career speakers 4.88 0.33 2.52 2 

Graduation requirements limit electives  4.71 0.47 1.70 2 

Career counseling/job fairs in forestry 4.71 0.47 1.70 2 

Educate students about degrees needed for forestry careers 4.71 0.47 1.70 2 

Over commitment of students to sports/vacation/jobs 4.71 0.59 1.70 2 

Trees diseases and disorders 4.8 0.45 1.48 1 

Lack of background knowledge 4.65 0.86 1.41 2 

Lack of forestry /agriculture programs in schools 4.65 0.61 1.41 2 

Have forestry electives in middle school 4.65 0.61 1.41 2 

Timber stand improvement/foundational knowledge 4.6 0.55 1.23 1 

Forest management 4.6 0.55 1.23 1 

FFA state forestry field exam (match curriculum) 4.6 0.55 1.23 1 

Better community engagement by forestry professionals 4.59 0.62 1.12 2 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
The educational needs identified by information sharing session participants can be divided into 
two overarching categories: changes in administrative constraints regarding instruction of 
forestry and improving educators content knowledge of forestry. Session two was dominated 
by a discussion of administrative constraints on forestry education and Session one was 
dominated by a discussion of improving forestry educators’ content. These findings support the 
work of Washburn et al. (2001) who similarly identified that geographic and educational 
administrative differences influence teacher professional development needs.  
 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  91 
 

These findings are especially pertinent when viewed through the lens of the conceptual 
framework for this study developed by Roberts and Ball (2009). Industry-validated agricultural 
curriculum is a key component of the Agricultural Context which is a precursor for successful 
lifelong learners that are agriculturally literature citizens and also a skilled agricultural 
workforce. More directly, an agriculturally literature citizenship and skilled agricultural workers 
cannot exist without industry-validated curricula.  
 
The need for having a foundational knowledge of forestry concepts, supports the work of 
Lockerman Friend (2008) who identified instructor knowledge as a crucial factor for secondary 
instruction in forestry. The participants in the session provided specific content about what 
topics they felt were lacking in their own education, but which they were expected to teach in 
the classroom. There are two approaches for remedying this lack content knowledge: a general 
forestry course could be added to undergraduate agricultural teacher preparation programs or 
continuing education learning session could be provided for inservice agriculture and 
environmental science teachers by forestry experts. Forestry is a constantly changing field, both 
solutions should be adopted by teacher educators and agricultural education state staff 
providing preservice and inservice teachers with additional content knowledge and adequately 
preparing students for a career in the forestry industry. These solutions are not time intensive 
but could be as simple as the cross disciplinary peer education model proposed by 
Copenheaver et al. (2004), where undergraduates in forestry provided guest lectures in 
secondary agricultural education classes.  
 
Session two participants focused their discussion on various administrative challenges that face 
them in the classroom as major areas of concern for teaching forestry content in their classes. 
Concerns about administrative challenges and school procedures have been voiced by many 
teachers as a reason for leaving the teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). However, 
there is no easy remedy for this issue. Professional development will increase teacher’s 
knowledge in forestry content areas (Velardi et al., 2015); however, there is a lack of evidence 
suggesting that professional development assists teachers with overcoming administrative 
barriers.  
 
Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations for further research are 
offered:  
1. A needs assessment should be conducted, examining existing teacher confidence and 

familiarity with the professional development needs identified in this study to better 
prioritize the professional development opportunities; 

2. Research should be conducted, examining preservice teacher confidence and familiarity 
with the professional development needs identified in this study so that teacher educators 
can better prepare preservice teachers; and 

3. Research should be conducted, examining a larger geographic area to determine if forestry 
content concerns identified in this study match those in other geographic regions of the 
United States.  

 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  92 
 

Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations for teacher education are 
offered:  
1. Require each preservice teacher complete an introductory forestry course to ensure that 

foundational knowledge is acquired; 
2. Prepare professional development workshops with forestry experts, merging the content 

and pedagogy; and 
3. Work with state CDE superintendents to ensure the standards being taught in forestry 

units/courses align with the various competitive events offered. 
 

Acknowledgements  
 
This paper is a product of USDA NIFA SPECA Grant No. 2017-28414-26957. 
 

References 
 
Barrick, R. K., Ladewig, H. W., & Hedges, L. E. (1983). Development of a systematic approach to 

identifying technical inservice needs of teachers. Journal of the American Association of 
Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 24(1), 13–19. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1983.01013  

 
Connaughton, K. (2015). Forestry employment trends. Journal of Forestry, 113(6), 571–573. 

https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15–036  
 
Copenheaver, C. A., Duncan, D. W., Leslie, L. D., & McGehee, N. G. (2004). An exploration of 

cross-disciplinary peer education in natural resources. Journal of Natural Resources and 
Life Sciences Education, 33, 124–130. 
https://www.agronomy.org/files/jnrlse/issues/2004/e04-0004.pdf 

 
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st -century teacher education. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 57,1–15. https://doi.org/101177/0022487105285962 
 
Fox, T.R., Jokela, E.J., & Allen, H.L. (2004). The evolution of pine plantation silviculture in the 

southern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 
Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/9647 

 
Franklin, E. A. (2011). Greenhouse facility management experts identification of competencies 

and teaching methods to support secondary agricultural education instructors: A 
modified Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 150–161. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04150  

 
Fuhrman, N.E., Morgan, A.C., Copenheaver, C.A., Peterson, J.A., Newberry, M.G., DeLoach, S.G., 

& van de Gevel, S. (2014). Repeated monitoring of forest plots: Evaluating the accuracy 
of student scientist data. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  93 
 

58(2), 95–101. 
https://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/2198/5%20Fuhrman_2014%20NA
CTA%20Journal.pdf  

 
Joerger, R.M. (2002). A comparison of the in-service education needs of two cohorts of 

beginning Minnesota agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
43(3), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03011  

 
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2008). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (4th 

ed.). Sage Publications. 
 
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social science. Technological 

Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 467–782. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002 

 
Lockerman Friend, K.R. (2008). Attitudes and knowledge of forestry by high school agricultural 
education teachers in West Virginia (Publication No. 1458746) [Master’s thesis, West Virginia 
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 

 
McCabe, S.M., Munsell, J.F., & Seiler, J.R. (2014). Forest field trips among high school science 

teachers in the southern Piedmont. Natural Sciences Education, 43(1), 44–50. 
https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2013.01.0001  

 
Munsell, J.F., McCabe, S.M., & Seiler, J.R. (2016). Forestry education in US Southern Piedmont 

high school science classes. Journal of Forestry, 114(4), 441–448.  
https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-137  

 
Myers, B. E., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Integrated academics into agriculture programs: A 

Delphi study to determine perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador 
Academy participants. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 75–86. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.02075  

 
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design 

considerations and applications. Information and Management, 42, 15–29. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002  

 
Peake, J., Duncan, D., & Ricketts, J., (2007). Identifying Technical Content Training Needs of 

Georgia Agriculture Teachers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 23(1), 44–55. 
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ901309.pdf  

 
Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Characteristics of effective agriculture teachers. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 45(4), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2004.04082    
 



Rubenstein et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i3.71  94 
 

Rouleau, M., Sharik, T.L., Whitens, S., & Wellstead, A. (2017). Enrollment decision-making in 
U.S. forestry and related natural resource degree programs. Natural Sciences Education, 
46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2017.05.0007 

 
Rubenstein, E. D. & Thoron, A. C. (2014). The creation of a biofuels and sustainable agriculture 

post-secondary curriculum: A true-Delphi study. Career and Technical Education 
Research, 39(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter39.2.171 

 
Sharik, T.L., Lilieholm, R.J., Lindquist, W. & Richardson, W.W. (2015). Undergraduate enrollment 

in natural resource programs in the United States: Trends drivers, and implications for 
the future of natural resource professions. Journal of Forestry, 113(6), 538–551. 
https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-146 

 
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the 

teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional 
exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001  

 
Sussman, S., Burton, D., Dent, C.W., Stacy, A.W., & Flay B.R. (1991). Use of focus groups in developing an 
adolescent tobacco use cessation program: Collection of norm effects. Journal of Applied Social 
Psychology. 21(21),1772–1782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00503.x 
 
Thangaratinam, S., & Redman, C. WE. (2005). The Delphi technique. The Obstetrician and 

Gynaecologist, 7(2), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1576/toag.7.2.120.27071    
 
The National Council for Agricultural Education. (2019, December 2). National AFNR content 

standards. https://thecouncil.ffa.org/afnr/ 
 
USDA Forest Service (2015). USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015–2020. FS-1045. USDA 

Forest Service. https://www.fs.fed.us/strategicplan 
 
Velardi, S. H., Folta, E., Rickard, L., & Kuehn, D. (2015). The components of effective 

professional development for science educators: A case study with environmental 
education program Project Learning Tree. Applied Environmental and Communication, 
14(4), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2015.1109484    

 
Washburn, S. G., King, B. O., Garton, B. L., & Harbstreit, S. R. (2001, February 22 - 24). The 

professional development needs of Kansas teachers of agriculture. Proceedings of the 
AAAE Central Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, 216–227. 
https:/eric.ed.gov/?id=ED475348   

 
© 2020 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/).